ED NOTE: There have at last been enough provocative letters to warrent a "letters" page.
This column will not be published in every issue unless there are enough meaty letters to make it worthwhile. Your letters and comments to the editor are solicited.
AMR TACTICS -- FAULTY CONCLUSIONS
Mr. Brown, who wrote "AMR Tactics" in #5 of Vol. I was subsbntially in error. The flintlock musket was the principal AMR weapon, not the bayonet. Tactics were linear and firepower oriented. Whole actions took place with limited bayonet work or none at all. I undersbnd Brown trying to correct the misimpression that the war was won by sniping with squirrel guns, and I know that the bayonet often played a decisive role. However, Far more damage was done with musket than bayonet. In the early battles, with heavy British and relatively light Colonial casualties, the latter often had no bayonets.
Later on when the Colonial Line developed a capacity for both disciplined volleys and bayonet work, the volleys or general fire action were still dominant.
Mr. Brom's "Simultaneous Fire Myth', is another case of over-reacting to an imagined error. To all intents and purposes, fire was simultaneous. In most cases one or both sides began firing outside of true effective range and continued until a decision of sorts was reached. Only the best disciplined units would fire true volleys in the open. From Marlboro's day "platoon fire" rather than fire by rank was exercised. Thus a battalion volley would be executed platoon by platoon. Since the platoon would virtually reduce the fire sequence to individual figures the effort to determine whether "my men can shoot before your men" becomes an exercise in futility. At the normal level of wargame represenbtion it is sufficient to note that this or that unit is engaging in fire action this turn.
There was, of course, a cerbin amount of jockeying for decisive close-in volleying. However, this is left to subalterns, noncoms, and dice. In the most famous case of non- simultaneous volleys (Fontenoy) it is still not possible to determine who fired first, the British or the French Guards.
Tradition dictates that Lord Hay, at the head of Cumberland's great column, called out "Gentlemen of the French Guard, take the first shot" whereupon the gallant French, entirely taken in, replied "Messieurs les anglais, tirey le premiers" (Milord Englishmen, fire first) whereupon the British Guards practically blew away their opponents with a devastating volley before being worn away in a close-in combat with the rest of the French center.
On the other hand, some Frenchmen claim that the story is inaccurate. One, whose name I forgot claims that as the British column topped the rise French officer galloped back to his men shouting "Messieurs, les anglaisl Tirez le premiers" (gentlemen, the English Fire first!)
Fortescue (History of The British Army) is also of the opinion that the French fired first, although certainly not best. He quotes the letter of a Methodist soldier who was in the front lines as the great column closed with the French Guards. Looking at the line of levelled muskets facing him the soldier remembered thinking "Oh Lord for what we are about to receive may we be truly thankful".
It looks to me as though Brom has become fascinated with a triviality and wants to use it as an excuse for yet another redundant crap shooting exercise. It is enough that one side or the other will have hotter dice in the fire fight. He who loses may think of his lower effectiveness as being due to firing second. or firing farther away in the course of the turn, having more cases of damp cartridges, or whatever. Having separate crap shots for these things doesn't make the Bame more realistic nor yet playable. It only caters to someone's sense of humor.
MAIDA IN ERROR TOO
Looking at #6, I note that you were, unfortunately, taken in by Mr. Arnold on Maida. Oman described a beautiful, classic, column versus line action. However, at Maida, the French fought in three deep lines. Fortescue has it correctly and Featherstone (Battles for Wargamers) accurately reflects Fortescue (History of The British Army).
The 1st Legere actually attacked in a battalion line, followed by another battalionn line. The first battalion engaged the elite British light companies at a slight disadvanbge and was being driven slowly back when the British halted to remove great coats (worn bandolier fasion). Optimistically mistaking this for wavering, Compiere urged the French battalion (still in triple line) to launch a bayonet charge, which was received by a volley and counter attack at 30 yards. This led, naturally enough, to the rout of the surprised French, who overran their supports in their attempt to escape.
The casualties, less than 100, suffered by Kempy's elite companies, were clearly not suffered as a result of an unsuccessful bayonet charge in column. Moreover, the 900 French casualties were not suffered, as suggested by Arnold (and perhaps Oman) as a result of volleys fired at 115 yards and 60 yards with the Brown Bess Muskets of 700 men! The French engaged in a fire action at around 100 yards at which time all or most of Kempt's casualties occurred, the French apparently suffering somewhat more.
After the volley at 30 yards, the British elites spent the rest of the battle chasing the routed French all over the place and bayoneting most of those caught. As usual, the losses of pursuit exceeded those of battle, this time by an unusual percenbge for infantry pursuit. (However, the pursuit of tired men by exhuberent light infantry without packs began at contact).
Featherstone loves Maida, as should all English men, although a victory of 700 elites over 800 veterans in a slightly inferior formation decided the issue, so you don't have to believe that Englishmen were all (or even mostly) supermen.
