From Rob Dean: The arrival of MWAN #52 reminds me that I wanted to make a few remarks about #51. I was very much interested in the article by John Parus on solo games. Since my usua1 opponent has been very much tied up with the business of opening a gaming store recently, I have been try ing some solo medieval skirmish g aming, using the Retinue rules from TTG, which appear to be derived from the rules in Featherstone's SKIRMISH WARGAMING. Featherstone's SOLO WARGAMES is a very inspiring book, too, as noted in the article in #51. I'll switch over the ECW for awhile as soon as I can get enough figures painted.
Due to my situation (I live in a small apartment with a wife, toddler, and two cats) I have a very 1imited amount of space in which I can leave a game set up. The small size of my table, (actually a shipping box) allows me to play around with more detail in the terrain than I would otherwise use. Being small is no reason for looking bad. So far I`ve found that leaving about half of the involved forces off the board, and bringing them on as reinforcements by a die roll (i.e., roll for each figure, on a "6" it enters this turn) gives the game a sufficiently uncertain feel. The lack of maneuver space doesn't seem to be felt as badly in a skirmish game as it would be in a larger one.
From Raymond K. Bubelis In MWAN #50 I briefly described our Napoleonic miniatures group in the Metropolitan Toronto area, but only touched upon the "Hardcover" rules we use. The full title of the ab ove rules is "Napoleonic Rules for a large-scale wargame with small scale miniatures", by Cliff Knight and Peter Dennis, published by Hard Cover Designs.
These rules use the "Variable Length Bound" system developed by George Jeffrey, whereby fixed turns are not adhered to until composite forces face defined changes of situations. As we11, unit basings and combat systems are derived from the Kriegsspiel by B. von Reisswitz.
A second set of rules, "American Civil War rules for an army-level wargame with 2mm or 6mm miniatures" was published by Hard Cover employing similar mechanics, but with an ACW flavour. Sadly, Hard Cover has dissolved and some copies of these rules can still be obtained through Heroics and Ros ( UK ) and NAVWAR ( UK ).
From Captain Joe Evans Greetings from the other side of the world. Sorry I haven't written in so long, but we have been rather busy lately here in Korea. Haven't even had time to do any painting until this week. Enjoyed MWAN #50 and 51 very much. Each issue keeps getting better and better. MWAN does have one major problem though - it only comes out every other month. I realiee Ha1 there's not much that you can do about that, but it can't hurt to wish. I'm finding the Tactica/ WRG and Empire/Napoleon's Battles debates rather curious, especially if you track them through four or five back issues. Each side continuously tries to show why their favorite set is better and more historically accurate and sometimes can get quite emotional about the issue.
What difference does it make if your primary purpose in gaming is to have fun? I play all of them except Tactica (only because I don't have any armies large enough) and enjoy them all. What a radical concept! The last weekend before coming over here, we did some Napoleonics at a friend,s house. We did an 1809 French vs Austrians game with Empire on Saturday and the same matchup using NB on Sunday and the results were the same - we all had fun.
The point is if you are not satisfied with a particular set of rules, don't denigrate them, just use another. Also, whether or not you enjoy a set of rules consider this lesson: in the first six months after NB was released, I played more Napoleonic games than in a11 the years I used Empire (and I started with Empire III). Two years ago, only a couple of people at the club at my last stateside assignment played Napoleonics, now over 20 have armies and the local hobby shops love it.
From Beck Martin: I have been painting miniatures since 1983 but I always put them in dioramas; well, now I would like to try my hand at wargaming with them. I was told that "Johnny Reb" was a good game for a first timer, well, I have tried everything at least eight times. Even when I just go over the parts I'll need for the easiest scenario, I just can't seem to get started. I understand placing orders, but then check morale and routs - well, how can you be routed when you haven't fired yet? Help!! If you could help me out to figure how to get started, maybe the other rules will fall into place.
