"It is doubtful," Donald Featherstone advises, "whether wargames will ever give one profound military insight, but the wargamer may gain an understanding of the problems of the commanders in the field and a glimpse of the military thinking of the time by re-fighting each battle in the correct tactical manner, using the formations and weapons of the day." (10) In a sense then, the wargame is a history lesson-a military history lesson.
The quoted passage is from the introduction of Battle Notes for Wargamers, an excellent text penned by one of the eminent personalities in the hobby; penned for the hobbyist interested in recreating or reconstructing historical battles in miniature. Regular readers of MWAN may be familiar with my practice of quoting Mr. Featherstone. If I may be permitted, it is a practice I will maintain for this piece, and perhaps one additional article.
He continues, setting forth the reason behind Battle Notes for Wargamers: "The purpose of this book is to discuss these factors and to suggest practical methods of simulation that will produce an accurate, realistic and enjoyable facsimile of the original battle." Then, Mr. Featherstone sets forth the key guidelines for "turning" an actual battle into a wargame: "To refight any historical battle realistically, the terrain must closely resemble both in scale and appearance the area over which the original conflict raged, and the troops accurately represent the original forces."
Starting in Issue 120 of MWAN with the report on the Austro-Russian right at Austerlitz, these guidelines have been something of a mantra for me, to me, as I've explored this particular aspect of the wargaming hobby. My recent Shiloh project is perhaps the high-point of this effort, in that finally, after three or so aborted attempts, the wargame reconstruction came together. (Unfortunately, as also reported, the effort "ran out of steam" due to an "error in judgment" with the rules and tracking of casualties.)
In the editorial of MWAN, Issue 123, 1 was somewhat surprised to see my name in print. This mention, as Hal explains, was in reference to some blown-up photos I had sent him of the Shiloh game in progress. Hal made some complimentary observations about the pictures as well as some educated guesses about my approach to wargaming. The mention in the editorial concluded with a request for additional details.
For good or ill, this present piece represents my attempt to provide those details. What then, the reader may ask, is the point behind quoting so much of Featherstone? I ask the reader to have a little patience. I will address the reliance on Featherstone. First, allow me to expand a little on the observations made by Hal regarding the terrain of the Shiloh reconstruction.
The wargame table (actually a carpeted floor in the front room / "great room" of my apartment) was based on the map of Pittsburgh Landing and Vicinity found on page 107 of the superlative text, SHILOH: The Battle That Changed the Civil War, by Larry J. Daniel. Utilizing the scale provided on the map, I cross-referenced this with the scale of action provided in the Fire and Fury Rules. That is, if one inch represented 60 yards in the rules, then a mile on the map would be approximately 29 inches of table/floor. If the battlefield stretched some 3 miles by 2 miles, then one is looking at a playing surface of nearly 90 inches by almost 60 inches. Anyhow. The map from the text was copied and then enlarged for ease of reference. On the enlargement, gridlines were drawn at the mile and half-mile markers. Building the battlefield was a "simple" matter of transferring what was on paper to the floor. As Hal mentions, my wargame table was "set off in squares which seem to consist of string going from one side of the playing surface to the other." In previous wargames, I have never used any type of string grid or grid system. (In future wargames, I should think the grid unnecessary, unless again, the terrain is just that involved.) In this particular case, the terrain of the field at Shiloh was just so complex, so "busy," that use of a grid helped enormously. Barnes Field could be accurately represented, or scaled, and it could also be placed at a correct distance from Shiloh Church and the Peach Orchard. Hal continues: "Over this cover, he places cloth rivers, road systems, fields of various colors and wooded sections." In order that I might reconstruct the variety of terrain at Shiloh, a trip to a local craft store was made. There, I purchased a fair number of colored felt rectangles. These were then cut into the appropriate shapes so that they might present a visual indication of Barnes Field, of the Peach Orchard, the Tennessee River and even the Indian Mounds. The road network was carefully crafted from half-inch masking tape. As a finishing touch, all pieces of terrain were labeled with small stands or markers so that one could tell at a glance that this brigade or that division were advancing through Rea Field, or approaching Lost Field across the Purdy-Hamburg Road.
