PHIL BARKER ON THE 7TH EDITION
It is not true to say as Kruse Smith does in his "A First Look At WRG 7th" that the rulesare primarily intended for 15mm and smaller figures. There WERE originally two sets, 7th and Big Battle, but it was the big battle set that gotabsorbed into7th, notthe other wayaround. I own two 15mm armies and five 25mm, of which my favourite is the 25mm Late Roman. I am painting a new 25mm Seleucid Army as I get time.
In general, 25mm troops on small tables are suitable for small battles - the kind everyone played with 6th. If you want to represent much bigger ar mies,you use smaller figures or bigger tables. There are two approaches to increased realism in depicting troops. One is to have figure scale as close to terrain scale as possible. Take this to the ultimate extreme, and you end up with the Irregular Miniatures 6mm blocks. The other is to make each individual figure as realistic as possible, which means individual poses, interchangeable heads, variations in figure height and colouring. I don't seek to impose either extreme on you, or dictate which compromise to use. However, the trend among players IS towards the smaller figures.
So 25mm isdiscriminated against because they have to measure in metric like the rest of theworld instead of in inches? Only if you are too lazyor hidebound tocutout a measuring card marked in paces AS THE RULES SAY. I might say that I have seen a player fiddling nervously with his expanding tape, put it down to measure with the more conventional card template, then pick it up again to fiddle some more!
The story that 7th was delayed by changes to the rules because shooting was too effective is entirely false. A moment's thought would show that two years testing would have shown such a thing up at a much earlier stage. My promise date was November, not August, and the delay was due to our printers taking on a huge quantity of extra Christmas work and pushing ours back to early February. which did not please us greatly. " hen you provide camera ready copy, you don't expect printing to take 12 weeks.
As for shooting being more devastating than ever before, neither my Romans, nor mychief tester's Charthaginians have noticed. Small units shoot better, large ones worse.
7th edition exceeded the total sales of 6th edition in its entire life in the first month. So far, the massive feedback from players is almost universally favourable. To be specific, only two players seem unhappy. One livers in California, and the other, the editor of Slingshot, doesn't dislike them as much as 6th edition!
Players agree that battles are more realisticand faster,and especially like the disappearance of the "firework display" with units interweaving each other under apparent air traffic control. The discomforture of 6th edition experts and rule lawyers has caused a snigger or two. No one has reported difficulty using 25mm figures, or unhappiness with compulsory weather, non-standard deployments or disloyal generals. and several make the point that the inclusion of such features widens the gap between competent and incompetent. As one put it, "If Napoleon (who he?) could relate to getting rained on and having crazy generals, who am I to complain?" Not a single complaint about rebasing, and satisfaction expressed that 15mm look better on the wider bases and that figures don't fall over in the box to get damaged.
As for the rules not working out well for competition gaming without modification, the only two large conventions arganised over here since they came on sale are going to use them. One,of these is next year's International at Derby, which this year had teams from all over Europe, from New Zealand and Australia, but amazingly not from the USA, and the other next month which must be the world's toughest.a 36 hour tournament where each player plays everyother, with no breaks for sleep,drink or food other than provided byone relief player in each team of four, Both these are using the whole works,straight from the rule book.weather, deployments, the lot. As it happens, I have both orgarnsed large ancient tournaments and attended others in the US. My impression was that American ( ontestants are as or more mature, even tempered and intelligent than the British. Don't let organisers sell you short.
OLD SUBSCRIBERS NEVER DIE
In checking back, I find that my first issue of THE COURIER was No. 10 of Vol. 1 of the old magazine, some 16 years ago, when it was reproduced from typing and was also "Bulletin ofthe New England Wargamers Association". I am therefore probably one of your longest continuous subscribers, and I suspect that I might also be one of your oldest, being presently 71 years of age.
Originally a horse cavalryman, I spent four years in the Pacific during WWII as an artillery battery and battalion commander, finally leaving the Army in 1949. Although out of the active Army for many years, I have always maintained a close interest in military history and organization and tactics - hence interest inTHE COURIER. I particularly look forward to articles such as those by Haythornwaite, Nafziger, and Arnold in No.6 of Vol.VI. I may disagree with some of the material (such as Haythornwaite's conclusions and part of Nafziger's technical data), but I enjoy and applaud their efforts.
In the Section of Nafziger's article headed LAVA ATTACK, he states: "Unfortunately, no documentation has surfaced which provides a good explanation of what this attack looked like." The enclosed sheets may supply the missing information. I have reproduced pertinent pages from my copy of Volume 11 of Balck's Tactics (as translated by Kreuger in 1914). The data on the lava are actually from the Russian Cavalry Drill Regulations of the late 1890s, but except for some details I have good reason to believe that they are reasonably representative of the drill as far back as the Napoleonic era.
