#TBT/Throwback Thursday ~ The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming

RockyMountainNavy, 11 July 2024

Given the many wargame titles being published today, some consider that we are in a New Golden Age of Wargaming. If we are in a “New” age what did the old one look like? We are fortunate to still have some of the wargaming denizens of the 1970’s and 1980’s amongst us, but there are other sources available. The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming written by Nicholas Palmer in 1977 provides us a glimpse into the wargaming hobby in the mid-1970’s, and is my choice for this Throwback Tuesday discussion.

The dust cover for The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming¹ boldly declares, “This is the first book ever on one of the fastest-growing hobbies of the seventies.” The intentions of the book, as laid out by Palmer in the introduction, are lofty:

This book is written both for experienced players and newcomers to wargames. Some compromises have had to be made, and I hope that the former will excuse the inclusion of points which seem obvious to them. The first two chapters are mainly intended for readers not familiar with games and their history. The book then divides into the sections. Parts I-III are designed to demonstrate all the main aspects of good play, from the planning of general strategy down to the nitty-gritty of tactical detail. Examples in each chapter are from different games, so that the reader gradually becomes acquainted with a wide range of simulations of different types, from grand strategy to tactical manoeuvre, in different eras, and on land, sea, and air. The illustrations are mostly from actual play, to give the best impression of the games in practice. Finally, there are six problems for the reader to challenge the understanding of the concepts in each chapter in Parts I and II (Palmer, p. 9).

 

Note the line, “…written for both experienced players and newcomers to wargames.” A statement far from the gatekeeping attitude so often ascribed by modern, “progressive” critics of today against wargamers from that older, more “conservative” era.

Palmer’s introduction to The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming concludes with:

Wargames, like any hobby, should first and foremost be fun. I have no doubt that some of the ideas and comments in this book will be disputed by other experienced players with different playing styles. But I hope that none of them will be bored, for I have tried to infuse the book with the excitement and the absorbing interest of wargames, and with such a rewarding subject to write about it is hard to go altogether wrong (Palmer, p. 10).

“Wargames…should first and foremost be fun.” As one reads on, you can find other reasons for wargaming in Palmer’s book, but it is notable that they rank fun as first above any other reasons. A lesson for today?

The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming is not a short book, coming in at 224 pages (I have no idea how many X/Twitter posts that translates to)². Fully a third of those pages are taken up by capsule reviews of various wargames. In the first chapter, “The Wargames Explosion,” Palmer offers us a look at the the state of the wargaming community from the perspective of a wargamer in that moment of time.

 

Explosive wargaming

“The Wargames Explosion” chapter in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming starts out with a nod to wargame practitioners and a bit of some sales figures:

There was a time, just a generation ago, when wargames were unknown to most people, except perhaps as a semi-secret planning device used by defence planners in government. Yet by 1975 sales reached an annual rate of nearly three-quarters of a million games, a 600% increase over just five years ago. There are now thought to be well over a hundred thousand active players, and each month brings in a further flood of new players and games. In this chapter, we shall try to not only describe the many kinds of wargames, but also explain their astonishing explosion of interest (Palmer, p. 13).

Twilight Struggle from GMT Games, now up for an 8th printing, alone has sold well over 100,000 copies since its debut in 2005. While today’s figures might make the 1975 numbers seem insignificant, recall that the U.S. was dealing with the shock of the 1973 Oil crisis and the economy was not performing the greatest. Yet—somehow—board wargaming was exploding…

 

Palmer follows on by doubling down on the notion that games, even wargames, are for fun: “Board wargames are first and foremost games: they are designed for entertainment, and therefore differ from their military equivalents.” They further make it clear that, “A board wargame usually simulates a particular battle or campaign, and tries to incorporate every aspect of it, up to the point where the simulation would become so complicated as to cease being fun to play” (Palmer, p. 13).

