Apocalypse Now?
Over the past five years there have been some remarkable changes in the field of wargaming. Never has the hobby as a whole seen such unprecidented growth; never has the historical period of miniature gaming seen such a decline. The end result and ultimate implication of this is the demise I of historical wargaming in the market place. An overly fatalistic point of view? Perhaps it is, but we must view the evidence and draw the conclusions. Here are the relevant points:
1. The number of historical miniatures events being put on at national conventions has been declining.
2. The amount of historical miniatures and related material presented by dealers at national conventions has declined almost to nothing.
3. There has not been a major historical rule set put out by any company since STARS 'N BARS and that was the first for quite a period.
4. The cost per figure for miniatures has increased to the point that even a "small" army by 1975 standards costs more than $1000.
5. Production priorities for all major manufacturers put historical figures at the bottom.
6. At least one major producer of figures is actively considering discontinuing ALL historical lines.
What caused this change in the status of the product line that gave wargaming its start? Nothing other than hard basic business logic. The problem is NOT that the number of historical gamers has declined; it's that the number of historical gamers has never increased! The same people playing historical miniatures today are those who were playing 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. As the wargaming market has expanded, the historical segment has, for all practical purposes, remained constant, the result is that historical miniatures has become a progressively smaller percentage of the producer's business, of the producer's revenue, of the producer's profit. That means money and the action goes where the money is. Again there are pod reasons behind this - all related to commitment.
Historical gaming requires commitment by the consumer in terms of money to get figures, paints, and reference sources. Commitment in time to do research necessary to understand the period and the rules, to learn the units, and their capabilities. It takes at least a year to become reasonably competent with any major historical period rule set.
Historical gaming requires commitment by the retailer in terms of time to learn the period so he can intelligently assist the customer and commitment in terms of money for inventory. The Napoleonic period requires a minimal inventory of 150 different items to be effectively stocked. That can mean several thousand dollars of investment. This also means commitment in terms of sales space. Retail sales space is expensive. Material that takes up that space MUST sell or the retailer loses money
Historical gaming requires commitment from the producer. He must commit resources to research and design figures, cast them, package them, inventory them, sell them and ship them. Again, the complexity of historical lines makes this an expensive operation.
Compare all this to fantasy figures. The consumer needs very few figures, no time for research, little time to learn the rules. The retailer needs little specialized knowledge to assist customers. And more importantly, he needs less commitment in inventory. This is because nothing sells better than a new fantasy figure or worse than an old one. Thus a retailer need stock a figure only when it is "new". After this there is no need to inventory a figure for the sake of completeness, as one might have to do with historical figures.
Much of the same benefits accrue to the producer. Although there is pressure to bring out new figures, there is usually no no research time, nor is there the same pressure to "complete" a line. Historical games require a minimum set of figure types because history dictates it. Fantasy has no such restriction. The producer, not history, dictates how many figures can be in the line. The producer can set this number at a level that is economical for him and his retail customers.
Does this mean that there will no longer be anyone producing for the historical market? Not as long as there is someone willing to buy a product there will be someone willing to produce it. What we will see is a return to smaller specialty companies and direct mail order to the factory with little retailer involvement. This is the only way that the economics of the situation will allow a producer to succeed in this environment. Historical gaming will not support big business, but it will support little business. if it is run correctly.
For you, the gamer, it means probably a more limited selection. Reduced availability and continued high prices. It will also mean a change in emphasis to differing man/figure ratios to reduce the size of the economic outlay required to get started. It may in fact result in a resurgence of the "English" flavor of wargaming that spawned this hobby in the first place. That is, to games of smaller size, less formally tied to fixed organizations, that aim more at "flavor" than at historical consistency. Until there is a significant breakthrough in casting technology the era of the mass army is ended) And with it much of what has been thought to be "traditional" in miniature gaming.
Is this a disaster, or as an old professor use to say, "An opportunity in disquise"? At this stage it hard to say. The hobby has undergone changes the past and shall again in the future. The only certainty is that the change now will be significant. The time is ripe to gather associates and chart ne courses - victory goes to the bold.
PREJUDICE AGAINST SYSTEM 7
It is with regret that I write this letter, yet the anger at your magazine's bias leaves me no choice.
I have been a fan of the old COURIER, and rejoice when I heard that it was out again. Now, I am not so sure, for your zine's attitude toward System 7 and Game Design Workshop makes me wonder what happened to the old COURIER crew.
I am a hanger-on with Game Design Workshop designed FIRE & STEEL, which they published for me, and about two or three times a month the members of the Workshop drive 50 miles down to Champaign to playtest or play miniatures with the gamers in our area. I am not neutral in this, which freely admit, but I object to your zine that has not presented a balanced view.
