THE NATURE OF THE WAR-GAME IN MINIATURE
We have recently heard and seen a great deal of discussion of the rationalization for the playing of war-games with miniatures. Having given the matter much thought, the observations of a gamer of twenty years experience may be of interest to others.
Definition of terms: The particular facet under examination here is the so-called "table-top wargame", as opposed to the boardgame. What divides the two? The actual miniatures, of course. Thus, the table-topper derives interest and pleasure from the making and viewing of miniature depictions of soldiers, military hardware and topographic features. Otherwise, we could just push around the bases as we would "little cardboard squares" and getthe same effect as boardgamers do. Therefore it seems clear that Hal Thinglum is correct in categorizing a large proportion of tabletoppers as modellers first, and then gamers. The importance of the definition as modellers will become clear in due course.
Costs of narrow-mindedness: It is my personal belief that narrow-mindedness is one ofthe principal faults of the average war-gamer, a phenomenon also endemic to model railroaders. (I might mention thatthevast majority of the war gamers I have met, started outas model railroaders.) Rather than the narrow focus usually encountered, would it not be more useful if we could envision ourselves as located somewhere along a spectrum, that ofthe larger population ofmilitary enthusiasts? This spectrum ranges broadly from those who simply watch war movies or read war books, to the other extreme: the professional soldier who is totally involved with the military life. In between, we find military modellers, war-gamers (both table-top and boardgarne), re-enacters and I would even include Chess players. It behooves all of us to be open-minded and receptive to the other members ofthis larger interest group. After all, (and again like model railroaders), to the general population, we are all nuts!
Exclusion of Fantasy Games: You will nodoubt noticethat I have omitted the Fantasy-gamers from my spectrum. This is not accidental! The exclusion reverts to the definition of a "miniature wargamer". The crux is the word "model" - a model being a representation of an actual or actually possible thingor set of circumstances. In the caseofthe table-top war-game, we use models in both senses the figures and equipment are smaller than real life, and we generally use smaller numbers of them to represent larger component units. Fantasy is just that - divorced from reality. I derive great amusement from the name of a regular column in a well-known magazine, "Fantasy Facts!" The expression is a blatant contradiction in terms. I have nothing against those who enjoy fantasy, but neither do I feel any community of interest with them.
Hypocrisy of Definitions: As long as I am taking pot-shots in this reckless fashion, let me hew at the silly expression "adventure gaming", for just a moment. All Of US must have the moral and intellectual courage to face down critics of war-games (and indeed, interest in war generally!). War is, and always has been a central facet of human activity and history. We are what we are, speak the language we speak, enjoy those rights which we enjoy, because ofendless wars. To be interested in war is not to be a war-monger by necessity. Many people are intrigued by murder mystenues, but they are not thereby murderer' To complete my deflation of those who would cater to criticism by evasion, please contemplate the concept of "The American Civil Adventure"! Cut me a break!!
The "Black War-game": Moving now to thoughts on dissent within the war-gaming community, we encounter the current debate on "Black War-games". Unfortunately, distasteful as this sort of thing may be to many of us, it is necessary in today's world for the military to face this aspect of war. Therefore I find ita valid area forexamination byenthusiasts as well. Those who find it too distasteful are always free to step away. Do not fault others because of your personal aversion, however.
"Beer and Pretzel" Rules: Turning now to so-called "Beer and Pretzel" rules, a requisite of all wargame rules, regardless of complexity, should be a realistic and rational result based on the actions of the players. I rather suspect that the creation of a good set of "Beer and Pretzel" rules is probably harder than the construction of a more complex compilation. I feel strongly that any rules should punish carelessness and reward intelligent actions in direct proportion to reality. After all, that was the original motivation for the creation of the first "Kriegspiel" in 1829, the demonstration of error without the spilling of real blood!
Conclusions: In summation, why do we engage in miniature war-games? We like to build model'. we like to compete (both in model-building and on the stylized "field of battle"; we are Military History buffs, and let's face it I'm sure that none can deny that, at one time or another, we have all asked ourselves, "What it I had been Rommel/Napoleon/Lee? Would I have mipasured up?"
