A VALUE JUDGEMENT FROM A READER We send out a letter of inquiry to anyone who has not renewed (after 2 postcard reminders) asking for reasons so that we may improve THE COURIER to where they might renew. A few have dropped out of the hobby or need the money for school, etc. Many answers, while critical are constructive, but once in a while I get an answer that I would like to reply to in the nearest alley! When I first saw your magizine [sic], I subscribed imidetly [sic], That was back when you had an article on ol' Jack Scruby. Well I think yall [sic] was a lot better back then. Ya [sic] wernet[sic] so sophisticates [sic], and above all you showed ol' Jack right their [sic) playin [sic] a game. Pictures! Now sure, I've gotten [sicl alot from your written articles, but most of all I lik [sic) the pictures of the game being played. Not just maps. The maps make every game look the same. It get monotonous. And besides that, I play free base. You say "oh, sure, for modern, yeah", but I free base Napoleonics too, and if I ever maide [sic] armies for other periods I'd to the same. Yeah, it takes more time, a lot more time but, as one of your writers once said "a lot of us have more money than time". I don't have much money and even less time. But still the free base system seems more realistic to me, You all are just now spoutin off about your skirmish man to man, rules & s-t (expletive deleted by ed.) well I play that way all the time with squads, platoons, and about as big as I go, company level. To put it bluntly, the Courier magazine I'd like to see doesn't exist and never will. You G-Damn Yankees! (expletives deleted by ed.) NAME WITHHELD, Fort Worth, TX. I think that it is too bad that this individual didn't choose to share his gaming technique with us so that we could all learn from it. I have a feeling that if you were gaming against him and you didn't agree with a rule interpretation, he would either throw a chair at you or pick up his figures in tears and go home to mommy. - DICK BRYANT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND Please find enclosed my renewal for your magazine. I have found The Courier to be an outstanding wargaming magazine with an excellent format and informative articles. I have read your competitors, including those from the U.K. and have found them lacking in one way or another. Your articles concerning different aspects of the wargaming hobby I have found quite stimulative and conducive to further thought. I quite enjoy your Reviewing Stand and am quite glad to have found a magazine with a backbone who are quite open to stating whether a figure is well made or not. Quite often when one has to mail-order, oreven orderan army from a local shop, the gamer is taking an awful risk in just hoping that the army he has ordered is of acceptable standards - your Reviewing Stand does and can see to it that he will! Needless to say I shall continue to subscribe as long as you continue to print your fine magazine. - G.J. DONALDSON Many thanks, I needed that. - DICK IN DEFENSE OF ANCIENT AMBUSHES I hope that you will permit me to defend myself regarding Phil Barker's letter in Vol. V No.4. In that letter, Mr. Barker alleged that in a review of over 300 ancient battles only 6% could be classified as ambushes, which I contend are much more common. To answer his question I first reviewed with my good friend Dr. Paul Koch the engagements in the WRG publication Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars. We would contend that ambush prelude, ambush or attempted ambush played a significant role in 14 or 62 engagements in that work, or 22%. Quoting from Phil's own article, "The Sharp end in 360 AD" from Miniature Wargames "The German infantry on the other wing have concealed themselves in trenches but disclose themselves prematurely." Was this a common German tactic? Finally, from the WRG army lists; ancient Irish, "an army for attacks from within or behind woods,.."; Dacians, "ambushes from nearby cover a reliable way of countering enemy horsemen..."; Gothic, "Hadrianopolis..."; Norse Irish, "they brought woods fighting and ambush toa fine art and so on. In recent wargaming mags we find Auberoche 1345, and Kalaura 1078. In summary, it appears that Professor Barker intends to double the scale of his rules in the 7th edition, and so has confined his review of battles to perhaps only larger engagements where ambush might play a less important role. I still contend that there is ample evidence that the ambush was a common type of ancient engagement at least on the scale now covered by WRG6. There is no evidence that the Ancient Vikings periodically rented the Roman Coliseum so that they could fight their enemies in open terrain (although the Scanderbeg Albanians may have)! I hope this letter clarifies my position somewhat. I had originally sought only to defend what I felt was and is a very clever way ofchoosing terrain in WRG 6. 