(Editor's Note: Beck, have you tried "Rally Round the Flag" for the ACW? I was in the same position as you when I started and this set of rules really got me going to understand how to wargame. Units historically have been routed, by the way, before firing a shot, so if this happens, it doesn't mean that you are doing something wrong. The best way to learn, however, is to find someone to help you out who is in the area and with whom you can spend a few evenings. Can anyone in the Fort Worth/Dallas area help Beck?)
From William McHarg: I came across a neat gadget in a map store recently. It's called the Roller Route Map Measurer. It looks like a large pen with a serrated wheel at the bottom. You can set it for a scale, say 1" equals 1 mile, and roll the wheel along a road on the map and it tells you how far you,ve gone. Now this is cheap, at $4.95. Its construction is also cheap, but it works. You can put in scales for 1" = 1/2 mile up to 1" equals 50 miles (the increments are in larger units after 1" = 10 miles). This should work wonders for campaigns. Rather than trying to use hexes or squares you just measure the actua1 distance along the road.
From Hal Thomas : Last issue was great, as usual! The article on solo wargaming was especially good. One of the games I played recently used the new movement system, "E.D.N.A." from a recent WARGAMES ILLUSTRATED. It was used for cavalry vs infantry scenario #50, in which an all cavalry force appears on the flank of an almost all infantry force, whose only hope is to rush to the high ground and rough terrain on the flank away from the cavalry.
In keeping with the E.D.N.A. article, the infantry were positioned about 60" from the protective terrain while the cavalry force was about 90" from that protective terrain. D10 (10- sided dice) were thrown for each unit with infantry movement starting at 8 and cavalry also at 8 but adding 50?e to their score so that they began with a 12" move. Instead of complicated rules, the cavalry was given a +2 (on a D6) against any foot figure not on high ground or rough terrain while the infantry on high ground or rough ground would be+2 (on a D6) against mounted figures who would only have a D6 with nothing addedl Saving throws were used as followed: Armored samurai were saved on 4,5 or 6 (D6), Ashigaru on 5,6 and unarmored on 6. The cavalry force was eight to ten units of samurai whereas the mainly infantry force had 1x10 samurai cavalry, one cannon, 2x10 gunner or arquebusiers (one was samurai, one was ashigaru), 1xl0 samurai spearmen and 4x10 archers (one samurai and 3 ashigaro) and 1xl0 peasants.
This force was determined by dice throws and normally have a lot of ashigaru arquebusiers with only a few bowmen, but the dice throws managed to fall into the narrow numbers for archers. No orders were needed and no morale either. The infantry would automatically run toward protection while the cavalry would try to ride them down.
No figures were allowed to fire except the two arquebusier units and the cannon who were allowed only one shot (10 D6 for arqueburiers and 4D6 for the cannon. Since both arquebusiers were at the front of the road column they were doomed anyway unless somehow they threw all "5-6s" and killed the cavalry directly in front of them. I also allowed an archer unit of samurai to turn and fire (archers needed a "6" to kill a cavalryman) because they were about to be run over by cavalry. The other archers would not fire until after they gained cover. After that they would throw D6s for each figure and a "6" would be a kill. If any arquebusiers reached cover they could fire but needed to reload one turn afterwards. They could hit with a 5-6 on a D6. The most interesting part of the game was plotting the ever decreasing run of each unit. Some units running at a fast clip turn after turn while other units were moving slower and slower. It made the charge fascinating as the cavalry units drew closer and closer to the infantry, especially infantry who diced poorly!
The most humorous part was one ashigane archer unit which diced horribly time after t ime who were being followed by a unit of cavalry which was dicing just as badly. You could imagine the foot soldiers huffing and puffing followed by tottering, wobbling horsemen. By the time the last remaining infantry reached protection the cavalry had killed off just barely one-half of the infantry force, by only one figure with only moderate losses of cavalrymen. So the cavalry won. Although it wasn't mentioned earlier, the cavalry began their charge on a map and infantry markers were moved until the cavalry actually appeared on the table. Melees were simple dice rolls with only the +2 modifier with no changes for flank or superior numbers (dice rolling was for each figure of a unit so that a mounted unit with nine figures would get nine chances of kills against a six figure infantry unit who would have six chances of a kill against the mounted unit).
