Interviews by an Optimist #99 - Charles Vasey

Interviewed by Tom Vasel
Edited by Tom Vasel and Laura Vasel
April 20, 2006

Charles says this about himself…

“I was born in 1952 in Edinburgh, the first son of an English veterinary surgeon and a Scots nurse. My father’s family are from Yorkshire and one branch made a bundle of money in the 1860s as coal masters and bought a village in which a slice of my family still live (Appleton-le-Street, near Malton in North Yorkshire). My mother’s family were dirt poor Scots trawlermen and miners. I am the eldest of five, father of two, uncle to thirteen, and great-uncle to another three (last time I visited). I’m married to a Pole from Warsaw.

I was educated at a Quaker boarding-school and the local grammar-school. I dropped out after school, but bored by this read law externally from London, taking the prize in 1979. I then went to London and took Chartered Accountancy articles, qualifying in 1982. I did a fellowship thesis to the Institute of Taxation in (I think) 1993. I worked for Binder Hamlyn to 1984, KPMG to 1992 and myself thereafter. I specialise in the financial director role for small companies and acting as a consiglieri.

Apart from the gaming, my hobbies are clay-pigeon shooting, and France and the French.

Unusually for someone whose parents are not of the nobility, I am a claimant to the ancient earldom (now Dukedom) of Foppington. Until the matter is decided, I can only enjoy the courtesy title of Lord Foppington (Prince Foppington in France) and occasionally make a joyeuse entrée to my good towns.

Hobbywise, I started out in figures in the sixties under the influence of the Blessed Donald Featherstone. I still collect figures (mostly plastic), though my painting skills have declined since the days when I painted for Garrison figures. I started in boardgames with 1914 (Avalon Hill) and reviewing for SWORD & LANCE in the Seventies. I started my magazine Perfidious Albion back then, and our house style of frank reviews led to trouble with a number of companies and individuals over the years. We published gamers in early PAs (instructions to assemble them), and I’ve designed a few games for publication by others.

My topics of interest usually centre on my historical reading. I had thought I could draw a line through 1900 and point to my interests being before that, but it is simply not true. There is so much of interest that I have few no-go areas, though air warfare is probably the closest. I prefer games to last no longer than four hours and to have a chaotic nature based on historical analysis. ”

Tom Vasel: Can you list some of your favorite games for us?

Charles Vasey: I’m not a great repeat-player of games, but there are a few that have achieved that status:

We the People: for its clarity of thought and design, a bit too abstract for some, but I thought it did a remarkable job.

Friedrich: Clever and simple model with the interesting use of playing cards. Not one for tournament play but not bad.

The Richard Borg Commands & Colors (sic) games: developed over a long period with an eye to subtle simulation which does not get in the way of fun. A powerful weapon against the greying of the Hobby.

The Joe Miranda games on 19th Century Wars; especially the one of the Risorgimento.

Blue versus Gray: Cards used with tremendous innovation.

NUTS!: A sadly underrated game, get Walt Mulder’s excellent redone rules.

Eylau (by Avalanche Games): A simplish system with horridly bloody results; much as I imagine a Napoleonic battle to be like, no silly marching and countermarching, just biff, biff, biff.

Football Strategy: Excellent game of outwitting your opponent.

Liberty: The block game that I most enjoy.

I’m sure there are more, but I have a poor memory.

Tom Vasel: How have wargames evolved over the years? Are they constantly getting better?

Charles Vasey: Hmn, there have been a number of trends, since I first bought 1914 (for 97/6 in “old” money). The first one is an undoubted increase in rule size. This has been accompanied by a general trend towards more complex rules; though I feel that this may be slackening, or even reversing. For a long period we had a move towards the ten plus hour game. I don’t necessarily think any of those trends were good for games or for the Hobby. Nowadays we’ve begun to see many more games playable in a “session” (say 4 hours), and I think that is vital. The key here (to me) is the work of Eurogames in demonstrating that games need not be long bouts of repetition. The fact that many wargamers are also eurogamers demonstrates the popularity of having something that you can play to completion.