I have to admit again, that compared to previous efforts at Shiloh, this terrain reconstruction really came together. Hal was kind enough to compliment the effort, as he saw it through the pictures provided, by commenting that the set up "actually looks quite visually attractive." In some respects, the visual quality of the lay out was important to me. However, as this was a historical battle, my concentration was on the accuracy, the correctness of the terrain. The look of it was important, to be sure, but when compared to accuracy and functionality, a distant second on a very short list. Here then, is where I can cite Featherstone. "To re-fight any historical battle realistically, the terrain must closely resemble both in scale and appearance the area over which the original conflict raged ..." (10) In paying close attention to the scale of the map and of its enlargement, in paying even closer attention to the transfer of the schematic to the wargame surface, the requirement of scale was met. To be sure, I could not fully replicate the difficult nature of the terrain at Shiloh: the scrub and muddied roads or tracks; the ravines and slight rises; or the swampy ground over by Owl Creek. I could however, effectively replicate what was shown on the map on page 107. I dare suggest that Mr. Daniel would judge it an acceptable representation of that famous field.
The second half of that often quoted Featherstone dictum reads: "and the troops accurately represent the original forces." My concern and attention here, with respect to the Shiloh effort was just that, that the troops accurately represent the original forces. As I related in my narrative of the research of the project, the Daniel text was the ultimate reference. Not a single lead/tin miniature was used however, in following and filling out the orders of battle provided. Hal continues: "He then represents the various units in the game via what seem to be perhaps colored card stock pieces and labels them as to type of unit and the unit's name."
This is essentially correct. I find poster board and matt board to be a little more durable than card stock. With poster board too, it is often more easy to find the appropriate colors for the period or battle that is being "waged." In the case of The American Civil War, Yankee Blue and Rebel Gray (Brown, Tan, Butternut) were readily obtained. After this, it is simply a matter of preparing the units for the wargames table. Very briefly detailed, this is a matter of cutting, identifying the troop type (cavalry, infantry, command or artillery) with a Sharpie marker and then placing an ID tag on the unit base. For additional detail, I invite the reader to review the bottom of page 91 and all of page 92 in MWAN Issue 122. To be certain, the end product is not going to grace the cover of any issue of WARGAMES Illustrated. That was neither my purpose nor goal in setting out to reconstruct and wargame the battle of Shiloh. As I remarked to Hal in the body of the cover letter it's more the mechanics that appeal. I do not require `gorgeous' 25mm troops to wonder if my wargame battle plan will succeed, or to consider how to accurately reflect the effect of musketry on green troops."
Perhaps the approach taken and the argument in support of same is simply a rationalization? Reviewing the Fire and Fury scenario in the June 1991 issue of the aforementioned British glossy and checking the order of battle against the Adler Miniatures catalog of 6mm ACW figure packs, a very rough estimate is 37 packs of lead to complete the forces for each side. Adding to this figure equally if not more so rough estimates of the cost for paints and supplies as well as manufacture of terrain, I arrive at a total of just under 500 dollars. Spread out over the course of a year, this works out to be a manageable 42 dollars a month. (Given my complete lack of talent with regard to painting miniatures, I would suggest that it would also take a year to paint and base the forces for each side.) However, I have to also factor in my rather short attention span.
Or, to phrase it in a less self-deprecating way, I am not just interested in wargaming the battle of Shiloh over and over again. I am interested, as previous submissions have shown, in researching, reconstructing and wargaming historical battles. It seems that the periods of interest fall primarily between Ancients, Napoleonics and the The American Civil War. If the previous cost is taken into account and there are two battles from each era that I would like to re-create, well ... the math is simple enough. It is the cost that proves difficult.
