Letters from George Nafziger over a review, from Gary Gygax about GenCon ® and TSR ®, and Norm McLeod on gaming systems...and the responses. Plus a letter from John Boehm about the Ral Partha scale.

From George Nafziger

I was pleased to see that THE COURIER chose to review my latest publication, The Bavarian and Westphalian Armies, 1799-1815, but somewhat dismayed at the review. I do, as a result, have a few points I'd like to bring up with my reviewer.

The intent of the book was to present material that I'd amassed and knew was not generally available to the American Napoleonic wargaming public. In fact, most of the material is from some rather obscure sources that I seriously doubt are available to any more than a handful of Napoleonic aficionados. As I read the review I find that one of two situations exist. Either my reviewer is polylingual, something my experience with the general public has caused me to doubt, and he has either a personal library or access to one of the finer military libraries in the country, or he has a strong personal bias that clouded his ability to objectively review what was presented in this particular study.

I found in his review critical on three major points: 1.) I didn't provide copious orders of battle, 2.) the uniform data was insufficient to please him and there weren't enough illustrations, let alone color illustrations, and 3.) there was no discussion of the campaigns of these two nations.

Allow me to address those three points in some detail and to provide my perspective on his criticisms.

First, if my critic has ever attempted to do research on any of the smaller countries involved in the Napoleonic wars he would know how diffcult it is to find material and would have a healthy respect for any effort to collect and organize such material. Orders of battle are probably easier to come by than TO&E data, but a complete series of them is just about impossible to ever come across.

I do have a great deal of that information, but it is not complete and I did not feel it was appropriate for what I wanted to do in my book.

As my goal was a long term review of the armies involved, consideration of actual unit strengths was about as pertinent as the phase of the moon. When demobilized these armies did everything from send the men home on leave to sell their services to local contractors. Unless you are trying to determine how long it would take to mobilize these armies, that OB material is worthless.

If you are doing an actual campaign study, the strengths wander all across the spectrum, depending on how hard the campaign has been, where they have been operating, and when their last reinforcements arrived. To attempt to account for when every soldier got sick or went on leave during this period is a massive task. Besides, who truly cares? It was not my intent to provide a transciption of the Westphalian or Bavarian archives!

The second criticism related to the lack of (color) illustrations. I would like to say that it was not my intent to provide a painting guide. If my critic so desired, I'd have recommended Knotel, Knotel, and Sieg's Uniforms of the World, but I doubt he'd have liked that, as it only has black and white illustrations. There is the Osprey series which provides this material very nicely, but if that isn't adequate for him I'll give him my copy of Funcken. It has lots of pretty pictures.

As for the third criticism, no discussion of campaigns, I can only say that I'm flabbergasted! Perhaps my critic is willing to finance my researches. When he does that I'll write chronological campaign studies for him and I'm willing to take orders.

My sole goal was to provide the internal structure and sub-regimental organization of these two armies, to provide a history of the raising and disbanding of those regiments through the period in question, and to provide sufficient other information, including uniform data, so as to provide some insight and further evolutionary history.

If my critic wants the OB's and campaign histories he'll have to wait until this fall when Hippocrene puts out my book on the French invasion of Russia. Portions of that book tell where every damned soldier stood in particular battles. But then it doesn't include a painting guide either, so I doubt if he'll like it.-G.F. NAFZIGER, W. Chester, OH.

Response

Mr. Nafziger, perhaps properly, raises the question of my qualifications to review for THE COURIER, and I am happy to be afforded space to reply. My undergraduate training was in American History, and I have a bare reading familiarity with Cerman and French, somewhat more with Latin and Spanish. My personal military library runs to approximate/y 500 volumes, and living in the San Francisco Bay Area gives me working access to the excellent University of Califor nia library at 8erkeley, as well as Stanford's Hoover collection for more specialized reading I am an Army Reservist, working in Military Intelligence as an Order of Battle Analyst. More to the point for THE COURIER readers, I have been gaming with miniatures and board games for 22 years, my first painted army was Wurttemberg, 1809), and I make my living operating GAMETABLE, a game store in Campbell, CA.