A second trend which I view as good is the move into more diverse historical topics, although I continue to be amazed that Richard Berg reigns almost unchallenged in Ancients; I suspect the Loyal Opposition will be along soon. In part this is a reflection of improved production methods that allow fans of something obscure like the Bavarian War of Succession to give it a full treatment. But it also reflects the widening interest in history in general on TV and in books. Additionally, the existence of non-American audiences generates a wide number of different topics, see the excellent work by Ludopress of Spain, Histogame in Germany and the French magazine Vae Victis.

Finally, I do think part of the rule complexity issue arises from the introduction of new ideas in designs, and the example of Card Driven games, originating (as so much does) from the subtle mind of Mark Herman, shows the need for interaction rules. These games do require that you relearn the game anew in a way that was not the case in the Seventies-Eighties. I can remember buying a boardgame on the Franco-Prussian War in Paris (the shop is long gone). I had only just started reading in French, but there was no problem because the rules were laid out exactly like every other SPI game; one could guess what they said before you read it.

Where I think we need to be going, or rather where we need a significant element of games to be going, is to a mid-position in the current continuum. Some gamers will always enjoy the large or long game; others will prefer the shorter, faster stuff. Where I think we need to be is in the middle. The Euro-game originated in my mind from the “German” game (fast, attractive, social and theme-light) in comparison to the “American” game (long, frequently drab, intense and built splendidly about its theme). To this Hobby Goldilocks neither really worked. I believe we need an “Italian” game (which I name in honour of their cuisine not their design); one that uses simple ingredients but with the maximum of taste and flavour. We will always have the Enthusiastic Tendency amongst us; designers who so loved STORM OF STUFF that they add a lot more to it for STORM OF EVEN MORE STUFF. But this pulls us ever more towards the old style super-sized, plates-piled-high-with-burgers American game. We need constantly to be resetting towards the simpler styles using single session games but cramming them full of good stuff. This requires a skillful hand of course for it seeks to reduce the sauce to exactly the right point. Look at Commands & Colors (sic) for this effect, or at Twilight Struggle (though I think the rules may have gone slightly lumpy at one of two points, but the chefs have soon whipped this out of them leaving a justly popular time machine). In many ways Columbia Games started down this road long ago.

In terms of artwork and finish I think our present games are stunning. Once again the invigorating effect of the Eurogame challenge has been felt as companies rise to the occasion.

Finally, the introduction of the one-off designer allows us access to enthusiasm or knowledge on a topic which was formerly denied to us.

Tom Vasel: What is your personal opinion of the modern Eurogames?

Charles Vasey: I do not play anything that I’d regard as a Eurogame; WALLENSTEIN is probably the nearest I’ve come recently (whoops lying, I played TICKET TO RIDE and METRO with my son). Do Martin Wallace’s recent histo-games count as euros? I admire his work tremendously.

These games do not appeal as I prefer the games that generate a narrative. Where a game has a strong element of history (Bonaparte at Marengo for example) but does not provide that narrative I find it does not appeal, much as a Euro game where the theme is weak, and therefore the game is based on its play value. I’m afraid I must hold my hand up and admit to not playing for the reasons many others do. I’m not interested in becoming better or solving the code but in how much the game assists me in “being there”. That Eurogames miss me is no criticism of them; we are simply moving in different directions.

However, as a genre I think their strengths are manifest.

They are often of manageable length.
They are usually of social rather than reflective style (though still requiring more thought than I can manage).
They are usually graphically inspiring.
They tend to certain styles which aid absorption, but occasionally contain very clever new ideas eminently worth stealing.
They are not highly priced.

The Euro game is above all designed for those people who want to play a game from beginning to end as a normal part of life. Wargames sometimes contain an element of wistfulness for time lost (cameras pan to gamer in Proustian garb eating a madeleine). They are built around a 10 hour gaming session, or a multi-session where the game is left intact. The things, we might surmise, are the things of youth. Or they are based on what I call the Double the Pleasure principle. In this case the gamer finds a short game that he enjoys (WE THE PEOPLE, a game with many Euro elements) and decides it would be twice as enjoyable if it were only twice as long. The requirement in him to seek that high again and again heaps his plate higher and higher, a modifier here, a subsystem there, and always the dreadful vision of the Monster Game beckons.

