DON FEATHERSTONE ON AMERICAN WARGAMING I thoroughly enjoyed HISTORICON in all senses, marvelling at the superb terrains, the immense organization, the sheerenjoyment, and above all, the quite extraordinary comiradeship bounding on all sides - even among the players which is quiteomething, as wargamers aren't renowned for their equable temperaments! for myself, as always I cherished the warmth of my welcome, the degree of friendship and interest offered at all times, and the most touching manner in which so many American wargamers, not fettered by traditional British reserve and reticence, offered me sympathy on my Son's death It is fair to say that the modern resurgence of wargamin owes much to Jack Scruby and the other pioneers in America, andhat we in Britain very quickly followed suit to propagate the hobby we quickly discovered was to become an integral part of our lives. Perhaps because you think BIG and are a larger country and community than ours, your conventions and your projects, both club and personal, are on an enviable large scale. You are prepared to travel horrifying distances to regularly wargame, which inevitably encourages great spirit and tight comradeship. Here,my own group have - with one or two visiting firemen coming and going - been regularly presenting themselves in my various wargames rooms (I've moved three times) for about 25 years, and our bonds are tight and affectionate - besides which, our rules have become mutually simple as we cannot see the sense of flogging yourself to death wargaming at night when you do it all day for a living! In that context, over the years of visiting your country,l have gained the impression that American wargamers like theirgames (through their rule systems) to be more involved and perhaps complicated than ours (I know Britain spawned WRG rules, butthat's a different kettle of fish) and that American wargamers tend to purchase and utilise "professional" rule-sets rather than formulate their own. And they seem inclined (which surprises me in view of the general "instant" short attention span) to be preferred to play in "low gear" tolerating and accepting relatively complicated and esoteric manoeuvres, in a manner which I and my wargaming group could never tolerate, and I would go sofarasto say, neitherwould the majority of Britwargamers. Perhaps I have misread the situation and look forward to comment! I find it very heartening to realisethat some of my best friends areAmericans, despite difference in nationality and the distance between us - a fact which has mellowed my somewhat cynical view of the human race! In five visits to your country I have received nothing but warmth friendship, hospitality and graciousness, to the extent that it has added a new dimension to my life which, had it been present years ago, would have made my stay here on earth even more pleasant than it has been, Thank you all - I forgive you for cheating in 1776 and firing on my countrymen from behind trees and stone walls! --Don Featherstone Don, no one deserves the gratitude and the friendship of wargaming hobbyists more than you. Dick Bryant. THE CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL FIGURE MOUNTING I refuse to mount my miniature soldiers onto multiple mounting stands. In this pursuit I am certainly not the first, but I am one of the few. If a figure comes from the factory too wobbly to stand on its own, I simply make a larger stand for him, and for him alone. Although multiple stands seem to have become a basic tenant of historical gaming, I have never been one tofollow tenants. Certainly multiple stands go way back in the history of gaming, but so does the lack of them. The sixties and seventies saw the late, great Charles Grant and his son maneuvering massive eighteenth century armies one figure at a time. There are many advantages to the singular base system. When a figure ismounted all by itself, the player has the ultimate control of the position or ground which that piece will stand on, irrespective of his fellows inthe regiment or company. Here follow several good reasons for individuals mounting: 1. All troops can be dispersed into open order as the need arises. Troops whom one would never expect would have ever had to fight in open order were sometimes called upon to do so. At Lobositz (SYW), Prussian line infantry fought in open order against the Croats, and near the end of the century, Prussian fusiliers had become adept at fighting in open order even though they remained capable of sustained line activities. American revolutionary British grenadiers and Napoleonic grenadiers often found themselves skirmishing in open order, as did fine companies during the American Civil War. 2. Open order dispersal makes for a more realistic crossing of terrain obstacles such as narrow bridges, forests, or rocky hills. Imagine a group of six men all hooked up to each other trying to march through even light woods. There is no telling when troops of the line might have to cross rough terrain. 3. Troops can more easily garrison towns and fortifications if they are not on multiple stands. Since only a handful can guard an individual miniature house, it makes it much easier to remove casualties from that house if they are not all stuck together. Attackers can also surround a house, rather than standing out in front of the porch in a group looking as if they are there to sing carols. A regiment may be called upon to guard a trench or fortification, in which case it makes things easier if they can be evenly spread along the perimeters, rather than set out in batches separated by unrealistic amounts of space. 4. Even main battle lines are made more flexible my mounting the miniatures individually. If the multiple mounting is two deep, then the formation can be made four deep, but it certainly cannot be made three deep. This is really too bad, because it takes absolute tactical control away from the commander. 5. Having soldiers mounted individually is the easiest of all methods for removing casualties. No ugly casualty caps are required, nor is it necessary to juggle around different sized mountings to get the appropriate number of men to remain on the table. 6. Command and musical figures can be placed in realistic positions in the regiment as the need arises. They will no longer be consigned to hang out with each other in a "command mount", or to always be adjacent to the same sergeant or private, as the case may be. 7. The melee fight is much more realistic when using individual mounts. Combat doesn't have to be decided with unweldy units facing each other. The fighting can instead be of a more accurate man versus man type, The look will also be much more realistic as the men confront each other in a confused and very fluid mass. 8. Individuals may be sent out to represent patrols and and posts. If figures are mounted together, and a troop ratio of 1:20 is used, then nothing less than an entire company could could be deployed for any task because the companies could not subdivide. 9. Individual mounts make defeat or demoralization look more like what they are. When a unit is routed or destroyed, the men scatter. They do not march back in orderly companies. 10. Men on individual mounts are no harder to move. The use of thin wooden or metal sheets can see to this. When the army is maneuvering to contact the enemy, it's regiments can be placed on these sheets, which in turn can be slid along a sufficiently sanded or smoothly painted wargames table. Let me conclude by saying that I have nothing against armies mounted on multiple stands, but that beginning gamers should be aware that there is an alternative. --Luke J. Mulder The wargame group to which I belong solves this problem by using magnetic tape on the bottom of the figures andhaving metalmovement trays(galvinizedsteel 1/32" thick). Itis a nightmare to regroup casualties into theirunits afterthegame, however. As to your figures wanting a change ofplacement, perhaps your sergent should be gifted with lead figure deodrant, - DICK BRYANT MAPS Right after WWII, the Army Mapping Service brought out a series of maps of Europe in 1:250,000 scale. These aren't for sale, but Federal Depository Libraries (big city main branch libraries, many university and college libraries) have copies and can make black and white photocopies. You end up with your forests grey rather than green, but the contours, roads, rivers and what not come through well. Just the thing for WWII gamers, especially since the Army didn't actually do much of the mapping itself, but republished maps from other sources, often dating from the '30's. Also useful for earlier periods since, especially in the mountains, new routes follow old, and all you have to do is down grade them to donkey tracks and ignore the urban sprawl. --David Edington, Utah Back to Table of Contents -- Courier #56 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1991 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com