One of the hysterically unhistorical match-ups at the recent Nunawadding Wargaming Assoc. DBA Championships: Martin Morgan’s beautifully presented Italian Condotta up against John Shaw’s equally impressive Early Crusaders.
John Wouter’s Georgian baggage element - note the plagiarist staked out in front. Pictures courtesy of the Nunawading Wargamers Assoc. & found on the DB page of their website: www.alphalink.com.au/~nwa/dbx/
FANTASY vs HISTORICAL
Dear Editor
Once again I must thank the editorial staff for the excellent way in which my article was presented in the last issue. Over the past eight issues both quality of the articles and their presentation have continually improved. Following the line of published comment that Kriegspieler “should be the forum for historical wargamers” and that the Editor's “are entirely in agreement that Fantasy gamers are well and truly catered for”, I confess I'm disappointed that the magazine may also be encompassing fantasy and science fiction gaming as well. Certainly, there may be an argument that expanding the nature of the magazine's contents to cover these areas may ensure increased numbers of subs criptions. However, ensuring the magazines original “main concern” of addressing the “needs of Australian historical gamers” should be met before ideas of expansion to other gaming areas are put into practice. At this stage, remembering that this is only the magazines ninth issue, the “main concern” has yet to be achieved and by continued broadening of the mag azines historical base then the desired increase in circulation might also be achieved.
Besides, what guarantee is there that fantasy and science fiction articles will increase subscriptions? It may actually have the opposite effect, that is, alienating historical gamers who, until now, have been “by and large neglected” with no avenue to express their own thoughts and ideas to the local historical gaming community. Of course, there is also the thought that opening the magazine to non-historical gaming may create a broad spectrum of subjects for readers to enjoy. Then again, like sharing a box of chocolates amongst a group, everyone has a taste but none are satisfied, the unsatisfied may soon become disgruntled and leave. It may be more appropriate, if there is such a significant demand in an area that is “well and truly catered for”, for Kriegspieler Publications to produce a second magazine devoted only to non-historical gaming genre.
I understand that the magazine relies on the submission of articles by its subscribers and that promised articles have not been forthcoming. Perhaps an annual award for the best article published from a new writer? This may encourage writers, especially covering historical periods that have not been included. As yet there have been very few articles covering American Civil War, Colonial periods, the World Wars, Modern or other historical gaming genre such as board gaming and an award my be a method of encouraging hidden talents within the historical gaming community.
MOAB 2000 is scheduled for the October long weekend, with the Olympics, quite rightly, taking the back seat. A Horse and Musket competition will be there but in a different format. This year's competition will be in the form of a knockout with players being seeded on past MOAB, CANCON and Duke of Wollongong performances. Those who are knocked-out retire to play a multi-player game that is reinforced as the rounds progress. The second day will involve a multi-player Napoleonic game featuring Phillip Jones’ Elan rules and the final day brings a pre-Napoleonic game loosely based on the battle of Brandywine Creek. The layout of the event is different from both the ‘Duke’ and CANCON introducing a bit more variety than in previous years. Last year the H & M comp suffered from being the fourth and last comp of the year, but with only three competitions this year I am hoping for a bigger turnout.
Thanks (again) for the big wraps for the magazine. Doug & I also greatly appreciate both the quantity & quality of articles that you have submitted for publication [there’s yet another in the AWI series in this issue]. Firstly, we must allay your fears of the magazine being subverted in any way by fantasy or Sci-fi. “Kriegspieler” is and will remain devoted to and for the interests of historical wargamers, re-enactors, amateur historians and military enthusiasts of all genres. We will publish Fantasy articles where we feel they may have relevance to historical gamers (for example; the Warmaster review in this issue) and we will NOT be putting out a second publication for Fantasy/Sci-fi (its hard enough just to get this one out!) Lets take this opportunity to draw a line under the fantasy vs historical content debate and move on.