My review of BAVARIAN AND WESTPHALIAN ARMIES assessed the value of the work in "addressing the majority of the questions for serious students of the military art . . . ", Mr. Nafziger's stated purpose in writing the book. As a historian and gamer, the questions about a new army I am assembling run along these lines:

1. Who were its friends and enemies? That is, which armies can I match it against, in what years, and which allied formations can it be paired with?
2. How is it organized? Which regiments served together, and where? What is the army's internal organization fin 25mm figures, what is the company and battalion organization - in 15mm, what is the brigade and division organization and who were its generals)?
3. What were its average field strengths during its most important campaigns? How many castings of what types must I buy to represent the formations on the game table?
4. What battles did the army participate in, and with what combat performance? What were its best trained and most effective units, what was the doctrine they used, and typical maneuvers? e) What were the details of its uniforms and equipment? What were its flag colors and patterns? How were units differentiated visually?

d) Mr Nagziger mentions the OSPREY series of books. For those not familiar with them, the relevant titles are NAPOLEON'S GERMAN ALLIES VOL. 1: WESTFALIA AND KELEVERERG and VOL 4: BAVARIA, both by Otto von Pivka. Either gives much information on colors, a campaign chronology, TO&E strengths, flag data, organization data and some (only a little) field strength data. For someone with either of these, BAVARIAN AND WESTPHALIAN ARMIES provides interesting if not vital, supplementary data, as I stated in my first review. If faced with a choice of how to spend $7. 95, buy the OSPREY books first. If you only need regimenta I and sub-regimenta I organization, buy Ray Johnson's NAPOLEONIC ARMIES VOL. 1: FRANCE & HER ALLIES, from R.A.F.M. for $5.95. By all means buy Mr. Nafziger's ADVENTURE GAMING article. THEN, after that, you may also want to get BARVARIAN AND WESTPHALIAN ARMIES. -LAWRENCE P. DUFFIELD, Santa Clara, CA.

From Gary Gygax

A couple of comments on the news of the hobby you included in THE COURIER, Colume 3 Number 6, in "The Courier Dispatch". Therein, the writer made some misleading statements regarding the GEN CON ® East Game Convention. While attendance was lighter than the previous year, there were several outstanding reasons not mentioned.

Principally, the group supposed to run it was kind enough to send out letters saying that the Convention would not be run just prior to the season opening. This was circulated widely. Also, because of this sudden shift in willingness to run an event for gamers, we had to change locales. This had a confusing effect. Nonetheless, the Convention was run, and all fantasy events were filled. Historical events were largely ignored by attendees. It is also worth noting that the writer did not have accurate data on hand regarding attendance at conventions. Something like 40% or more of convention attendees at a large convention come from within a 200 mile radius of the convention site. The Regents Exams and schools still operating in the Philadelphia area certainly affected the attendance by more than the 10% figure noted. Considering New York had a very large population, we can project something like a 25% difference attributable to these two facts.

With respect to market softening, I assure you that TSR has not suffered a decline in its gross sales volume. In fact, by the end of this year we will have a larger market share than we did last year. If the writer had troubled himself to go into any department store, book store, or toy store he would have noted the large displays of fantasy games and accessories on display. Rather than declining, the fantasy market in general is doing better than other markets during this rather lean economic period. I expect that there will be a shaking out in the adventure game industry, but it certainly will not be due to a lessening of interest in fantasy topics. Doubters should take a look at current movies, video games, and programs for home game arcades and computers. - E Gary Gygax

Response

Though not at all clear in the article, "softening market" referred to statements in the editorial of the same issue that .... store managers and figure manufacturers have indicated a recent growth in historical sales vs a "stagnation" in the FRP market . . . We refer to figures not to FRP games, rules and play-aids which are doing as well as ever - DICK BRYANT

From Norm McLeod

I have read with great interest Mr. Jeffrey's articles on variable length bounds and their implications, both immediate and potential, regarding tabletop gaming. I think THE COURIER has done the hobby a great service by providing a forum for Mr. Jeffrey's views. However, I must remark that his "revolutionary" system promises, upon close examination, a great deal more than it actually delivers. I hasten to add that I realize the series is not yet complete, and that even when complete it must of necessity leave out much of the supporting detail. Nonetheless, I would like to try to put this issue into a more balanced perspective.

First of all, I have not yet found any new, let alone revolutionary, ideas in Mr. Jeffrey's articles. In the 12 years I have "tabletopped" in several countries (including the U.K.), I have played with/against many different people using a wide variety of rules. All of them have employed unoffficial variable length bounds. For example, the beginning of most games features a deployment period during which there obviously will be no events to cause a logical cessation of movement. Whether a more or less "free" deployment is allowed or whether the players simply agree to measure out, say, six consecutive movement phases as if they were one, the net effect fits Mr. Jeffrey's definition of a VLB, namely a bound regulated by activity rather than the passage of time. Going in the opposite direction, most players find it occasionally necessary to break bounds down into halves, thirds or quarters. Again, this is an unofficial VLB. So this concept is one which has been used for years but has not previously been so explicitly or methodically stated.

