I sympathised with your comments on umpiring your WWII Normandy campaign [Lone Warrior 129] as I once had similar experiences in umpiring a club campaign in this period. I must admit that I am far from an expert in WWII and had I knocked out a simple set of rules using what I had learned from reading accounts written by blokes who had fought in Normandy. Unfortunately, some of those taking part in my campaign were regular WWII players, who used commercial rule sets 'competition fashion.' I got into terrible trouble over the spotting rules, which I was told were far too harsh, and, likewise, I apparently made it too difficult for tanks to communicate to their mates the actual location of enemy they had spotted. And yet none of those who objected was able to explain to me how it can be done instantly and accurately, short of firing a stream of tracer at the target for all to see. I don't think you need to have actually seen military service to appreciate the difficulties of passing target information; next time you are out in the country, try pointing out a distant object to the person you are with, without using your hands, and see if they pick it up straight away, and that is without the distortions and delay of wireless communication at a distance. Another storm I ran into concerned recognition. Imagine: The scene: a Sherman Tank, 11th Armoured Division, somewhere in Normandy. Gunner: Sergeant! Look, behind the hedge, next to the trees! Commander: I see it, son. It's a Panzer IV, ausf J, with extra armour plates. Sounds likely? No, it doesn't, and yet that apparently is what happens in those metal or plastic tanks on the table every time an enemy vehicle is located. I rolled an extra dice, out of sight of the players, every time a spotting throw was successful; if 5 or 6 (and I thought that was generous) the actual vehicle was placed on the table. If the throw wasn't successful, I'd put on a Tiger Tank, this being what the British often expected to see, and only changed it for the actual target when it had been recognised or destroyed. You can imagine the reaction of some of my players to this particular idea, and yet I still think it was not only appropriate but improved the game. What do you think? I also got into hot water over the infantry. It seems to be taken as read that a WWII infantryman's first reaction on being shot at is to fire back. I disagreed, I think his first priority would be to make sure he wasn't hit next time. Getting killed is an occupational hazard for the infantry, but not something to be actively sought after. All in all, for all the respect I have for the fighting man of WWII, I don't think he was the telepathic, many-eyed fearless psychopath that a lot of rule writers seem to think he was. And for all the objections, most agreed that my version of the fighting in Normandy made for a better wargame than the usual competition style 'turkey-shoot' that the regular WWII players were used to. Mind you, my ideas of WWII are still seen as a bit quirky, though I fail to see why. (Perhaps I should stick to Horse and Musket.) Right, I'll put the soapbox away and stop boring you with my opinions. Hope all your wargaming projects are progressing well - my Napoleonic Turks come on apace, with Mark Bevis' help, and I've just been given another boxful of 15mm Celts by one of the lads who couldn't be bothered to paint them. It can be very handy having everyone know you have a weakness for a particular type of troops! Gaidhealtacht gu brach! [Chris, thanks for this interesting letter. Does it bring to the fore the difference in gaming attitudes between the Soloist and the Multi Player, in that the former can (and in my case does tweak) with rules, but only if they need it and the Multi Player is constricted to obey the very letter of them. I have managed over the years I have attend various clubs to infiltrate some of my outlandish (solo) ideas into the wargaming psyche of my friends and opponents. This small but significant step will not turn them into thinking soloists, but perhaps will get them to read books other than 'The Rules' and 'The Lists'. I can honestly state I have learnt more about the history of countries, whose 15mm wargames armies I use, from my research than I ever did at school. The prime example is the English Civil War and I have spent many a happy hour wandering over old battlefields with reference book in hand trying to imagine the problems that faced commanders of so long ago. The point about members knowing your weakness (for wargaming figures) has worked for me as well. Recently an SWA member kindly sent me some 25mm Samurai. I publicly confess that I lost the covering letter and have been unable to thank him. So in the pages of Lone Warrior and, subsequently, to the whole wargaming world via Magweb.com; Thanks for the figures. One of the lads at Wargamers Of Ripon (WOR) could not work up enough interest to complete the 15mm Nomadic Hordes army he had started and offered them to me. They needed building up to the 4.5k points limit we use and so I sent off to Donnington for reinforcements. So good was their response, in the turn around time for my order, and the standard of their figures that I got rid of three units of horse archers (36 figures) and replaced them with those from Donnington. Although I have always been drawn towards those men on their sturdy little steppes ponies, the thought of painting an army of cavalry really put me off. Now I have a full army and have entered them in the WHAB campaign we have just beginning, having had a few practices mostly against Normans who are getting more frustrated each time we meet - or don't as the case may be. Used in the historical way my miniature cavalrymen are lethal, until we run out of table! Practice in a solo mode gives me the experience I need to play face-toface, but I am now running a parallel campaign in solo mode with the one at the club for my own satisfaction. The WHAB campaign system is well worth looking into. Nearly forgot! Had a Soloist V's Multi clash last time my Golden (note the promotion) Horde took on the Normans in that my General and Battle Standard somehow managed to get in the way of the elite charging knights and got chased off the field! "Instant reaction test" went up the cry for losing my general. "Boost to my warriors morale because they hated him and now the incompetent has run off' was my reply. Needless to say I had to do the test, lost one unit of horse archers but the rest of my men agreed with my comments on their erstwhile leader and passed the test with flying colours. Smugly justified in my troops' appreciation of their former general (needless to say I was playing the role of 2iC) I went on to knock lumps off the Normans from a distance and won the game! Were all generals in history 'loved' by their troops or was it just what the scribes, who were recording the history for the victorious general would want us to think? New Rule: At beginning of game throw 1d6; Odds troops take test if anything happens to the popular general in accordance with the rules used. Evens: Ignore the general's plight (he was incompetent etc. anyway) and get on with the battle. Back to Table of Contents -- Lone Warrior #131 Back to Lone Warrior List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2000 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