From John Bicknell: Wanted to pass on some thoughts I've had about all the rules debate going on reference Tactica vs WRG and Napoleon's Battles vs Empire, etc. One thing that really bothers me is the 1abeling by some of this or that set of rules as a "bad" set of rules. I have pretty simple criteria for what are 'bad. rules. These are: (1) the rules don't work; (2) the rules are difficult to understand; (3) the rules don't yield reasonable results.
Item one means that in normal play freguent situations occur which cannot ba resolved within the context of the rules. Item two means that the rules are so poorly written and illustrated that only the author and his gaming group understand them completely. Item three means that the gaming results don't resemble anything of what they are supposed to simulate. maybe other players add additiona1 criteria. I don't. If a set of rules are playable, understandable and yield reasonable results, they may not be my cup of tea, but I won't say they are bad.
Some younger gamers, today, don't realize what a golden age of miniature rules we have. I am a veteran of bad old days when a gamer ran a better than 50% chance of spendinq his hard earned dollars on a bad set of rules. I mean rules which met criteria one, two or three or a combination of them. In the past two years a number of really good rule sets have been published. These include: Tactica, De Bellis Antiquitatis, Ancient Empires, Fire and Fury, Napoleon's Battles, Empire (republication) and Legacy of Glory. Collectively these rules are setting a standard in the hobby for both design and presentation. Additionally, these rules appeal to a very wide range of gaming tastes and preferences. This should not be a time for acrimonious debate in our hobby - it's a time for celebration!
(Bditor's Note: I couldn't agree with you more!)
From Kevin Killian: This past Memoria1 Day Weekend was the second annua1 TWINCON convention located in Minneapolis. In 1990 attendance was around 500, this year it increased to over 1200. Granted 70% was D&D and Warhammer, historical gaming was very wall represented. I would like to thank Scott Bowden and Gregg Scott for their professional presence for highlighting historical gaming in the Minneapolis area. Next year TWINCON is pushing for 2500 and because of their historica1 support; miniature gaming will continue to grow. Some MWANer's suggest that fantasy and historica1 gaming mix as well as oil and water but in the five state area I know very few pure historical gamers. Most rule sets are complete fantasy to begin with; WRG and Tactica are about as historica1 as RISK or painted ACW figures on a chess board. That will irritate a great many, but both are tournament shoes-type rules for fictitious battles that would never represent a true order of battle of a fielded force (by the way, I use a modified Battlesystem rules for gaminq ANC-REN. By canning all the dice rolling, replacinq them with a few percentage charts and tossing away the magic, you have an excellent playing system that you can campaign with).
True historical gaming would have rules that would have over 90% chance to repeat the actual battle. True historical gaming has its units (with baggage train and leaders) and terrain (not just a felt table cover) fully representative of the original battle. Until then we might ae well recruit from the fantasy qroup because parts of the current historical gaminq is tainted with make believe. When everyone can afford (both the time and the money) to have campaign maps, battlefLeld terrain, solid rules, historical support books, and accurate painted figures we will then have true historical gaming.
From Jim McDaniel: Jan Tomczyk's article was very well done on horse painting. I'm qlad to see somebody else is usinq oils for horse colors. I tend to see horse colors more in terms of oil colors straight from the tube than in hobby colors in bottles or tubes. It's probably due to the fact that so many of the horses I see on a daily basis tend to have these colore present. Our barn has so many Arabians, morgans, quarter horses and appaloosas that are bay that our barn is sometimes called "Bays of Our Lives!"
If Jan doesn't mind, I have a few more thoughts on painting. One way to cut down the sheen from dried oils is to place a daub of paint on absorbent cardboard the night before you paint. The cardboard will absorb the oils that cause the dried paint to shine exceesively. For an undercoat I like to use Liquitex acrylics in the smallish bottles. This dries hard so you can really scrub the undercoat if you have to whilst removing the oils. These nice bright colors, I think, are great for duplicating the bright tones of equine highlights. A morgan mare earlier this spring was kind enough to let me try undercoat samples on her without getting upset and I concluded liquitex worked best.