I recognize that some readers will be quick to point out that Palmer’s (loose) definition of a wargame is not inclusive enough as it limits itself to games that, “simulates a particular battle or campaign” and ignores a whole range of wargaming that cover “conflicts” far beyond the battlefield. If one reads The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming they will almost certainly discover that Palmer actually has a very diverse definition of wargaming, including titles such as:

• • Assassinate Hitler (Avalon Hill – AH; not found on BGG but possibly the same as The Plot to Assassinate Hitler that first appeared in Strategy & Tactics #59 by SPI; for a game to go from the SPI magazine to AH was not unheard of, see Conquistador below) – “…power struggles behind the facade of the Third Reich” (Palmer, p. 130)
  • Conquistador (Simulations Publications Inc. – SPI) – “A highly complex and entertaining game for one to three players used on the exploration and conquest of the New World in the sixteenth century…. Not a supreme test of skill” (Palmer, pp. 141-142)
  • Diplomacy (AH/Philmar) – “…it is not a wargame in the usual sense of the word….” (Palmer, p. 146)
  • Kingmaker (Philmar/AH) – “Hexless and very different from the usual wargames in most respects…” (Palmer, pp. 155-156)
  • Origins of World War II (AH) – “Unhappy attempt to marry wargames with multi-player diplomacy…” (Palmer, p. 165).
  • Stellar Conquest (Metagaming) – “Described in Moves by Richard Berg of SPI as ‘far and away the best sci-fi game on the market…'” (Palmer, p. 177)
  • War of the Starslavers (DCC-AWA) – “…multi-player game featuring slavers, pirates, and two warring empires” (Palmer, pp. 183-184).

After mentioning complicated simulations, Palmer remains silent on the issue of realism in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming. In a follow-on book written by Palmer, The Best of Board Wargaming (Hippocrene Books, 1980) the author devotes an entire chapter to “Realistic Games” where they conclude:

A final question needs to be asked: do we really want to be realistic? The realism v. playability argument is well known, but the idea of a strategic game that limits decisions to true government-level policy would actually simplify most strategic games and make them more playable. Nevertheless, many players are unwilling to put up with the frustrations of Montgomery in real life: they want to be C-in-C and general and colonel and major, all rolled into one. There is nothing wrong with this, any more than there is anything wrong preferring the blood-and-thunder tank-dominated battles of Panzerblitz to the combined-arms subtleties of Squad Leader. Personally, I prefer wargames to be as realistic as is consistent with being playable at all and an exciting duel of wits, but in the last resort I play for fun and don’t get too neurotic about whether (for instance) every detail of the order of battle is correct. What the hobby needs, though, is clarity and honesty about what is realistic, what is designer’s speculation, and what is the gentle rustle of wool being pulled over our eyes. (Palmer, The Best of Board Wargaming, pp. 44-45)

 

“I prefer wargames to be as realistic as is consistent with being playable…” is a matter of taste that not all might agree with but a notion I strongly believe all should respectfully consider.

While The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming focuses on board wargames, Palmer acknowledges other kinds of wargames exist; “There are two kinds of wargame: the board game and the miniatures game.” Palmer notes that board wargames and miniatures wargames can coexist: “While each type has its adherents who dislike the other, most players enjoy both.” Palmer goes on to describe miniatures wargame in this way:

The advantage of miniature wargaming is that it can be highly attractive visually, with subtly camouflaged model tanks nosing through curving valleys on sandtable; for those who like both modeling and gaming it provides an ideal meeting point (Palmer, p. 14). 

You see? While some board wargamers and miniatures gamers do not get along, most do.

That said, I point out that The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming is notable for almost no mention of roleplaying games (RPGs). Dungeons and Dragons is mentioned in the book, but Palmer keeps a strict focus on wargames.

[Interlude – D&D is a wargame…of sorts]

[The closest Palmer comes to mentioning roleplaying games in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming is in the capsule review of WHITE BEAR RED MOON from Tactical Studies Rules (aka TSR). The review reads:

WHITE BEAR RED MOON, Tactical Studies Rules (not in polls). Fantasy board wargame by the makers of the celebrated miniatures game Dungeons and Dragons. Eight scenarios of increasing complexity; the total effect is highly complicated. Bloodthirsty CRT [Combat Results Table] with a good deal of luck, but absorbing diplomatic possibilities with a number of participants. (Palmer, p. 184)

Hmm, “the celebrated miniatures game Dungeons and Dragons.” If miniatures games are wargames then Palmer seems to imply that D&D is a wargame. One, however, will not find Chainmail in Palmer’s book either as that title is clearly a set of miniatures rules and therefore logically should not be in this book on board wargaming.]

