Potential

Dear Sir,

I write with regard to Stuart Reid's letter (Counter-Battery - 18CMN&Q No. 2). Some parts of Stuart's I agree with, but I feel that there are one or two points which need to be discussed.

He is quite right to say that the trend in ECW N&Q has over the years been towards longer and more authoritative articles, but when he wrote, there had only been one issue of 18CMN&O. Doubtless the trend will mirror that of ECW N&Q (I for one hope so), but we really need to give Gareth and the readership time to build such a situation. Stuart has already backed up his words by contributing an excellent two-parter on the Highland Regiments in America during the 7YW. I think that he is quite right in his aspirations, but that some degree of patience is needed.

Wee bit harsh on the author of Glenshiel I thought. Mind you, I see what Stuart means, some clarification/further checking would have added to the value of the piece.

Now, I totally agree with Stuart when he complains firstly of army lists and secondly them being keyed to one particular set of wargame rules. Army lists are useful as a basis which can be adapted in the light of further research, they frequently are, thus ensuring (often) a lack of further research and (always) arguements along the lines "Well, it's in the army lists..." I think this is what is worrying Stuart and I'm with him on this all the way.

Secondly, I really feel that to relate the lists of one particular set of rules is a bit silly, since this automatically alienates non-users of said rules. "Spanish Regiment (two sub units) 3 x 5 LI "C" musket, bayonet, salvo @ 7" means precious little to me.

Gareth is quite right when he states that wargaming scenarios are justly popular with wargamers. Such folk need to know what the terrain was like, what the forces were and, less importantly perhaps, what happened on the day. One does not need to refer to any set of rules, commercial or otherwise, in order to present this type of information to the reader.

When it comes to uniform details, it matters little whether one is painting an 80mm, 30mm or 15mm figure, the information required is the same. A similar arguement can be applied to background history. Stuart is quite right when he seeks quality articles, irrespective of the nature of the readership. It is a misnomer (and a bit of a cop-out) to state/assume that wargamers will be content with less detailed information than will any other type of reader.

Personally, I have no doubts that 18CMN&Q will rise in stature and content. If I thought otherwise I would not have taken on the role of Honourary Editor. One has only to look at the type of questions cropping up in the Military Queries section to see the potential 'meat' of future articles. Mr. J. White's query on Oudenarde for example is one which will generate continued research. Readers may have seen my own efforts in Military Modelling regarding the orders of battle at Blenheim. Four years work has gone into this project and I'm still not happy with it.

No, I think that the potential for longer and more penetrating articles is already present in 18CMN&Q, but the first few issues will serve to establish this.

Stuart Asquith, Harrow, Middlesex.

Missed Point

Dear Gareth,

In replying to my letter I fear you have rather missed the point. You state; "The way that a large number of writers of so-called wargaming articles serve up some potted history and dismiss the wargaming element in one or two patronising paragraphs tacked on as an afterthought is resented..."

Quite, my objection was that Zenta, Glenshiel and now Killiecrankie were precisely that; poorly researched potted histories accompanied by very superficial wargame scenarios (keyed to a single set of rules) which are now acknowledged in an editorial note to be fun but not historically accurate. Contrast this with Pete Berry's excellent demonstration of how a wargame article should be written. I rest my case.

Stuart Reid, Northumberland.

PS. Kiliecrankie aside, I thought issue 2 a great improvement.

Object To Tone

Dear Gareth,

I would like to object most strongly to the tone used by Stuart Reid in criticising the article on Glenshiel in 18CMN&Q #1.

Firstly there is absolutely no excuse for personal insult (and neither, Gareth, is there any excuse for publishing it).

[You should see the response to his letter I didn't publish!]

Secondly if Stuart wishes to criticise an article, as he is perfectly entitled to, then it should be done in a constructive manner. For example, he states that the maps were highly inaccurate - fair enough. But it would have been more useful if he had given his version of the Glenshiel battlefield.

Compare Stuart's letter with Stephen Ede-Borretes polite and helpful criticism of John Tincey's article (and John's equally polite and helpful reply). This is how things should be.

Yours,

Neil Reasoldson, Crondal, Surrey.