Secondly, as you’ve pointed out, we are largely dependant upon the range of material we receive from contributors such as yourself. So far the greater amount of material we have received has been Horse & Musket & much of that Napoleonic. What can we say? Amongst historical gamers the Napoleonic enthusiasts are many and like to write about it! However, we DO need contributions that address other eras of historical interest such as those you’ve pointed out. As luck would have it we have two major articles in this issue on WWI (my humble attempt at something other than Napoleonics) & WWII AND a board game review. Hopefully this together with the last issues non H&M articles will ‘get the ball rolling’ and encourage further contributions on other historical eras.
Your idea for an annual ‘encouragement’ award for the best article submitted has merit and Doug & I will discuss this further (perhaps one of our advertisers may wish to make an ‘offer’???) Finally, its great to hear of something different being introduced to the H&M comp at a con. I believe that there will even be a prize for the best painted army in this year’s H&M at MOAB. I trust all you “Grognards” out there get the lead out (pun intended!) and roll up in numbers that are more reflective of the true interest that historical gamers have in H&M and support those like Mark who spend considerable time and effort ensuring there IS a H&M competition at each major con! - Ed.
THE DB/HISTORICAL DEBATE
The following letter by veteran gamer Joe Marmelic is another in our on-going debate on the historical veracity of DBx gaming systems and is in response to Paul Turner’s short piece published in the last issue.
Dear Editor,
Paul Turner admits in his “Historical or just plain hysterical” article that “Wargaming is a social event...” which amongst other things involves “..endless discussion about …which rules system is the best”. In fact he believes that: “Criticism of r ules systems will be an integral part of our hobby for all time… It is the right of ever y wargamer to question rules…. It is the right of every wargamer to argue in favour of one r ules set over another”
If he believes all these things then I am perplexed as to why he then accuses DBx critics of being “hysterical” and “pedantic”. Name calling that does little to promote the hobby and even less in helping wargamers appreciate the pros and cons of a set of rules.
DBx rules are criticised not because they are popular but because they claim to capture “the full feel and generalship requirements” of most of recorded history. Wargamers have the right to investigate the claim, assess how the rules play compared to historical events and make a decision. After a game using DBx do you feel that you have experienced the “full feel” of being ancient, medieval or renaissance general? DBx is being assessed based on its own claims. As Paul says “ no wargaming system will be perfect…. While the historical premise should be as close to reality as possible, it will never BE real.” Quite so, discussions about any rules system is how close to reality are they? The criticism of DBx is that it is a poor reflection of the “full feel and generalship requirements”. These criticisms are based on not on “minutiae” but the big picture - troop representation , function and battlefield dynamics. Dismissing criticism of DBx on the basis that it is all just “..petty nit-picking and pedantic postulating..” is a sorry excuse for a counter argument.
DBx is a good game system and they are undoubtedly the pre-eminent competition rules in the world. However, it does not follow that they are good history. For the record, I enjoy DBA in all their variations but I would not defend them based on a good simulation of any historical period. They are a wonderfully simple game system to understand, easy to play and a result can be had in an hour of play.
History is NOT a popularity contest. We usually know what happened - how and why are the intriguing mysteries. Historical wargaming will always be of interest to a certain percentage of people fascinated with military history. Rules that are inconsistent with known facts or probable, even possible events are not satisfactory if you are interested in history. Games that pit Caesar vs. Henry V or Lee vs. Napoleon is not history - it is fantasy. This is NOT a criticism of fantasy games just do not be embarrassed to call such games what they are - fantasy.
DBx is NOT “the hobby”. Criticism of DBx or any set of rules is not a criticism of historical wargaming. It will not doom the hobby to “obscurity and a slow death”. Historical wargaming has been around for a lot longer than DBx. The hobby keeps DBx alive and not the other way around. Wargamers are attracted to historical periods for a variety of reasons, predominantly because of an interested in militar y history and many by the modeling aspects of the hobby. In fact, I would argue that DBx for a time posed a problem for the hobby because they were promoted as the “politically correct” interpretation of historic warfare. Look at all the ancient wargamers that have emerged since the release of Warhammer Ancient Battles and all the new younger ones that have been attracted.