The military is, and has been for centuries, considered an honorable profession. One of its greatest leaders wrote these words. "Upon the fields offriendly strife are sown theseeds from which, on other fields, in other days, are reaped the fruits ofVictoty!" War-gamers have nothingto be ashamed of, as long as we find the moral courage to defend our interests and our views. "SUMM CUIQUE"
NO BASIS FOR DESCRIBING SOME WARGAMES AS "BLACK"
First, may I say that I thought VII/6 was an exceptionally strong effort - keep up the good work!
However, I was a bit disturbed - and puzzled - by remarks in the GLEANINGS report on The Nugget (p, 59). I refer to the discussion of "so-called 'Black' wargames".
I see this phrase popping up more and more frequently, but I have never seen it defined. The context suggests that it is becoming permissible, if not popular, to use this phrase in the pages of THE COURIER to describe any wargame one does not like.
I believe this is a divisive and ill-conceived policy. If you don't like a game, system or period - fine! fyou want to say so - fine! That kind of discussion is what THE COURIER is for (to me, anyway). But if you want to base your view on morality or politics, a hobby press is the wrong forum.
Gentlemen, morally we are indefensible; we derive pleasure from games about death and violence (why haven't we been able to sell ourselves to prime-time TV?). If there is one type of death and violence that you don't enjoy simulating, fine, but don't moralize about it. Personally, I abhor games about hypothetical 'conventional' Third World Wars - but if you have fun with that, great, go for it! I have never seen such games called 'black', yet I see no moral difference between them and a game about contemporary terrorism. How does the writer (ED. NOTE: Hal Thinglum) of that piece feel about a simulation of John Brown's Raid -- certainly a piece of terrorism? There have been mass-market games about German POW camps -- but I am sure games a bout American, British or German concentration camps would be called 'black'. Many similar examples pop to my fevered brow. The point is: none of these are 'nice' subjects; there is no basis for calling one set 'white' and the other set 'black'.
Many 'newcomers' would be more interested in a game about a contemporary problem than some discussion of the shape of ornamental lace on 17th Century French uniforms. What does turn them off is the feeling - often easily derived from the wargame press - that this is a serious business and your not supposed to have fun. Can I interest my targeted writer in a game of Nuclear War? -
"Black" wargames for the unititiated, are those depicting today's problems, i.e., street riots in South Africa; perhaps modern-day IRA activities, and the like. Some I suppose would include the Falklans, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc. I agree with the writer. The delineation is silly. The distinction is in the eye of the beholder or the period in which he lives. Most likely gamers in 2050 won't have any more problem gaming street riots in Johannesburg than we presently do gaminglohn Brown's Raid. - DICK BRYANT
NEED MORE GAMING SPACE AT CONVENTIONS
I have just returned from Historicon 88 after having a pretty good experience. The crowds were big, and the hobby is doing well judging by the number of dealers and variety of goods being sold. But something was lacking--namely games for people to actually play! There was a shortage of games and space to play them. But I was lucky enough to get time and space on Saturday to put on two WWII armor games but had to turn away people asking to play. Some had been turned away from other games repeatedly and were now wondering how to spend the rest of their (too long) day at the convention. I personally also failed to get into some of the games I wanted to play due to overbooking.
There are two ways to solve a supply and demand problem; either increase supply or decrease demand. increasing supply seems the better choice in this case. I have a suggestion or two that I hope will help increase the supply of games at conventions.
1. Convention organizers should provide some guidelines for referees along with the forms forgetting an event in the convention flyer. This will encourage new referees to try putting on aconvention game and lead to more enjoyable games due to better design.
Some guidelines that I would propose revolve around the idea that games at the convention should be geared to convention play. This means that most players should get into play quickly. I have spent a lot of games doing setup, advancing to combat or being the turn ten reinforcements rather than playing the game. One way to speed up play is to urge referees to design the setup beforehand with forces deployed and near contact. After all, leaders are often presented with a situation rather than being in control of it.
Think small. Offer repeat sessions of popular games or senarios and give fresh players priority in getting chance to solve that tactical problem. This is better than putting on a monster game that takes up six tables for three days.
2. Conventions give painting prizes in various categories; why not prizes for best rookie referee or best Napoleonics referee? Perhaps a page in the convention flyer could be used as an exit poll for convention goers. Everyone gets one comment form to pick the best game that they played at the convention and enthusiasm counts for this admittedly subjective choice. Small games would have to make up for lack of numbers with enthusiasm or repeat sessions. No-show referees would certainly lose. Referees are volunteers who are the backbone of the convention. How about some recognition for the unsung heroes?
