THE COURIER "BEST TERRAIN" AWARD BASED ON ARBITRARY CRITERIA
THE COURIER gives an award each year at every convention its staff attends (HMMC, HISTORICON, ORIGINS, except those put on by ATLANTICON) for the Demonstration of Wargame Terrain. - ED
It is my understanding that the recreation of the Field of Ligny at Historicon 87 did not win Best of Show [sic] because, as you stated to Bob Coggins, it was "too good" and everyone can't do that kind of work, since everyone can't have Rich Hasenauer available. I'm not sure with whom to take up my dispute, so I figure those who made the decision will read this. Certainly it is true that Rich made the difference between good and great, and that he was responsible for most of the ideas and much of the execution. I submit that his analysis begs the question, since it was primarily his expertise that made his and Michael Pierce's Antietam look good enough to win Best of Show I'm not at all clear what qualified Antietam, in terms of being "bad" enough to be eligible, to ennable it to win.
The terrific, and authentic, buildings on both battlefields all came from the same place Hasenauer Construction, Inc. The major difference was that there were ten people who put in much more time on Ligny, as opposed to the town of Antietam. It was for this reason that Ligny has permanent terrain and Antietam was a blanket with masking tape roads. Indeed, seven of us who were involved were working on our first undertaking of this sort. Without these numerous hands, none of which were possessed of any special talent, Ligny never would have gotten beyond the Geo-Hex playtest version.
In point of fact, Rich wanted to do Antietam in similar fashion as well, but time constraints prevented this from being feasible by Historicon 87. There was no professional involvement that might have justified what remains to me an incomprehensible decision to exclude Ligny. Ligny might as well have been disqualified because Bob Coggins painted the troops, as it is pretty generally accepted that he is about asgood a painter as HMGS can boast.
When a project of this scope is submitted, serving both to advance the hobby and to gratify the "drones" who hauled the glue and the flocking, it is ludicrous to suggest that because of the bviou sextra effort involved, the project cannot be recognized. 11'submissions are notconsidered because of their quality, or because of the number of persons involved, I believe that it certainly will have a chilling effect on the interest in doing this sort of thing, and can only serve to taint any awards bestowed on the basis of these wholly arbitrary criteria. Are we now to believe that talent and dedication, when reflected in one's work, orthe work of many, are grounds for dismissal? This is not to sell Antietam short, for I believe that it was more than good enough to be Best of Show.
First, as explained in my preamble, the award is for terrain only, not for "Best of Show". The award is meant to award creativeness, the ability to generate something out of nothing, the ability to inspire others with less exotic talents to try to do more with their terrain, to reward the new terrain idea. As such, Rich Hasenauer won it previously for the Alamo and for Gettysburg. The FIRST terrain boards won it, Geo-Hex won it the first time they appeared. Terrain boards, no matter how finely done, will probably not win it again unless some breakthrough display is made. The gamer who manages to stir up an old blanket, lichen trees, paint, and kitty litter to make a realistic display with interesting ideas on how to depict certain scenes, will probably win over a professionally done terrain board. None of this distracts from Rich's self-evident artistry and I dare say he will generate some new idea next convention season that will put him right on top in the running. I make the award decision and make no apologies for the criteria described above for this award. I feel that it and the editorial policy of this magazine are in no small way responsible for the improvement in the terrain we see today. - DICK BRYANT
FOUL LANGUAGE
I was very disturbed with the foul language found in Vol. VII, No. 6 of THE COURIER. The article in question was the "Steve Curtis Memorial Trophy", page 31.
I found the article extremely offensive and I do not understand the need in utilizing such language in your otherwise fine magazine.
Being a Christian, I find using our Lord's name in vain a serious offense. Please refrain from doing this in the future.
Geewillikers, Faron, it was not THE COURIER swearing, but the characters in the game report. Do your Confederate armies' characters refer to Darn Yankees?! We have no wish to offend, but often the offense is in the eye of the offendee. Shucks, if only my goll-darned dice would turn up good morale when so addressed. -DICK BRYANT
FROM THE EDITOR OF SLINGSHOT
I was surprised and saddened to read Jim McDaniel's letter in THE COURIER Vol. VII No. 6 Surprised, because in the UK ancients wargaming has not been the preserve of the WRG table-top competitive player for several years now, and saddened because it would appear that ancients players in the US are unwilling or unable to break free from a very limiting stereotype of wargame.
However, there is nothing to prevent US wargamers from joining the Society of Ancients. There you will find army level to skirmish games, table-top and committee games, role-playing and simulation games. The Society is not tied to any one structure of wargame, nor to any one set of rules. it does take seriously the view that wargaming helps us understand ancient military systems and cultures, and gives that view precedence over the wargame-as-competition. Neverthelesswe do run two competitions, in neither of which must players master one particular set of rules in order to take part.
This approach contrasts, I believe, with that of your NASAMW, which seems geared to old-style gaming. That's perfectly good for those who enjoy it, but if you agree with Jim, please don't despair. There are more table-top games than pitched battles; there are more table-top rules than WRG's; there are moreways ofwargaming than on the table-top. You'll find them all, and more, in our magazine, SLINGSHOT.