To point out items, consider Vol. II, No. 1, in which in your listing of the H.G. WELLS Award we find GDW's System Seven, and GDW's System Seven' Rules. Considering you got the awards right for the other items that won, I question the possibility of a typo. We have your editorial in that issue, we have some remarks in the next, and most of all we have Vol. II, No. 3, which arrived this morning, there are the items that sent me to my typewriter.
Page 1, subheading "JOE MICELI AND THE STAFF REBEL AGAINST CARDBOARD MINIATURES' Consider the article on Page 9, which is less biased than most of your work, I fail to see how the, relate, other than to show your dislike of Systen Seven. In Mr. Miceli's article, he argues the System 7 is a board game, and should be included in the awards as such. System 7 uses a rule book, miniature terrain, and to the wargamers who decided what category it should fall into - it was miniatures. Considering the fact that in this same issue that THE COURIER is willing to review board games if the reviewer thinks that they are "close' to miniatures I find that THE COURIER is pursuing a double standard.
System Seven will not replace miniatures, rather System Seven is doing more than its share to bring people into miniature gaming. You will find that once you can introduce people to the concepts of miniature gaming, you can add them to our ranks. And it is a lot cheaper to convince a person to buy two System Seven Armies than his first miniatures. When you consider that any set of rules can be adopted for System Seven, it is a great tool to bring people in.
When you consider that in one year the Workshop introduced the equivalent of Miniature lines covering the French, British, Prussian, Russian, Austrian, Bavarian Polish, Portugese, and Wesphalian armies in color, it seems to me that they deserve an award. Even those that already own armies can use System 7 to advantage, for few of us can afford more than one or two armies. With System 7 you can keep adding to your miniature army, or try out one that you don't have.
One last point, the people at the Workshop plaY miniatures for fun, and have done so for the seven Years that I have known them. The reason that System 7 extists is that 7 years ago, Rich Banner was a poor graduate student who wanted to play miniatures but who could not afford them. The original set of System 7 was made so Rich could use it till he got his miniatures. If you will start looking at this system in the same light, I think that you will see the hobby get stronger. If you wish to carry out your war against cardboard figures you can, and push the board games that you like, you can. Its your zine, but it is the hobby that will be the poorer.
I like the System 7 rules and believed that they dererved to win. Indeed, I use them and the counters in trying out scenarios and tactics, etc. I use the counters to play test other Napoleonic rules.
My argument was not against System 7 winning the award for the rules but against System 7 cardboard counters winning the best MINIATURES award!
As a historical gamer, who is well aware of the cost of figures today, you should oe aware as well that Miniature Manufacturers are cutting their lines and increasing their prices even more. Having cardboard counters win the event makes the whole situation worse! The manufacturers now feel that they were justified to cut Historical Miniatures!
I believe that something like System 7 counters should have a special category of award. Ace of Aces is another product that would fall into such a category. (It is neither a boardgame nor a miniature game but it is a fantastic wargamef) As a member of the awards committee of the new Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design, I have introduced such an award for consideration for Origin '81. At present it is called the "wild card" category -yes! We need a new name!
In any case I am sorry if anything we printed seemed to ridicule System 7 or GDW. -- Dick
Bryant.
There was a lot of response to Pete Hollinger's letter in Vol. II, No. 3 (Historical Wargamer--Endangered Species?). Most letters included suggestions as to what can be done to improve the situation. We do not have room to print all the letters so I have excerpted sections from several. -- ED.
I am both a retailer and a historical gamer. Our shop has quite a few fantasy figures and games because that is what helps to pay the bills. Fantasy miniatures must outsell historical ones by at least 10:1, and the trend is still going up. The fantasy gamers have become the "mass market" as far as gaming is concerned. So what is the historical gamer to do?
My suggestion is that we have to become
more vocal. Nine times out of ten I'll see someone
looking through our MIKE'S MODELS selection, not
find anything and be on his way out without
saying a word. What was he looking for? What
troops does he need? I'll never know because he
didn't tell me. If he would have told me that he
wants Colonials at least I would have an idea that
somebody out there has an interest in that period.
If its a club then its worth it for me to bring some
figures in that they want. But when they don't say
anything, there is no way to find out what to get. I
am willing to give a try to any line of figures if
someone is interested in them. I may not have
many in stock but I can special order them for
you. There are literally thousands of figures
around and you can't possibly stock them all, not
even the fantasy ranges.