 

Wargame history then and now

Palmer in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming traces the history of wargaming back to where many begin; the Kriegspiel of the early 19th century. As Palmer moves on to survey the birth of the American board wargaming they discuss Charles S. Roberts and the Avalon Hill Company. Here Palmer offers up some interesting comments on some Avalon Hill ‘classic’ wargames:

The next few years saw the emergence of two more of what would become known as the ‘classic’ line of wargames: Stalingrad and Waterloo. The ‘classic’ games are fairly simple and fast-moving, with similar rules of play, but each succeed (mainly by varying unit speeds and terrain) in giving a distinct flavour of the period. Stalingrad is especially successful in providing the ‘feel’ of the strategic problems on the German-Soviet front, despite a considerable disregard for the fine points of historical detail. Expert players tend to regard the continuing survival of the ‘classics’, in the face of far more sophisticated newcomers, with the irritation of literary critics who see Harold Robbins  [described by The Hollywood Reporter in 2019 as “the world’s most successful trashy book author”] as outselling Tolstoy; however, although one would miss a lot by playing only ‘classics’, they do retain freshness and excitement even after years of play (Palmer, pp. 18-19). 

 

Chapter IV “Simulating History off $10 a Day” in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming provides capsule reviews of, “every professionally produced wargame which I know to be available when this book goes to press, plus some scheduled releases in 1977, with notes to help the reader decide which will interest him the most” (Palmer, p. 126). The reviews of Waterloo and Stalingrad, mentioned above as ‘classics,’ provide additional perspective from Palmer as to why the are called that. The capsule reviews also, interestingly, highlight some less flattering aspects of each game in what even today appears as an fairly unbiased review. Note that the numbers in parentheses after the title are the results of polls for playability on a 1-9 scale and placement in SPI and AH reader surveys).

WATERLOO, AH (SPI 5.8, 136 / AH 5.82, 19). Another in the classic line, with plenty of excitement and action as usual; a recent new edition of the rules eliminated so old oddities. Second only to Tactics II and Origins of World War II in the separate AH poll on ‘ease of understanding’, but weak on realism, especially in the absence of a special role for artillery. The Napoleon’s Last Battles Quad, taken together, make a good, not more complex, alternative. (Palmer, p. 184)

STALINGRAD, AH (SPI 5.6, 150 / AH 5.56, 22). When I first started gaming in 1967, Stalingrad was the most challenging game around, with most playing with their own pet strategies and theories. Designs have come a long way since then, and it is generally felt that Stalingrad is much too unrealistic in its details (large numbers of units having almost identical strengths on the German side, and the sudden-death CRT makes luck a major factor: moreover, the map is very short on detail). Even in the ‘classic’ range to which it belongs, other games, e.g. Afrika Korps, tend to be preferred. But while the tactical accuracy is faulty, the game gives a good simulation of the grand strategic alternatives, and is swift and exciting, with more forward planning needed than in many games because of the savage effect of winter on movement. Fairly simple rules; Russians should win in the ‘balanced’ version given even play and fair dice, but in practice things tend to even up, 3-6 hours. (Palmer, p. 176)

I highlight Palmer’s viewpoint of the ‘classics’ here in light of comments I recently heard on a wargaming podcast. In Episode 32 of Pushing Cardboard, wargame designer Volko Ruhnke sat down to discuss designing series games. In the course of the conversation, some older wargames came up, specifically Blue and Gray: Four American Civil War Battles published by SPI in 1975. Volko’s comments of interest to me included (transcript is from the auto-generated version available within Apple Podcasts): 

[Volko] I had the opportunity the other day with some friends. We went to Antietam Battlefield and we played Blue and Gray quad Antietam on Antietam Field, which is really cool. And I have to say the art of that 1975 product stood up very well. It’s really quite a beautiful game.

In The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming the capsule review for Blue and Grey (I) is rather short:

BLUE AND GREY (I) SPI (SPI 6.9, 23). The second most popular Quad, just behind West Wall. See Antietam, Chickamauga, Shiloh, and Cemetery Hill. Simple tactical surround-and-destroy game. (Palmer, p.136)

ANTIETAM, SPI (SPI 7.1, 7) Part of the successful Blue and Grey (I) Quad, and the most popular SPI land game in the poll bar War in the East. Special rules limit the number of Union units able to move (bad organization). A close game. (Palmer, p. 129)

 

Volko, however, immediately follows their flattering comments with faint praise when they note, “The game system and the rules were really quaint after 50 years.” A few moments later Volko acknowledges that Blue and Gray was made for playability first over realism:

[Volko] It was expressly intended. We’re going to make this as playable as possible. And then number two, they tell you this in the design notes. It’s quite open. Number two, we will try to make it as realistic as possible. But that’s number two.”

