This column last appeared in the pages of the July/August 2003 issue. And before that, one would have to go back to the end of the November/December 2001 issue, to find another collection of my thoughts, comments and ramblings. Explained away in the smaller font of a subtitle no longer permitted under the new formatting and style requirements, this effort remains a very "infrequently written column on topics related-some however indirectly-to the hobby of wargaming."
In its first edition, I also remarked that the title or name of the column was temporary until I could think of something better. It's been just about three years now, and I believe "Fusillade" is an appropriate label. Therefore, I will keep it for as long as ideas for this column exist / spring to mind and the notion to transfer these same ideas to the typed page remain.
Very recently, I was flipping through the channels one evening and happened across a program on The History Channel. "Decisive Battles" is a half hour program dedicated to the examination, analysis and reporting of significant battles in the Ancient period. It is not made clear exactly who or what scholarly body decided which battles went on this list, but I believe the list is fairly representative if weighed a little in favor of the Romans. Over the past month or so, I have been tuning in and watching with no little interest or enjoyment, episodes explaining the following battles: Cannae; Thermopylae; Adrianople; Chalons and most recently, the Roman disaster at Carrhae. The "crawl" at the beginning of the program lists a number of other battles: Pharsalus for example. And then, there is a "highlight" of some battle involving elephants, though I'm not certain of the name of the specific engagement. The attraction of this kind of program - aside from my tendency to like, be interested in and have a predisposition for all things historical (especially when military history is concerned) - is that instead of static maps, still prints or artistic renderings of the engagement, computer animation is utilized. To paraphrase the narrator of the program: "With the advances in video game technology, we are able to bring to you views of the battle and battlefield that the commanders of the day could only wish they had."
The program about the debacle at Carrhae serves as good a starting point or example as any. Interspersed with the narrator (often on the modern day site of the field of battle) as well as a number of authorities and experts explaining the background to the battle, the course of the battle and its aftermath, are computer animated / video game representations of the armies, formations, maneuvering and fighting. In the contest around Carrhae, one is treated to the spectacle of a massive formation of Roman infantry, marching across a desolate landscape while being harried by a number of Parthian tribesmen on horseback, all armed with the deadly composite bow. The camera follows these skirmishing cavalry as they "sit" away from the Romans and fire volley after volley of arrows into the helpless Roman ranks. Sound effects help to complete the imagery as one hears hundreds of shafts being loosed. The camera angle then switches to a position just in front of the Roman line, and one can see the arrows land: in the sand; into shields and too often, into the ordered ranks of the legion infantry. To be sure, the animation is "cleaner" than that of the current generation of video games in that there are no grievous wounds and subsequent "buckets of blood" or screams of wounded and dying soldiers.
However, the "kills" are very apparent. As the stages of the specific battle unfold, the animation shows (again from different points of view) the results of combat: men and horses litter the field and sur vivors "run" for the immediate sanctuary of reserve formations or just to put more distance between themselves and their attackers. In brief and simple summary: the "advanced video game technology" and computer animation lends a certain visual "flavor" to what would otherwise be something discussed or lectured about in some stuffy second floor seminar classroom, with only a black board, chalk, dissertation(s) and, if available, the ancient commentaries of Livy or some such authority. [For those readers interested, on pages 250 through 267 (including map) there is a very good narrative of the doomed march of Crassus and his co-commanding son in Colleen McCullough's masterful novel, Caesar: Let the Dice Fly.] Watching these weekly half hour programs (I cannot recall which specific episode caused the "light bulb to appear over my head"), got me to thinking. I wondered if and how this new technology and computer animation could be applied to the hobby of historical miniature wargaming.
