This column is intended to be a regular feature of the Newsletter until we run out of wargamers to interview. It is designed to give wargamers the chance to make their views known and to enable others to get,to know individual gamers better. If some of the information is of a controversial nature, at least at our own low level, that is also the purpose. I welcome any in-depth interviews that any reader would like to carry out and submit.
On August 15th, 1982, Hal Thinglum interviewed Richard Black ... fortified by a good bottle of wine. Rich is a 38 year old Professor of Mathematics at Prairie State College and a wargamer for about 12 years. This interview was taped and edited by Hal Thinglum. As one would expect, editing results in a reduction of the volume of what was said and it is unrealistic to think that I would always be able to edit Rich's thoughts correctly. However, I hope that I was able to retain his main ideas.
How, why and when did you become attracted to wargaming?
I started out in model railroading but became discouraged because it seemed as though people were just interested in what they were doing; it seemed to be very one-sided. I then had a chance to view a diorama of 54mm figures at the Chicago Public Library and liked it but didn't know what else one could do with them later. About two years later, I read an article about Ray Johnson in Wisconsin who had thousands of 25mm Napoleonics and wargamed with them. I bought some 20nm figures from the Hobby Chest and painted them up one summer, got in touch with Bob Cory and got into 30mm Napoleonics in 1970.
What is the attraction of wargaming to you?
Actually, I like three things, first it gives me something to do around the house. I can do my research, paint figures while I sit and talk to my wife and I don't have to be running out; I am not attracted to outside activities all that much. Secondly, it has such a wide variety of activities such as uniforms, tactical systems, training systems, recreations and organization; all of which enter into it. It's not just a matter of reading a book and knowing all there is to know about it, you keep going and going. The third thing is the recreation or the simulation of what I think happened in the period. I prefer simulation rules, something that bares a resemblance to what really happened on the battlefield at that time instead of using present day tactics, which are much more advanced, to fight a battle with figures dressed in a different period.
What periods do you have, how many figures in each and what attracted you to them?
Let's take it in chronological order. I've got late Republican Roman ancients, 475 man Roman Legion with some support anxillary troops and about 130 ancient Britons, practically all of which are airfix. I got into that period because Hinchliffe came out with a line of Persians and I fell in love with their heavy cavalry and decided that I'd like to have any army based on those troops so I was attracted to the figures for this period. Next would be Normans and Saxons. I've got 80 Normans, 60 Saxons and 30 Vikings, llth century,and more to paint up. I've always been interested in the style of fighting at that time because it was a transition period, the trained units had pretty much died out and it was smaller warbands getting together to form an-army under some charismatic figure. I've played some games with a set of rules that I and somebody else put together and people seem to enjoy them.
Next would be musket and pike which I did because I'm an anglophobe. I find that it is a lot of fun, you are fairly limited in what you can do on the table. I use Bill Protz's rules, who introduced me to this period when I got into a big game at Gen Con in 1975 or 76. I bought a unit of English Civil War and have enjoyed it. I now have about 280 Royalists and 300 plus Parliamentarians. I got into Seven Years War about 1976 or 77 as I have always liked this period - the color, nationality clashes and uniforms. I was reading Grant's books about the Seven Years War with a mythical background, so I bought troops to try out his rules, but before they were painted and mounted, Bill Protz asked me to try out his rules. I liked them and got started in Austrians. I've got toughly 345 Seven Years War troops. I then went to Napoleonics where you still have the heavy line standing there in formation to take the brunt of the battle and the lights at their best training probably of any period who are running around messing things up. The three arms really have to work together which had never been done up to that point. Previously, infantry fought infantry, cavalry fought cavalry, etc., so after that you had to use all three arms as a combined weapons system as they would say today. Create a gap with infantry and exploit it with cavalry. I stop at that point in time because after that the,weapons begin to get so powerful that I get the feeling that after 1850 the weapon becomes dominant and the man becomes something to deliver the weapon to the right spot, and I don't enjoy that.
What level of wargaming do you enjoy most of all?
I find that I have the most fun at small battles, a brigade, maybe two at the most of foot, a couple of regiments of horse and a battery. That's small enough for one man to handle for most periods. For English Civil War it might become unwieldly. This allows one person on each side, you can talk things out, everything is coordinated.
The next step, of course, it to have two people on each side which is still a very workable system as long as you don't do what most people do, that is, increase the troops along with the command- ers. It tends to get to the point where each commander is commanding as much as he can and that's when things start getting difficult. Arguments occur and things start falling apart as things get so large and interlocked that once you have seen the troops on the table, you could predict the outcome of the game at that point, if the luck factor could be ignored. One part gets into action before other parts and everyone stands around and waits or they get out of phase which results in problems which just compound themselves. I believe that it's because nobody has ever faced up to the fact that we don't have strategic rules available to us, most are tactical, considering the commander to be battalion or brigade level at best.