Yet, another few moments later, Volko laments about those older, ‘classic’ era games with:

 [Volko] And, you know, when I play a game like I did the other day from 1975, boy, I feel that this is a 1975 design. You know, the state of the art advances.

I strongly encourage each of you to go listen to the referenced podcast episode for yourself. After listening to the podcast, reading Palmer’s observations of the 1970’s in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, and considering Volko’s comments that “the state of the art advances” and of a need to not “carry a mistake forward” I wonder where the balance between playability and “realism” (whatever that means) lies today. Palmer in 1980 tells us where they stand on the issue: “…realistic as is consistent with being playable.” For myself, while I agree with Volko that, after 50 years, the state of the art in wargame design and production has advanced and the question of realism vs. playability will never be answered to everyone’s satisfaction, I challenge the notion that games of yesteryear are “quaint” as in odd, unusual, or obsolete. Rather, I contend they are interpretations of history in a moment of time and should be judged as such.

 

That 70’s style wargame bling

Palmer’s provides some comments in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming regarding the state of the art of wargame production in the 1970’s. In a comparison of SPI and AH Palmer writes:

As far as standards go, it is difficult to be dogmatic (not that that stops people) when in some cases the same people have designed games at different times for each company. SPI’s vast output does not seem to have negative effects on thoroughness in play testing and rule formulation; nor does AH’s comparatively narrow range appear to inhibit it form experiments and innovations. Nevertheless, there is a distinct difference in style between the two companies. Many SPI games have been shorter than the average AH product and playable in a few hours compared to a typical 4-6 hours for AH games (recent designs by both companies have tended to eliminate the difference by providing scenarios ranging in length from a couple hours to – almost! – infinity). SPI’s games are noted for their historical detail and frequently varied unit types; they are also substantially cheaper as a rule. AH’s products have better physical quality: the board is mounted, the boxes are mostly convenient bookcase format, and the general effect is often highly colorful, even with the rules in an attractive and handy booklet (Palmer, p. 19).

The above comparisons are very much like that one might get stacking the modern day powerhouse wargame publishers of GMT Games, Compass Games, or Multi-Man Publishing up against one another. I will argue that competition amongst wargame publishers is even worse today with the rise of demand for wooden bits or blocks or 3D printed materials. Those board wargamers today that cry out for bling perhaps need to look in the mirror and just admit they really just want their wargames to be, “highly attractive visually, with subtly camouflaged model tanks nosing through curving valleys on the {table}.” You know, like a miniatures wargamer described by Palmer. Good thing miniatures and board wargamers have been getting along since the 1970’s; we do not want to stop that friendship, right? It also makes me wonder how the emergence of on-line wargaming, especially using apps like Tabletop Simulator like Jim O. from the Dragoons does on a near-daily basis is changing perspectives.

 

The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming would not be comprehensive if it did not address the critics. Palmer writes:

Critics of SPI have claimed that the company is no longer refreshing their games with as many new ideas as in the early days; others argue that AH concentrates too much on packaging, resulting in unnecessarily high prices. Each defends itself vigorously, and in the author’s view it is in fact impossible to say whose games are the better buy: the balance of advantage is a matter of taste, and the vast majority of players have a number of favourite games from both companies, and others (Palmer, pp. 19-20).

If Palmer were to write today, I would venture to imagine they would say there are almost too many games out there that take a very long time to get to market. Reprints are another issue with some taking what seems like forever to return to stock. Consumers today demand better packaging, even down to packing peanuts, costs be damned.

 

Trendy

In The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, Palmer identifies what they call “two tendencies” that are “clearly visible in wargame design” (Palmer, p. 20) The first, Palmer tells us, is that wargames tend to be, “very big games, with short scenarios provided for players with less time” (Palmer, p. 20). While that may sound a bit, uh, quaint to today’s wargamers note that in the 1970’s the board wargaming industry was moving from monograph games (one battle/campaign in a game à la Gettysburg, D-Day, or Waterloo) to larger conflicts with smaller scenarios (how many WWII wargames have you ever seen with scenarios by year?) as well as a wargame design evolution introducing game engines such as in Squad Leader. 

The second trend noted by Palmer in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming is a “trend towards political rules in wargaming, especially with multi-player games. As Palmer points out: “The problem in political multi-player games is: what is to be done about history?” (Palmer, p. 20). Palmer answers that there are two design choices to be made, the first of which they describe as:

One school of thought, which dominated the design of e.g. Third Reich and World War III, holds that alliances in historical or present-day games must be reasonably plausible, as otherwise the players will lose the link with real life which gives wargames part of their interest (Palmer, p. 21).