It is understood that this idea or "marriage" between technology and hobby has already been made. I will stipulate and apologize to those readers more "in the know" than I about the relationship of computer animation / video game technology and our chosen hobby. I am not completely oblivious to this relationship, however. The exact issue of MWAN (B.P. - before Perrin) escapes me, but long ago, I wrote a review of the computer game (simulation) Fields of Glory. This software program allowed one to take part in one of four historical battles during June of 1815. One could "play" the French or the Allied/Prussian command; one could "play" at various skill levels; and, one could even "play" with history by selecting to rearrange the historical deployments to suit their own plans. (In one game utilizing this feature, I lined up every single artillery piece in the French Army on June 18 along my front line and proceeded to blow large gaps in the unfortunate AngloAllied contingents across the valley.) Somewhere on my shelves or in a storage box-as the attraction to computer gaming in this way has apparently waned-are the software packages and programs for Wooden Ships & Iron Men as well as a boxed simulation titled Age of Rifles.
Turning to more recent releases, I found it rather coincidental that the latest issue of Playboy magazine arrived as I was typing the first draft of this column. Among other articles (ah, I can almost hear the readers of this column snickering and or see them winking at me in that "yeah right ... the articles" kind of way - oh well), I was surprised and interested to find a brief review of new releases of military-themed video games. On the top of page 91, Mr. Paul Sucin reviews a number of new offerings.
Spanning the period from WWII up to the current conflict in the Middle East, enthusiasts with an Xbox or PS2 can take the role of a squad member or squad leader and take their men through a series of "adventures." I see too, that there is a version of Axis & Allies that can be played. Again, I will stipulate fully to my lack of knowledge about the state of and variety of computer / video wargaming products available today. But, even with the new crop reviewed by Mr. Sucin, is there any wargaming really taking place on the PlayStation or on the computer?
It seems to me that the low-level games (at the squad level) are more of a "bang-bang, shoot-em-up, cause general mayhem and blow things up real good" kind of pursuit. The larger, operational level games, like Axis & Allies ... well I cannot offer any observation, really. For the three aforementioned games (sitting on a shelf or in storage), I can, however, offer a few remarks. In a sense, these were/are computerized wargames. There were rules to be followed. I mean, as much as I would have liked to, I simply couldn't make the divisions of the French IV Corps disappear and then materialize behind the British Household Cavalry at Waterloo. Too, the fightingunits and vehicles were represented in miniature; just not as lead/pewter 28 mm figures on carefully terrained movement bases. At the same time, there was no dice rolling, no combat charts to consult and no wheel/march devices to make sure that the formation/maneuver was accurate and that no unit bumped into another on the field/table. There was also no need to place casualty caps or other status markers on figures or behind units. It was completely evident what was happening on the computer battlefield, what with the sound effects of cannons and musketry, horse hooves, yelling and digital bodies falling to the ground, never to march, fire or charge again. And yet, and yet.
As with wargames fought across a table top, these computer games "put" me in the role of all-seeing and all-knowing commander. I could, with the click of the mouse, take direct charge of some smaller unit and thereby "command and control" it. Then, with another click, I could change my command level or scope of interest and, once again, profit from a very unrealistic view of the field and hence of the action as it developed. To be certain, one can advance the concept through the writing of rules, that one is "going to be" (for horse and musket period contests let's say) a battalion commander, regimental commander, division commander or even corps commander. But even if your commander is represented by a smartly uniformed officer figure in miniature, you still have that all-seeing and all-knowing view of the field / wargame table. I am beginning to sense that in some respects, I am getting away from my original topic. The problems of command and control and the suspension of belief intrigue me, but they are not the central focus of this particular column. I apologize for going off on something of a tangent here. Let me return then to "Decisive Battles" and the question(s) of how such technology might be applied to the hobby of historical miniature wargaming.
It is a given that computer animation can be programmed to recreate the stages of historical battles. As shown in episodes of "Decisive Battles," the technology provides a "prettier" and so, more appealing visual aid. The computer games / simulations in my meager collection follow a similar line. I wonder though, if programs can be written or designed with this same end in mind, what it would take to construct a computerized version of DBA, ARMATI, Vis Bellica, Warhammer or even of Fire & Fury?