Of course there are gamers for whom 10 hours is a snip; a release perhaps from a tedious job or a release of thought that allows them to plot a series of strategies that can only come to fruition in a longer period. However, it seems to me that they are in the minority, but it was a minority that was hugely influential amongst publishers and designers. Accordingly, the shorter game was less well represented in the wargame category. Gamers are (as their name suggests) interested in gaming and the massive number of Euros being played by wargamers (or ex-wargamers) demonstrates the skill of the euro designer in appealing to the single session market. The Monster Gamer is alive and well though, and still has plenty for his tastes.

In this regard I must applaud the work of Adam Starkweather with his Devil’s Cauldron game. The game is super-sized in every department, but for the gamer who can play only the shorter scenarios the team provide not the usual three campaign maps over which to play a one map scenario (which never fit on the table), but a single map just for that scenario. Now that’s what I call thinking.

Tom Vasel: You’re very vocal on Consimworld. How has the internet affected board games, in your opinion?

Charles Vasey: Not as vocal as I was as I’ve shifted Perfidious Albion off to a Yahoo folder to avoid rule by the dull. This way it removes a hassle for John Kranz and has permitted us to up the signal to noise ratio on historical gaming in the new folder. We might move to Invision in due course, but working seven days a week can eat into hobby time.

The Internet certainly has affected board games. CSW and BGG are a massive boon (as is The Miniatures Page and Plastic Soldier Review for other hobbies), reconnecting the diffuse elements. I’ve run into a load of new opponents, been persuaded to buy games that turned out to be excellent, had some enjoyable lunches and dinners, and had errata/scenarios/ideas made available to me all thanks to the Internet. I’ve noticed one or two rather poor review sites trying to strike out alone but remember the Golden Rule; you don’t have to read them.

There are some negative sides, notably time spent on gabbing or arguing. But it’s all terribly minor stuff compared to the advantages.

Tom Vasel: Tell us about your writings…

Charles Vasey: I haven’t done anything on the writing front for so long (a couple of years?) bar two short chapters for Greenhill that there is nothing to really tell. If I can rebalance my workload, then I can go back to writing my magazine, but otherwise it remains a distant objective, out-of-sight behind a hill. I have some text prepared for Perfidious Albion but, as with designwork, I don’t want to half-start six projects and finish none.

Tom Vasel: Can you tell us about the history of Perfidious Albion, and its goal?

Charles Vasey: That’s back before Time began. In the mid Seventies Geoff Barnard and I decided to put together a review magazine of our own. I had been reviewing boardgames for figure magazines since the early Seventies (I think SWORD & LANCE was the first). The game that caused this rush of enthusiasm to the head was Hal Hock’s TOBRUK. It was more Geoff’s choice than mine. At the time there were few review magazines, and those that existed were chiefly old geezers pontificating. We were young and cheeky and naturally that told against us with the chap who thought he controlled the UK boardgame market. Even worse folks in America were happy to chat to us, and we got well ahead of the information curve. This too irritated the powers that be. Then, to their horror, they discovered that PA was actually all about reviewing games for the readers, not for the designers or publishers. The result was the appearance of some other review magazines from more acceptable sources. If the belief was that we’d fold it was sadly wrong. Indeed I think only The Strategist has a longer history.

PA was quite fashionable in the late Seventies and won two Charles Roberts Awards before these awards were taken from John Mansfield’s administration. However, I regarded that as largely a blip. It is not only publishers who want positive reviews; there exist a number of gamers who find the fact that others do not enjoy the same games as them very irritating. Given long enough we’d irritate everyone by saying what we thought. That is the nature of scorpions.

At some point I spotted that I was selling 500ish copies and stuffing 500 envelopes but not making much money. On top of that the Whining Tendency wanted to know when their magazine was coming out. One day I chanced on the discovery that no-one in the Whining Tendency ever wrote anything interesting. So I dumped about 300 subbers who did not contribute to the magazine. This saved me from the burn-out that got Mike Siggins later. Unfortunately, it only prolonged the period, and I’m currently fighting my way back through work to try to get PA on track again.