As for making a fight of it is a wargame, a less overconfident French commander should have won handily, not withstanding a moderate edge batblion for batblion on the part of the British. For example, Compiere could have put one of his three batblions in open order around the flank to wrest the scrub from the auxilliaries and force debchment of increasing elements from Kempt's batblion, while the other two battalions sorted themselves out into triple line or "ordre mixte" to engage Kempt frontally.
Once the absence of British horse was determined, a heavy reliance on skirmisher could more than offset any superiority of line volleys along the front. The French, however, seem to have relied on a simple superiority of firepower and discipline of which they happened to be on the wrong end.
Response: Letters to Editor v2n6
ACW RULES AVAILABILITY
I was very pleased to see the excellent in- depth review of ACW rules in the May - June issue, particularly as it included my own rules.
However, I think I should point out that my book went out of print in 1979 and is now unobtainable. I plan to republish the rules section privately early next year.
The ability to calculate casualties from small arms fire in my rules stems from my assumption that, depending on range, type of weapon, quality and number of troops firing, a certain percentage of casualties will be inflicted. In this system morale comes to play a more vital role. However, the firing rules do not conbine any element of chance - a serious omission. In future editions it is my plan to add the following chance element for each unit firing roll 1 dice, score 1 or 2, - 1 from casualties; score 3 or 4 figure stands; score 5 or 6 + 1 to casualties.
I was glad to see there was no mention made of my lack of a "cavalry charging infantry" rule. I have been criticized in the UK for the lack of such a rule - but here people had to think of the ACW as Napoleonics in different uniforms. My answer has always been, charge infantry with cavalry if you like, but do not expect any bonuses from my rules, and don't expect to arrive!
Keep up the excellent standard of material. For my part, I will continue to do all I can to get UK wargamers interested in THE COURIER.
DROPFED LINES ERODE CONFIDENCE IN MANUFACTURERS
I want to take issue with your editorial in Vol. I No. 6 of THE COURIER and with Mr. Seifreid's interview in the same issue.
First of all, you say that the fantasy gamers are out-buying the historical gainers. What I would like to know is how the historical gamer could possibly out purchase the fantasy gamer when he can no longer buy the figures. Example: since August 1979 our club has been trying to purchase figures, waited two months for Napoleonics, which are supposed to be in production. Now I've received a letter saying that all their ranges have dropped except Ancients, Napoleonics and Colonials. How then can we out-purchase fantasy gamers when we can't get the figures?
Also you have just reviewed for the past few months the Mini-figs Indian Mutiny Range. I might be wrong in this but the range hasn't been out more than 5 - 6 months. How can one honestly try to bring new members into the hobby when we have no idea on how long the manufacturer will continue the range? For example: I'm stuck with one hundred figures in the Mexican-American War because without notice the period was dropped. Does this build confidence in the manufacturer? Indeed this is the type of incident I think THE COURIER should also be commenting on.
Let's also look at the quality of the figures for the price we pay. Let me make one thing clear, I am not complaining about the cost of the figures, I understand the companies have to make a profit. For the past year most figures purchased have been off center and caked with flash. Some of it impossible to get rid of. When we are paying a high price for figures, shouldn't we received top quality in return?
Dick, I thought THE COURIER was a magazine for wargamers. I feel that your not presenting both sides in your editorials and articles. I do not believe historical 25mm gaming is dead but I do believe you and the manufacturers are pushing 15mm and fantasy on us. You cannot convert fantasy gamers to historical gaming when you cannot get the figures. I would appreciate a reply to this letter. I would like to share your views with our club. Looking forward to your reply.
I certainly agree that for the price of figures at present, we should expect quality goods. Every major figure manufacturer I have contacted has a policy of replacing figures which are defective or which have excessive flash. You must still expect to dull a few EXACTO Knives and use a file for absolutely flashfree figures, however. Quality Control is labor intensive and adds to cost!
Introduction of the Indian Mutiny range resulted in fewer than 50 orders that were filled at a loss! The line was discontinued as uneconomical. The timing of our review was unfortunate and due entirely to delays on the part of THE COURIER. See the Editorial for more comment on this. Also, we will be much more careful in the future.
You will note that I deleted references to particular figure manufacturers in your letter. This is because I don't want to give the impression that this problem is only with one . .. all figure manufacturers are operating in the same manner for essentially the same reasons.
I don't like it, none of us like it, but the facts of life are that the figure manufacturers do not for the moment, feel that they need us to survive. They have a demanding market in fantasy that they cannot work enough hours to fill orders for. The law of supply and demand is no different in the hobby than elsewhere. We have to create a demand for historical figures bv expanding our end of the hobby and by buying figures from those companies that meet our requirements. If we buy more figures from fewer companies, they perceive it as an increased market and will cater to it. Is it time to help build only ONE figure manufacturer into an exclusively Historical Miniature Supplier? Who should it be? --Dick Bryant
KEEF THE WAR IN WARGAMING
While I am very pleased with the revival of THE COURIER, I do have one complaint - the change in part of the subtitle from ". . .Miniature Wargaming Magazine" to". . .Miniature Gaming Magazine". This appears to me as an unnecessary gesture to critics of the hobby - pacifists, neo-pacifists, miniature wargamers of the type that worry about what other people think" etc. Such catering will not eliminate our critics nor will it bring in more recruits to our hobby.