The hobby - in all its forms is bigger and better than ever before (I have been wargaming for over thirty years). Concerns over its demise or possible demise are exaggerated. Just look at the number of local manufacturer’s, retailers and conventions being held. The Internet has meant that wargamers now have even easier access to similar thinking hobbyists around the world. The ever-increasing new range of figures, models, rules and wargaming accessories is generating excitement and attracting new players. Criticising DBx will not stop the momentum.
We should also not lose sight of the fact that wargaming for many wargamers is not necessarily a social event - as is evidenced by solo wargamers. Wargaming retailers will tell you that they have far more customers than you ever see at a convention or competition. Must be all those “crusty old men” wargaming at home with a couple of mates. Historical wargaming is a social outlet for many but it for others it is also an intellectual and/or artistic pursuit.
Lastly, I hope that DBx gamers will take up the challenge and describe to Kriegspieler readers how well DBx and the competition approach reflects history. How it encourages historical research - other than looking up DBx army lists. I look forward to your responses.
It seems to me that there are two distinct type of ‘historical’ wargamers using DBx here - those that use it to recreate actual battles or fight encounters between historical opponents and those who are competition gamers (and I’m sure there are plenty who do both). Whether you are either in one, the other or both groups I think Joe’s point that some of the more bizarre match-ups could be more accurately described as ‘fantasy’ rather than ‘historical’ is a valid one. For example, the recent DBR Championships in Victoria saw Old Kingdom Egyptians and Italian Condotta pitted against Early Crusaders etc, [see pic below] - hardly historical enemies! Interestingly, at the Cancon 2000 comp I also heard several players comment that an effort should be made to pit competitors against one another based on historically valid opponents - if only to ensure a more‘level playing field’ at comps.
Regardless of your opinion, I’m sure there’s plenty of room in this town for both points of view - after all, if DBx attracts players by the score to the hobby of historical wargaming it can only be a good thing - right?!? Whatever - I’m sure we haven’t heard the last on this subject! - Ed.
PLAGIARISM
Far more serious is an e-mail I received recently from Phil Yates of New Zealand.
Hi Brad,
I appreciate that the Kriegspieler is a hobbyist magazine, and a damned good one at that, however, I would like to point out a case of plagiarism in a copy I saw recently.
The article in question was the Varangian army list for Warhammer Ancient Battles (unfortunately I have lost the reference to the issue). This list, although referring to Phil Barker and other DBM guru’s for inspiration neglected to mention that it was an almost word for word copy of my work published as the Early Medieval (Dark Ages) Army List, with the parts irrelevant to the Rus removed.
I would appreciate an apology from the author and a reference to my work printed in Kriegspieler.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
The article Phil refers to is of course one of the Special Feature articles in our ‘premier’ issue in the new format (Kriegspieler #5) - “Varangian Rus Army List - 860 AD to 1054 AD” by Dave Cross. The original article that this was obviously taken from can be seen in its entirety on Phil’s website: http://geocities.yahoo.com/TimesSquare/Alley/2541/Rules/WAB/DarkAge.htm
[incidentally, a great site that will be of much interest to DBers and wargamers in general] It has also been recently published in full in Wargames Illustrated magazine, issue #143.
Kriegspieler unreservedly apologizes for any affront caused by publishing this article. Until Phil pointed it out we had no idea it was anybody else’s work ; we now know this not to be the case. The ‘author’ of the piece has since moved on and no longer contributes to the magazine.
While we can and do take all reasonable measures to ensure work IS original and, where necessary, proper attribution is given to quoted material (both Doug and myself are reasonably well-read) we cannot check everything. We are dependant to a lar ge degree on the honesty of our contributors to ensure proper attribution is given in anything we publish.
Phil has raised a very serious issue for both the Kriegspieler and those who contribute to it. Plagiarism is theft pure and simple and will not be tolerated by this magazine. It is up to those submitting material for publication to ensure that it is original work and where somebody else’s work is used, both prior permission from the originator is obtained and proper acknowledgment of the material used is made.
In future anybody offending will be tracked down and shot in the face by a tank to die the lowly dog's deserve - and death that they we won’t be publishing anything else by them either! - Ed.
Back to Table of Contents -- Kriegspieler #9
To Kriegspieler List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Kriegspieler Publications.
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