So, I say, let the shop owner know what you
are looking for. Keep bugging him every time you
go in. If your hobby shop does bring in some
figures in historical lines and ends up getting
stuck with them all, you may as well not go back.
It goes without saying that if he is willing to
support you, then you s,hould trY to support him
as well. In the meantime keep spreading the word
about historical gaming there are a few Dungeon
Adventurers out there who may not make bad
Generals someday.
When you go to conventions, don't expect the
organizers to know that you are an historical
gamer and want to play miniatures battles rather
than "zap the ore." Buy your convention
membership early and enclose a letter with your
membership check. Tell the organizers what you
would like to see and do at the convention; be
specific about the rules and periods you are
interested in. If you are willing to bring your own
army, say so. Do this early so the convention
committee can plan ahead.
If you don"t tell them you're interested in
something, you have no kick coming if they don't
include it!
Better still, offer to put on or referee one or
more games yourself. Give the committee all the
particulars (historical period, rules used, number
of players per game, etc.) so that you can be
given the necessary space and time for play.
2. At the convention, don't just talk to your
own historical gaming buddies. Talk to anyone
who will listen and tell them about the fun and
excitement of miniatures wargaming. As one of
the authors of the forthcoming The Killing Ground
1: Meggido to Mortgarten, I made sure that as
many non-figure gamers as possible tried out our
rules during our demonstration games at the last
Pacificon. As a result, several fantasy gamers
went straight off to the dealer's room to purchase
historical rules and figures. While I like to think that
our rules were at least partially responsible, I
know that Ned Zuparko's Vive l'Empereur and
Chris Kurzadowski's Engage and Destroy
demonstrations had the same kind of impact on
the previously uninitiated.
The reason for this is simple: Chris, Ned, my
partners and I all share a willingness and
enthusiasm for helping others understand and be
introduced to our hobby. We talk to people in
language they understand and discuss the
historical whys and wherefores in laymen's
terms. Far too often insular activities such as
ours breed a kind of "hobbyspeak" which can
repel those who are not already part of the "in
group".
3. Talk to the public. Get your club meeting
announcements in the "current activities" section
of your local newspaper. If you don't want all
your meetings open to the public, then hold at
least one open meeting a month. Ask local
highschool and junior college history departments
if they need people to talk about (and
demonstrate!) historical military matters.
If you are on a convention committee,
consider alloting one day to "open-to-the-public"
activities, such as is done in the U.K. Ours is a
fascinating hobby with many facets (figure
painting, to name only one) and some of that
public will return and enlist (if they know where
to find you).
Other possibilities include: 1) forming a club
there isn't one in your area (talk to a local hobby
store about sponsoring you, maybe); 2) act as
sponsor for a highschool gaming club (suck 'em i
with fantasy gaming and then hit 'em wit
historical gaming); use the media. Many talk
shows (especially those on public and cable
TV) will be delighted to discuss historical gaming,
complet with demonstrations. (I've been involved
in severe such activities in the San Francisco
Bay Area public TV). Sunday supplement
magazines will often accept games-related
articles submitted by competent free-lance
writers, especially if they are accompanied by
good photographs.
When dealing with the press, don't be afraid
of the "toy soldiers" syndrome. Even negative
publicit brings in recruits. If you can, choose
your form and your host or reporter with care,
but be totalh honest with whomever you talk
with; after all, wha we do is play. It may be quite
serious play, but it i play nonetheless.
Many manufacturers do not destroy the
molds fo figures they have discontinued. Some
can be convinced to do special casting if an
order is larg enough. A buddy system or a club
buy can help.
You can keep manufacturers from
discontinuin figures by buying those figures. The
"you" is this case is plural - all of you historical
gamers ou there. "There aren't enough of us,"
you say? Okay, then we've got to go out and
recruit new gamer lots of 'em!
As for the availability of rules, take another
fool There are more good sets of rulse, for more
period available now than ever have been
before, and th number of such rules sets is
growing by leaps an bounds. If you doubt this,
check out the pages c your favorite gaming
magazine. Issue II-3 of THE COURIER had
advertisements for or reviews or articles about
24 different rules sets. Accompanying these
were ads for 11 different mail order outfits
panting to sell you some or all of them. As far
rules go, we've never had it so good!
For years we have squabbled over rules
and which set is better; whether simulation or
playability best. My local club has a set of
Napoleonics rules which are never played - they
are so complex that if you do not play them once
a week you just can't keep on top of them. Now
how can you introduce novice to such rules?