I mean, just imagine a CD or DVD wherein the menu selection provides for the following: History of the Battle of Adrianople, with commentary by Victor Davis Hanson; Life in the 4th Century A.D.; the Roman Army of the Eastern Empire; the Goths; Re-fighting Adrianople; Building your own force(s) for quasi-historical Battles; Vis Bellica rules and notes; Examples of Play; Select your level of Command and Control; and, Multiple Player wargames. On this single or two-disc set then, retailing for oh, let's say around sixty dollars, the historical miniature wargamer would find a wealth of material. The disc(s) would cater to multiple interests: that of the history of the period; the opposing forces of the period and the specific battle; perhaps a biography of each commander; notes on the Roman military machine; and of course, the actual wargame rules to be used and notes or amendments to the same. In terms of space, well, there is no real comparison. Instead of shelf space or stackable storage boxes and the possible damage that might result from any number of sources (kids, pets, floods and the occasional irate spouse), the wargamer would simply be using up space on a hard drive. Cost becomes another variable to consider. If the imagined disc(s) containing Adrianople were realized, I wonder how many Roman infantry or Gothic/Hunnic cavalry could be purchased for that same suggested retail price? If the battle is to be fought with 28 mm models, I cannot begin estimate the number of figures that could be purchased, primed, painted, and mounted for these funds. I am sure, However, quite a few more figures could be secured if the reconstruction was attempted in 15 mm or even 10 mm scale. But even here, there is the cost and time involved in prepping and painting. Terrain for the wargame table is a whole other expenditure in terms of time, space and dollar cost. A contrary opinion was discovered while rereading an old issue of WARGAMES Illustrated.
In "The Development and Current State of U.S. Wargaming," Bob Coggins reports: "Today, I can buy a bag of 100+ 15 mm figures for a maximum of $25, or less than 25 cents/figure (...) Today, a gamer can buy, at very reasonable prices, any type of terrain, which as recently as 20 years ago he could only dream of and then spend hundreds of hours scratch building." (WARGAMES Illustrated, April 2000 - page 53.) While it is somewhat dated, I think that the argument may still be valid. Again, I am in the hands of those more experienced in traditional historical miniature wargaming.
I would hope that the gentle reader does not interpret the above as an "attack" against what is the very foundation of the hobby. Historical miniature wargaming, suggests-no describes-by its very name, that military history, military conflict is replicated in miniature. Admittedly, those so inclined can have a "semantic field day" with what exactly, is meant by the word "miniature." But I don't believe I am so inclined to identify with that camp or even to spend any more lines detailing their "cause." (This, despite my recent article about a different approach to miniature wargaming. Please see Issue 126 of MWAN.)
On more occasions in past issues however, I have made mention of my admiration for the photographic displays, pictures of wargames in progress and full-color pages of signature figures between the covers of the British glossies. More than several times too, I have lamented that my shelves and storage boxes are not filled with tray after tray of perfectly painted Dixon, Redoubt, Perry, Front Rank and Gripping Beast figurines. (Don't even remind me about the desire to have terrain "modules" like those crafted and owned by Herb Gundt, The Duke, Trickett & Whitehouse or the Perry Twins.) The comments in the previous paragraph are simply the result of thinking about an option-one afforded by recent advances in video game technology and computer animation-to the traditional approach to wargaming. As I understand it, this traditional approach is one that involves hundreds of primed, painted and carefully mounted infantry, cavalry and artillery, or dozens of models of armored vehicles, airplanes and naval ships, depending on the period, conflict and interest of the hobbyist.
Not to go off on another tangent, but I recall reading some pieces in both American and British journals about the "graying" of the hobby and about the "status" of the hobby. Semantics comes into play again here, for one could remark that "graying" and "status" are synonyms. If I understood the articles correctly, "graying" and "status" could not be any more opposite. Just thinking out loud here about the one issue, the "graying" of the hobby ... It's a complete guess, but I would estimate that the total number of historical miniature wargamers in the United States falls somewhere below 20,000 men, women, and children. (In Issue 130 of this very publication, Mr. George Knapp details his "average" year of convention attendance at 14 events. He states that average attendance at these conventions runs between 50 and 200 people. Taking the larger estimate, one "arrives" at a figure of approximately 2,800 wargamers in the Midwestern Region of the United States.) Given the ubiquity of computers and internet connection throughout American households (and in wired coffee houses - no pun intended), would not a a series of software programs, programs that are financially affordable and more user friendly be one way to introduce "strangers" to the hobby? Again, I'm just thinking out loud. I'm certain that not everyone has the same level of interest that I find myself harboring for military history and narratives of battles taking place between 700 B.C. and 600 A.D.