Catch up with the rest of wargaming NOW, as Jim recommends: Join the Society of Ancients!
Unfortunately, the most public (read wargame public) view of Ancient Gaming is competition gaming at conventions. I personally lost interest after 4th edition and have several ancient armies gathering dust - you may remember Maximus Gluteus of early COURIER days. I don't despair -and this issue publishes the simplest set of ancient rules I have yet seen - based on ON TO RICHMOND, which has to date been revised for Franco-Prussian, Crimean, and Napoleonic periods. Aiso unfortunately, we can only publish the articles we get - I hope that gamers with other rules will submit articles based on them. - DICK BRYANT
CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
In the course of flooding THE COURIER with the doings of Napoleon the Little (after Victor Hugo "Napoleon le Petit") and friends I have inadvertently provided some bits and pieces of misinformation. Also, as is often the case when developing a neglected period, bits of information come to light after things have gone to print which change the picture. This letter to the editor is meant to correct some of the problems and provide better information to the reader.
With reference to the rules and scenarios applicable to the 1859 War in Italy:
a. The French Guard Grenadiers siezed Buffalora and environs at 8 a.m. on the morning of 6 Jun 1859 en route to Magenta, not 8 p.m. the previous evening as reported. Even so the Austrians don't seem to have noticed right away.
b. Dr. Luigi Casali, whose articles in Miniature Wargames on the 1859 Campaign are well worth reading, has called attention to the fact that the Italian line infantry in 1859 retained the smoothbore percussion musket carried in the Crimea with the exception of picked men armed with the special sharpshooter cap and ball rifle previously carried also by the Bersaglieri. The latter were the only recipients at that date of the minie rifles purchased from France. Italian artillery was smoothbore at that time.
c. In 1859 the Austrian borderers (Grenzinfanterie) were still armed with a capand ball rifle -even though the line had already in theory received the Lorenz. This contradicts McClellan, but we know that McClellan as not infallible from his experiences in the Second War for Independence. (The writer is a Southerner - we call this the American Civil War - ED).
d. In 1866 the Italians had equipped all infantry and artillery with rifles. Dr. Casali has provided a lot of orders of battle and other data on the Italian front in 1866 and we hope to put together some articles on that volatile front for THE COURIER. Most people with a nodding acquaintance with the Battle of Custozza tell me that it was a walkover for the Austrians. It wasn't. The most comprehensive accounts indicate that it was a hard-fought series of almost separate battles along a broad front, and that although the Italians retreated in confusion, the total Austrian loss in killed, wounded and captured was not only relatively but absolutely slightly greater.
e. Some of the material kindly provided by Dr. Casall also indicates that the Piedmontese lancers assisting Forey's French Division at Montebello were lancieri rather than the helmeted heavy lancers of the reserve cavalry division as indicated in my article.
AVOIDING A DISASTER AT GETTYSBURGSKI
Random disasters such as that which befell the Russians in the Battle for Gettysburgski can be avoided by using two, three or more dice. In Carl West's article on the Fog of War (Vol. VII No. 6) the Russians, after a good start, were done in by consecutive rolls of six which vastly increased French reinforcements. The main problem lies with the linear probability given by a single die. A player had an equal chanceof rolling up one cavalry rgt. or 1 div. of infantry supported by an arty battery. To avoid this, these charts should be constructed with a bell curve probability using two or more dice.
Depending on the scenario, this would put the extremes of large and small formations at the ends of the curve and the bulk of what is reasonably expected in the center with a higher probability of being rolled. The curves could even be varied by turns so that on opening rounds mostly cavalry/skirmishers would be rolled. Later, another curve would give a higher probability of line infantry, dragoons, horse artillery, and such. Finally, the last curve would give the highest probability of guard units, seige arty and transports.
A sample curve might consist of:
- Roll : Units
2 1 Cavalry Regiment
3 2 Cavalry Regiments
4 2 Cavalry Regts. (1 must be Dragoons)
5 2 Cavalry Regts. (1 Dragoons), 1 Horse Bty.
6 1 Infantry Regiment
7 1 Infantry Regiment
8 1 Infantry Regt., 1 Cavalry Regt.
9 1 Infantry Regt., 1 Foot Bty.
10 1 Cavalry Regt.,l Horse Bty.,1 Infantry Regt.
11 1 Cav. Regt., 1 Horse Bty., 2 Inf. Regts., 1 Foot Bty.
12 1 Bde. Infantry, 1 Foot Bty.
This doesn't guarantee that two great (or terrible) rolls in a row will unbalance the game, but makes that probability more remote.
STRATAGEM LOCATED
Many sent in STRATAGEM's address as requested by Roy Downs in the last issue. I amembarassed to admit that I should have made the connection to Duncan McFarlane, Editor of Wargames Illustrated, as I am well aware that STRATAGEM is his store.
In any case, the address is:
- STRATAGEM
18 Lovers Lane
Newark, Notts NG24 1H2, UK
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VIII No. 1
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1987 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