Hal aptly summarizes my approach to this hobby by remarking, "What you end up with is a "boardgame" type of approach on a simulated miniatures tabletop." However, the counters that I use are not the "standard" counters that fit within the hexagons of the board sections of your "standard" bookshelf game. (Squad Leader, Gettysburg and Panzer Blitz spring to mind.) The terrain representation in the vast majority of my wargames is simple, plain and functional. There are no GeoHex modules, kitty litter (for the Northwest Frontier Colonial), or carefully crafted villages complete with walled gardens. This approach allows me to "explore" larger battles, such as Shiloh, Quatre Bras and one flank at Austerlitz, while providing the means to wargame smaller actions-even skirmish games like the fictional scenario created for my Boxer Rebellion phase. In addition to the advantages of flexibility and interest, this kind of wargaming is inexpensive and does not require a great amount of storage space. Indeed, the "figures" from the Shiloh wargame can fit into a small number of zip-loc sandwich bags.
These in turn, are stored in empty file folder boxes, recycled from my office. I have not once had to worry about accidentally leaning on and subsequently crushing a stand of figures; about bent or broken bayonets; about figures coming unglued from their flocked bases. To be certain, there are a number of disadvantages to this kind of approach as well. The most obvious casualty: the lack of aesthetic appeal.
In `The Pursuit of the Pretty Game' (MWAN, Issue 111), Chris Engle writes:
- I love toy soldiers and am never going to quit using them but I do recognize their limits. If we argue about scale we are wrong. Unless one is doing a skirmish - toy soldiers are all way off scale. Sadly, cardboard counters or colored wire are closer to scale than our games. What miniatures do though is give a feel, an aesthetic, that colored wire cannot match! (135)
I am not sure what Chris is referring to when he talks of "colored wire" (perhaps the 2mm scale of figures?) but his point is clear enough. For him and for the vast majority of miniature wargamers, the appeal of the hobby is one that is visual. There is no getting around the aesthetic attraction. I would dare suggest that even that non-wargamer would be "moved" by the cover of any WARGAMES Illustrated; would be impressed by the center spread of photos of a game staged by the talented Perry twins. Unlike Chris however, I do not feel as strongly about toy soldiers. I do know that I am really interested in military history and derive a certain amount of satisfaction from researching historical battles and writing about the same for publication in the pages of MWAN. Even if I had not been invited to contribute by Hal (in friendly "conspiracy" with Bill Widrick ), I would still be pursuing the hobby. Albeit, it has to be admitted, without the self-imposed pressure of a deadline and desperate search for a suitable topic! So, I guess one could say that I'm a miniature wargamer who does not wargame with miniatures. To be sure, this sounds very odd. Perhaps it is better to comment (accepting the inevitable semantics), that I wargame in miniature.
In the cover letter sent to Hal along with the pictures of the Shiloh wargame, I confessed that my approach "might seem rather 'geomertic' and so unappealing ... To be certain, it's nothing that will make the pages of WARGAMES Illustrated." Contrasted to those same pages, my approach and or efforts are in fact, second-rate. But can there really be a valid comparison? In "researching" this present piece (the word is in quotes as I did not spend hours at the local library, instead, I did some Internet searches and looked through past issues of wargame magazines and texts) the definition of miniature wargaming is not at all vague nor open to interpretation. By way of example, the Saga-Publishing website posts this question and answer:
WHAT IS MINIATURE WARGAMING?
Miniature Wargaming is a simulation of battle using painted miniature figures on a terrained table. Rules, dice, measuring devices and markers are used to determine the winner of the miniature battle. Famous wargamers include H.G. Wells, Robert Louis Stephenson and Donald Featherstone.
