MINIATURES NOT NECESSARY I am writing in response to Phil Barker's "Where Lies Realism Boardgames or Miniatures" in III. 2. I thought that this was in general a thoughtful article, judiciously worded and even-handed. The middle section, with its sketches of psychological and physical factors, was especially useful, and is something that I would like to see more of, as a subscriber to THE COURIER. While I quite agree with [Phil] that the difference between "miniatures" and "boardgaming" is in the way they represent troops, I have the impression that he feels that this difference is that between cardboard squares and tin figures. I think that from the simulation point of view that difference is rather superficial. The actual distinction is between using a set of discrete factors (strength points and unit type), associated with a dimensionless abstraction (the cardboard counter), as opposed to using a scaled shape (the miniatures base). The painted figures, although they are the main source of pleasure for many gamers, are essentially present as decoration. While it is true that they can be, and ordinarily are, used to represent unit strength, this seems to me to be an incidental accident. The figures could be easily replaced in this sense by any of an infinity of other devices (numbered chits, beans, etc.), as roster systems illustrate. They need not even be removed to be reduced completely to the status of decoration, of course. You see now why I put "miniatures" in quotation marks: in this light System 7 is a "miniatures" system. Similarly, "miniatures" systems (in the sense of using figures) that largely ignore ground scale and use roster systems are verging on "boardgaming" in my sense. Two clarifications are needed at this point: first, I'm making idealized distinctions, since not all "miniatures" systems (in my sense) have been especially careful with ground scale. Difficulties with depth are common. Second, associated with the distinct means of representing troops there are distinctions in the ways of representing terrain. "Boardgames" usually use a hexagonal tesselation, while "miniatures rules" use a free map and measure distances with gauges. While it is conventional to speak of the hexagonal tesselations as "overlaid" on the map, what is usually done is to more or less grossly distort the terrain to fit the procrustean bed of the tesselation. There is no theoretical reason why this should be done, though there are several practical problems which encourage the use of distortion. Note that there is no reason why hexes should not be used with "miniatures" (and they have been) or "free maps" with "counters"-l think that the old style military kriegspiels were of this sort. Phil Barker then suggests that "boardgames" (here "counters combined with hexes") might be better suited to strategic and operational levels, while "miniatures" (here "figures and free maps") work better for tactical situations, or grand tactical ones. This is conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure that it holds up, particularly if it is granted that the figures are "decoration" and can be used as such in any context. Even in my sense of the terms "miniatures" and "boardgames" I'm not sure that it can be said that one system is better for higher or lower levels. Thus, in an operational game the best representation for a unit might be two pieces of string: one the length of the unit in a column on a road, the other the length of its battle front. These pieces of string would be analogous to "bases." On the other hand, though "grand tactical boardgames" to date are much less accurate in representing unit scale than existing "miniatures systems" this is merely the present state of develoment/perception of player interest. There is no theoretical reason why the combination of the "counters" with the "stacking rules" should not be able to produce a representation of unit size as accurate or moreso than possible with "bases," if less visually evocative. Phil Barker next suggests that in tactical simulations users of "miniatures" (figures) are -much less likely to forget that units are NOT symbols with capabilities, but are made up with people." He overlooks the fact that wargaming units (figures or counters) ARE symbols with capabilities, which capabilities arise from the fact that the symbols are intended to represent units made up of people. One might as easily assert that the use of figures encourages the delusion that the symbols are not symbols, but "real" people. In fact, in ordinary use the figures represent not individuals, but aggregations of them. I am in full agreement, however, that it is vital for the designer and gamer to ordain and appreciate the capabilities of the symbols in terms of the behavior of the men whose activities they represent, so perhaps I am merely splitting hairs here. I agree that there is considerable room for improvement in hexagonal maps. For example, why not combine a basically free map with a true overlay (not a distortion) and "base" like units? The hexagons would then simply serve as a convenient, omnipresent ruler for measuring distances. They need not fix the units' positions per se. Even on regular maps far more attention could be paid to such features as defiles. It is incorrect to say that hexagonal tesselations encourage the player to feel that he can move in any direction with equal freedom. Terrain always tends to encourage movement along the correct paths, and in most grand tactical boardgames facing is another significant restricting factor, just as it should be. A very real problem that does arise in this case is the fact that the hexes do not interact well with facing systems: they make the options too rigid, by allowing only 6 directions (where else can you find a continuous line with flanks in its middle?), and the very existence of 6 directions, as opposed to 4 or an infinity, produces some odd features. As you can see, there are certain inherent difficulties with either design approach! A few additional points: the assertion that a cardboard counter "cannot be subdivided, [and] always occupies the same space regardless of what formation the troops are in" cannot be maintained. It always appears to occupy the same space, but occupation of space is not symbolized by appearance in boardgames. It is achieved by the interaction of strength, unit type, unit formation, and the stacking rules. While it cannot be "seen," it is quite obvious to the initiate. Naturally this is an approach alien to miniatures, where visual