Unsound Tactical judgement Is Not Evidence of Sound Historical Research! Sam Gill was thought provoking, but wrong on practically all counts in his article "When You're Whipped . . ." It is bad enough to have fog of war rules, game length orders subject to the whim of umpires, followed by dice resolution of the action. To pose a moral and intellectual obligation on the part of the player to use bad judgement as well is redundant. Real life military commanders as well as wargamers have been known to make stupid mistakes, but generally not on grounds of moral obligation. Had Gill merely said that it tickled his funny bone to have players deliberately make what he considers plausible stupid mistakes, that would be mere personal preference, and like the fellow said, de gustibus non disputandum est. However, he slanders those of us who so much as try to make sound judgements by accusing us of bad research. Murphy's Law is me rely an observation not a moral obligation or the eleventh General Order. Within the scope of the player's command, that is, the units under his charge rather than those of another live player, it is not intrinsically more realistic to have dice or umpires make all but the top level of command decisions than to have the player do so. The exceptions, which are more than adequately compensated for in most modern rules, are: a. When the player makes decisions based on seeing things which he should not be aware of, this is better dealt with in hidden movement rules. How much you want to worry this point is a matter of taste. We use cards for troops behind woods, hills, screened by other troops, etc. Like a real commander, the player would make a judgement call on what he could not see. b. When the decision involves coordination with, or is based on legitimately unknown considerations, particularly arising from changes of plan which would not be known to the officer on the spot. This should not be done, and under certain rules, self-discipline may be required. Usually, however, the best move from an overall point of view is not that different from the best move on the spot. According to Gill's ethic, perceptive players, mature, and widely read in the military history of the period, will inevitably find ways to carry out orders in a somewhat stupid manner. Thus, in those rare occasions when, for example, the WRG reaction tests permit "do as the Commander in chief would wish" one should, if he is worthy of all Gill's accolades, wish to do something fairly inane. For example, Gill is offended that some players won a Marlboro period wargame with a column attack (described as Napoleonic). David Chandler, in "Warfare in the Age of Marlboro" cites several cases of armies doing just that, leading some French officers to speculate that the firing line might not be the primary infantry formation. Before that, the Duc de Luxemborg won victories by massing in great depth at the point of attack, while in the miclcentury era of linear warfare, Marechal de Saxe resorted to Napoleonic columns at Lauffeld, and de Levis before Quebec. At Talevera, a British battalion successfully carried a hill in company columns after another battalion attacking in line had been repulsed. In each case, Gill would have grounds for complaining that the respective officers were extending themselves unduly, immature, and guilty of bad research. The question of orders has always been a fascinating point of philosophy. No army can afford to admit that orders should on occasion be disobeyed, but few can afford to discourage initiative as thoroughly as Gill would like, Let's take one of his examples. (Howarth, Waterloo; Day of Battle, p. 159) ... The Prince of Orange, chose to give an order. One of his aides came galloping up to Ompteda and told him to deploy a battalion in line and advance against the skirmishers. This was such madness that Ompteda queried it. He pointed out the French cavalry under cover two or three hundred yards away waiting for just such an opportunity." "Everyone, shocked into silence heard him (the Prince) say in a sharp and peremptory voice: "I must repeat my order to attack in line with the bayonet, and I will listen to no furthur arguments." Orange did this because he was stupid, not mature or well read. Needless to say, the French cavalry did not have to write home for orders. They slaughtered the 8th KGL almost to a man when the flank was presented to them. Of course, we all know that French cavalry officers were lacking in maturity and research, were typically unread and competition oriented. in short, they were trying to win, even if it meant doing the right thing. Some, Marshall Ney in particular, didn't exercise very good judgement, but a subsequent court martial found him guilty of trying to win, (I think he was of two minds on that.) Frankly, unless it is being done by the enemy, I