Graham Empson: As always, I have been reading them [articles for Op Archives], before, during and after, and that's when I have my sudden thoughts like 'this stuff really is priceless and what's more ageless' and 'what happens when we get too old and decrepit to carry on, what will happen to all this lovely information'. Well that's enough of that - we have years left yet to come up with the answers to question like those - at least I hope so!.
[If there is any member who feels that a particular article, letter, series should be re-printed please let me know and we will see what we can do. Be warned! Delving back through Lone Warriors' can be a time consuming but rewarding experience.]
Michael Gray: Lone Warrior 109, arrived before Christmas and I have been pondering it ever since. Generally I would say you are moving in the right direction with the Lone Warrior. I noted the comments in Forum, mainly from David Heath, Alastair Roy and Paul Grace. I agree with much they had to say. Articles should be devoted to systems on solo play, all other matter should be secondary. Campaign reports are of no particular interest unless they include the system, used to arrive at a particular situation. I suppose we are all looking for a perfect set of solo rules and that should be the main purpose of Lone Warrior.
Paul Grace's article was most interesting, I had not considered the political implications in ending a military campaign. What he is proposing is highly complex. I have been milling it around for sometime and have come to the conclusion that there is no easy answer. There are some twenty or so factors to continue or end a war. Unfortunately I have not been able to use them in any simple workable system. I am very much bogged down at work at present and it is interfering with my wargaming. When I get time, I am working on the way troops and provisions were raised during the French and Indian Wars. Based on the size of communities their lightly population, political and economic situation. Putting these factors together should decide the number of troop and stores available at a particular military scenario. It involves re-reading of the Francis Parkman's Works, an author who wrote much about the Indian wars in Eighteenth-Century North America. The research is long and interesting although I have not reached a conclusion. This all started when I was trying to devise some ideas on how wars end and is an example of how other members idea's and problems can stimulate the study of new systems.
[Thanks for the feedback. On Campaign Reports; those with systems and mechanisms are ideal and those without are usually interesting reading, when members submit them! Personally, I like to read how other members games progress, otherwise Lone Warrior would just be a Rule Book. Enjoy the research and look forward to seeing your ideas in the future]
Andrew Freeman: I have spoken to Martin Goddard ( Peter Pig !) and he has agreed to a 10% discount for member of Solo Wargames Association, just mention SWA when ordering. An SAE to Martin at 36 Knightsdale Road, Weymouth Dorset DT4 0HS will get you a full price list.
[Excellent work Andrew. Prime example of a member having contact with a firm and getting a discount for the rest of the members. If you know a manufacturer, why not ask on behalf of the SWA, they can only say no! Note the increase in firms now giving discounts to us]
Ken Cooper: I am glad to see that the Solo Wargamers Association continues to flourish, it would have been a sad day for the hobby if it had folded for whatever reason. I've had an article on the back boiler now for months, hopefully I'll get it finished one day and send it in. That's done it, I've committed myself now!
[ This "back boiler" business needs serious attention, just look what happened to Paul Grace in Lone Warrior 109 when he brought his article to the "boil" and got it published; excellent response from members. Look forward to enjoying your offering.]
Ingo Beringer, Berlin. I am very glad at your report in the preface to the current issue (110) concerning the positive development of the Solo Wargamers Association. I eagerly await every new issue of the Lone Warrior.
Ian Duncan. Lone Warrior 110, another great issue...and more pages too! I see what you meant about all the tables in Godfrey Bailey's impressive article on Ambush!. What a nightmare! You've done a brilliant job on them though. [Glad you liked the results and I felt Godfrey's work deserved the effort.] Enjoyed the latest instalment in your Siege of Osaka, especially having seen the actual tabletop siegeworks. But you've done it again.....left us all gasping in anticipation of what will happen next! I reckon Toranaga's bitten off more than he can chew.
Michael Gray: Ten of ten for your article on the '"Siege of Osaka"". I know little about ancient Japanese warfare but found it well written and an interesting article. I like your point about giving each unit standing orders on how they should be deployed when attacked. Useful for any period. Sorry to hear that the Solo Wargamers Association now owns its own photocopier. It is a pity that Lone Warrior has been increased to 52 pages. Have you any idea how much longer it will now take to read. The layout is the best it has ever been, the only reservation I have is that Lone Warrior 110 was rather top heavy with articles on Ancients and Sci-Fi games. I expect the reason for this is they are the only articles available. I have written to Miniature Wargames asking for a mention for the Solo Wargamers Association!