We can not even agree upon a common stand system -- there is no possible correlation
between base sizes for WRG's 15mm Napoleonics and Fire and Steel 15mm rules. When you can not encourage intraclub competition, or even try anoth set of rules because of basing systems there is problem. Is it really any wonder that cardboard counters won "Best Historical Line of Miniature Figures", or that so much of the young blood of hobby is going to Fantasy gaming (paint three figures and use them in any system rather than paint 500 figures and hope that someone will play those rules with you).
As the boardgames and miniatures coordinator for the 1981 Dragonflight convention
in Seattle I have run into this problem head on: which games and rules to choose? The Brass
Dragon Society (a role playing club) is putting on Dragonflight, and many of the others are worried that FRP will be overshadowed. Ha! That is a LAUGH! MY problem though, is to choose sets of rules that people will come to play, as well as be able to find copies of ahead of time.
Now how do we solve these problems? The first
has a fairly simple solution: glue all figures to an iron
washer then put magnetic strips on all stands.
(ED NOTE: This is a breakthrough idea!) You
can now change figures to different stands to play
other sets of rules. That was too easy- probably
because the next one is not. Rules complexity has
no simple answer since some players will never give
up their 700 page rule books. However, we should
en courage them to keep and use occasionally a set
of rules simple enough for beginners. How hard
would it be to set up one simple game per month -
not a part of any campaign - for the specific purpose
of introducing newcomers to miniatures and giving
them a chance to PLAY. It is important that these
NOT be campaign games, as you do not wish to put
any pressure upon the novices to perform well - this
should be a FUN learning experience for them.
The next step is for each club to develop a
library of rules which they use, and to make
these rules available to the novices for study
before they come to play.
I am impressed with Vol II No 3, and promptly adapted the
Durazzo battle at our local club. Adapted because I was
disappointed to see that your author had put the Varangians on the wrong flank of the Byzantine
line (obvious from Anna Comnena's account) and missed out the church in which they eventually
took refuge; but with these and a few other changes it made a good game, though in our
version the Normans won rather too easily and I may have stacked things rather more heavily in
their favour than I should have.
Another thing that intrigued me was the references in Bill Sessions' report on Pacificon '80 to armoured dromedaries in Bill Butlers Graeco-Bactrian army. Now I know there is much primary
evidence for the Graeco-Bactrians than for a lot of other ancient armies, but armoured dromedaries are neither attested in any source that I know of nor historically likely. Even if camels were used at all in war (other than as baggage animals) the use of armour for them was an
innovation when the Parthians use it in the 3rd century AD, 400 years or so after the Greeks got thrown out of Bactria. None of the Graeco Bactrians' neighbors seem to have used
camelriders at all in battle - except for the occasional use by the Seleucids of Arab
mercenaries, who were of course not available in Bactria.
If Bill Butler is sitting on a source that none of
the rest of us know about, I urge him to make it
known; but if he is just guessing, then I really
must insist that armoured dromedaries are about
as likely as scythed cataphract wombats. After
all, it's not as if the Bactrian Greeks, who can
have elephants, phalangites, good cavalry,
probably assorted other Hellenistic supporting
troops, and all the Indian allies or subjects that
they want, are exactly badly off without these
hypothetical tinplated camels.
In his "Seven Years War in Miniature" rules
review in II/3, Larry Irons queries the relative length of "advance firing" moves for line and
skirmishers and the casualties produced by cannister and rifles in our WRG 1685-1845 rules.
Move distances in these rules are based as
nearly as we can on the drill manuals of the time.
The earliest set WRG actually owns is Dundas'
set of 1793, but this was a codification of
existing practice, and examination of library
copies of unofficial manuals of the Seven Years
War period shows little difference. Copies of
such manuals can occasionally be obtained from
Victor Sutcliffe, 36 Parklands Road, London
SW16. Dundas will set you back about $300 (I
have a xerox copy!), but the 1824 infantry and
1833 cavalry manuals which update Dundas with
the various innovations made unofficially during
the Napoleonic wars can be obtained for a little
over $50 each. Later manuals than these include
big changes in movement rates and manoeuvres
and would only mislead the Napoleonic and
earlier rule writer (and indeed have.)
The method employed by a line firing while
advancing was to load on the march at slow
step, then halt briefly in turn by companies to fire.
Skirmishers worked in pairs, the second man not
firing until the first had reloaded. If advancing
firing, each man in turn moved 1Z or 24 paces in
double time before halting to fire. If a pair found
they had worked ahead of those to their flanks
and had good local cover, they were allowed to
fire several shots halted until their comrades
caught up.
The time taken to bring artillery in and out of
action is based on stop watch timings of the
King's troop RHA, but adjusted upwards a little.
The reason we don't allow artillery to deploy and
fire in the same bound is that our firing dice
represent a full bound of shooting with 4
cannister or 2 roundshot per gun.