For manes and tails which are black why not mix your own? Use ultramarine blue and burnt umber to get a nice black with a good hint of brown to it. Years ago during my figure painting days some beautiful flaqs were painted by a husband and wife team using oils. I honestly couldn't tell which was better. Both used tube oils over white undercoatinq. Jerry would put the color on where it was to be the lightest and ueed clean and flat brushee to move it away. Laura put it on thickest where she wanted it darkest. She used the same brushes to lightly draw the color towards her designated highlights. The point beinq not everyone can use the logic of one way to do something.
I ought to mention Jeff Caruso's new Mexican Punitive Expedition 25mm from Pass of the North. Jeff's fiqures are excellent and eepecially so for a first effort. His service deserves compliments. I was surprised to get a call from El Paso on several occasions from Jeff explaining the problems in getting my order out. As a production manager some years back for the Air Force, I have some idea how hard it is to go into production of new items. But I was very impressed to hear how interested Jeff is in providing good service to his customers.
By the way Fanny, the morgan mare, previously mentioned will be posing semi-provocatively for Jeff as a trotting cavalry horse. In short I think there are some really fine people who are just starting out and advertising in MWAN. I hope others will qive the newcomers a chance to show what they can do for you. I have been findinq the WWI British vs Turkish campaigns interesting. I know at Ft Leavenworth last Anzac Day the Australian army contingent invited all attending Turkish officers to their party. The Turks were shocked to be invited and overwhelmed to be treated so well. I find it's a lot easier and more fun to do wars where the participants feel this way.
(Editor's Note: I found your comment re usinq your Morgan to try out some paints quite interestinq. I've been adding civilians to my gaming and having a little trouble getting the right flesh color for female figures. Where do you think I could try this approach out?)
From Stephen Madjanovich: Just received #51; I find that I alwaye read some of every article the evening it arrives. Then those that apply to my areas of intarest get read the next day. My wife notes the glee in my expression when the issues come, and always comments on it! Most of my gaming for the past couple of years has centered around air games. Our gaming group are avid fans of Air Superiority (GDW's modern aircraft game). We play micro sized planes on a stand I have designed which allows three dimensiona representation of altitude, attitude, and bank with very few limits. We get together about once a month for between one and three games per session.
Most of the gamers I play with attend Origins where there is an annual tournament (for the plain board version of the game), so the lavs1 of play is very high. In fact two of our group have won the event in past years. We retain all the standard rules (although we use playtest rules for the next edition) and our gaming surface is composed of georphic boards with large (just under 3") hexes.
The other miniatures gaming which I am doing is based upon the old Striker rules (another GDW product). These were originally intended for science fiction miniatures. Since the intent of the rules was to supplement the Traveller role playing, the variety of weapons covered extends all the way to ancient weapons. We have been using the rules to game two periods. One is East Africa in the period between WWI and WWII. We are still modifying the rules but when they are able to cover the aspects we require and we intend to start a campaign game. It will cover ground, air and naval actions.
The other period, if you can call it that, is based upon another role playing game called Morrow Project (Timeline). This is post Holocaust action where what you can repair is what you can use. The basis of the actions are the attempts by a powerful government to subjugate neighboring territories. The actions usually involve small groups of poorly equipped, as far as heavy weapons go, troops with the occasional goody such as an APC to fool with. For those MWAN readers who took the time to answer my ad for interested parties ln Striker I thank you. I have attempted to contact you since but have had little luck if you are still interested drop me a line and I will get back in touch.
From Ronald Teleucky: Enjoyed #51; the highlight of the issue was finding the Redoubt ad for the March or Die line of figures. #49 and 50 had primed the well and stirred my interest for the French Foreign Legion. You have no idea the influence you have over your fellow gamers in creating an excitement for a new area of study. I ue still deeply involved with my French and Indian War project. I had placed an order with Seifried early in the year for his French-Indian War fort which he had at laet year's Historicon. I was very taken with the model and it was a matter of time that I would have one of my own. Duke did a fantastic job on it. No, he is not paying me to say this. It is a simple fact.
