Questions on wargames... lots of questions.

For a *lot* more info on wargames, check out: http://theminiaturespage.com/

From my part, my first thought when people ask about wargaming is games like CLS, Warhammer, and those sorts. However, I think a fairer definition would have to include any game that offers a simulation of war.

a)what for you folks out there... defines Wargame?
I think that the distinction between Wargame (ie Squad Leader) and Abstract Strategy game (Chess) is that wargames rely on a mechanic involving an element of luck, whereas Abstract Strategy games shun all luck in play, usually. Typically, wargames are simulations, and abstracts are theme-free, for the most part.

Since wargames simulate a "real" combat environment, and involve the element of luck, they usually involve some degree of math to play, even if it's just adding a modifer or two to dice rolls. Historically, though, the "simulation" aspect of a true wargame has heaped not only numerical complexity into play, but also lessen the effect of the random by adding, ironically, more random elements that cancel each other out through the laws of averages, rather than taking random elements from the game.

Lastly, all games are conflicts. You are opposed to the other players, or to some common enemy. But wargames are simulations of actual fighting on some specific scale, and they are built theme-first, with the gameplay elements supporting the theme, rather than the other way around.

2)what are your pros for a wargame?
Wargames protray situations that are dramatic, and the same for all players. It's easy to imagine armored columns charging across the frozen interior of the Soviet Union, and an advancing line of ounters is similarly menacing, in its way. The victories, ironies, and defeats of wargames are on a given scale, and so the players can ralate the game events to larger events.

Even the most dramatic turnaround of an abstract strategy game will lack this connection. The victory is all intellectual. But the stories that are created in the players head during a wargame are completely different. Even the random elements strengthen this appeal, since a beleagured player can always hope that their strategy can maximize their chances, and even the winning player must be careful to keep the weight of averages on their side, lest they suffer unexpected defeat. This nail-biting element is different from hoping your opponent makes a mistake, since luck can turn even against the best player.

3)what are your cons for a wargame?
Well, they are very specific, usually, focussing on a particular war or battle, and thus lose interest with repeated play. "Generic wargames", such as Warhammer Fantasy Battles have a wider appeal, but even so, they are built theme-first. P,layers uniterested in that theme -even die-hard wargamers- win't be interested. Non-gamers will be completely uninterested, of course, a problem most abstract strategy games avoid. Almost everyone will play chess at some time.

Since wargames are built theme-first, gameplay is often fiddly, complex, or awkward. As they are designed to simulate a situation, rules are generated at alarming speeds, making big, inelegant games. Since it's easier to crank out additional sub-rules and clauses to "fix" gameplay problems as they occur, few wargames go through a trimming down process, and the results are the sort of heaped-board, bucket-o-dice hex-fests people usually associate with the term wargame. The design of a wargame usually doesn't take into account the effects of emergent complexity, while abstract strategy games embrace it as the highest ideal. the idea here is that complexity comes through play, rather through rules. Even a few rules, given the massive variation of even a chessboard, will cause complexity to arise naturally. In wargames, complexity is built into the rules, and the designers, frankly, simply can't forsee the dizzying possabilities. Thus wargames are frequent catalysts for real-world irritation and frustration.

4)do wargames have to be counter and hex games?
No, but the concept of scale is important in wargames. The playing field must, even if losely, represent a given space, and the turn should be of sime given timespan. The board divisions are unimportant, but the idea that the board represents real space is very important. Miniatures wargames, which generally don't use hexes or boards, have a scale either implied by the size of the pieces themselves, or given in the rules.

5)are wargames a dying breed being supplanted by different types of boardgames. (perhaps abstract, german, special theme)
Since my interest in recent years has been much more the abstract strategy game, I'd have to say that no, the wargame isn't a dying breed. But what was good about wargames -accuracy, huge units, a complex resolution chain- are generally faster and "better" when done on computer. Thus the wargamers are all going to computer-based wargames, leaving the field to the "german" boardgame crowd as the loudest and most visible group. But the wargamers are still out there, believe me.