I have, can have, no objection to the definition. If I were to comment on any aspect of these four lines, it would be to question the aesthetic appeal of markers (casualty caps, poker chips, pipe cleaners) on trays of miniature soldiers and within forests or on stonewalls and split-rail fences. But this is not original commentary. My second comment would be more of a question. What makes a wargamer famous? Was it due to lack of space that the following people (and by no means is my list complete) were not included? What about Phil Barker? Jack Scruby? The Perrys? Duke Seifried? Hal Thinglum? Wally Simon? Gene McCoy? Charles Grant? Brigadier Peter Young? Stuart Asquith?
Within another website, Tony Stapell's "A Short Discourse on Miniature Wargaming," reference is made to an article in Smithsonian Magazine (September 1999 issue). The subtitle to Michael Kernan's article, `Outsmarting Napoleon' (Around the Mall and Beyond) is: `War games enthusiasts use miniature soldiers and multiple-terrain boards to simulate real battles.' The introduction to the discourse is worth repeating in full. Mr. Stapell's writes:
- As a hobby, historical miniature wargaming encompasses a number of other leisure pursuits. To a greater or lesser degree, most of us involved in wargaming also need to conduct historical research, paint lead castings and enjoy a good game with the results of our labors.
Some gamers tend to specialize in a given period, which is understandable given the expense of this hobby! Other seems to drift into a number of different periods, scales and rules. I must admit to being in the latter category. I find a wide range of historical topics fascinating-I just can't limit myself to one small era.
I would like to concentrate on the second paragraph here, if I may. The cost of the pursuit of the hobby is noted. Previously, I worked out some very rough math with respect to representing the Battle of Shiloh in 6mm figures. Prior to that, I made a few references to Battle Notes for Wargamers. The stated purpose of Featherstone's excellent book, "is to discuss these factors and to suggest practical methods (italics are mine) of simulation that will produce an accurate, realistic and enjoyable facsimile of the original battle." (10) At the expense of the aesthetic appeal, I have been able to wargame (or simulate historical battles) on tabletop and floor, that have been accurate, realistic and enjoyable. Of course, these assessments are completely subjective. (I should like to think that at least two or three dozen readers of MWAN have enjoyed reading my submissions, and so, by extension, enjoyed the wargames and research of these past few years.)
In the Letters Section of the July 1988 issue of Miniature Wargames (yes, I'm going way back), I found a reply penned by one Paul Leniston (of The Salisbury Old Guard) to "attacks" on his approach and even his person. Mr. Leniston observes:
- In wargaming, as in most hobbies, there is a wide range of interest and involvement. Some wargamers will wish to devote only a few hours each month to the hobby, many will want to develop a wider interest and a few will become so involved that they spend every spare hour painting, building, researching or wargaming. None are better or worse than the others, only different.
Mr. Leniston then goes on to briefly describe the kind or type of gamer he is, ending with the comment, "I do not believe that this makes me better than anyone else, indeed it can be argued that the chap who has a casual interest is a much more sensible man!" To be honest, the observation is a little too politically correct for my tastes. To offer an extreme example and borrow Mr. Leniston's phrase "much more sensible man," that would be the wargamer who chose to spend a weekend waragming with Duke Seifried or the Perry twins, as opposed to with me, crawling around on the floor, maneuvering two-dimensional colored poster board units with unit designations taped on to the rear "side" of the counter. Different? Without a doubt. Better or worse? Well, that is up to the individual wargamer, club membership or convention attendees to decide. However, as with the comments made by Chris Engle, I find myself in general agreement with Mr. Leniston.
The PSL Guide to Wargaming is another wonderful text / reference for the wargames enthusiast. Bruce Quarrie, compiler and editor, (yet another name for the list of famous wargamers? Oh yes, and what about Duncan McFarlane? And, can we have such a list without Todd Fisher's name upon it?! But I digress.) discusses the history of wargaming, scales, basic rule concepts and painting and decorating in the introductory chapter. He also considers the nature of wargaming. In answer to the question, "But what exactly IS wargaming?" Mr. Quarrie offers: "A wargame is an attempt, using counters on a map or model soldiers on a sculpted terrain, to reproduce, without actual bloodshed, the warfare of a given historical epoch." (9) Not as "restrictive" as the Saga-Publishing website definition, but then, there "we" were talking about miniature wargaming. It seems to me, in many respects, the definition of wargaming has evolved over the course of the 20th and now, 21st century.