imagery is paramount: the figures are symbolic of that, and probably the origin of the approach. Turning to the subdivision point, this is actually one of the more misleading pieces of imagery in miniatures. Because the average Napoleonic gamer represents battalions, and does it in terms of a number of bases representing companies, which are configured in various ways to represent formations, he feels that he knows quite a bit about what he is simulating at this level. In fact, to start with, except in armies in which a company is the same thing as a platoon (e.g., not in the Prussian or Russian armies, where 1 company = 2 platoons), the wrong basic unit is being used. Even disregarding this failing, which is probably not universal, the arrangements of the "platoons" in the formations are only vaguely reminiscent of what was the case, especially in columns and squares, and there is little or no hint of the actual evolutions involved in changing formation. The depth dimension is often grossly distorted, leaving no real idea of the dimensions of the formation. Thus, while I am in close agreement with Phil that the activities of the sub-divisions are critical for the simulation, I doubt that it is always the best approach to put these subdivisions into the game explicitly. It might be better to use interchangeable "line bases" and "type x column bases" (etc.) or a set of arbitrarily chosen bases designed to permit assembly of some or all of them into the desired "shape" for each formation. Neither of these approaches precludes figures, though both discourage use of figures as "strength points," since some figures may be off map at any given instant. -JOHN KOONTZ, Boulder Co. AGREES WITH VICKERY (1) Must agree in principle with what Scott Vickery said in his letter. "Hatchetjob" is a little strong but the E-3 (EMPIRE III) review was spoiled by the sarcastic and destructive choice of words used in those parts that Bruce (Weeks) used. Unfortunately the harsh beginning blotted out the remainder of the review. More of my comments in a LONG letter to follow: However Scott Vickery cut off his nose by not subscribing to The Courier - one disagreement doesn't make a bad magazine. I like your style (most of the time) - RAY PHILLIPS, San Mateo, CA IF YOU PUBLISH - BE WILLING TO ACCEPT CRITICISM I just threw double 6 for my last skirmisher, so I am going to take a Charlie Sweet style double move. I will jump out from behind the rock where I have been hiding, take a quick potshot, and scurry under cover again. The important issue which causes me to draw fire is the discussion over rule reviews, in particular the article by Bruce Weeks on Napoleonic rules. People who write rules and publish them (and maybe make money or at least take a tax break on the effort) are professionals. While I do not want to stir up people on what is a wargaming professional as occurred a few years back in Wargamers Newsletter, I do want readers to realize that individuals who publish in journals like The Courier take on certain responsibilities for accuracy and literacy even though they are not professionals as such. Once we accept that people who publish their ideas are responsible for them, we must accept the fact that other people have the right, even the responsibility, to be a critic of those ideas. And what, you ask, is a critic. Webster's New Collegiate sets forth a definition I especially like "one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter, involving a judgement of its value, truth or righteousness or an appreciation of its beauty or technique". Two words are the key of that phrase: reasoned and judgement. A critic attempts to convey an opinion based on objective criteria but is, nevertheless, limited by the fact that personal preference effects judgement, There are few objective criteria by which one can judge ideas. The truthfullness of facts, the implications of techniques, the unintended consequences of procedures, the validity of formulae and the understandability of prose are all, however, subjectable to certain tests. Book reviews, product evaluations, article critique, letters to the editor, rule play-testing, and convention reports should all be considered appropriate activities within any recreational/hobby area. Wargaming (or for the more faint hearted-Adventure Gaming) should be no exception. Any one who offers something to the hobby public exposes him/herself to the "slings and arrows" of peer review. Such review should be helpful to both the potential user of the item and the producer. To the user so problems and advantages will be known and to the producer so improvements can be made or strengths expanded. It is, moreover, the right, even the duty, of the producer to challenge any mistakes perceived in a review or explain any misundertandings. To dismiss out of hand an unfavorable review and to even pick up your chips and go home shows a lack of strength of character. Let us have informed discussion over the strengths and weaknesses of all aspects of products offered to wargamers. The Editor of The Courier has, to date, published negative criticism of the magazine without resorting to name-calling and emotional outbursts, can authors and readers do no less. To those of you who have not agreed with something in the magazine, please offer your reasoned opinion. How else will there be growth in the hobby except with informed give and take. Rather than drop out as did Mr. Vickery (Vol. III, No. 4) I urge you to charge ahead. At least take a double move, as I did. You can them jump back under cover as those missiles descend. Now to get back under cover and try to muster enough fortitude to expose myself with something more substantive later. BOB BEATTIE, Ann Arbor, MI WE GET AROUND! May I congratulate you on the excellent quality of your magazine. It seems to be the only magazine in Australia at least, that is making a conscious effort towards the betterment of the hobby. I especially enjoyed your series 'Linear Tactics in the SYW' and another article entitled 'New Concepts in Wargaming- Timescale'. Extremely thought provoking. - GREG HUFFA, Australia RAL PARTHA REVIEW INACCURATE? I was very upset about the review of the new RAL PARTHA figures. Apparently your reviewer doesn't know how to measure the scale of figures. These figures are precisely 25mm. RAL PARTHA should be commended for this, and it is those manufacturers who continually increase the size of their figures to the point where many verge on 30mm who should be criticized - JOHN BOEHM, Lincoln, NE. Just to