Palmer continues, “The alternative to political rules is set political conditions, and many games have a number of alternative scenarios representing different backgrounds to the conflict” (Palmer, p. 21).

Palmer’s observations on politics in wargames is, by today’s standards, a very simplistic framing of the issue. Today’s efforts to infuse political messaging into wargames would very likely be seen as outside of wargaming by Palmer.

 

Young grognards

The final section of the “Wargames Explosion” chapter of The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming is a look at “typical wargamers.” Palmer tells us:

There are few more depressing experiences than being told that every member of a group to which one belongs is ‘really the same’, whether the generalization is supposed to apply to all Frenchmen, all Latter-Day Adventists, or all bridge-players. The most important thing about the typical wargamer is that he does not exist: wargamers come in all shapes and sizes (Palmer, p. 22).

The more radical critics of olden wargaming are the ones most stridently calling for inclusion and diversity in the hobby. While the track record of the community has admittedly not always been the greatest, it nonetheless builds upon strengths identified by Palmer a half-century ago.

If you have not caught on yet you might have noticed that some of the words quoted from Palmer have weird spellings, as if they were not proper English. While many wargamers hail from the United States there is also a strong international wargaming community. A strong community that traces its membership back into the 1970’s with people like one Nicholas Palmer from London. I personally am thrilled to be part of a hobby where I can write a post for a website in the United States, have it picked up by a wargame magazine in Japan, then get a copy of that magazine where the English translation for the rules originally in Japanese comes to me via a fellow wargamer in Italy. Funny thing is, that is not a new phenomenon as evidenced by wargamers like Nicholas Palmer and the associations many wargame publishers had with overseas publishers like Hobby Japan by the 1980’s.

The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming goes on to explain the reasons wargamers play wargames. “Just as wargamers vary, so do their reasons for enjoying the hobby, but most players would probably agree that there are three basic attractions compared with other games like chess, Go, and ‘family games” (Palmer, p. 22). Those three attractions are:

• • “There is a high skill level requiring little knowledge in the way of memorized openings.” I note that the modern exception to this attraction may be Mark Herman and the chess-like series of opening moves for Empire of the Sun they possess.
  • “There is the challenge in the historical games of changing history, out-generalling the great commanders from the depths of one’s armchair” (Palmer, p. 22). Today’s games are designed in an era when there is opposition to The Great Man Theory of history. Other critics oppose problematic representations of history especially of one is changing history in favor of a politically incorrect faction. Winning a game of The Russian Campaign as the German player makes one an obvious Nazi, right?
  • “And there is the tension and excitement arising from the uncertainty which is always present: one knows the range of results which individual battles in a game can have, and one can be fairly sure of the general trend of results in a general offensive, but each battle may have several possible results, and the best player is always nagged by the feeling that he has not allowed for every possibility” (Palmer, p. 22).

That last attraction needs to be reread while recalling Palmer’s initial assertion at the start of the “Wargames Explosion” chapter in The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming that, “Board wargames are first and foremost games: they are designed for entertainment…” (Palmer, p. 13). While I generally have no problem with many of the “message wargames” of today, my personal taste is they are not for me. While it is certainly possible to be entertained as one learns, I contend there is a fine line between “learning” and being preached at. The tolerance for others in the 1970’s that Palmer relates is, unfortunately, seemingly harder to find in the modern world. That intolerance, regardless of its source in the “progressive” or “conservative” wings of the hobby, cannot be allowed to undo 50 years of wargaming community.

 

Books referenced

• Palmer, N. (1977) The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming. New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc.
• Palmer, N. (1980) The Best of Board Wargaming, New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc.

 

---

Thank you for visiting The Armchair Dragoons and mounting up with the Regiment of Strategy Gaming.
You can find our regiment’s social media on Mastodon, BlueSky, Facebook, TwXtter, YouTube, and even Threads, if we could ever get an auto-post to it.
(We have an Instagram page and it’s really just a placeholder & redirect to our articles.)
You can support The Armchair Dragoons through our Patreon, also, and find us at a variety of conventions and other events.
Feel free to talk back to us either in our discussion forum, or in the comments below.

---

1. Nicholas Palmer, Hippocrene Books, 1977
2. ed note: based on the character count, it’s approximately 1475 tweets