Howard has been a frequent contributor to MWAN over the last several years. His writings exhibit an inventive imagination as regards the ability to view wargaming in different ways than we usually look at them. I think you'll enjoy this look at Howard.
MWAN: Please give us some background information on yourself.
HOWARD: Born April 13, 1958, a great day for mankind, in the large industrial city of Birmingham, a part of England sensibly avoided by tour groups. I have a degree in history from the University of Warwick, where I met my wife, an exchange student from Savannah. Lori and I live in a crowded apartment with various pets, thousands of model soldiers and most of the cockroaches in the western world. But it is historic. I work with juvenile delinquents and do my best to behave better than they do.
MWAN: How did you get interested in wargaming?
HOWARD: Toy soldiers were a big part of my childhood, from the various Airfix 29mm to the 12" jointed figures - the military Barbie dolls - so the discovery, at age 12, that you could play games using dice, rather than hurled objects, was a logical progression. I bought all the Airfix "Waterloo" sets, read Johnny Kincaid's superb Napoleonic memoirs "Recollections of a Rifleman", and was hooked! All through my adolescent years, when others were kicking soccer balls and discovering the opposite gender, the young Whitehouse was locked away converting WWI Germans into British Colonials, or copying down 0.B's from Oman's History of the Peninsula War! So I've been wargaming in the "adult" sense for 15 years.
MWAN: What periods & scales do you game in; how large is your collection; how are they organized; what is it that attracts you to these periods?
HOWARD: In 15mm, I have about 1500 Peninsula War figures, Anglo-Portuguese, French & allies, and Spanish; I've got about 250 Marathas to contest dominance in India with Wellesley, and some 3-400 Dark Age Fellows, mostly Danes and English, also Picts, Irish, Franks, Russians, Pechenegs and other characters of unwashed persuasion. I've also got 200 or so English, French, Spanish & Indian gentlemen to fight over C18th North America, specifically for the Southern Frontier of the 1740's. In 1/300th I’ve got just enough Anglo/Egyptian/Indian forces and Ansar hordes to begin the 1884 Sudan campaigns. I'm waiting for a shipment anytime! I've recently acquired 50 or so 1/1200th Napoleonic ships second hand and am dealing with the problems of beating Bones afloat! I tend to put my Napoleonic and C18th figures on bases of two, Dark Ages on individual bases. I have movement trays for easy movement of units. Scale vary according to the type of game I'm playing, but my Napoleonics are based at a 1 to 50 ratio, giving 8-20 figures per battalion.
MWAN: Do you belong to a group, if so, describe the organization.
HOWARD: We have a small group of four amiable wargamers, who meet once a week at each other's homes in turn. The host buys the beer and decides what we will play if there is nothing "to be continued". Obviously, there's no need for formal organization. Interestingly enough, two of the players are long term re-enactors and history buffs who had not played wargames before meeting yours truly; the result of this is two wargamers who feel no inclination to grab the rules for judgments, but instead use reference to historical events to help them make decisions. This is, of course, a sheer joy to old warhorses like myself!
MWAN: Do you see any differences between the hobby of historical wargaming with miniatures in England as opposed to the U.S.?
HOWARD: I'm not really sure about this. British wargamers are rather spoiled for choice, I think, and many don't put much effort in beyond painting the model soldiers and showing up at the club. The U.S. miniature gamer appears more committed to his hobby. This is, of course, a very broad generalization - there's undoubtedly hordes of idle American wargamers, but then, of course, I never get to see 'em.
MWAN: Why do almost all of the wargaming books come out of England?
HOWARD: Miniature wargaming is the mainstream of the hobby in the U.K., with boardgamers a long way behind in terms of numbers. Fantasy gamers abound throughout the known universe, and possibly beyond. The larger market, and easy movement of players and traders throughout a tiny country undoubtedly encourage publishers to put out books of interest to wargamers in Britain. I'll go to London for a show if its 100 miles or so. I'm not going 500-1000 to a U.S. convention!
MWAN: Please discuss your involvement with Wargames Developments. What is the purpose, your opinion of it, and what do you think of the chances of such a group in the U.S.?
HOWARD: Wargames Developments (WD) was founded in 1980 by a group of British wargamers unhappy with the limited sphere and tournament ethos' that seemed about to stultify creative initiative in the hobby. The purpose of the group was, and is, to foster any and all kinds of new approach, or advances in existing methods, which would be of interest to the historical wargamer. W.D. has an annual weekend conference, at which new ideas are discussed and games - often involving dozens of people - are played. THE NUGGET, a bi-monthly newsletter, is open to all thoughts/concepts/discussions, and is a valuable resource to those WD members, like myself, who can't attend conferences. W.D. has clearly had an influence in the direction of wargaming in Britain over the past few years, and much of the better stuff in MINIATURE WARGAMES is the product of W.D. members. The average W.D.'er is older than most wargamers (i.e. no longer has acne), knows his history, seldom argues or, indeed, asks to see the rules - what rules? - and, most importantly, always offers to buy the first round. An American organization of W.D. is probably not feasible on a national basis,but there is no reason why localized weekend conferences, with much group discussion, new games ideas, etc., shouldn't be organized. I'd recommend anyone interested in "the radical fringe" of wargaming - which I suspect I belong to - to join W.D.
