On the surface, Dreadnought: Surface Combat in the Battleship Era, 1906-45 is only a mildly interesting wargame. Designed by John Michael Young and Irad B. Hardy for Simulations Publications Inc. (SPI) in 1975, this title was the first (and only) naval wargame designed by either. While Dreadnought is generally recognized as a tactical naval game—and not a very notable one—the reality is a bit more complex. As the designers admit, Dreadnought is a compromise design. I believe part of the disappointment in Dreadnought is because too many critics focus on what the game was never intended to be.
What critics, especially those of today, seemingly fail to understand is that the tactical naval wargame of Dreadnought is not the complete game but only the first of three. That tactical naval wargame was intended—from the start—to be abstract in historical detail in a game system that was, by design, capricious and accepting of distorted models all in order to be quick-playing. The designers of Dreadnought carefully, and again by design, built a game system that started with historical situations but quickly moved to the artificial. When played as the designers intended Dreadnought is not a historical wargame but an imaginary arena of conflict that may not even require combat to win.
Compromised design
The introduction to Dreadnought hints at a rather straight-forward game:
Dreadnought is a two-Player simulation of surface naval warfare in the period of 1906 to 1944 with the primary emphasis on the role of the all big-gun battleship (Dreadnought) in fleet actions. Historical and non-historical battles and naval campaigns are presented. Essential elements of surface naval warfare are recreated, including gunnery, torpedoes, ranging, damage control, formation handling and fleet coordination.
[1.0] INTRODUCTION
Ship counters in Dreadnought represent one dreadnought/battleship or cruiser or several light cruisers or destroyers. The game map consists of six 10″x10.75″ panels that can be arranged (and rearranged) to show the flow of battle over the oceans. Each game turn recreates 15 minutes of time and each hex is 1800 meters; every movement point equals four (4) knots of speed. Ships are rated with an Attack and Defense Strength, Range Allowance (i.e. range of guns), and a Movement Allowance. ([3.2] THE PLAYING PIECES, [3.1] THE GAME MAP, [3.4] GAME SCALE, [3.24] DEFINITION OF TERMS)
The scale and pieces of the game certainly make Dreadnought sound like most other tactical naval wargames. That is interesting because the designers in [13.0] DESIGNER’S NOTES make it explicit that they do not like certain tactical naval wargames:
Dreadnought began with a survey of some existing naval games, both board and miniature. These ran the gamut from Solomons Campaign and USN (which dealt with naval tactics on an abstract plane) to Frigate and “CA” (which are almost purely tactical games with no strategic considerations). Jutland and the whole body of naval miniature games offered simulation on the tactical, operational, and strategic level. All of these had their plusses and minuses. All of them appealed to different segments of the gaming public in different ways. One approach did not appeal to the designer and that was creating a super complex tactical system along the lines of Jutland or the naval miniatures.”
[13.0] DESIGNER’S NOTES
The designers of Dreadnought very obviously did not want a “super complex tactical system” so instead they did what game designers (and players) often do—they designed their own system. The first step in their design process, they tell us, was to compromise. As we read the Designer’s Notes we discover they compromised…
…on scale:
The game would have to have a tactical base, one that would allow Players to maneuver and fight, but one that would be playable (within the normal SPI context). The game was concerned with surface combat in the 20th Century between dreadnoughts (any 20th Century all big gun battleships); the basic unit then would represent one battleship. The map would contain an area large enough to display a battle between several of these units. The scale of the game, the unit values, and the system of play would be designed to illustrate the differing strengths and weaknesses of the various dreadnoughts with all other considerations abstracted from this basis.
[13.0] DESIGNER’S NOTES
…on the role of the Player:
The startling fact that emerged was that battles between dreadnoughts were infrequent and indecisive. The frequency problem could be handled by constructing Scenarios that must occur. The decisiveness was more difficult. That had to be inculcated into the Player’s minds by a combination of limited intelligence and a viciously capricious game system which would unhinge the calculating player.
[13.0] DESIGNER’S NOTES
…on combat:
As far as the developer was concerned, the only consideration the Player should have to decide, was whether he would engage broadside-to (maximizing his firepower) or whether to engage bow- or stern-on (thereby limiting his firepower to some degree or the other). Admittedly, this lead to an abstraction which distorted the capabilities of some ships, but so be it. The secondary batteries could be abstracted into range effects and torpedo attack rules, again with some distortion, but leaving the Player free to make essential decisions.
[13.0] DESIGNER’S NOTES
…on movement:
Early playtesting revealed that sequential movement was too pat to be effective. One Player or the other could always calculate exactly the following Player’s possibilities and be guided accordingly, and there seemed to be no combination of sequential movement and combat phases which didn’t allow an inherent positional advantage.