3. My events were not listed in the convention flyer for one reason or another. After verifying that all tables were scheduled for some event, I got space at the convention only due to no-show referees. If all table space is scheduled and there are many no-show referees, how about allowing referees to be listed in the event flyer or on the bulletin board as standby referees for a given time slot? A standby referee wants sufficient players for a game but usually cannot get enough players due to lack of publicity and possible players having made decisions about how to spend their time without knowing all the Possibilities,
Good gaming is the reason for having conventions. Let's have more of it at conventions.
All very good ideas! A major problem for conventions is to get referees to volunteer to put on games in a timely fashion, early enough to get into the variousgame flyers. A large display of game openings would help. Also no game should last more than four hours. Three is more reasonable.
In 20 years of gaming every period the wargame group I belong to games, 85% of its games come to a conclusion on a 3-4 hour game night! A final thought: the names of no show referees (without good excuses) should be publicized and now allowed to put on games for a period of one or two years.
ANOTHER VOTE FOR 5MM
Mr. Protz's excellent piece on the French and Indian Wars contained the comment one of the reasons he so enjoyed this period was the ability to "recreate the battles large and small ofthe French and Indian Wars in a meaningful, picturesque and different way". One ofthe different ways which is suggested is the use of 1:10,1:5, or even up ratios. I could not agree more with his comments about the difficulties of handling long (and shallow. by the way) formations. I will, however, suggest the verys mall 5mm (or 6mm or 1/300th, take your piclo scale provides an even better "feel". There is something unsettling about suddenly the center of your line is defended by formations whose total depth is less than two inches. I know, I've been there. There is the added bonus that the ground scale can be brought closer to "true scale". There is less distortion between the horizontal and vertical ccales. That model house which represents a town in 25mm, and a village in 15mm, can represent a house in 5mm. Moving through towns, and over difficult terrain, becornes extremely chancy; but even better, you get to see why it really was chancy as you watch the painful slowness of the operation or cohesion of your unit completely fall apart.
Somewhat obviously, I'm a 5mm partisan. There are at least two companies in the UK malkingfinc 5/6mm figures, and a couple more I haven't had time to sample. I've gamed with both 25mm and I 5mm. and have enjoyed painting both. Even a partisan as passionate as myself must admit you won't get the detail of the larger figures. Nonetheless, to borrow Mr. Koch's phrase, they are outstanding three dimensional representation, of counters. They are cheap (two complete "armies" cost me just slightly over $50.00 and that induced airmail from the UK), paint easily, and have an outstanding visual impact if a little care is exercised in the painting and mounting. The two major companies either have lines specifically for the French and Indian Wars, or their Seven Years War figures can be painted for the North Americn portion of that war.
I strongly recommend that you dig out some of your micro-armor terrain: buy and paint up a couple of-armies (or even just units) and have a go at it. Since most rules have a direct corrolation between figure frontage and ground scale, all you have to do is keep the frontage of the units consistent with the rules you are using and remember to alter your casualty charts (if used) accordingly. For example, if a 15mm figure normally is given a 1/2 inch frontage, you may want to put three 5mm figures on a 1/2 inch frontage and divide all casualty effects (both giving and receiving) by three. Alternatively, to borrow an idea from WRG, you can consider each stand an "element" and use its characteristics in exactly the same way you would play the larger scale stand. Remember to kecp your stand depth shallow, not over ten mm or 1/4 inch or so, so you can get the "feel" of the linear formations,
5mm/6mm is not yet a popular scale in the US. If there are any other 5mm fanatics, maybe we ought to get together -
OPEN LETTER TO NASAMW
I received the June 1988 issue of the NASAMW North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers newsletter and was astonished to find a ballot on page 9 with rules changes for WRG 7th. Gentlemen, these rules are copyrighted and belong to WRG and Phil Barker. You cannot arbitrarilly take sections of WRG 7th and 'put them to a vote', making various additions/cuts/changeS and requiring their mandatory use in future U.S. ancients tournament competitions.