see nothing unrealistic or censurable about making decisions intended to contribute to victory. - PAT CONDRAY (Alexandria, VA) DON'T RATE FIGURE EFFECTIVENESS Mr. Worrier, states that his only regret of his review of the Leviathan Republican Romans is that they are just that ... Republican Romans! Also stating that the current twist in the WRG Ancient Rules treats them hard, a choice of later Romans, circa third or fourth century might have provided a winner. These statements are somewhat counterproductive for several reasons. The WRG Ancient Rules are a very competitive set and as we have seen from edition to edition there has been quite a dramatic fluctuation in effectiveness of some armies and as a result the armies are usually divided into the "haves" and the "have nots", or the "winners" and "not so winners". The "have" armies are the ones that appear the most in competitions at least until the next edition of WRG rules, and the "have nots" are rarely seen on the wargames tables! What Mr. Worrier is suggesting is that only the manufacturers that produce the current "haves", can pick successful lines of wargaming figures! I would think or hope that a wargamer would choose his miniatures depending on his own personal interest, how well the figures are animated or or how he thinks they will look after he applies a paint job rather than how many games he can win with them. The simple fact that Leviathan is producing historical miniatures and not fantasy orcs and dwarves deserves credit. Not being a winner line of figures may make a possible customer turn away from Leviathan's Romans to an army they do not produce thus forcing a decline in sales and (bite my tongue) possible elimination of the line. I think the Reviewing Stand is an excellent column but I believe rating figures by effectiveness is so th' that should be discussed elsewhere. JIM ZYKLA Milwaukee,WI. LAMMING HORSES With regards to the last review - on the subject of Mongol horses, they WERE small. Anyone knowing our figures will recognise that they are made to scale after much research. We make larger horses when larger horses are required, for instance, the Assyrians and Normans. We do not make one standard size of horse as the horses were sometimes one of the deciding factors in a battle. The large Norman horse played a large part in the defeat of the Byzantines who only had small horses and were over-ridden by the larger ones!!-RENE LAMMING MINIFIGS FIGURES INACCURATE? Since I first got involved in wargaming, in 1961, my knowledge of uniforms has increased and broadened every year. I cannot, unforturately say the same for Minifigs. Why one of the leading miniature manufacturers cannot sculpt figures in correct uniforms is a mystery. I cannot help but think that Minifigs lack a regard for accuracy will transfer into lack of regard for its customers. Due to Minifigs clean castings, classical poses and aesthetically pleasing proportions; I overlooked the obvious inaccuracies in the previously released Prussian line. Enough, however, is enough! I refuse to suffer in silence any longer. First, a general comment on the 15mm super detail Napoleonic line. Why cannot Minifigs design all uniforms to coincide with a specific date? At present, the French are in 1809 uniforms, the British in the 1813-15 uniforms, the Prussians in 1813-15 dress uniforms and the Russians are in both 1811 and 1812 uniforms. Heaven only knows what the Austrians will be wearing. Now, I will be the first to admit that every unit in every army did not receive new uniforms on the same day. On the other hand, I believe a miniature manufacturer should produce an entire army in the regulation uniform for a specific year, then add additional figures showing deviations from the normal issue. All Minifig Russian jaegers and artillerymen are in the 1811 uniform. While I am positive that many units did indeed wear this uniform in 1812, 1 am just as sure that many wore the coal scuttle shako This complaint is minor compared to the following: 1. Despite the fact that a black leather pack was standard issue form 1808, when it replaced the cylindrical pack, Minifigs has molded all infantry with a fur covered, cowhide (a la francais) pack. 2. Minifigs designed the Russian musketeers and grenadiers with tightly gaitered calves. This mistake completely destroys the classic Russian trouser line. Even the winter trousers, with the ?(sic) on the lower leg to just below the knee, did not bind the calves tightly, as portrayed by Minifigs. 3. Minifigs provides the first 15mm Russian chasseur-a-Cheval, then ruins it by modeling a rectangular rather than a cylindrical mantlesack on the shabraque. The standard issue for all Russian cavalry was a cylindrical mantlesack. There is no evidence to support the fact that any cavalry unit was issued rectangular mantlesacks. 