Since I don't have Mr. Nafziger's address, I would very much appreciate your forwarding the enclosed sheets to him.
Many thanks for your encouragement and loyalty, I have passed the info on to Mr. Nafziger. -DICK BRYANT
DUAL SUBMISSIONS
I read the editorial about my article appearing in two magazines simultaneously and how upset all parties concerned were about this. As I explained to Dick Bryant over the phone, the article was initially mailed to THE COURIER many months before publication. Having heard absolutely nothing about whether yes, no, or maybe from the editors afterthat length of time, I assumed (my first mistake) that the article had been permanently filed away. My reasoning behind this assumption seemed rational enough. Other articles I've written for other publications, newsletters, etc., were either promptly published (within 2-3 months at the outside) or I received some type of letter or confirmation of receipt and rejection/acceptance etc., but not in this instance.
My second mistake was to say... "oh, well, maybe MW would be interested..." and not consulting with Dick Bryant or Kruse Smith ahead of time. Duncan MacFarlane, editor of MW, sent me a letter of acknowledgement and the next thing you know, to my chagrin, the article appears in both publications! Believe me, no one was more surprised or embarassed than I to see that article in THE COURIER and MW at the same time.
I apologize here in print, publicly for my faulty assumptions and will heretofore abide by the notification procedure outlined by Dick Bryant in his editorial. I ask in return for the editors to give some indication to any of us would-be contributors whether and when we might expect publication of our articles in the future.
The editorial was printed before my phone conversation with Terry and I believe I mentionedit to him. The editorial was not intended to embarass Terry or to call him to task but I took the opportunity to example an ongoing problem with duplicate submissions.
As THE COURIER publishes bi-monthly and "sometimes" irregularly it can be six months before an article sees print. There is no excuse for not acknowledging receipt however, and I and my Period Editor (whose responsibility that is) apologize for that. - DICK BRYANT
THIS IS WHAT THE COURIER IS ALL ABOUT!
I am most appreciative of THE COURI ER and the fine job you do with it year after year, which is why I continue to subscribe! in the past, I only looked for articles on ancient wargames, but more and more I find myself reading the entire magazine when it comes. I can honestly say that through your efforts, I have come to a finer appreciation of all aspects of wargaming, even those which I never even gave a second glance in the past! Thank you; please continue to do the fine job that you are doing. I appreciate if even though I don't often say it.
Thank YOU! This result is the goal we have always set for THE COURIER. To expose the Historical Wargamer to other periods and other concepts so he can discover the joy of multiple-period gaming. This is why we have the Theme Year and Mini-Themes. - DICK BRYANT
RANDOM TERRAIN
I particularly liked Mike Reese's article on "Creating Random Terrain" (Vol. VI, No. 6). The system of maneuvering hills and woodlots during the set-on, like so many battalions (WRG2L has always bothered me. This is a good looking alternative when you don't have a historical situation as a guide. I could even visualize a sort of "phasing-in" with the more detailed terrain being added on successive moves as the troops go close enough to appreciate what the scouts could see.
Now, if I could only find time to do a little more tabletop gaming!
Come, Ted, one must set the proper priorities! - DICK BRYANT
JON WILLIAMS ANSWERS COMMENTS
My point about the St. George wasn't that Mr. Sapherson's list was in errorin placing it in the Med, but that it might have been handy to knowwhen in 1801 it was in the Med, since at anotherpoint in the year it was elsewhere. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
The Dannebroge at Copenhagen was a former two decker, built in 1772, which made it quite elderly to participate in combat in 1801. It and the other Danish blockships were not seaworthy, even if masts could be found for them, and there were no masts available. After the battle the British (lid not take any Danish blockship as a prize, but burned them instead - they could not have stood the voyage home to England, even under tow.
The Trekoner was a 74-gun sail of the line, built at Nyholm in 1789, which took part in the Battle of Copenhagen as part of Steen Bille's Northern Division, under Commander-Captain P. Riegelson. There was also a very large battery called Trekoner sited on an island guarding the northern approaches to Copenhagen Harbor.
The best source for Copenhagen data is Dudley Pope's The Great Gamble (Printed in the US by Simon & Schuster, NY, 1972. Presumably the book also hada British publisher, but I don't have that information available), which includes an astonishingly detailed order-of-battle for both sides. Mr. Pope had access to a lot of Danish data which had formerly been unavailable in English.
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VII #2
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1986 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