On top of it, I received it within a five week time pariod. But what doas this have to do with my new found interest in FFL. Duke callad me up telling me that he was shipping the fort that same day, and we got to talking about other possible creations that he could put together. I had mantioned that I was doing a little reading on the FFL and he said thst he had constructad the same fort as filmed in the original Beau Geste. We11, that is all I had to hear. I had to have one of those too! So, on an impulse I ordered one. It should be coming in June. Which should be around the time I receive my order from Miniature Service Center. I had received a letter the day before advertising this fact. All good things comes to he who wishes. I had placed a call that night to Doug Carroccio, the owner of Miniature Service Canter; he returned the call and I placed a good sized order with him. Not two hours after I spoka to Doug, Duke gave a call and said he was ready to start work on the FFL fort. So sometime in June I'll have a fort and some one hundred figures to go with it. Also, I hava just finalized my plans/reservations to attend this year's Historicon. I am combining it with a short trip to Gettysburg.
One last item: I found a new place to read MWAN. Having planned to attend Historicon and remembering reading an article in MMAN about the overweight-shape of many wargamers (it was not put aa kindly as this with something being mentioned about butt-cracks exposed by those gamers bending over while making their moves). I had planned to get in ahape (if you will) for the upcoming campaign season by dropping some weight. Gold's Gym just opened up in Las Vegas. So I joined. I have been working out by riding a Life Cycle. Reading is a good way of passing the miles by. And what better thing to read? Well, none other than MWAN. So you are even helping me to lose weight!
(Editor's Note: Good to hear from you again, Ron; you sound as crazy as I am with toy soldiers. It's so easy to get excited about toy soldiers, isn't it? Let us know how you are doing on the FFL).
From Harold Thinglum I finally got around to getting the pictures copied of hip ahooting with 30-caliber machine guns during WWII. This was part of jungle training.
(Editor's Note: Thanks, Dad. I hope the copy turns out as I am going to put it below. My Dad was a WWII Combat Infantryman with the 32nd Infantry Division in New Guinea and an avid historical reader which sparked my intereat in military history).
From Steven Currie A bunch of us fought some fun ancients battles at POINTCON (West Point Military Academy Convention) and I took my nifty new Legio XXI Rapax circa 60AD. My auxiliaries died, which is fortunate aince I was thinking of sellinq them into slavery anyway for refusing to fight the enemy! We used WRG 7th as usual.
I saw a large amount of lead. One man brought seven 1500 point WRG ancient armies! I also learned an important lesson: always have cavalry not only to defeat any Numidian meeting with your infantry but also to hammer the stupid Gallic cavalry supporting them! Just like the Byzantines said: The one with the last reaerve is the one that usually wins.
I am adding the Early Burgundians to my army collection and I am planning on more Saxons and later Franks. Here is an interesting project that my friend Tom and I did a couple of months ago: We took the minimums (i.e. the minimum required troops under the WRG army lists) of Later Franks and Anglo Danish (Saxons) and fought a few battles againat large forces of Vikings, just to see how much damage the Franks and Saxons (separately) could dish out before dying. As I figured, the Franks took out more than equal their own number but ended up disordered, exhausted, and shaken not to mention surrounded. Hopeless games are fun especially if you do well despite the odds. The Saxons did very little damage but they faced six to one odds.
From Clyde Vasey: There seems to be a lot of cluttered thought about reviews in recent MWANs. The Featherstone "describe" mode has its advantages as long as it is stuck to religiously. Readers then realize that when you say Ghastly Miniatures have produce a Grenadier you are not implying it Ls a good model of a Grenadier. Indeed it may be an appalling one. However, I have seldom found "describers" can restrain themselves in this fashion. For example, your "description" (or was it a review - I am confused) of ANCIENT EMPIRES is replete with positive words ("attractive", "well laid out'', ''good concepts") and ends with the conclusion that these rules "can only benefit the hobby as a whole" yet never ever do we find out how it works as a simulation, how long it takes to play, the sizes of the armies required or any of the many areas we need to know to form a buy decision.