4. And the worst for last. Minifigs has molded standard bearers on the Jager Command sprue or three Jager standard bearers per bubble pack of 24, or $.60 down the drain out of every $4.95. This was the final straw. Jager regiments except for the very rare and poorly documented exceptions did not carry standards. Even the guard Jagers did not receive flags until the 1814 model was issued, after the abdication of Napoleon. So, one might say, they are only wargame figures, who cares? Well, dammitt, I care! I take great pains researching and painting my figures correctly and receive a correspondingly great amount of pleasure in seeing correctly detailed figures on my wargame table. It is 1981 not 1971 and I refuse to accept such an inferior product in silence. Minifigs might just as well have continued to produce their old 15mm figures, at least the correct details could be painted on those unpretentions blocks. If one undertakes to produce a Ferrari one should be judged against Lamborghinis and Masseratis and if one producses a Lynx one should be judged against Chevettes and Colts. What good is a super detail 15mm figure if much of the detail is inaccurate? - ROBERT COGGINS (Baltimore, MID) ITS NOT WARGAMING - ITS THE WARGAMERS It seems to me an awful lot of attention is being paid to various "either-or" controversies - one is either a boardgamer or an historical miniaturist or a fantasy enthusiast, or so the arguments go. This seems to me a rather artificial dichotomy: is there some reason why a person could not be all three? My own inclinations run basically to historical miniatures, but I own scores of board games (I enI oy lem, too!) and even - dare it be told? - own a few Jantasy figures. A more productive line of reasoning, in my opinion, is to distinguish the qualitV people, publications, and gaming from the rest of the drek. Intellectually, this means getting off the "teetertotter" most of us bring to our thought process - the better we like historical miniatures, the less we must enjoy boardgaming; the more we prefer military history, the less we shall tolerate fantasy gaming. Bunk! One is reminded of the old Lee vs Grant or Napoleon vs Wellington controversies rather than admit each man had his own unique and undeniable talents, one is somehow "forced" to decide who was great and who was not. In terms of our hobby, it means giving short-shrift to the frauds and rip-off artists, and even shortershrift to those among us who find themselves unable to act like reasonable adults, regardless of their miniatures/boardgaming/fantasy orientation. The club I belong to has had numerous crises of conscience: subdividing, reuniting, subdividing again, etc. The issue, to many of the members, was whether they wished to pursue historical gaming or fantasy. The real issue, which nearly everyone was nervous about dealing with, was whether the club should tolerate members who refused to do their share, failed to live up to even minimum responsibilities, and caused behavior problems. One might think a solution should have been easy remove them - but drastic action of that sort runs afoul of people's sense of democracy and fair play ("let's give them just one more chance"); it also is harder to actually do than just propose to do who wants to bell the cat, after all? Especially when there are so many to bell! The 'quality' people in the group finally split off from the rest, forming their own chapter within the larger society. Membership was closed - new people were admitted infrequently, and only after it was clear they were compatible with the rest of the group. This policy was, of course, immediately decried as being "elitist" - so what? What made the Old Guard what it was, anyway? "Come one, come all?" The only really solid argument brought against the policy concerned bringing newcomers into the hobby: being elitist is not exactly conducive to getting potentially good people interested in wargaming. Worse, if they are turned off to the whole thing because the only wargamers in plain sight are the leftovers, who is to blame? On that issue, then, I disagreed with the rest - quality people are to be found even among first-time novices. So where does all this leave us? It seems to me we each need to take responsibility for ourselves and what we want out of the hobby, to consciously seek out and promote only the best, wherever it may be found, and to quit tolerating the intolerable, simply because it's been tolerated for so long. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wargaming per se; it's the wargamers. If we see the disappearance of quality figures, games, publications (e.g. The Courier), we shall have absolutely no one to blame but ourselves. - CHRIS JOHNSON (Poterville, CA) Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. III #3 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