JEFFREY'S CONCEPT STILL FLAWED! From George Jeffrey The Courier (Nov/Dec 1982): "Having located the various low points on our tables, the next step is to apply map- maker's procedure and join these up to show what is, in effect, the 'lowest contour line' on the battlefield we are depicting. " From George Jeffrey in The Courier (Mar/Apr 1983): "I wasn't talking about the lowest contour level. Indeed, I deliberately avoided using that term because the ground my system depicts is not all of the same elevation. "What the system does do is show the line of lowest ground between featuresthat is, the ground which (no matter what its height above sea level) will effectively block the visibility of an observer who is on a lower level." George must have mis-spoken in one place or the other. In any case his concept is still flawed. A "line of lowest ground between features" does NOT block the visibility of an observer on a lower level. It is easy for me to visualize standing on a hillside, looking at a stream at a higher elevation, and seeing features on the other side of the stream. George's article should have been edited for clarity and logic. Nobody insists that he become a Hemingway. -VIC SEIDERS, Sunnyvale CA. I stand corrected. I suppose, concentrating on not calling the Low Ground Line a 'contour', I subconciously slipped it into the article. The low ground line is not showing ground ofthe same height above sea level, so is not, of course a contour line as Vic originally pointed out. I am not sure, however, where Vic's statement that the concept is 'still flawed' comes in. There is nothing in the concept that suggests that, in the situation he describes, he would not see features 'up the valley' as it were. However, if the stream he was looking at, although higher than the point he was standing on, was flowing down a slope beyond which there was lower ground (ie. on the other side of the ridge) before the feature he could see, then he obviously could not see that low ground. This would be reproduced using my system. If there was no lower ground beyond the stream than that from which the stream flowed, then there would be no low ground line between Vic's position and the feature anyway and he would see it clearly under the system. The whole purpose of the low ground line concept is to show the slopes of features as they would extend 'along' what has always been flat table (no matter what the visibility rules have said). The effect of the system is on visibility around hills. It may not be perfect (we have already introduced varying gradients into the idea) but it has not been claimed to be. It is a start-which hopefully those with a greater knowledge of the idiosyncracies of terrain may improve on. -GEORGE JEFFREY THE ETHICAL USE OF TERRAIN PROMPTS A CHALLENGE Demetrios, the son of Antigonos, challenges Mr. McMillen to appear at the spring convention organized by the H.M.G.S. and to try the issue at arms with 1,000 pt armies drawn from the W.R.G. army lists using the W.R.G. rules on a six foot by four foot table using no terrain camps and or fortifications of any kind whatsoever-the winner to retain both armies. Hopefully, one of the area H.M.G.S. people will referee. -STEVE HERNDON, Wheeling WV. A VARIATION ON WRG 6TH I have found a way to make WRG 6th Ed. Ancients rules even more enjoyable. To add an element of suspense to the game, instead of a figure representing twenty men, let a figure represents ten, twenty or thirty men. To figure cost do it for the normal one figure equals twenty men rate. If you use each figure to represent ten men cut the cost in half. If you use each figure representing thirty men add fifty percent to the cost. When figuring casualties a unit with figures representing ten men each would give the enemy one half normal amount of casualties. A unit with figures representing thirty men per figure would give fifty percent more casualties. With this system you would not know how strong or weak the unit you are facing might be. Your opponent by the same token would not know how strong your own units are. I hope others will try this system and write in regards to how well the idea works for them. -NUKE KRICK An interesting approach but one that strikes me as requiring a great deal of honesty and a minimum of competitiveness on the part of the players. -DICK BRYANT DISAGREES WITH ESSEX REVIEW I've read your review of Essex miniatures, and Ral-Partaa and Grenadier. This I think is wrong, (consider) the variety of fighters available - the other two can touch Essex. I've built three armies from Essex figures, and two others are in the making, and for my money there are none better than Essex. They are easy to paint, are beautiful when complete, and the detail is outstanding. (The Essex line) is as good or better than the others. Both of which have always seemed rather puny to me. What good is detail on a figure if it can't be reached (for painting)? As for availability, the mail order service is outstanding, the usual time (being) 7 or 8 days (including) the day I mailed the letter. Also Grenadier does not make historical figures - why compare them to mfgs. who do? For my money, for the detail and range, Essex is the one to beat! - W. SPECK, St. Louis, MO WARGAMES SUPPORTS WARGAMERS I would like to draw your attention to the tremendous amount of support that Wargames, the American distributor of Essex figures, offered to the WRG Competition at Origins. Wargames more than graciously provided hundreds of dollars worth of prizes on simple request. They further offered to aid our local group with prizes. I know that they provided prizes at the Norbert Gisclair Memorial. Their attitude was very refreshing compared to that of some other manufacturers. Wargames made me feel that I was doing them a favor by letti ng them provide prizes. I n return, I strongly urge gamers to use Essex figures. I cannot think of enough superlatives to describe the detail or the accuracy. Further, club discounts are generous and service is excellent. - STEVE HERNDON A CORRECTION AND AN APOLOGY In a letter to the editor published in Issue IV, 6, I took Steve Herndon to task for certain suggestions regarding terrain he had made. I then stated that he had used such "strategems" in the finals of Origins '82. I'm afraid in this I was wrong. His opponent apparently was chiefly responsible for the bizarre terrain set up. I saw the game, and the article, and incorrectly put the two together. This does not alter my objection to the article, since an important and potentially interesting contest was reduced to a joke by just such "tactical tricks". Even in tournaments, it's hard to see why ancients players need to resort to such schemes. Other periods seem to get by without suggestions such as "The best way to deal with the Old Guard is to force the French army to deploy in the middle of avast swamp." However it was unfortunate that I mistakenly criticized Steve's ethics as a gamer, and I apologize for the error. -TOM McMILLEN Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. V #2 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1984 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