I have seen individual figures or models of vehicles on large maps-sometimes with hexagons, sometimes with outlines of provinces or entire countries; I have seen a mixture of both miniatures and counters on scaled terrain; I have seen GI Joe-like figures fighting for their Hasbro lives against similarly scaled Aliens. And, I have played wargames on the computer. Where does this kind of wargame / wargaming fit within the definitions listed? More recently, there has been discussion over the correctness of the title of the hobby (both political correctness and other aspects), not to mention the correctness of pursuing the hobby itself. I think Sam A. Mustafa touches briefly on the semantics involved with regard to war "game" and "simulation," in the second full paragraph of `I (Still) Go, You (Still) Go: Meditations on the Next Generation of Wargame Rules,' in Issue 124 of MWAN.
Here again, I digress. The basis of this article was to offer a more detailed explanation to Hal (and perhaps the general readership) about my approach to the hobby. And yet, just as one would expect some kind of miniature to be utilized in miniature wargaming, so would one expect there to be rules for the playing of such wargames, battle games, or simulations of events in military history. The definition from Quarrie was cited above. In the very next sentence, he writes, "The basis of any wargame is a set of playing rules." (9) This statement is reinforced by Douglas Mudd, the gentleman at the center of the Smithsonian article previously referenced. Mr. Mudd asserts, "The rules are the heart of it all, and the rules are incredibly complex." Once again, I find myself in agreement with the opinions and or positions of those more established in the hobby than myself. However, with respect to complexity in rules and rule systems, I count myself among the membership of the "less-complex" club. In a very small subset of that same club, I wargame with miniature wargame rules, but without painted, lead figures. An amended version of the Fire and Fury rules were used for the solo Shiloh project. For wargames set in the Napoleonic period, I have used SHAKO and PIQUET.
On the Basic Game Convention page of these second rules, one finds: "PIQUET was written for 25mm scale figures. If you use 15mm, mount as described below (...) 6mm garners may substitute centimeters for inches for both movement and fire ranges. Mount troops for best aesthetic appearance." Then, in a personal favorite set of rules, ARMATI, one finds this under Section 1.0, Game Preparation: "The following items are needed to play ARMATI: (...) 4. Figures. To play the game, miniature replicas of the actual soldiers are used. ARMATI works equally well with all figure scales." It would appear that ARMATI works just as well without figures, too. I refer the reader to `Considering Cannae: The Evolution of an Ancients Wargame Report,' found in Issue 79 of The Courier. I extend an invitation to the same reader to watch for future submissions to MWAN, as 2004 is shaping up to be a year with Ancients gaming as the "theme." (At the same time this is being typed, The Battle at Cynoscephalae is being researched.) With regards to this approach to wargaming then, one could suggest that I am "simulating" that there are superbly painted Spartan Hoplites on the 80mm x 45 mm HI movement stands(or in the case of the planned project, finely detailed ranks of Republican Romans with pila at the ready), as opposed to the universally accepted symbol for "Infantry," and an identification tag produced by means of a word processing program and laser printer.
In addition to expressing a level of curiosity about my approach to the hobby, Hal also wondered how I "can write such detailed accounts of extremely large battles." Well, from the logistics side of writing the narrative accounts, possessing a computer is key. (It's odd to recall, but years ago, I wrote on a Smith-Corona electric typewriter. This thing must have weighed 30 pounds, produced a nuclear reactor-like hum when it was plugged in and switched on, and had one of those manual return bars as well!) Another key element is my miniature (ah, there is that word again) cassette tape recorder. During the course of a wargame, I can "stop the action," usually after each turn and record the status of the table at that time. When it comes to putting the wargame to paper or disk, it's simply a matter of transcribing the verbal notes into cogent sentences and paragraphs.