[13.0] DESIGNER’S NOTES
The ultimate compromise in Dreadnought is perhaps the one that gets the least recognition—it’s not even mentioned in the introduction and barely hinted at in the back-of-the-box blurb—which is the Campaign and Extended Campaign Games. The long discussion in the Designer’s Notes talks first of “historical” scenarios that were designed to, “introduce Players to the mechanics of play” and “provide brief games for those who desired them” ([13.0 DESIGNER’S NOTES]). To really understand Dreadnought, according to the designers, requires going beyond known history and into a truly artificial an imaginary environment:
Historically, there could be no truly balanced situations. That would require a hypothetical environment, such as we eventually constructed with the Campaign and Extended Campaign Games. This environment was artificial and imaginary. It suspends geopolitical, political, and economic realities in pursuit of creating an interesting game. The Campaign Game says, in effect, “Here we have two nations with roughly equal fleets, but some variation in composition.” The Players can decide for themselves how to allocate their ships, creating four Scenarios. It would be rare that any one Scenario would present the spectacle of two evenly matched forces, yet the sum total of the four Scenarios is balanced (in terms of forces engaged) and, best of all, the Players have many opportunities to paralyze themselves with self-doubt and ignorance. The Extended Campaign Game provides that rare opportunity for a Player to do nothing at all and still win.
[13.0] DESIGNER’S NOTES
Non-tactical campaigning
Dreadnought has a split personality. On one hand, the game is as advertised—a wargame that recreate of tactical naval surface warfare in the first half of the 20th century with elements of “gunnery, torpedoes, ranging, damage control, formation handling and fleet coordination.” The historical scenarios deliver on that promise. One the other hand, however, Dreadnought is not a wargame, but a generic historical conflict simulation. The Campaign Game—and especially the Extended Campaign game—leverage the quick-playing tactical game design to create a game that casts players in roles much different than that of simply leading a fleet into a battle.
The change in player role starts when playing Dreadnought starts in the Campaign Game. Players of the Campaign Game are more akin to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), “assigning their fleet assets to certain missions; convoy escort, shore raid, sea sweep, etc.” (Back-of-the-box blurb).
The Campaign Scenarios are four hypothetical situations which together comprise the Campaign Game. These situations are contrived by the Players according to the following procedure: First, the Players will decide upon a time period: WWI, Interwar, WWII; then they will decide between themselves which national navy they will direct, picking from the listing given in 11.1 [NATIONAL FLEET LISTING]. They will select the appropriate units given by the listing as their fleet. They will decide between themselves who is to be the North Player and who is the South Player. They will then secretly subdivide their fleet and assign a different group of ships to each of the four Scenarios listed in 11.2 [CAMPAIGN SCENARIO “A” The Sea Sweep], 11.3 [CAMPAIGN SCENARIO “B” The Shore Raid], 11.4 [CAMPAIGN SCENARIO “C” The Convoy], and 11.5 [CAMPAIGN SCENARIO “D” The Sea Sweep]. With the forces then assigned, each Scenario will be played to a conclusion, the Victory Points awarded for each Scenario will be totalled and a Campaign Game winner established. No ship may participate in more than one Scenario in any one Campaign Game. For example, if a ship is assigned to participate in Scenario A, it may not participate in Scenario B, C, or D, but must participate in Scenario A. An assigned force may be sub-divided into component Task Forces.
[11.0] THE CAMPAIGN GAME / GENERAL RULE:
Note that the Campaign Game in Dreadnought allows any two nations to oppose each other. There is no “historical” U.S. vs. Japan or British vs. Germany directed in the rules. The rules fully allow artificial match-ups such as the U.S vs. Britain (“Plan Red”) or Japan vs. Italy and so forth. Recreating history is not the goal of the Campaign Game; the focus is on how players allocate and command their national navy over the course of the four scenarios—decidedly non-tactical decisions.
In the Extended Campaign Game of Dreadnought players take on a role above the CNO and make even broader decisions not only on fleet assignments but on fleet composition and future building schedules. Though unstated by the designers, the players in the Extended Campaign Game are cast in a role akin to the General Board of the Navy.
[Interlude – The General Board of the Navy]
[Commander John T. Kuehn, U.S. Navy (Retired), in the October 2010 issue of Proceedings wrote “Revive the General Board of the Navy” in which they discuss the historical role of the board which pretty much describes the role of players in the Extended Campaign Game.]
[“In 1908-09 during the design battles over the United States’ first dreadnoughts, the General Board finally became preeminent in Fleet design. Up to that point, the process had been dominated by the often bickering and semi-autonomous Naval Bureaus—Engineering, Ordinance, and Construction and Repair. A conference convened at the Naval War College in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt set out to resolve these problems. Participants concluded that line officers should be more intimately involved in the process of warship design, and they decided that the General Board would fulfill this function.”]
