But if it's about juggling as many different variables as possible, surely a computer could do it better? That's their job: to stockpile as much information as they can in their hot silicon brains and use it to spit out answers. They're good at it, too. It's the reason many (heretical) wargamers have come to prefer digital games to tabletop ones.

It's no surprise that Ruhnke disagrees, but he disagrees with considerable vehemence. "There are major advantages to physical games over digital, not only in exploring but especially in conveying political themes. Returning to the concept of game as communication of a model," he continued. "I am transported in playing a game because I can operate the model myself, as if I were in that role in real life. I can take command of Caesar’s legions and subdue the Gauls."

At this point I'm imagining a wargame based on Asterix. But Ruhnke shakes me out of that pleasant reverie. "I could try to improve on the historical performance of storied leaders, or try out different strategies. Perhaps demonstrate to myself that historians’ critiques of a leader’s strategy are either well or poorly founded. I am not just watching: my decisions either win or lose the day."

Is that still not true of video games? "If my inputs as a player do not produce outputs in the game that I can believe, I am unlikely to feel the role," Ruhnke explained. "If play does not bring me to understand the game’s model, I will feel less like the historical leader. That leader, after all, understood his or her own real world, maneuvered within it, and did great things."