How do you feel about the changes that have taken place in the hobby since the middle 60's? You always read about old time wargamers saying, "I enjoyed the hobby more when I first started." Do you think that's something to be expected as after somebody has done something for awhile, they become more used to it and expect more out of it?
I think that's probably it. I feel that I enjoy it more when I first start a period. When I know more about a certain period, I become dissatisfied. After you get into a period and do some research, it becomes a matter of we've done this for a long time, but it doesn't seem to be what actually occurred. Then you start playing' around with the rules and try to force a set of rules that are not designed to accept an occurrence into a position of accepting it. The only people who have ever accepted that fact, until recently that is, that things are going to happen on the table top that are not covered in the rules are Fred Vietmeyer's group and Bill Protz. In Vietmeyer's rules, Column, Line and Square, they had a mechanism for deciding what should happen when something occurred on the table top which was not covered in the rules. An impartial observer would make a decision or a die would be tossed. The game goes on after this. Vietmeyer would then do research in this area to see if it ever actually happened, write a permanent decision which would be embodied in the rules, called reviewed referee rulings, and next time it occured it would be in the rules. The problem with this is that the rule book keeps getting larger And larger. Bill Protz does the same thing, changes the basic body of the rules by adding or subtracting those rules which worked or didn't work and getting out new sheets to players. As far as I know, these are the only two sets of rules that do this.
In the early 70's when the hobby started growing, did you think at that time it would grow more, less, or the same that it has?
I thought it would grow more. I think what happened, and I hate to take the miniatures side as I don't believe that miniatures are all right, is that role playing came into the.picture. A lot of people who would have gone into wargaming went into role playing because it was fun to do, you could get involved faster, and you could develop a character and do things with him and he represented you. Whereas in historical gaming, you were directing a 'movie or a set and you didn't get involved with the figures themselves. I think that siphoned off a lot of thrust that miniatures would have gotten and I think that miniatures suffered from it. I think that role playing will continue to grow but, in the long run, it will move out of the miniatures market completely and go into computer based work. It takes less effort that way and you don't have to sit down and paint up figures. When that happens, miniatures will go back to historically based miniatures and a lot of companies will fold that are deeply into fantasy figures. I think fantasy figures are very beautiful and everyone should buy some and paint them up for their beauty.
That, to you, has been the most significant development/concept in wargaming?
I think the most dramatic one came about the time as role playing came out and that's where each casting on the table represents,an individual person. You can control six or seven of the castings which would be equal to controlling that many battalions in a wargame. What I'm talking about, of course, is called skirmish wargaming.
It's historically based and you could set up situations like a French light company attacking a British rifle unit in a farmhouse and you control each figure as an individual. I think this is probably the biggest change, the rest of it you can trace back and see the growth and there are not any big jumps.
What do you feel has been the most significant set of rules?
In England, probably the Featherstone books; he published them and they were very widespread. The American hobby came out of England. In the United States, the most important set of rules was probably Column, Line and Square which started out as a local set of rules and grew from there. I feel as though it founded historical gaming as it stands now.
What do you like most about wargaming?
Mostly I like attempting to simulate a historical situation whether it's a real historical battle or a mythical battle set in an historical situation. I like the idea that we are trying as much as possible to make what happens on the board resemble what happened in real life, plus the fact that we can learn from our mistakes without hurting anyone. We can learn the lessons they learned at the actual battle, what went wrong, etc., but when it is all over, the figures are packed away, no graves are dug, no hospitals are filled and no deserters are shot. You've been able to use your brain power and nobody has been hurt.
What don't you like about wargaming and/or have you had any major disappointments in wargaming?
I guess I would have to say some of the people is what I don't like but I'm sure that's true for everybody in wargaming. You have to keep working at it until you find people who share your attitudes and then it becomes worthwhile. If you are playing with people who have different goals and attitudes, it becomes a problem. I'm thinking of the difference between the person who is playing merely to win and the one who is trying to recreate historical situations where the important thing to him is that things happen as they did. When these two get across the tabletop from each other, it leads to problems.
What I dislike most of all is the clash of personalities across the table. What I am most disappointed in is not being able to interest people who live close enoughto me to want to game on a regular basis. I've gotten lots of people interested in the hobby, perhaps twenty over the years. The problem is that they all live somewhere else. I had the space and the room, but they did not want to drive very far and would rather have a small game than to come down and play a larger one with more people. This got discouraging at times, to start people off and then have them go off and get a couple of their friends and set themselves up. As a result, I wasn't able to play as much as I wanted to sometimes.
Would you give me your ideas of simple vs. complex rules?