Of course, a basic knowledge of the battle, if it is a reconstruction, helps. A little imagination and license goes a long way as well. For example, the "story" of Corporal Huxton (page 11 of MWAN, Issue 123) is a culmination of reading and rereading the Daniel text; having a little imagination; perhaps having a little too much coffee on the morning I started writing. and, wanting or trying to get into the "spirit" of the project if not the wargame. With respect to the material which goes before and after the narrative: introduction, background, history, orders or battle, rule amendments and the like, well, this material almost writes itself. In fact, I have often wondered if I spend too much time on these sections, as I do have a tendency to belabor a point, embellish, or even go off on a tangent. Like now for example, I wonder if in some parts of this present effort, I have strayed from the outline-such as it is or was.
In a similar vein, I have wondered if I have become too attracted to the reconstruction of historical engagements. Prior to Issue 120 of MWAN, my articles covered a variety of subjects. With the exception of the Quatre Bras piece, the accounts of wargames were narratives of fictional battles. Starting with Issue 120 however, it appears that my reliance for subject material has been the historical battle. To be sure, this reliance may well demonstrate a lack of originality on my part-I did admit already to starting work on an Ancients "theme" year, the first battle of which will be Cynoscephalae. To be certain, I cannot state with any conviction that these historical recon-structions have provided me with any "profound military insight" as Featherstone questions. It seems to me that Sun Tzu, Napoleon, Jeb Stuart and Patton, among others, have said it all. Somewhere in the distant past I recall reading a field manual which related a specific number of Principles of War.
However, just as Featherstone also estimated, my participation in the hobby-however narrow the niche of my approach-has provided me with something of an "understanding of the problems of the commanders in the field and a glimpse of the military thinking at the time ..." (10) My participation has also afforded me hours, too numerous to count, of enjoyment: in the research of military history; in thinking about wargame rules and amendments to same; in the "building" of "armies;" in developing campaigns, both solo affairs and those waged by post; as well as in the more or less traditional Sunday afternoon wargame, where a combined force of British and Spanish face the French somewhere in Spain, circa 1808. Douglas Mudd sums it up nicely and more concisely when he explains, "I love the strategical challenges of putting myself in the shoes of a known general to see if I could do better than he did." ('Outsmarting Napoleon,' Smithsonian Magazine, September 1999)
In Chapter 2 of his excellent book Wargame Tactics, Charles Grant wrote:
- If we are to achieve anything like realism in wargame tactics one factor which is clearly of paramount importance is the matter of scale. This does not mean simply the size of the miniatures employed, although this does have some bearing on the problem, but is more particularly concerned with the terrain as it applies to the forces involved in an action. This is not as straightforward as it might appear, as many other factors are involved, not least the visual aspect of the wargame, which has an importance not all players appreciate or even admit. (13)
I believe I do recognize the importance of the visual aspect of the wargame. I have made numerous laudatory references to the spectacles seen at Little Wars conventions and within the pages of various publications. At the same time, I also recognize my limitations. My painting ability would be on par with the Neanderthals. Storage space is limited if nonexistent and, what disposable income there is, is spent on race registration, running shoes, breakfast afterward, and Christmas and birthday presents for six nieces and nephews. What is left after that, is spent on the entry fee to Little Wars and the odd copy of WARGAMES Illustrated or Miniature Wargames. With what remains, I might purchase a rule book or two. It simply depends on the current period of interest. Miniature wargaming with counters (a kind of oxymoron?) is a compromise, to be certain. It is a compromise however, that has provided me with more than several years of wargaming "history" and the enjoyment of same.
Back to MWAN # 126 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com