But then, I have two young nephews and I've witnessed the hours, attention and scary skill they have developed playing video games. Granted, in large measure, the computer game of Adrianople would be about death and destruction, but there would be an educational side to the game as well. Imagine again, if exposure to this kind of program and software sparks an interest in subjects like: civic engineering in Ancient Rome; the language that is Latin; plays of Sophocles; the development of democratic government; or even the migration of Steppe Peoples and the evolution of the saddle and stirrup. Perhaps I'm reaching here, but again, I will qualify this line of thinking as being done "out loud." I would also like to take a moment here and reserve my right to amend my position at some later date; it depends on continuing education, the response this column generates and if I win the state lottery.
Returning to the less imaginative topics of command and control in the computer wargame, the writing of such programs/software would allow for an unprecedented embedding of the wargamer in roles that are really only titular. This is to suggest that, by clicking on a menu bar, the wargamer playing the Roman side in Adrianople (to continue the example), could elect to be the Emperor; a legion commander or tribune; a commander of cavalry or even a simple, hardy centurion, in command of a cohort of some 300-500 men. The level of command being selected, the computer screen would reflect only the field of vision and command radius for that type of leader.
If one chooses to play the wargame of Adrianople as a centurion, then one will have a very different view compared to that of a player electing to be a legion commander. In the click of a mouse then, the allseeing and all-knowing (though the rules try to make you pretend like you don't know your left flank just routed away) capability of the standing-on-the-side-of-the-table wargamer is removed.
This is particularly appealing to me for, as much as I enjoyed researching and re-fighting battles like Cynoscephalae and Metaurus (and hope to continue doing so), I could not escape nor suspend my belief that much, so that as the Macedonian commander for instance, I could not help but be immediately and completely aware of the trouble the Romans were having on their left flank even though my "figure" was far removed from this development. Adapting this into the form of a question: How cool would it be, or how interesting and exciting would it be, to take on the role of a cohort commander and only be able to see what's happening directly around you? Imagine almost feeling the steady tramp of 400 rankers; hearing the bugler play "launch spears" and "see" 400 pila fly over head; hearing the noise of 400 short swords being drawn before a charge is made; controlling the "terror" of standing with shield at the ready as a large number of heavy cavalry bear down on your cohort-your line-the sunlight glancing off the armor of both rider and mount, off the spear point of each charging trooper? I cannot speak for them, but I'm pretty sure my nephews would enjoy this level of command and control as it would most closely approximate the the "blood and guts" they are used to seeing on their PS2 screen.
Speaking for myself, I guess "playing" cohort commander would be fun. Perhaps not so much if my cohort were routed by those same heavy cavalry or rolled over by a fierce and wild charge of barbarian Germans. The higher-echelon commands, I think, would be more interesting and hence, more fun. Interesting and fun in that I would be able to plan a battle based on scouting reports and maybe personal reconnaissance, and then see how much of the plan remains after the first 15 or 20 minutes of the engagement. Interesting and fun with reward to being mounted on a horse and as a result, having my field of vision limited because the computer version of my tribune or legate can only see so many scale yards on the computer battlefield; cannot see through that dense wood or over that hill, and also because it takes time to formulate orders, have them carried to certain units or places and then, even more time for the orders to be deciphered and acted upon. While I "sit" astride my computerized horse and curse, the wargame clock in the menu bar on the far right of the screen would silently tick, tick, tick. And perhaps in a stress-inducing manner. But it would be that interesting and fun kind of stress, right? After all, it is just a wargame. (It's not a critical marketing report for that moron of a department head who really should be making you coffee every morning. Or better, working in another office. In another state.)
In the first draft of this column, I referenced some scribbled notes made about the history of "things." In the first draft, I listed, very briefly, the history, progression or evolution of some of these. For example, on the "topic" of Music, I had written: LPs; 78s - 33s - 45s; 8-tracks and cassettes; CDs, jewel boxes, and iPods. Looking back, I guess I could have included "events" like downloaded music or perhaps even Phish concerts.