[Not quite "own" the machine but will do by the end of 1995. Glad you like "Osaka", but progress on it is slow because I keep getting more reinforcements which need painting etc! Concerning articles, well I admit to indulging myself on the Samurai scene (which you may all have noticed) but I can only print what I am sent. Godfrey Bailey actually gave permission to have his complete set of rules, published in two parts but I could find no logical point at which to "cut". The amount of work (as usual) he had put into it, I felt deserved for it to be published in its entirety or was that me copping out!? Great idea, asking for a plug from the glossies!]
By way of introduction, I am the chairperson of the CPCCS [Committee for Politically Correct Controversy Simulations]. You may know us by our previous title, the Committee for Politically Correct Battle Simulations. However, upon reflection we eliminated 'battle' from our title because that word suggests winners and losers which is inherently detrimental to the maintenance of positive self-esteem. Our group is dedicated to bringing to controversy simulations a new awareness of terms and practices which are intrinsically sexist, ageist, racist or in other ways discriminatory. I am pleased to say that we have been following Lone Warrior with interest and have suggestions which will enhance inclusion while eliminating modes based upon male-dominated, class-ridden, eurocentric tradition.
Let us address the issue of sexism. An extensive survey of your text shows an imbalance toward the male gender. Most of your articles and letters are written by males and most illustrations appear to depict male figures. We recommend a goal that 50% of your membership be made up of females and that 50% of articles published be written by females. As a further recommendation, illustrations should either be gender-neutral or that numbers of male illustrations be balanced by equal numbers of female illustrations. And no more renderings of nude figures (male or female) which create a false image of "ideal" body proportions and may hurt the feelings of those readers unable to "measure up" to these standards.
Too many of your articles refer unnecessarily to class distinctions. Your rules portray 'elite' units which achieve higher levels of success than 'less elite units.' These 'elite' units, as it turns out, start from an elevated base and receive additional points when rolling for morale and combat effectiveness. This has created large classes of disadvantaged units which begin play at lower levels of efficiency and will usually be less successful. I am sure you see the basic unfairness in this situation. Let all units start on the same level; let grenadiers and militia enjoy the same morale and combat effectiveness ratings.
A similar situation applies to national distinctions which show a disregard for the sensibilities of the troops concerned. Why do Russians enjoy higher defense factors while French receive better odds when in the attack? Why does the Spartan unit demonstrate greater cohesion than the Hittite? This certainly traumatizes the young Hittite members of your organization. We must insist that all rules purge themselves of national distinctions which encourage divisiveness in favor of nationality-neutral rules.
The distinctions between branches of service are likewise inherently segregationist. Why do only cavalrypersons ride horses? Should not infantrypersons and artillerypersons also ride horses? And why just horses and the occasional elephant or camel? This specie-ism must be addressed. We suggest that other species be brought into the game. Consider, if you will, units composed of mules, zebras, rhinoceroses, and condors - the list is endless. Fantasy gamers have seen the advantages in this arena for many years now.
Uniforms are another area which begs for attention. Your grenadier guards sport bearskin headgear! The killing of animals for their fur merely to add embellishments to martial attire is an offense against nature. The differentiation of uniform between unit types can only be considered exclusionary. For example, American Civil Conflict [we dropped 'war' for the same reason as 'battle'] zouaves are dressed in brightly colored uniforms adorned with gold and silver trim while their adversaries sport ragged butternut. This is a demonstration of insensitivity . We recommend that all figures be retroactively modified and repainted. Each figure should be as unisex as possible [no facial hair to offend the sartorially- challenged for example]; and wear nondescript clothing with no distinctions of rank or branch of service. It would be permissible, indeed laudatory, to clothe half in pants and half in skirts. We can foresee vast increases in numbers of Roman legionnaires and kilted Scotspersons.
The multiplicity of weaponry is discriminatory. How would a figure armed only with an edged weapon feel when confronted by one sporting a firearm? Not very good we should think. We recommend that all figures in a given scenario be armed identically. As for uniform colors it would be best to use two colors only, perhaps black and white [other color combinations put the color-vision impaired at a disadvantage]. Then, in order to create an environment of equality, after each game, the black figures can be painted white and the white black.
There are many more issues to be dealt with but we will leave you Lone Warriors to address those outlined above.
Back to Table of Contents -- Lone Warrior #111
Back to Lone Warrior List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 by Solo Wargamers Association.
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