MWAN: Who do you feel has had the most influence on wargaming in England and the US?
HOWARD: I grew up on Donald Featherstone and Tony Bath, Peter Young and Charles Grant. When it comes to wargame modeling, of course, Gilder is God. In the last few years Phil Barker and the WRG have had much influence, not always for the good, and, more recently, Paddy Griffith and W.D. have mounted a counter attack on behalf of less restrictive wargaming. I can't really comment on U.S. Wargamers.
MWAN: Who has had the most influence on you in wargaming?
HOWARD: Griffith is the man! He is a very enidite historian, as you'd expect from a Sandhurst lecturer, and positively revels in taking on "established viewpoints" that have gotten too deeply entrenched. His 1980 book NAPOLEONIC WARGAMING FOR FUN introduced me to his freewheeling approach, and we have established a regular correspondence, playing in each other’s postal games, and trading ideas. I don't always agree with Paddy, but I have tremendous respect for him. Other wargamers whose ideas are always worth the second look are Ned Zuparko, Arthur Harman, and Andy Callan. Recently I've become acquainted with Paul Koch's writings and am impressed by him.
MWAN: Is there anything you do not like about wargaming?
HOWARD: Aha! Apart from my well known loathing of convention ancients games pitting 1000 points of Vikings against a bunch of Incas/Hoplites/Tibetans, I'd have to say there is a fringe element of rules lawyers/perpetual juveniles/right-wing militarist tupes that just plain embarrass me to share their field of interest.
MWAN: Please describe your approach to rules writing.
HOWARD: First of all I read anything and everything I can get my grubby paws on. Then I decide WHAT are the important points I need to play up, HOW I'm going to illustrate those aspects in terms of mechanisms, and WHO the player is supposed to be representing. After all, if the player is "Napoleon in 1812" I don't actually need rules for individual musketry.
MWAN: What rules have you written?
HOWARD: As a callow youth I wrote rules for almost everything, none of which I now like to think about. In recent years I've done "Forlorn Hope" - covering C18th/C19th siege assault warfare - which was featured in NUGGET 20, and will appear in THE COURIER sometime in the future, "Drums Along the Frontier", a column-level game of the American forest wars, "The Long Serpent", thump and bash rules for Viking ships, due for publication in the Society of Ancients journal SLINGSHOT, and, in progress, "Science Vs. Pluck; or Too Much for the Madhi", Sudan wars on a grand tactical level. I've done one solo adventure "Evening After Ethardun", set in Alfred the Great's time, and am working on another detailing Napoleonic Cavalry action. So I'm a busy little devil! Maybe one day I'll even get a set published for sale.....
MWAN: What do you look for in a set of wargaming rules?
HOWARD: I look at the designer's analysis of the period; if that seems sound enough, I consider the mechanics of the rules - what kinds of results they produce, and how they arrive at them. There's no point in taking all year to get a result that could be reached in a minute! In general, I avoid anything with two dozen charts and a list of every rifle/cannon/troop type known to man - they are usually the result of shallow thinking.
MWAN: What do you think of the current state of the art in wargaming rules writing?
HOWARD: There's an encouraging movement, at present, to sweep away the clutter of overly rigid games systems in favor of less, either in the form of "fast & furious" rules or free Kriegsspiel, involving almost no rules at all. I'm not attracted to $20 boxed sets where all thinking has been done for me in advance.
MWAN: Do you have any thoughts on George Jeffries' Variable Bound concept?
HOWARD: I'm very interested in George's concept, in that it has long seemed foolish to me to arbitrarily chop time into little pieces. Most of us have done that, I think, in lieu of tacking the problem of the passage of time and its relationship to activities. I'm looking forward to seeing the VLB in action; George has a good grasp of this subject, but sometimes I'm not sure I've entirely grasped what he has to say.
MWAN: Please discuss simple vs. complex rules.
HOWARD: My preference is for simple, properly thought-out rules covering specific periods to illustrate the particular nature of it's subject. Being simple is no advantage if there is no sense of time and place! I'm generally put off by "complex" rules, though some topics require a certain level of detail to examine them properly. I recently looked over "Empire III" and found that, while the concept and general theory were quite admirable, the rules had, doubtless over eight years of development, developed a "garfield" quality; overweight and somewhat conceited. I have no time for complex, all inclusive rules written in pseudo legalese which purport to cover vast chunks of known history.
