Well, we're back!

OK Kids, Here's a warning for you. If a strange man (with stranger beard) come up to you at a show and whispers 'ps st, wanna edit a new wargames magazine' just say'No!' It is a lot of fun editing 'Battlefields' but the time it takes (a lot!) does not always dovetail neatly with what I actually do for a living. If my current lack of free time continues to have an adverse impact on getting 'Battlefields' into your hands then I shall have to seriously consider perhaps passing the reins onto someone else (picking up a PC virus didn't help). We'll see how the next couple of issues go. To the many of you have sent in articles, scenarios, letters etc. that I have not replied to recently, many thanks and apologies (especially to Jim & Jim). As I'm writing this I'm about to depart for the USA for two weeks, hopefully when I return I can get in touch with all of you.

Anyway, this issue the 'Wargames Forum' piece is something a 'little different' from Peter Tanner It may well irritate some of you, but hopefully it will stimulate some thought. If it provokes you into writing - great!

Also in this issue Jan Bruinen (another of the Low Countries contingent who puts my lack of a foreign language to shame) writes to say that for him the Napoleonic period is best gamed as small (brigade sized) actions. The Napoleonic era is also my favourite period and after years of reading, fiddling with and attempting to write rules and with what passes for thought I have reached an opposite conclusion! What I want from a Napoleonic game are large armies and a system that focuses on the large scale command decisions. I like the big battles and have decided that the only way to get close to doing these on the tabletop is to have the brigade, or even the division as the smallest unit. On these lines my 'big game' project for this year looks like being Wagram with most tabletop units being a division. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', it is merely an example of both the richness & diversity of the hobby and also how people want different things from their games (see Peter Tanner on this as well). A lot may also depend on what books you have read and enjoyed, Jan cites Gill's 'With Eagles to Glory' (superb) as a major inspiration for his decision. Mind you, I would cheerfully have a brigade sized game with Jan, and I rather imagine he would not be unduly put out playing an army sized game with the Exiles.

At the Exiles the period we game least is probably Napoleonics and this is mainly due to the fact that no one has yet found a set of rules they are completely happy with. To a degree I suspect that this is down to the fact that people are so interested in the period that they feel they have a 'personal stake' in it and are unwilling to compromise on a set of rules which fails to reflect their perceptions on the'realities' of Napoleonic combat or what exactly should be gamed. There are members like myself who want the big, command control focused games and other who like the smaller, more tactical games. With other periods we do not seem to have this problem. 'Fire & Fury' are exclusively used for ACW and seem to suit both the period 'experts' (apparently being not unreasonable historically) and those who have little interest in this conflict (they provide a 'jolly good game'). Attempts to transfer the basic 'F&F system' to other eras have not however been notably successful which tends to reinforce my suspicion that for a set of rules to 'really work' (be they simple or complex) they should focus on a fairly narrow period of history (sorry DBM fans).

I wonder if part of the problem with Napoleonics is that there are simply too many 'experts'. For ECW & Renaissance games (which we tend to play a lot using our own rules) there are only three or four members with an all consuming interest who fortunately have reached a general consensus on what is and isn't important and what the rules should focus on. The games themselves tend to be full of colour, provide moments of 'high drama' and usually end with a definite conclusion. Hence the other members are happy to play the period.

Meanwhile, the Exiles have had their normal annual fright over the state of the club finances and have launched another recruiting drive. Much the same was done last year and I was surprised at how many new people turned up. Sadly, none of them 'stuck' which I fear was probably due to the nature of the Exiles. Most members have been gaming together now for over 10 years and have perhaps got rather 'set in their ways'. Consequently a 'right' and 'wrong' way to do things has developed which may be at some variance to the rest of the hobby. We quite frankly detest competition gaming, rules 'lawyering' is frowned on and the scenarios are seldom 'fair' or 'balanced'. Over the years there has been a general shift from rules which emphasise 'hardware' to those which concentrate on command & morale. In addition there is a fair amount of rules experimentation in odd periods (commercial rules are more often than not frowned upon). When everything 'clicks" it's great, when it doesn't ...

Hence the Exiles can be an intimidating arena to a new arrival. I am not saying the Exiles 'follow the true path' of wargaming, rather that there are many ways to approach the hobby, all of them in way or another equally valid. This can be seen as one of the hobby's great strengths, but also perhaps one of it's weaknesses?

Finally, many apologies to Paddy Griffith for spelling his name wrong (yet again) in the last issue.

Many thanks to you all your continued support despite the ongoing trials.

Regards, Ben