Ditch the Army List

I have been spending a lot of time recently playing solo wargames and doing small scale test games with my 6mm Desert Raiders forces. Because they are tests I haven't been abiding by official army lists as such, just building forces from assorted platoons that help me explore a particular aspect of a rule or particular scenario. The result has been that I have played half a dozen small scale solo games with wildly asymmetrical forces producing some very interesting results. Each game has presented unique challenges and forced me to 'think outside the box' (a horrible turn of phrase but it aptly describes the situation). The question is, why aren't I/we doing this more often?

LRDG, Outnumbered and out-gunned...just how they like it.

The Angry Lurker once said to me "its your game, play it how you want to" and as loath as I am to agree with the old bugger he was right. I'm not a competition wargamer so I'm free to break the 'official' army lists as much as I like. I've been using the platoons as described in the various FOW campaign books but I'm not really worrying about company/army lists or the points totals as described in the books. Often I just want forces that suite a particular historical scenario and that rarely means both sides being equal.

The concept of Asymmetry in a game isn't a new idea. A Scandinavian board game from the Middle Ages (Hnefatafl) featured forces of different quality and scale. The result is a game where each player must fight in a completely different way to his opponent to use the resources he or she has to the best advantage. Many modern co-operative boardgames also feature asymmetrical forces (games like Axis and Allies for instance) although usually these try to balance the sides by conferring advantages or disadvantages to the forces available. (Check out this post on Tiny Hordes for a more detailed discussion about Asymmetry in Wargames)

"Zulus - thousands of 'em."

Most, but by no means all, wargame rules seem to revolve around points systems and balanced forces. This is particularly evident in those game systems that have an active tournament circuit where forces need to adhere to strict compositional rules and official army lists. But there are also plenty of rule sets out there that have shied away from fixed points values for units. My personal view is that asymmetrical wargames are quite possible in either type of system, providing you stop thinking about points values and instead concentrate on the scenario and its objectives. This is much easier if you are recreating a historical encounter with accurate orders of battle because real army commanders (if they are any good at their job) will be constantly striving for the most asymmetric encounter possible to achieve victory. Concentration of force has been a central principle in military thinking for thousands of years so it should be incredibly rare for two sides of equal strength to end up facing each other, yet that is exactly what happens on games tables time after time.

Its also seems to me that there is far too much talk about 'Balance' in wargames rules. Defining what is balanced and what isn't seems to be an incredibly hazardous undertaking based largely on the viewpoint of the observer (or rule writer in this case). Warfare cannot be reduced to a series of perfect calculations that measure quality or effectiveness, there are too many variables (which is where the dice come in). What I'm trying to say is that any points system aimed at achieving balance is by its very nature a compromise and almost certainly inaccurate, so why get hung up on balance when its a myth in the first place?

Of course if you do decide to ditch the army lists and ignore balance you and your players will have to accept that playing the game is more important than just winning it? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a victory as much as the next man, but if winning is the be-all and end-all of wargaming then tournaments, points systems and official lists are definitely for you (there's nothing wrong with that, its just not my primary motivator). For me wargaming has always been more than just an elaborate game of chess with a simple victory or defeat outcome. I enjoy researching the history, crafting and painting my forces and of course I enjoy the comradeship that comes from wargaming with other players. But whether I'm playing solo or with my friends I just enjoying playing the game and when I think about the things I love about my hobby, winning games actually comes fairly low on my list.

I've rambled on a bit but I guess what I am trying to say is you should consider throwing caution to the winds, ditch the army lists in favour of more 'realistic' encounters and embrace inequality with open arms. At the very least it'll make for a more interesting game.