Wargame Articles

The History of Wargaming Project by John Curry June 2008

I played the Fletcher Pratt naval wargaming rules over the years and did some work on the rules, such as creating a program to create the ship cards needed to play the game. Sometimes, when I mentioned the Pratt rules (and the fact I had modified them), I was asked for a copy. John Basset and Tony Hawkins advised me to try and sell some copies of the rules. So I produced a fairly amateur version, which to my surprise sold.

Over a year or so I started to proof read the rules, improve the layout and get the rules printed and bound cheaply by a local printer. Thus started the history of wargaming library project

Rather than just reproduce the originals, I decided to try to make the rules usable for a modern audience. Most of the sets include supplementary material such as hints on play or commentary on the rules. I also add articles about these rules on my website. For example, Tacspiel, the American Counter Insurgency Wargame has ORBATs in it (straight out of the American army 1966 field manuals). The Fred Jane Naval Rules have Bob's excellent fast play version in them (which allows a novice to quickly get into a game).

The rules are frequently difficult to find and expensive to obtain. For example, one of the sets required me hiring a local American university researcher to copy what I wanted onto microfiche to send me (I live in the UK). So the aim of charging for the rules is to try to ensure at the end of the day I am not out of pocket searching for and reproducing these rules.

The standard history of wargaming is a classic example of plagiarism (copying without permission). The accounts written in many wargaming books/ magazines are hard to correlate with each other. It is almost as if they are talking about the history of different hobbies, not the same one. It is not simply a matter of perspective e.g. one well known book gives prominence to SPI board games, another concentrates on professional military operational analysis. I have concluded that the authors have simply copied each other and have no idea what the early wargames looked like as they have never seen the actual rules.

An example is Strategos, an American wargame (Totton, 1880). Contrary to reports, it is in my view (for what it is worth), a complex set of rules that strike me as unplayable (and I have played SPI's global war and SPI's United States Navy, both monster board games). They are so bad, I have not even listed them on my website (if someone is really determined I will run a copy for £6.00 for those who are really determined to see a copy).

Naval Wargaming: This currently consists of the Fred Jane Naval Wargame and the Fletcher Pratt Game, both are classics in their own right. The Pratt game is simple, and is lot of fun with a large multi-player game. The key is estimating the ranges in inches to hit anything.

I have a USN naval game that I will add to this area in due course. I am currently working on a World War II RN wargame, but it will take some time for me to bring it all together.

Professional Wargaming: rules used by the military over the years. My earliest sets are the British army's 'free' Kriegspiel games (1886). This was the translation on Verdy's work on why Kriegspiel is better without rules. The War Office Rules (1896), are a straightforward set of Kriegspiel rules that actually work. My favourite is the British Army's Wargaming Rules (1956) which involves hitting the enemy with nuclear weapons. The Canadian Army's Wargame (1980) is a good example of a training game that is fun to play. I have just done Dunn Kempf, The Tactical Wargame of the American Army 1987-1997. Two Centuries of tactical exercises has just arrived. Tacpiel (1966) is a map based American military game of the Vietnam War.

Toy Soldier Games: I have started with HG Wells game 'Little War's (1912). The HG Wells rules are available over the place, but I include an article about the Robert Louis Stevenson Wargame as well. The HG Wells game was not unique, but one of a number of toy soldier games being played at that time. It is merely the one we have heard about due its famous author.

I also did the toy soldier game Sham battles (1929). Sham Battles is rubbish. I produced it partly because of the outrageous prices you have to pay to get a copy and partly to illustrate contrary to the standard history of wargaming, there were many, many sets of rules between Little Wars and modern wargaming.

Next were the Lionel Tarr (1959), the latter are what I consider the first modern wargaming rules. It just so happened my brothers played the original game and knew what the missing bits were to the account produced by Donald Featherstone in his book 'wargaming'. Some of the original Tarr players, played at my local club in the 1970's.

What has really surprised me is the willingness of people to agree to their rules being reproduced (perhaps it appeals to their self-worth to be noted as contributing to the development of the hobby or perhaps many people like the idea of helping a large project). I was even more surprised to be asked to consider including some sets by their authors.

Tom Mouat suggested I consider reprinting using Lulu.com. It took a little while to find my way through the publishing system, but it will greatly speed up the production of the rules. Giving me more time to pursue more projects. The first one I have had published through lulu was a booklet on Two Centuries of Tactical Exercises. These are written tactical problems used to teach officers tactics. I will reprint via Lulu.com most of my other sets over time, except for some of the more obscure rule sets that will never be worth the effort.

I have more sets of rules in varying states of production, but I am always looking for interesting projects or ideas for out of date rules. I am well aware just how many people in WD have already contributed to this project. I am happy to ask authors for permission to print and most people are quite happy for their ideas to see the light of day once again. If you any thoughts, just let me know.

John Curry