The problem is that simple rules work only in very friendly situations with people who are there not to win, but to relax and have fun. Simple rules leave the most to be worked out on the spot; rules on the back of a postcard sound great but what happens is that they leave too many options open. Complex rules cover more situations; there are less things to work out on the table. I've never been to a game that has worked out so that, nothing on the table happened that was not covered in the rules. I think it's impossible to write a set of rules complex enough to cover every possibility. If you want to have a pleasurable game with someone who has no ego problems, then simple rules are sufficient. If you do something stupid in simple rules, you're going to get caught, same in complex. With simple rules, you can talk your way out of it, in complex, you can't.
What, to you, would be the ideal wargame?
This is difficult because there is a different ideal wargame for each level of playing and I like all levels of playing even though I've never seen some of them work. I think that for steady weekly gaming activities, the ideal wargame is a small game between two to four people. They get along fine, no problems between them, it's like the Friday night at the bowling alley type of thing. Small forces dictate that you can't cover all of your area on the table and you have to decide where you are going to attack and where you will keep your holding force. I would like to see a giant game work because I would like to see a chain of command set up and see things work through this as they did in real life. Most of the time, they become a series of tactical battles where three different pieces of the board aren't working together. I think that once or twice a year, large games like that would be fun.
If it is possible to assume that one can generalize about wargamers, do you feel that there are any generalizations as to personalities that can be made?
No, the hobby has so many facets to attract people - historical research, organizations, uniforms, rules writing, painting techniques, terrain construction - so that you get people who are interested in various phases of it and they do the rest of it to get that phase in'. I don't think anyone is interested in all phases of wargaming. I've known all sorts of people in wargaming and I suppose that the major thing that gets people in the hobby, historical miniatures, is a certain amount of ability to think in logical lines more than anything else.
Do you have any ideas as to what would constitute the ideal wargaming club?
When I first started out, I joined a very well organized club that had broken off from Vietmeyer's club. They had a whole set of rules to join and you had to pay 70% of the dues for the first two years even though you weren't a full member, you couldn't vote or have any input. After that time, everybody had a chance to know you and they decided whether or not you became a full member. I didn't like that and it turned me off to organized clubs. I suppose that I made a big mistake then because I decided that I would continue wargaming but in no way would I make it an organized effort. I say that was my big mistake because it didn't give people a core to tie them together and maybe it should be done that way. I just had such a bad taste in my mouth that I went with a "Let's get together and play."
You seem to have changed your attitude at least to some degree, regarding clubs.
Well, what you are talking about as an organization is actually getting more people involved in the hobby as opposed to a dues paying organization where you belong or don't belong and if you don't belong, go away. I would prefer to keep it a very unorganized organization. I think if people want services such as a newsletter they should be willing to share the burden for producing it. If they want a large place to play on a regular basis, then dues should be charged for that purpose.
Who do you feel has done the most for the hobby, who's had the most effect?
Probably Donald Featherstone, as his Wargamer's Newsletter went all over and was probably the most widely distributed item around as far as wargaming goes.
Do you think the concept of national characteristics is a valid one?
I don't see how you can simulate an historical battle without it. If by this you mean the cardboard Russian, never changing, following orders until he drops in his tracks, or the way the army is organized, to me they are both national character- istics. I don't think the cardboard one is a valid one, it may be that at certain battles it was true and it may be a tendancy and, thus, should be put in as such.
What makes a good wargamer?
I think anyone could be a good wargamer under the right circumstances. You've got to find the right people to play with.
What do you look for in a potential wargamer?
For potential, anyone who is interested in doing it. Over a long term basis, I tend to stick more with people who are (a) interested enough to put out some effort, do some research to find out what actually happened in a given period and (b) someone who tries to build a unit or two of their own troops to give them a presence on the board. I think it's nice to have a whole bunch of people with small armies get together to form a large army, rather than to have one person with all the troops and lots of others who have none. Once these two criteria are but of the way, it's just a matter of playing over a period of time to see if we get along across the board.
What question haven't I asked you that you would have asked yourself?
We've covered quite a bit of ground; I've probably let some of my prejudices show at times (interviewer: That's the intention), but I'd like it to be said that I was not talking about any one person, just different situations. I suppose that the one question that should be asked is how expensive of a hobby is it and how time consuming? In my opinion, it's as time consuming as you want it to be.
If you are only in one period, you may play only five or six times a year, the other extreme is to get into dozens of periods and play all of the time. Expense-wise, I think there are other hobbies that people indulge themselves in that are at least as expensive, if not more, than wargaming. Golf, bowling, etc., all are things that people don't think of as being expensive, but if you do it once a week, you spend- quite a bit of money. You can put out 20 to 30 dollars for figures and not have to spend another penny for six months while you are painting them up, or you can spend whatever you want on the hobby. With other hobbies you're paying all of the time, so what's the difference really?
Thank you, Rich, for your thoughts. I think that you've presented some very interesting ideas about wargaming.
Back to MWAN #1 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1982 Hal Thinglum
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