[“This decision had the force of a presidential order. Navy Regulations later formalized it so that by 1930 these read: “When the designs are to be prepared for a new ship, the General Board shall submit to the Secretary of the Navy a recommendation as to the military characteristics to be embodied therein.” By this process the General Board became the final arbiter in the design of warships and, by extension, the Fleet.”]
[“It took time for this to happen, but once the precedent of this expansion of the General Board’s authority had been established, its influence in Fleet design gradually increased. The establishment of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) by congressional legislation in 1915 and 1916 has been regarded by naval historians as the beginning of the end of the influence of the board. Although OPNAV replaced the General Board as the principal war-planning entity in the Navy, the board retained its authority over Fleet design and building policy. In fact, its role was to connect the two, since it was still required to remain cognizant of the war plans. “The General Board shall be furnished, for information, with the approved war plans, including cooperation with the Army and employment of the elements of naval defense.”” (Keuhn, J. T. (2010). Proceedings, 10(136).)]
NAVAL HISTORY & HERITAGE COMMAND
Looking at the picture above of the General Board of the Navy in 1932 you don’t even see uniforms. Like military officers stepping out of their tactical commanding role, so does that higher player role of the General Board of the Navy in Dreadnought demand a game system that is decidedly not a uniform tactical wargame. Indeed, the Extended Campaign in Dreadnought takes the abstraction of history even further; it is, by its own admission, not even a wargame but a game that fully embraces the imaginary:
The extended campaign is an economic game requiring the Player to amass more ship value points than his opponent (every ship has a value in points equal to the total of its printed attack, defense and movement values). Each Player is given an initial number of ship value points (his “treasury”) from which he purchases an initial fleet, expending in the process, points equal to the value of the ships he activates. Thereafter, play progresses through an indeterminate number of Extended Campaign Game-Turns from two to twelve Turns, depending on a random event. During each of these Turns, the Players plan and execute a Campaign Game (11.0), in the process augmenting and depleting their treasuries accordingly.
[12.6] THE EXTENDED CAMPAIGN
Compromise, abstracted, capricious, distorted, artificial, imaginary…satisfactory?
As a tactical naval wargame, Dreadnought is a design full of compromises. Using highly abstracted historical elements in a capricious game system players will be able to recreate naval battles with a game designed to be played fast. Historical accuracy is not the goal of the design but playability. The ability to play out a single scenario Dreadnought relatively quickly is important because game play is not intended to end after a single scenario (two hours average according to BGG with some users claiming as little as one hour is actually needed for a scenario), but instead player should be playing four scenarios in an historically artificial Campaign Game—perhaps four to eight hours of play. The Extended Campaign, taking from two to 12 Campaign Game-Turns, leaves history almost completely behind and instead delivers an imaginary situation to could take from eight to 96 hours of actual table play to resolve.
If you are that Jutland player of yesteryear, or a Seekrieg 5 or Admiralty Trilogy Games (Dawn of the Battleship, Fear God & Dread Nought, or Command at Sea) player of today you likely will find Dreadnought an unsatisfactory design. “Dull and uninspired. Even for its day, lousy components and lacking in realism” as a BGG rating of 1 states. The prior owner(s) of my copy of Dreadnought over the years collected various articles with variants or scenarios for the game. Most address issues with the tactical game; only one, “Dreadnought Super Extension: Additional Rules for the Extended Campaign Game” by Arnold Hendrick first published in Moves 24, honestly looks to the Campaign and Extended Campaign games.
If, however, you want a naval wargame that fires your imagination by stepping beyond history then Dreadnought deserves a second look. The tactical naval wargame in Dreadnought is not where the game design ends but instead is where the real message from the designers begin. Dreadnought was not designed to be a historically accurate; the designers always intended the tactical game to be an abstract game for rapid play so players could engage in the Campaign and Extended Campaign games. As another BGG user commented:
Played this one many times in the late seventies. Historical scenarios were good, but my gaming group gravitated to conducting a “draft” of ships from all periods. We would then slug it out with small numbers of similarly rated battlewagons per player, etc. Our tournaments would last for weeks, with daily play. I don’t remember anyone getting bored, though.
jwsharp, May 2009
That, my fellow grognards*, is Dreadnought.
* According to the BGG profile of designer John Young, “He is perhaps most famous for using the word “grognard” to describe veteran wargamers in the early 1970s.”
Feature image: “HMS Dreadnought, a British battleship launched at Portsmouth, England, in February 1906, inaugurated a new era of battleship design based on steam-turbine engines and batteries of big guns.” Courtesy National Archives, Washington, D.C.
The opinions and views expressed in this blog are those of the author alone and are presented in a personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Navy or any other U.S. government Department, Agency, Office, or employer.
RockyMountainNavy.com © 2007-2024 by Ian B is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 
Rocky Mountain Navy Gamer 
Fascinating review! I’ve never found a partner to play chit games with, but if I do I’d want to give this one a try.