PA’s goal was always to Fight the Power, but more by ridicule than invective. The reviews were always honest and considered even if I failed to identify with the more popular trends through my own doltishness. I was pushing for four-hour games long, long ago. Eventually the market has come to my point of view, but very gradually. It could never be a hobby standard because of its general approach which lacked the necessary emollience. Additionally, our interest has always been the history in wargaming rather than the gaming, and I sense the latter is the key for most gamers.

Above all PA represents very much my personal view (with all the disadvantages that has), and in this, at least, I count it a great success. Many scalps hang from my lodge poles and I have counted coup many times, what larks.

Tom Vasel: What exactly do you mean by “Fight the Power”?

Charles Vasey: Not around in the Seventies? Fight the Power is an expression of a generally anti-authoritarian stand. (I believe it was used by Public Enemy a while back); we published what we wished even if the “official” line was otherwise. I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but at any stage there is often a hobby orthodoxy which usually benefits from some opposition. We liked to provide that opposition where it was earned. There was (and is) no desire to be part of the hobby establishment.

Tom Vasel: It just seems odd to be calling the board game establishment “The Power”, since it’s so small (with the exception of Hasbro). Can you give examples of things you don’t agree with the manufacturers on?

Charles Vasey: Do you not like oddness, perhaps preferring a more middle of the road line? Revert, if you will, to your question which concerns the history of PA. You need to think back to the days of SPI when PA was founded; they had almost monopoly power apart from a few games a year from Avalon Hill. They sold into the UK through only one organisation (and he had a lock-out). There was no internet to point out mistakes or identify nonsense. Reviews (such as they were) were often laundry lists without any analysis written by someone with ingrowing enthusiasm. Errata was handed down on tablets of Yes and No. Looking at what the Hobby is now will not help you understand what I did in 1976, which was the import of your question. That really would be odd.

Tom Vasel: But I see a huge variety of game companies now - not any huge organizations or groups. Or do you refer to the internet community?

Charles Vasey: There wasn’t an internet community in 1976.

Tom Vasel: I guess we’re talking about two different things. I’m talking about now, the present. Do you feel that there is “the Power” right now, in 2006?

Charles Vasey: I suppose there is the capability for sites like Consimworld or BGG to exercise disproportionate power. However, it’s a power based on many, many gamers, all of whom can be reached by other methods, and I see no evidence that the principals of either organisation are other than very generous with their time and money. Periodically one sees the wagging finger of conspiracy, but in my view the situation in 2006 is very much better than in 1976. It could be made better by decentralised BLOGs and folders and here both CSW and BGG help. Indeed John K will place a web-link to outside BLOGs; and hats off to him for that.

Tom Vasel: It’s apparent that the publication quality of artwork has changed dramatically in the 40+ years since board wargaming started. To whom and what would you attribute this to most, and which graphic artists for games do you consider to be the best, most critically constructive to the hobby today?

Charles Vasey: Interesting question, clearly the computer tools have become available to assist in this process. I think that there are a number of trends. The bright and bouncy game arises (I think) from the Euro tradition seeping into wargaming; though Larry Hoffman’s sprites for Kadesh receive a nod from the comital head. But there is also the over-detailed style of map (IMO of course) where the chap who works for Clash of Arms is king (Rick Barber? sorry memory failure). I don’t like that style, but others love it. The move away from dreary NATO symbols (hats off to Squad Leader and ASL for showing us the way) has also made it a more visually vibrant hobby. Have you seen the work by Vae Victis; ravishing? I think Mark Simonitch has a good balance between Redmond and Rick.

I suspect you go beyond the celebration of the merely pretty to the functionally superior as well as pretty. Here I’m going to turn the tables, can you think of anyone special? I was impressed by the map and counters for WELLINGTON. I thought WALLENSTEIN particularly user friendly. The chap who draws for Warfrog (Peter Dennis?) is good too.

Tom Vasel: Can you make a comparison of the top 5 publishers in the wargaming market just now?

Charles Vasey: I’d pick four publishers for this title but the fifth slot is disputed, for me, by many companies.

