GILL REPLIES TO CONDRAY It is always frustrating for an author to have to explain what he meant, but I really thought that the message of my article "When You're Whipped. . ." in the Jul-Aug '81 Courier was clear: Wargamers should strive to educate themselves in the conventional attitudes of the periods they are recreating so that they can carry out orders received in the correct spirit. They should further cleanse their minds, so far as is possible, of hindsight understanding and knowledge from the "other side of the hill" which the officer they are portraying would not possess. This concept, while widely ignored by most wargamers, seems to be fairly simple, if not perfectly self-evident. However, in replying to this in the Nov-Dec '81 issue, Pat Condray interpreted "Gill's ethic" to require that players "inevitably find ways to carry out orders in a somewhat stupid manner" with a "wish to do something fairly inane." Well, in the article, I did predict that the concept stated above would "pass clean over the head" of the typical wargamer. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Condray, who was a perceptive contributor to the old Armchair General (ED NOTE: Pat Condray was editor, staff and prime mover of T.A.G.) back when I was arguing bitterly about "saving throws" and wondering what a tete-de-pont was. But, it is precisely because Mr. Condray is a gamer of such stature and experience that his reply, and the attitudes therein revealed, is so dismaying. Has no one progressed in the last 20 years? Do we still see a table top contest as a checker game? Have we yet to learn the lesson that simple rules are for advanced players? Has no one else in all these years discovered the enormous satisfaction to be experienced in fighting and winning (or losing!) a large scale wargame using only the command practices and attitudes of the appropriate period? Is the function of command so widely misunderstood and little appreciated out there? Can no one distinguish initiative within the scope of a general order from insubordination outside that scope? Do we still routinely employ such primitive, cumbersome, visually unattractive, contrived, and artificially misleading systems as cards (!) to simulate hidden movement? I apologize in advance to Mr. Condray if I have misread his reply. But, even if I have failed to understand that particular response, I am convinced that the attitudes I am speaking against are common to the large majority of wargamers. If I am wrong, let me hear it. The corps with which I have the honor to be affiliated, The Heart of American Tactical and Strategic Order of the Followers of Featherstone (HATSOFF), conducts its games - on a larger scale, in a wide variety of periods - in the manner I am advocating, and has been doing so for over a decade. How does your club go about it? And, incidentally, when I get pompous enough to throw in a Latin tag in an article, I am at least considerate enough to translate it. In regard to Mr. Condray's letter, what in hell does "de gustibus non disputanclum est" mean? Your point is well taken, Pat, and I will conduct any future dates in English, if others will reciprocate. Thanks for an eye-opening letter. - SAM GILL HISTORICAL ONLY CONVENTION NEEDED I believe that a historical section within a regular convention would be the best approach to getting historical gamers to the conventions. It would still give other gamers some exposure to the games and not impose a burden on some hosts. I feel that it would also give manufacturers a better idea of what historical gamers want and how many there are. To me a historical convention within a convention is the only way to go and really help the hobby. My gripe with manufacturers at the conventions are the limited selections they bring with them. If you want to buy an army you will still have to order some figures or find a store that carries the many more. When I buy an army I want to buy at least one side at a time; if not both. At the conventions they just can't bring a big enough selection along for the first come, first served operation. - WARREN BURRUS Origins '82 will have a historical only convention within a convention - a completely separate facility for all historical only miniature events. This was brought about by the HISTORICAL MINIATURE GAMING SOCIETY often discussed in these pages. All the historical manufacturers will be there except, I understand, MiniFigs who has opted to go to TSR's Gencon East instead. - EDITOR MORE THAN PARCHEESI In his article "When You're Whipped" several issues ago (The Courier, Vol. III, No. 1) Sam Gill addressed an ideal for wargamers. Recently (The Courier, Vol. III, No. 3) his ideas were pointedly ridiculed in a letter by Pat Condray. Although vulnerable on several counts, Gill's thoughts nonetheless deserve a defense. Gill's article is not so much about winning or losing as it is about historical realism and sportsmanship. He describes two contrasting wargamers, the one who piays only to win and the thoughtful one who plays for the sake to enjoy the game. To suggest as Condray does that thoughtful players must act stupidly to live up to Gill's ideal is not only unfair but also misses the point. Gill creates an ideal because the process of recreating history in a wargame is at best imperfect. His solution has nothing to do with acting stupidly, but with minimizing the imperfection. Why this is imperfect originates from the basic process of our hobby. A great deal of the hobby is about history, understanding it and recreating it. The process employed in recreating the past is to formulate notions about how and why men in a past era acted as they did, to embody these notions in a set of rules, and to create a scenario - a battle- in which we hypothesize how men in that era would have reacted in this situation. The wargamer himself has a decision making role in the command structure. Unfortunately, rules do not succeed completely. In any era, there are innumerable imponderables governing and influencing human conduct. Our information about the imponderables in a past era is seldom complete. Rules are thus doomed to inadequacy. Gill correctly identifies areas where wargaming tends to be deficient. Chain of command and order-writing restraints, if imposed by the rules, are often ignored. Wargamers have virtually instantaneous communications, enormous and far- reaching battlefield information, and very rapid reaction times. Accordingly, wargamers know more than their historical counterparts, can react faster and are not burdened with the need to clear their proposed actions with headquarters. To these I would add the observation that rules covering periods of more than a few years tend to be very evolution oriented. For example, Malburian warfare is treated as a crude form of Fredrickian technique which in turn is considered a primitive form of Napoleonic warfare and so on. In itself, this is not so bad as technological improvements hastened tactical change. However, to reflect this supposed tactical evolution, rules typically give "advanced" tactics an advantage, Gill complains about wargamers who use unhistorical infantry column attacks in Malburian battles. Condray sees nothing wrong in this citing a few examples. Although Gill avoids ascribing motives, if there were no benefits to column attacks I suspect he would have no ground for complaint because no one would use them. Having identified those areas of wargaming which give rise to problems with historical realism, Gill places the remedy on the wargamer's shoulders. He recommends that wargamers voluntarily restrain their actions in three areas: (1) obey orders as they are given regardless of consequences, (2) ignore all information about the rest of the battlefield which historically they would not have access to, and (3) avoid unhistorical tactics. This solution is suspect on two grounds. The standard of "unhistorical" is frankly very loose. Examples of historical "unhistorical" actions always exist. Further, if the price of historical honesty is defeat, the ranks of ethical wargamers will probably thin out quickly. Blaming the rules for the dilemma is tempting but unhelpful. Ultimately I doubt any complete solution is possible. Instead, we will always have to establish a precarious balance between the competitive desire to win and the realization that some of the means for attaining victory are not worth the price in terms of historical realism. Philosophically I believe the latter to be greater importance, but Condray is right in saying that victory is the ultimate objective and wargamers really should try to win. However, historical realism cannot be secondary to winning. If it were, wargaming becomes just another game which uses imaginary casualties to keep score, like some colorful and exotic form of parcheesi. -ANTHONY WACKER. PRAISE FOR TIMESCALE ARTICLE My main point in writing is to praise you for publishing George Jeffrey's "Timescale" article. Having had the good fortune to get into contact with Ned Zuparko in the course of a debate on Russian skirmishing, "the extent and quality of", and through Ned, with George himself, I have been priviledged to see early drafts of this article and of some of the later installments. My general impression has been that this is the stuff of which major breakthroughs are made. If I had any confidence in my abilities as a prophet, I would be predicting that in a few years this approach will be everywhere. It really ought to revolutionize Napoleonic Miniatures Wargaming, and it probably won't stop there, since it has fairly obvious extensions to all styles, periods, and levels of wargaming. While I have seen suggestions and rumours of some of the general idea involved in the timescale/variable bound and moral battle approaches, these are definitely the most concrete and practical treatments I know of. An aspect of George Jeffrey's technique that I particularly appreciate is that it leads naturally to, in fact, it requires, a better knowledge of the essential nature of Napoleonic tactics than any existing system does, or even permits. Moreover, by adopting an approach of comparing two tactical systems, he has provided a powerful incentive to the investigation of the historical antecedents of "Napoleonic" tactics, which will benefit those of us who enjoy earlier periods. It might even benefit the professional historians, since it clearly points to a number of new (or long abandoned) avenues of research. - JOHN KOONTZ, Boulder, CO. PHILISOPHICAL DIFFERENCES? ED NOTE: Readers who do not renew are sent a questionnaire. This is a recent response. The major reason for allowing my subscription to lapse is a major philsphosical difference with Dick Bryant as to where miniature and historical gaming ought to be headed. I would like to recruit from among the many new minds opened to gaming by the role-games. Dick seems to want to ignore the fantasy-struck (kids) and hope they will go away. The miniatures companies cannot afford to ignore the fantasy field because that is where the money is. All those armies of Orcs are supporting my Bavarians. It is a most common phenomena in the gaming industry that those of us who work with fantasy for a living play historical games for recreation, The reverse is true as well. I feel much more effort should be placed by the clubs and gaming individuals in public relations displays. I personally put on displays in shopping malls and such like with miniaures, terrain, and simplified rules to permit spectators to participate. Many scenarios have been devised which are showy, historically accurate and fun for both veteran and new recruit alike. I feel that expanding the population base of historical miniatures gamers is a much more important task than exchanging chit chat and gripes among elitists. DAVE SERING, Design Supervisor Judges Guild, Inc. The policy of THE COURIER is not to ignore FRP gamers! We simply feel that the historical gamer has need of his own devoted periodical and that FRP is amply covered by other magazines. When THE DRAGON or GRYPHON or DIFFERENT WORLDS prints a Napoleonic battle report we'll print a (historical) role playing article! - Dick Bryant SOLO VEHICLE NEEDED I think it would be of value to a lot of people who don't, or can't, get into a game regularly to have a vehicle such as a correspondence "newsletter" to set up small groups for games or just dialogue. There are a great many people in such a position who have no organization in their area, don't care for the local club, don't have the time to get out as much as they would like, or simply prefer to persue their hobby in the solitude of the den. The drawbacks of such an idea are obvious - what makes miniature gaming different, and worth the extra effort, is the spectacle, the feeling of commanding your own individual figures with their own "personalities" etc. And I know there are those who say we should "beat the drum" and develop new players in our own areas. But that's not always that easy, even for those so inclined. And the advantages of at least "keeping your hand in" as opposed to not participating at all, are also obvious. Among others: 1) being able to try out various strategies you have devised to see what flaws you may be overlooking; 2) being able to judge if you are interpreting rules systems correctly; 3) being able to discuss points of organization, equipment, uniform detail etc. with someone who may have the facilities for better research; 4) being able to introduce new players who don't really grasp the idea by saying, "for instance, see I'm in this game now where such and such is going on" etc., etc. In other words, I feel that some sort of mechanism is needed for games on a personal small group basis - so that the many hours spent in developing an army can be put to some sort of use when direct competition is impractical. I am interested in what your readers may have to say about the idea. - TOM McMILLEN Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. III #5 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1982 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