In the realm of local (job or house roles, the 14 rules changes would be fine, as would any clarifications, army lists, etc. House rules are used when a group of friends act together and people are having a game or a local competition. What is being proposed by the officers of NASAMW is a whilesale restructuring of someone else's rules to fit their prejudices, interpretations, and opinions. This is wrong. If you gentlemen prefer to have a set of rules molded to your specifications, write your own, don't indiscriminately doctor or otherwise tamper with a copyrighted, published set.
Last vear at Historicon, I was not especially enamored with certain 'clarifications' and tournament restrictions (see my article in Slingshot, Number 134, November, 1987). That was tolerable. This is not. Also note the letter from Phil Barker in THE COURIER, VIII-2, in which he referes to a NASAMW revised list and asks: "Has this body been amending my lists without telling me?" Phil, just wait til you see what they're doing to your rules
PHIL BARKER NOT HAPPY WITH NASAMW RULE CHANGES
Some time ago I wrote a letter, published in COURIER VIII-2, mentioning a reference to an NASAMW revised army list, and enquiring whether that body had been amenclingmy lists without telling me. Shortly after, I had a phone call from Kruse Smith in which he told me that NASAMW had produced amendmentsto our Bookl lists, but that these were purely optional and not compulsory in competition. A set of these amendments then arrived through the post,and a few days after, Kruse phoned again to ask my reaction. I told him that I had not had time to look through them in detail, that I would consider them all along with many other player suggestions when revising the WRG lists, but that some appeared to be spec ial pleading by players wish ing to remove historical disabilities of their armies, and other were long exploded myths. For instance, the small Athenian city police force of Skythian slaves had resurfaced as a large body of horse archers. Give those boys horses, and they would have been back home beyond the Danube before you could look round!
What Kruse failed to mention was that for a year the NASAMW rules committee had been proposing and voting on amendments to our WRG 7th edition Ancient Rules, to be compulsory at all tournaments. When a dissident membersent me a copy ofthese this week, this was the first I had heard of them. They include 14 rules changes, 14 interpretations and clarifications, and 8 tournament format rules. My copy was also annotated with total committee votes for, against and abstaining.
Starting with the tournament formal proposals, these are intended to remove all the variations in deployment conditions introduced in 7th edition to add realism and variety. Acceptance would mean that lesser skill would he required of American players than those elsewhere in the world, I regrest the committee's lack of national pride.
Next, the interpretations. My first thought was that this wasa sLFdnge procedure. Why vote on what I meant in the rules, instead of just asking me? However, only No's. 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of the 14 turned out to be interpretations; the rest were rule changes, of which No. 2 was quite a good one which I have now adopted.
Finally, the other rule changes. No's. 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the 14 address real problems, and are solutions which have been canvassed and tested over here but rejected. Our solutions, and those to other problems which the committee did not tackle, will be available as an official amendment sheet by the time you read this, and a copy will be sent to the Editor. No's. 7 and 8 are more unnecessary than bad. The others are all unhistorical, and many favour particular armies, notably Japanese.
Wargames rules writing is a skilled pastime. 20 years experience shows that good players are rarely good rules writers, and that amendments introduced bycompetition orgamsers areciften disastrous. I especially remember a WW2 national finals in which the organisers' change of one sentence led to a game with both armies (made up) entirely of off-table artillery. Incidentally, my first glance at the NASAMW changes revealed that heavily armoured infantry could avoid fatigue if instead of moving over flat dry ground they stuck to marsh and steep hills. The first principle, even for the original author, is to leave well alone! Don't make any changes unless absolutely necessary. Even seemingly innocuous ones can have wicked side effects. If the author absolutely has to make a change because some jerk found a loophole, he should think long and hard, ask around for possible solutions and test for 6 months.
I would rather play at war than start one, but I must make it quite clear that no competition using any of the proposed NASAMW amendments I have seen can claim to be using WRC rules. I believe NASAMW could have a useful role in rule development if "Spearpoint" was used as a forum to identify possible rules problems, discuss possible solutions, and communicate them to the author. I do not think an anonymous unelected rules committee voting in secrecy on recommendations to be put before members without the latter being given the argumentson both sides have anything to recommend it. I might add that two of the most important of our forthcoming amendments originated in that way from Italy.
Lastly, I gather that some members of NASAMW feel they are the victims of Anti-American bias. Not so. Even the Editor of Sling-shot is actually biased against competition wargamers in general, rather than American ones.
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VIII #3
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1988 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