MWAN: If you were the owner of a publishing company dealing in wargaming rules, what would you tell potential rules writers as regards the most important factors in putting together wargaming rules?
HOWARD: I hope that I'd say (1) Respect your readers - don't try to cover every possible event which could be easily dealt with by player agreement. (2) Explain your theory of history, for history is totally subjective, and let your game develop from there. The reader may not agree with you, but he'll know why he gets the results that occur with these rules. (3) Don’t' try to cover all possible loopholes; the rules lawyers will beat you every time. Instead, push the "spirit" of the game over "the letter". Actually, if I wanted to make money I'd only publish expensive boxed sets of lowest-common-denominator rules on popular subjects, like "achtung Amerikaner Pig-Dag!; John Wayne's World War II".
MWAN: Do you have any thoughts on simulations vs games in wargaming?
HOWARD: I'm always a bit doubtful about "simulations", since the word conjures up images of 10,000 piece boardgames of the Russian Front. If, however, we mean miniature re-enactments which put the player in a situation that is realistically analogous with that of his historical counterpart, I'm for it. He should have limited information, and probably little involvement in "the rules" aspect of the event, though we can leave out riding horses or being shot at by cannon. This isn't really a question of complexity, or "realism vs playability"; rather, some us must "play" character roles, other must administer the mechanisms. I don't think this is how George Jeffries quite sees it, but that's my definition of simulation. And, of course, lets not think that there's anything wrong with games. What's realistic about DIPLOMACY? Not a lot I'd suggest, but a fine entertainment.
MWAN: What do you look for in a wargaming magazine?
HOWARD: Good history and good wargames ideas. Style and form don't matter much, MINIATURE WARGAMES (The Playboy of Wargamers) is not inherently better due to its glossy format that MWAN or NUGGET. An intelligent account of an historical event linked to properly thought-out ideas for games structures for that particular event, is all I ask. Greg Novak's stuff in the Mexican War issue of MWAN is an excellent example. I don't much like "battle reports" with no attempt to look at the game structure and mechanics.
MWAN: How is your campaign by mail, CHEROKEE, going; what do you like about it, not like about it. Will you do more?
HOWARD: CHEROKEE progresses in a stately C18th manner, with all kinds of mischief being devised behind the Deerskin Curtain. I love getting player responses and putting them together, throwing in the actions of Umpire-played characters, and seeing what emerges. I don't really like sitting down and writing a dozen or more letters! I'm unsure how long it will play, or what will come later - perhaps something involving Hull's Army at Detroit in 1812, or French generals in the Peninsula.
MWAN: Are there any periods you are thinking about going into and why?
HOWARD: I've been adding to the "fringes" of my Napoleonics for a year or so, what with the Marathas, Spanish guerrillas and townspeople, mull trains and such. I'm wary of the major European powers - Russians & Austrians only come in Family Packs of 50,000 - but I'm tempted by 1812 Americans, Sicilians, Mamelukes & Turks. I'm also expanding my Dark Ages armies and C18th American forces, so I'm quite busy at resent. However, it can't be too long before the 1/300th Sudanese are joined by Boers and Zulus.
MWAN: What do you enjoy most about wargaming?
HOWARD: I enjoy the sense of taking part in history, rather than simply accept a passive role by reading the work of others. In a wargame I try to take key events and break them down into component parts for analysis. In simple terms, I enjoy painting, reading and writing as much as playing itself.
MWAN: What level of wargaming do you enjoy most of all?
HOWARD: I most enjoy mini-campaigns, entertainments of one or two evenings covering not just a table-top punch-up, but a series of military decisions drawn from a real situation in history. At least one umpire is needed, and each player role-plays a specific character with a rank, command and responsibilities. The "level" of game can vary - it looks equally well at skirmish or corps level; my favorites, I think, are brigade or divisional actions involving conflicting player briefs and lots of logistical/command/intelligence problems posed by the umpire. Joint military/naval expeditions, or guerrilla/regular liaisons, are great for this. Often these games require only one side to be played; we can learn a great deal from the structures of our F.R.P. brethren when it comes to umpire-led roleplay.
MWAN: Do you solo wargame, if so, please describe:
HOWARD: I solo-wargame in the sense that I continually fiddle with new rules and ideas either on paper or with figures; when a game appears to be working at least partially right, I'll take it to fellow Savannah Wargamers to appraise, which they are suitably vocal in doing! I don't usually set up a whole table for a solo game. Sometimes I play board games against myself, but usually make such stupid moves that, as the enemy, I spot them and proceed t mop up!
Editor's Note: Thanks to Howard for taking the time to respond to this interview. He raises a number of important points, on of which I am in total agreement as regards battle reports. It appears most of MWAN's readers, including myself, enjoy battle reports much more if they are written in such a manner so as to include how the rules functioned to allow described events to occur. Please take this into consideration when writing future battle reports.
Back to MWAN #19 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1986 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