In a more general sense, Mr. Jeffrey's efforts-like all other rules-trade one set of problems for another. He considers himself the gamer thereby, but that decision is a largely subjective one based upon his own goals and assumptions. For example, I infer from his articles and from certain chapters of Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun that there are few if any die rolls in this system: that units of the same type and size will fire and melee with the same effectiveness; that the result of a morale test is predetermined by the circumstances and quality of the unit being tested, etc.

This lack of chance is a definite and broad assumption about the nature of warfare and its simulation. Mr. Jeffrey is saying, in short, that he intends to recreate all the tactical detail and to take the average result (as determined by a study of military history) as the inevitable result, e.g. "casualties per minute". That is a perfectly defensible view, but not the only one. My own view is that every battle in history has contained an extremely complex web of interrelated unique features which were never fully understood by the participants, are only imperfectly explained by historical research, and are best recreated by introducing substantial uncertainty into simulations.

Even if we pass over the massive philosophical problems posed by Mr. Jeffrey's statement that time is a constant, the task of keeping units and events synchronized is another problem area. In fact, the whole purpose of fixed-length bounds is to do just that, i.e. to make certain that the various activities of the various units in the various battle sectors all take place in the appropriate time sequence.

Thus there is no intrinsic difference between the intentions behind variable and fixed length bounds. The difference is that FLB systems attempt to predict in advance how often the game must be stopped for activities while the VLB system does not. As a result, the FLB is more often too long than too short once battle is well and truly joined. "Conventional" FLB-type rules rationalize this problem by saying that the bound includes a variable amount of "waiting time" while Mr. Jeffrey's system apparently assumes no "waiting" or "wasted" time at all aside from the length of time taken to write and send an order (a command feature that is common in all types and levels of rules). So conventional rules use of the frictions of battle was an excuse rather than truly simulating it, while the VLB system goes to the opposite extreme and ignores it.

There are other specific problems-or perhaps I should say unanswered questions-in the way in which events are to be kept in synchronization. First of all, I see an unequalled field day for the rules lawyers coming up-and while it is fashionable to revile such players, we all come up against them and rules that are too open to interpretation are ultimately not going to be playable. Secondly, I am uncomfortable about the aesthetics of having things out of sequence at any given time even though (theoretically) back in sync "when it matters".

Thirdly, the system is going to have to be very complicated-lots of tables, lots of arithmetic, probably massive paperwork, and a very large number of individual units to be moved around. Just the sort of rules, in short, that may be very playable by the author and his group but very hard for others to grasp fully.

Finally, though I may be second-guessing inaccurately, it seems to me that tabletop games on this scale must inevitably roughen the gradations in a unit's battle effectiveness that are so nicely recreated by "conventional" rules.

In short, I applaud Mr. Jeffrey's efforts and I have enjoyed his articles. He, Dr. Griffith and Mr. Zuparko, among others, have correctly identified a common tabletop problem, namely, that of using tactical rules to recreate grand tactical actions. I will be most interested to read more about his system and I hope that more detail will be provided whether in THE COURIER or as published rules. However, for my own part I shall continue to deal with this problem by reserving my miniatures for tactical actions of suitable scale and practising my grand tactics in board games. -NORM McLEOD, Fairfax, VA.

Response

I cannot understand Mr McLeod 's failure to find any new ideas in my article. From my own experience there are several new ideas, however, it is always possible that, in a fragmented hobby such as ours, several people are working along the same lines. MrMcLeod has indeed 'seen nothing new' I am rather surprised that the ideas contained in my article have not been made common knowledge before now. Whether the ideas are revolutionary or not, is, of course. an opinion, and Mr McLeod is perfectly entitled not to share it. 1, and many others, feel that the ideas are new, in that they require us to change our methods of simulation, however, as stated. that is an opinion not a provable fact.