Casualties inflicted by artillery and muskets
are based on 18th and 19th century firing trials.
Cannister is over-rated by rule writers.
Contemporary artillerymen prefered roundshot
against column and enfiladed targets even at
point blank range. Only about 15% of British
artillery ammunition was case, and the ready
rounds firing single cannister are also a very
different kettle of fish from A.C.W. 12 pounder
Napoleons firing double cannister!
Rifles had half or less a musket's rate of fire,
so were inferior within the muskets accurate
range. German trials in 1812 show an almost
equal number of hits at 100 paces, twice as
many for the rifle at 200 paces, and eight times
as many for the rifle at 300 paces in terms of
casualties caused per minute against individual
small targets.
Ken Bunger mentions our too predictable
melees. I would claim that infantry melees were
predictable, in that neither side would charge until
it knew the other was not going to stand! I have
also lost all too many cavalry melees I thought I
was going to win. That is not to say that I would
not do it differently today than I did in 1977.
The same applies to the alternate movement
system. which You either love or hate. It does
double the time taken for moving, but against that,
you don't need to spend time writing orders, you
don't get time wasting interaction disputes, and
so, taken in conjunction with the speeded
reaction and shooting, you actually get through a
lot more in an evening. Our future sets will
probably use the same semi-simultaneous
movement as the 6th edition ancient rules.
However, I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm
griping. I think Larry and Ken did a pretty fair job.
I'm glad that you offer The Volley Fire
feedback mechanism, but I think the rating
system leav, much to be desired. If I understand
it correctly, an article is not in your particular
field of interest rates a 0, regardless of what a
person may think of the article itself. Thats the
first problem.
The second is upon what basis should an
article be rated by the writing style? Or by the
reasoning and co elusion of the author! Or by
how appropriate the issue is in regard to the
subject and/or magazine? Somebody is going to
decide on which articles, type of articles, will or
will not continue to appear in the magazine in the
future based on the! returns, I think its very
important that the categories be separated out.
For example, someone may write an article on
the theory of rulewriting (like my brother Ned).
Now I'm very interested in such articles -- but
what if somebody writes such an article, but
comes to a conclusion that disagree with? Or
writes it in such a style as t make it unreadable'
Do I rate it upon its subject matter, writing style,
or conclusion? I think that it would not be too
difficult to change the postcard's format around,
so that each article can be rated upon these
separate points, and the everybody be
encouraged to rate every article even if they are
not interested in that particular area. Of course,
a spearate column for NIQ could also be
included.
It would be quite a problem to colate 3 to 5
categories of answers from upwards of 250 - 35
0returns! The NIQ was designed to eliminate rating
down an anic/e only because it is not in
someone'speriod of interest and thereby biasing the
results. One is free to rate an article outside his
area of interest if he so desires. Perhaps an article
that catches your eye and causes you to read it
though even if outside your area should rate an 8
or a 9!
All the factors you mention should be taken
into account in a "gut feel" number of how the
article "hit' you. Did you enjoy the article? Did it
pique your interest in another period? Did you
learn anything from it? Was it presented clearly
enough (remember we are mostly amateur
writers). We are mainly trying to see where our
reader's interests lie & how well we hit the right
''mix." A perfect Volley Fire for 10 articles would
end up rating them all at 7 or above with a non-
interest of 10% each. -- Dick Bryant.
In response to your editorial comments in this
issue of The Courier, I would like to sugest that
anyone wishing to purchase figures should try to
get them from Jack Scruby as much as possible.
He does not carry any fantasy figures. His
mlditary miniature! are limited to historical armies
only. He has various! scales, especially in his
Napoleonic range and 9mm scale rather than a
15mm scale.
I purchased thousands of figures from Jack
over the past 11 years. I have never had any
problem! with either his figure quality or his
servicing of my orders. He carries some periods
not found else where, such as the Mexican War.
He may not carry a multitude of figures (poses)
for each particular troop type (e.g. Spanish
Grenadier in bicorne), but he does maintain a line
of figures continuously. He is one manufacturer
who has not forgotten his roots and we as
historical wargamers should sup port him. His low
minimum figure requirement (3 cavalry, 6 infantry)
plus his volume discounts (10% on orders over
$45.00) make his figures a good deal for a
wargamer.
HISTORICAL WARGAMERS MUST "SPEAK OUT"
SLINGSHOT EDITOR COMMENTS ON DURAZZO
7 YEARS WAR RULES REVIEW
VOLLEY FIRE REWORKED
BUY FROM JACK SCRUBY
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 2 #5
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1981 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