The phrase "worse than useless" may be inappropriate but if you are on short commons and must guard your pennies this sort of thing is not what you need. Jim Getz gives David Bonk a rousting for not reviewing NAPOLEON's BATTLES as the designer intended it to be played. Yet, with a little tighter wording, surely Bonk's conclusion is FOR HIM correct. He would not recommend playing NAPOLEON'S BATTLES because the scale chosen is, FOR HIM, inappropriate. It may be inappropriate for many other people specifically those who do not agree with Mr. Getz's pronouncement on what constitutes the "essence' of Napoleonic warfare FOR HIM.
Since Mr. Bonk is not of Mr. Getz's opinion unsurprisingly (to everyone except Mr. Getz) they come to different conclusions. Reviews must not only look at what the designer intended but what the reviewer looked for because it is this use of opinions that informs the reader.
Recently I reviewed JET EAGLES from Nova Games. I concluded that to simulate the subject one needed a speedy movement resolution and this JET EAGLES has. Another reader admitted the speed was impressive but preferred the detail of flight in three dimensione given by AIR SUPERIORITY. Both games intend to simulate jet combat, both have different values to two different gamers. By exposing those features, gamers could quickly identify where they stood in relation to the two views and buy or not buy. A description would have been worse than useless.
We need views from reviewers, with cautions as to one's interests true, and not mealy mouthed "laundry lists." Purge most reviews of excess adjectives and adverbs (like "mealy mouthed"!) and you often get that. I hope you do not give up striving for better reviews. Your readers deserve fair reviews just as much as the manufacturers and inevitably that means someone is going to be criticized.
(Editor's Note: Thanks for your views, Charles. I have absolutely no interest in using MWAN's pages to critically review wargames products and although I have mistakenly allowed several HWANer's to do so within the last year, it is not something which will happen again and it is something which has made me personally very uncomfortable. Before I allow that, I would discontinue the "New Products Availability" column for the simple reason(s) that (A) I feel uncomfortable with such reviews; (B) some people are big on "negativity" (C) all products have some inherent worth; (D) I don't know who the "experts" are in historical wargaming with miniatures and thus, can't send them products to review; even if I did know who the experts are - actually, Gentlemen, there are no "experts" in this hobby in which we push toy soldiers around on a tabletop - I wouldn't do it because of the bias which we all have; and (E) I feel under no obligation to inform MWANers as to the quality of products received. I am aware that my opinion - and it is only that - is not completely rational, however, my opinion of how new product availability should be handled is the policy for MWAN and if readers expect anything else, they should look elsewhere for such reviews. Again I stress that I do not believe I have the correct approach; rather it is an approach which I personally feel comfortable with. In my professional life I am comfortable with being critical when it is necessary because it is part of my job and what I am being paid for, however, I see no need to extand that to my hobbies, one of which is publishing an amateur newsletter and providing people with friendly entertainment).
From Major Don Wolff In the mail to you are two boxes of pamphlets. They contain copies of the first Desert Shield publication distributed to troops headed to Southwest Asia last fall. Over 350,000 were in the hands of not only Army personnel, but also the other deployed armed service personnel, to include British troops. I do not see anything productive in continuing the argument concerning the WRG vs Tactica rules set.
In fact, as I referred to in my letter, it is degenerating to the level of a theologica1 debate at the time of the Reformation. Acrimony does not further the hobby. The object of the hobby should be fun, games, and comradrie which I believe is your objective. It is not philosophical debates which can overwhelm, disinterest, and put off an audience. I remember when a similar form of debate hurt WRG and Slingshot. Again, the basics of the interchange will be settled by the market.
(Editor's Note: Thanks for sending the booklets, Don. I was only able to send them to MWANers within the US due to postage costs).
Back to MWAN #53 Table of Contents
© Copyright 1991 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