Mr McLeod's contention that the common practice of 'doubling up ' bounds (turns) was covered in my article, where I pointed out that this was not the same as the VLB, since it still restricted the player to the amount of time judged suitable. Furthermore, if the initial time allowance (the bound) is in error, then a doubling, tripling or more of the bound merely increases the original error. In such cases the bound is most definitely not 'regulated by activity '-it is in fact regulated by the 'time allowed'. Mr McLeod hits the nail squarely on the head, however, when he states that, since players have for years become habituated to breaking bounds down into fractions, they have nothing to learn about the VLB system. As is explained in the VLB rules to be published by Courier. All I have done in essence is take that habitual practice and make it the basis of the whole playing procedure. The concept has been used for years, but only as a 'players' aid' to getting round the rule writer 's fixed bound and not as 'the system ' in itself.

Mr McLeod is totally wrong to infer that the VLB system employs few if any die rolls '. The use of dice is as basic to the VLB system as to all others. No rule-maker, certainly not this one, can accomodate every chance of battle, and this is allowed for in my own rules. No morale test is 'pre-ordained ' in my rules. although players may 'guesstimate ' their chances based on the circumstances, however, as in all battles, their guesses may be proved well wide of the mark.

There is lots of 'uncertainty' in my VLB rules, I would argue far more than is currently the case in wargaming where one generally 'tot the factors up' before launching the troops at the enemy. Indeed, one of the strong points of the VLB system is that it introduces a greater degree of uncertainty by removing the 'absolute control' that is frequently found in wargames.

I completely fail to grasp Mr McLeod's point that there are 'massive philosophical problems' posed by my statement that time is a constant-however, the task of keeping units etc., 'in sync' is easy. In effect, the VLB system operates by fixing' the length of the bound EACH TIME as it were, by the process of dialoguing the activity so as to locate the 'end point' before anything is moved-calculated Mr McLeod is right to say that I do not 'assume' any waiting or wasted time. This is not to say, however, that it does not occur. The difference between my VLB system and those described by Mr McLeod is that the 'waiting ' and 'wasted ' time periods are fitted in their proper places-where they occur during the battle-and not 'divided out' among the periods of time when something is happening (when they are not normally represented anyway).

I have corresponded with many boardgamers, who see the VLB system as directly applicable to their own operations. To answer the question briefly, because they offer a more realistic aesthetic effect than do boardgame counters. (I have no problem dealing with campaigns on maps, however, with colored pins, so have no axe ro grind with boardgamers and their card counters.

However, miniatures rules do not require masses of paperwork-and I hope Mr McLeod will give mine a try as I have, other than for orders purposes, eliminated much of the paperwork which, I fully agree, has bedeviled wargaming.

I do not believe that accurate mechanics for grand tactics inevitably makes an accurate simulation, but it must help, and anything that helps can only benef t us. Equally, having played with the VLB system for a couple of years now, and having gained more enjoyment from the games than from those I fought under previous rules, I must disagree that players who like a friendly game' willfnd the system unplayable. It entirely depends on what one wants from the game. If it is the feeling that one has 'commanded in a Napoleonic battle' (with friends on both sides) then I suggest Mr McLeod gives the VLB system a try. It is simply a game of 'toy soldiers' in which the minute by minute activities of individual fgures give one pleasure, that is the player's option and I would not deny him it.

In regard to the aesthetics of l/300 scale fgures, those I use are individually cast on stands of 5 figures, and can be painted to a very high standard indeed. I would suggest that the presence of 1000+ fgures per corps, with several corps on the table, gives a far more 'realistic' picture of what a French commander would have seen had he looked around his battlefeld than would a far less number of 25mm fgures. (In effect. the extension of my comment on 'Why Miniatures ' above.)

In conclusion, may I point out that Paddy Griffith is an amatuer, as we all are, never having been on a Napoleonic battlef eld in his life. I would also say that he is most defnately a hobbyist, having been the prime mover in giving me the impetus to bring the VLB system to practical use.-GEORGE JEFFREY

More on the Ral Partha Scale

In response to the Ral Partha scale controversy (May-June 1982), I must reply that I went back and remeasured all the Ral Partha 25mm Swiss in my possession with 2 seperate metric rulers. All but one were at least 24mm tall. A couple were actually 26mm and one was slightly less than 25mm. I do hope that Mr. Nascati has not fallen prey to the ploy of measuring scale from the soles of the feet to eye level, rather than the top of the head, which is used by less than scrupulous makers to justify their overly large figures This, of course, is ridiculous and not the traditional method of measuring the scale of figures. After all we do not measure our own height to eye level but to the top of our heds. Scale is only a comparison of the actual size to the reduced size, hence both must be measured in the same fashion. - JOHN BOEHM

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