Thus I request that "war" be joined again to gaming. There are three (3) reasons for calling our hobby miniature wargaming and not miniature gaming:
- (A) We owe no apologies to those who
refuse to understand us or our hobby especially
those who insist on viewing it as a contributor
to warfare. These types will always exist tafter
all look at the critics of other activities" Have
they gone away?) and will be critical of the
hobby no matter what we call it and using
euphemisms (miniature gaming) won't silence
the determined fault finder. Wargamers who
worry about such critics lack self confidence;
they need to learn to ignore or shrug off the
critic who won't try to understand us or the
hobby even after we are "blue in the face"
explaining. (suggest wargamers read Dr.
Wayne Dyer's books "Your Errogenous Zones"
& "Pulling Your Own Strings" to learn to deal
with victimizers, fools, etc.).
(B) Changing the name of wargaming is a break with tradition and an unnecessary break at that! H.G. Wells in "Little Wars" refers to the hobby as "Wargaming" (and he was something of a pacifist at that time). Why repudiate our roots and our forefathers?
(C) The phrase "Miniature gaming" does not concisely describe our hobby and is also misleading. Miniature gaming can mean playing with model trains, model cars, dolls, furniture, houses, etc. While the work "wargaming" itself is broad enough to cover peace time maneuvers, military reenactments & boardgames as well as miniature warfare, Miniature wargaming carefuly defines the activity succinctly!
Neither do I care for the broad outflanking move (Ala Sieggried) to camouflage miniature wargaming by classifying it as merely one category (fantasy and board wargaming) in the so called "adventure gaming" hobby. To my mind wargames, military miniature wargames and fantasy (role playing) games are distinct (although loosely related) hobbies.
Of course the relations among the three relate' hobbies of miniature warfare, board wargames and fantasy can be both cordial and cooperativ but attempts to lump all 3 together are a disservice to each. In particular, I believe miniatu wargaming can be buried by association with the other 2 games which have more adherents. While all three forms of gaming have grown, Fantasy has had the largest growth in both percentages numbers, board wargaming is next and Miniature Wargaming is last. The growth of fantasy gaming can be explained as an offshoot of the interest in the occult amongst younger people in the late 60's and early 70's. So fantasy gaming is an "In Thing".
Board games grew because they are cheaper than miniatures and easier to set up. And I suspect also because the type of person who likes board games normally wouldn't be caught dead with miniatures since these (to many people) still give the impression of playing with toys (a "no-no" for grownups).
I believe that this taboo about "grownups playing toys" more than fads, costs and convenience has inhibited the growth of miniature wargaming. Certainly, the social climate of the last quarter of the 20th century is more tolerant of miniature wargaming, if not more understanding, than it was when lack Scruby brought the hobby up from underground.
I believe we will achieve tolerance: acceptance if we stand up for our hobby proudly and stop apologizing for it and stop trying to hide under the "protective" cover of numbers by passing ourselves off as one amongst a hobby of "adventure games". Only by stricter definition of our hobby can we make the remaining miniature manufacturers notice us - that we want historical items not mythical or futuristic paraphenalia. In effect that there is a market (however limited compared to fantasy) for military miniatures and that we will not convert to fantasy.
In the field of publications, THE COURIER has led the way by concentrating on historical material and eschewing fantasy and space. WARGAMERS DIGEST has also followed suit. On a club level the solution would be to create wargame clubs where only historical miniature wargames are allowed (no space & no fantasy); the alternative would be the possibility of being overwhelmed by the pro fantasy people.
Locally, I have done this by creating last year the Miniature Warfare Institute. We allow only miniature wargames from historical times to the present (4000 BC to 1980). Those who wish to play other types of games must do so on their own time (much as if they wanted to play chess or checkers). So the banding together of "miniatures only" gamers and enforcing such rules should keep the dragon at bay.
You make some very good points. Our "gesture" was not because of "critics" per se but a practical response to the fact that many shops are reluctant to carry the magazine because of the "war" connotation. Their preception is all wrong I agree, but we felt that we were not being hypocrite by making a slight change to enable THE COURIER to be seen by more people. You cannot expand the hobby if the magazine is not carried to more people by more shops nor if people will not pick up or let their children read it. Neither can THE COURIER survive unless the hobby base expands. I rather do that by deleting "war" in the subtitle than opening up these pages to board or fantasy gaming articles! Except in that one instance, THE COURIER makes no bones about what it is about. - Dick Bryant
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 2 #2
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1980 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com