I created short, historical lists for television, the US mail, physical fitness and well, why not for computers, too? The same kind of shorthand approach might be applied to the hobby of historical miniature wargaming. I mean, in this same first draft, I commented nostalgically on those halcyon days when all I needed was a couple of six-sided dice and a ruler. Oh yes, and some unpainted Airfix soldiers "mounted" on crude cardboard trays. My general point being just this: At the start of the list, one "has" a version of that "thing." At the "end" of the list, one has another version of that same "thing." Both pressed 33 rpm records and iPods provide music and entertainment, but doesn't the iPod do it better, faster, cheaper and offer more variety? And let us not forget all the space saved by the iPod and its earphones. In the first draft of this column, I used these same notes and "evolutionary time lines" to raise an open-ended question about the hobby of historical miniature wargaming.
Where is the hobby going to be in 20 or 30 years? I am not a futurist, so I cannot even begin to suggest where historical miniature wargaming will be in 20 or 30 years. (Heck, there are times when I don't know what I'm going to have for dinner tonight, let alone what I will have for dinner next Wednesday evening.) Mr. Coggins devotes a paragraph to the same question. He has more intelligence and experience on the issue(s). He concludes, in part:
Historical miniatures gaming has always been a niche hobby. It will survive because, as long as miniature figures on a landscaped table top brings something to the gaming experience which cardboard counters or a monitor cannot, the hobby need not worry about a mass exodus to computers. And as long as that "something" which miniatures gaming provides includes intellectual and artistic satisfaction with a healthy does of social interaction, historical miniatures wargaming will, in the long run prosper within its niche.
My admission may come across as a bit of a contradiction, since I have spent the better part of this column talking about and imagining the possible applications of video game technology and computer animation to our hobby. But it was not my intention nor was it my plan to ask and answer such a question. Nor was it or is it my attention to add to the perceived "graying" and "status" problems of the hobby. My intention was simply to tell readers about this interesting program on The History Channel. My intention was simply to relate to readers how watching this program got me to thinking about computer technology and its application to the hobby we share. I may have strayed once or twice from these stated intentions, but such tangential discourse has proved to be something of the "status quo" for this column.
I would like to close by taking another portion from my first draft. Imagine if you will, coming home from a long day at the office. You have a leisurely dinner and perhaps a glass of scotch afterward. Retreating to your home office desk or den, you turn on your computer and pop in the Caesar in Gaul computer game. The title sequence and menu comes on screen. You choose from a wide variety: Quintus Cicero in charge of logging during the siege of Avaricum; a chieftain of the Nervii, surrounding and attacking the isolated Ninth Legion; Mark Antony as junior officer during the circumvallation of Alesia, being just a few of the offerings. In two hours, perhaps more, perhaps less, you can wargame any one of these battles / sieges.
You don't have to clean off a dining room table. You don't have to unpack and sort terrain pieces. You don't have to shift, unpack and sort troop containers or shelves. You don't have to explain or argue the finer rule points with particularly "thick" wargaming associates. You don't have to be bothered by the nagging sense that "all-seeing and all-knowing" is not historically accurate or real. You don't have to spend an hour or three cleaning up everything once the wargame has been concluded. You would just have to flip a switch, press a few keys and use the mouse when needed in order to participate in a re-fight of Adrianople, Chalons, Thermopylae or even of Cannae. On review, perhaps I have already amended my position. Perhaps I am a "conflicted advocate" of a niche within a niche? I think there maybe be "something" to be said for the application of traditional historical miniature wargaming to the computer hard drive and monitor. I think that computer wargaming-as described here-would satisfy and provide the intellectual and artistic requirements listed by Mr. Coggins. Where my position fails, and I stipulate to this readily, is in the realm of social interaction. It would be a compromise I might be willing to make. Coming home from a day at the office, and dealing with all that entails, I think a couple of hours with Caesar in Gaul would be a most welcome respite.
Back to MWAN # 132 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Legio X
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