1 am sure that WRG 7 will be even better in this and other respects. - MICHAEL GUTH, Bethesda, MID COMMENTS ON THE RATING GAME I would like to comment on the ideas put forth in the article "The Rating Game" by Ned Zuparko in the July/August 1984 issue. It seems to me that he is furthering a trend that is seen much too often in wargamers these days. He indicates that a unit should be rated according to its historical "eliteness". This leads to a player (particularly a newer one) raising only those units which were elite in "real life". Can you imagine a Frederick, a Napoleon, a Grant, a Lee, or any other commander only using the best troops? Instead, didn't they make the best use of whatever troops they had? A wargamer under his system would say: "I won't bother to raise the 27th regiment, it was a poor regiment. Instead, I will raise the 23rd because it was an elite unit." Isn't this attitude ridiculous? Wouldn't many of the historical commanders have loved to have this freedom in choosing the troops they would command? Instead of Mr. Zuparko's method, may I suggest an alternative. I think this alternative would much more represent the actual problems facing a commander. Why not let the unit's actions on the tabletop create its rating? The idea here is that no one would know which units are the best when the units are first fielded. This would represent the fact that a unit may or may not react well on the battlefield and the commander can't tell ahead of time. Thus a commander isforced tofacethesame problemsas his real life counterpart. What I suggest is the following. All troops are to start out with a basic rating (perhaps modified by the training of their type). If the unit performs to a certain standard, the next battle it will rise in its eliteness rating. Conversely, if it does not perform adequately, it will fall in its eliteness rating. Thus over a period of time the troops will take on a history and esprit de corps in a manner which reflects the historical development. Can you imagine the situation facing the player? Can you hear him saying: "Should I throw in the 27th regiment which has always served me well, or should I use the 23rd which is so poor as to not matter if it is destroyed? Maybe this time the 23rd will perform better than usual and I can pull it off while preserving my better unit?" I would welcome any comments on this idea. I think everyone can give it a try in their present set of rules and in any period. - S. RICHARD BLACK, University Park, IL. Your letter illustrates the wargaming paradox of why it is more realistic for wargamers to fight fictional campaigns (that start from an historical basis) instead of single battles that have no "yesterday" or "tomorrow." I encourage this and agree with your ideas. However, I suggest that the rating method is the same as that put forth in my article; rating units on past experience gained in prior battles or campaigning. THE RATING GAME is aimed at the wargamer who insists on fighting a non-campaign battle, or who wishes to begin his campaigning somewhere in the middle of the historical Napoleonic Wars instead of in a fictional campaign. He may begin his campaign with some units better than others but from that point on their eliteness will depend on how the player handles them in future battles. Also, a unit elite in 1808 may or may not have still been elite in 1811. To paint a unit that is'elite'means a player is limited to battles in a short time-frame; the same unit a few years later or earlier might not be elite. - NED ZUPARKO, Napoleonic Editor COMMENTS ON "THE RATING GAME" Mr. Zuparko's article "The Rating Game", Vol. V, No. 4, is well done, but what I think he is looking for was done several years ago. The now defunct Simulations Publications, Incorprated, published in 1976 the excellent Wellington's Victory game. Wellington's Victory's bibliography lists nine historical accounts, ten tactical backgrounds, and ten games and simulations! These rules are highly adaptable for miniatures. I use the following stand sizes for 15mm: 2 rank line nationalities (infantry) 1/8" wide by 3/4" deep 3 rank line nationalities (infantry) 1/4" wide by 3/4" deep All cavalry 3/4" wide by 1 1/4" deep 6 gun artillery battery 1 7/8" wide by 2 1/2" deep 8 gun artillery battery 2 1/2" wide by 2 1/2" deep This almost exactly equates to 1 pace (24 inches) of frontage per infantry figure regardless of the ratio of men per casting. Skirmisher spacing varied from 5 to 12 paces between pairs of skirmishers. Rifle armed skirmishers went up to 24 paces apart. Unit effectiveness in the game is based more upon unit experience rather than troop type. Hopefully, this will help Ned Zuparko, Richard Burnett, Paddy Griffith, Peter Hofschroer, George Jeffrey, John Koontz, George Nafziger and Joe Park. - FRANK LESLIE, Fort Knox, KY Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. V #6 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