be on the safe side, I re-read my review before writing this response. I don't feel that I wrote anything unjustly critical or harmful to Ral Partha's reputation. Our reviews are meant to make the wargamer aware of what is available, and lay out all the pros and cons, so that the gamer can make an educated choice. Ral Partha produces some of the most attractive and best detailed figures on the market, however, they are small! If you measure the figures with a good metric ruler, you'll find that they are not quite 25mm. I am not defending manufacturers who insist on marketing 28-30mm pieces as 25s, that is wrong and should be changed. However, any manufacturer who decides to produce true 25s, had better be sure that their line is complete enough that compatibility is not a problem - this is where Ral Partha does fall short! I fully agree that figure manufacturers need to reach an agreement on figure size, but complaining about my review won't solve the problem. if there are enough gamers who feel as you do, then start organizing, write letters to the manufacturers, let them know that changes need to be made, and what you want to see. - NICK NASCATI THOSE VEXING VIKINGS I would like to read an article by Mr. Barker explaining why the Vikings have been changed so much in (the WRG army list) book 2. Up until this time Vikings were HI, MI, LHI, LMI, or LI per WRG list (used with 5th edition rules). Also in many articles in SLINGSHOT, different people have set forth different Viking armies such as the several shown in (Slingshot articles) "Vikings Without Tears" and "Armies of the Jarls", January 1982, shows the Vikings being HI, LMI, MI and so on (I won't even mention the evidence for EHI). Why this sudden change which will affect many people who now must rebase hundreds of figures to fit WRG Viking armies or give up using WRG lists? This is no easy decision and I believe we are owed an explanation. -.J.W. PARKER,TX It's not that the historical Vikings have changed, but that very much more research has been done on them since the original army lists were written in April 1977. However, even in 1977 it was beginning to be suggested that they should be classed as loose order instead of close order troops, and the list actually included this option even then. The reasons for grading them as loose order were mainly that they came from a country of forest and mountain, fought expertly on ship-board, and seem to have both moved faster and fought in less dense formations than their Saxon opponents. All these require loose formation classification. This classification does not mean that they did not fight shoulder to shoulder on occasion, but that they did not invariably insist on doing so. Army lists appearing in Slingshot unfortunately vary in quality according to their authors research abilities and objectivity. Some authors are genuinely interested in the historical detective work involved and put the truth before all. Others may sometimes be suspected of having an axe to grind. Others again sometimes just miss an obscure but essential source that holds the vital clue. Viking armies have, possibly appropriately, seen more than their fair share of axe grinding. I have seen Viking figures on the table apparently armed with two- handed axe, heavy throwing weapon, javelins and long thrustingspear. Individuals probably did have weapons corresponding to all of these, but only one at a time! Our javelin or Light Spear class represents the average of all of those individuals. Only picked huscarls seem to have been armed as a body with two-handed axes, and there is no evidence that they combined these with other primary weapons. Luckily for historical accuracy, the multiple-armed HI Viking is easy meat on the table for the historical single-armed LHI and LMI, whose greater numbers and mobility, combined with insensitivity to terrain, give them a considerable edge. I must just add that I own such an army, plus 15 books on the Vikings including the main sagas. I even married one. Sue's maiden name of Laflin derives from Lochlannach "Men of the fiords". - PHIL BARKER BARKER REPLIES TO G. PHILLIES As George Phillies says, there are indeed tactical level board games with 1 to 1 troop scales, board games with counters that can split, or rather be exchanged, and miniatures rules that use hexed terrain boards. They just don't work as well as the rival medium. I'll quote three quick sample reasons why. Take those 1 to 1 tactical games first. The playing piece is typically a square piece of card with an offence value, defence value and move distance written on it and a picture of a tank. You compare your vehicles offence value against his's defence value, roll a die. Compare that with a good set of miniatures rules for modern period gaming, where you test to acquire your target, taking into account a dozen relevent factors, choose your combination of movement and halted or moving shots, test for hits taking into account half a dozen tactical factors, and finally test again for the effect of the hit if scored, taking into account ammunition nature, range and target type and aspect. The board gaming method is PRIMITIVE, as it should be, having been pinched from miniatures sets of 20 years ago. It isn't even quicker. No add that in real life tanks do not sit on top of one another and that real terrain is not marked out in hexes. So boardgame pieces representing units can be split? No sir, they have to be exchanged. Unit formations can be changed? Possible, but in practice board game designers find the option inconvenient to provide. Miniatures povide it without trying. Figure bases cover the same amount of space as card counters? Well, I've never seen a miniatures army hide terrain, and I have seen plenty of board games with whole areas blotted out completely. Miniatures games with hexes? I can remember them with squares even. The concept was abandoned many years since, mainly because real terrain is not marked in gridded lines, but also because of problems in measuring arcs of fire and ranges. I don't see how it is possible to have an argument over a miniatures game distance, unless one of the players is blind or crooked, or neither has a measuring tape. Will someone enlighten me? No, miniatures are better suited to tactical gaming, and board techniques to grand tactical and strategic, even if George Jeffrey's performing midgets ARE pushing the boundaries back. - PHIL BARKER Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. III #6 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