I’ll start (and in no particular order) with the French company Histoire & Collections which produces Vae Victis magazine. They deserve to be celebrated for their beautiful counters and constant stream of games. I’m never certain how well the games have been tested, but I admire the range from tiny Trojan War to the whole of World War 2. The magazine is a reservoir of enthusiasm for the whole hobby from figures to computers. They are a key factor in connecting to new gamers

Next up, an oldie but a goldie, Clash of Arms with their belief in the big, long pretty game. I don’t like this genre, but age cannot wither them, nor custom stale; their infinite variety. They pursue their own star with a loyal and happy clientele.

A company that has forced its way in to my attention is MMP. They have produced good standard games at excellent prices. Onto this strong growth they have grafted the delights of the International Game line with such fines games (and attractive packages) as Fire In The Sky. They will be producing their first CDG soon and (of course) there is the ASL line. MMP come from the more traditional elements of the Hobby with a good line in play-value.

Finally, GMT continue to front-run with a wide range of eras, subjects and types of games. They are no longer a one-designer company (the prominence of Richard Berg and Richard Borge is an embarrassment of Richards) and have produced some very strong games (Twilight Struggle and Commands & Colors) with good levels of historicity. They have harnessed the strengths of the single-game designer to give us a wide variety of enthusiasms.

In the fifth slot I nominate not a company but a designer who designs for many companies; the ever interesting Ted Raicer.

Company to watch: Compass Games

Company with the biggest list of goodies: Avalanche Press.

Tom Vasel: With all the wargaming titles around, do you think it matters if games from the ‘golden era’ of wargaming (AH, SPI, Victory Games) are reprinted? If you think they should be, do you think they should undergo updating in their design, or merely reproduced so any new generation wargamers can play them?

Charles Vasey: It’s a matter for the publishers, not for me. They will, I hope, cut a few good slices off the loaf and sell well to gamers who have long looked for the games in question. I don’t see wargame production as a zero sum game with more oldies meaning less newies. I think the sheer number of games may be a commercial problem, but it can also be a market shift.

On the “update” question I think, in general, one should leave games unaltered unless there is errata of very general acceptance. I’m not keen on the re-animator school of design because it marries different design approaches (the original and the re-animator) and often produces more problems than it solves. However, this is based on only a few games for me (WW1 and Battle for Germany remakes) and anecdotal evidence from reading posts. I have the feeling that altering stuff is like colorising films. The past is a foreign country, and they do do things differently there; I prefer that difference.

There is no way I would ever buy the hundreds-of-dollars-price Decision Games reprints.

Tom Vasel: How important is it that a war game be an accurate simulation? Or, how much theme, and how much “game”?

Charles Vasey: Without the history I will not touch the game. I seek an accuracy in historical atmosphere; I don’t expect the names of everyone in the 12th Light printed on the counters, but I do expect some of the problems of commanding the 12th Light to be laid on me. Too often in the past “accurate simulation” has been the equivalent of “get the names and numbers right” and not “get the right atmosphere”.

If a game is historically accurate then it will be a game, since my interests are in periods with an underlying contest.

Tom Vasel: So then, what are your thoughts on “lighter” wargames, such as Memoir ‘44, Axis and Allies, and others in that genre?

Charles Vasey: Interesting question, you’ve spotted the fault-line. I enjoy Memoir ‘44, but I did not feel like it was a history game until the expansion pack which had some good stuff in it. Commands & Colors: Ancients has a lot of the issues that would concern a real general in it. Axis & Allies I have not played, but I find games like BRITANNIA (except for its playing time) to be similar in style and with enough history to hook one.

However, my pet dislike is games that pretend to be historical and yet are just the same old crap with a few names on them. There is a naval game out at present, which I shall not name, that seems to me to be unlike its topic in dramatic ways.

Tom Vasel: Charles, thanks for this interview! Do you have any final thoughts for our readers?

Charles Vasey: Thanks for your time, Tom. I guess my thought hobby-wise is rather distressingly Pollyannaish for such an Old Fogey. There are so many good games (of all stripes), and the Internet has given us a second chance at community that it really is one of the best periods I can remember in the hobby. Boardgames, wargames, eurogames, figure games (and the return of plastic figures) all combine to devour my hobby time. It’s a time of great enthusiasm.

© 2006 Tom Vasel

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!

No comments yet.

< Back Home