Markus Stumptner By the way, our recent game of The Flowers of the Forest was one of our best so far, the Scots came within a hair's breadth of managing a victory. Gunfire, pike fright and assault routed the Lord Admiral's group (and killed the Lord Admiral himself), with total confusion reigning on the British (CHV: English, please Marcus!) left wing (Surrey ended up two points short of a rout), and Lord Dacre was ordered twice to charge and each time downgraded it to Advance. Howard got an order to advance after having stopped and managed to rout the King (who had advanced instead of rallying, in true Scottish manner). Jolly good show, as I've seen the British say on TV. CHV: Pretty accurate I would say. Soren Fisker In August this year I spend my honeymoon in Scotland. I have never been that much interested in the History of Scotland but I was quite taken by the beauty of the country and tragedy of the Jacobite risings. (CHV: Bah! The Lowlanders might argue that the tragedy was the centuries of raiding they suffered, the only good Highlander is one dancing Danny Deever, writes Mr Border Reiver). In the end we simply had to spend a few days at Culloden. Back in Denmark I tried to find all the board-games I could about The Jacobite Rebellions. That was done very quickly since I could only find The '45 from Decision Games. Unfortunately I have never read ANY decent reviews of that game but since it was the only one I just had to order it. I hope to receive it very soon. To make a long story a little shorter: In PA no 95 a certain Ian Drury (of whom I know nothing at all) mentions that he is working on a game of 1745. I was real sad when I read that the Scotch could hardly expect to win - but otherwise I saw his letter as a sign from the Gods of War.... Is there any way that I could persuade you to give me his home-address or his e-mail-address? (CHV: I have passed your e-mail on, but Ian being a great artist may be communing with his Muse - it says here. I would certainly welcome a look at this design). David Fox This must be stealth publishing; I come home from work and find both PA and BROG sitting in my mailbox. Given the opportunity to compare, I note the broad range of subject discussion in PA- wargames, cardgames, computer games, mini's, history, books- while BROG mostly concentrates on game design analysis. No value judgement intended, just an observation of two different editors with two very different philosophies. (CHV: Pity the number of review mags is so reduced that there are not more different philosophies). I sense a challenge here and must defend Patrick O'Brian-- pedestrian language and paper thin characterisation, foresooth. Those of use with keen literary sense see that O'Brian's books feature excellent writing- clear, precise, often witty, without repetition or cliché- and some of the deepest character development in contemporary fiction (after 18 volumes, I should hope so, too). True, he has not been able to maintain the same level of excellence for 20+ years and 18 books, but overall he still knocks Forester and a raft of Hornblower clones into a cocked hat, let alone the macho fantasy and weak history found in Fraser's Flashman. And, O'Brian alone of the Napoleonic naval writers gives the Americans credit for the deep shock they inflicted on the complacent Royal Navy in 1812. So there. (CHV: What do expect from a harp? O'Brien remains Georgette Heyer for detail-obsessive men, it has none of the breadth of characterisation and wry observation of the Flashman novels, and as for the smut - a complete zilch). Lots of Gettysburg in this here issue. As a subject this battle is truly undying, as Sid Meier's forthcoming computer game and Dave Powell's regimental level opus (now in playtesting) attest. I haven't played either Vae Victis' or Masahiro's games, but I'll point out some historical inaccuracies found in your reviews. You mention that in Vae Victis the Union units are weaker in quality than the Confederates, a widely held but false notion. If Gettysburg proved anything, it was that the Union soldier was equal to his Southern counterpart. (CHV: Oh yeah, sitting on hills too gutless to counterattack, even the Dutch-Belgians counter-attacked!) Indeed, this was the root of the Confederate defeat, as Lee had become quite overconfident from the belief that his troops would always win and theirs' always run away. (CHV: Come now Dave, not always running away is the not the same as equality). Pickett's Charge demonstrated just how wrong he was. Masahiro, meanwhile, has Lee acting as sort of a bonus command activator. Nothing could be further from the real battle, where Lee took almost no part in directing the fighting, instead allowing his three corps commanders (AP Hill, Longstreet, and Ewell) to fight as they saw, or didn't see, fit. Had he taken a tighter hold on the reins the outcome might have been quite different. But Richard Berg missed this, too, in 3DOG, so Masahiro shouldn't be criticised too strongly. (CHV: Perhaps he is indicating the possibilities and not the actualities?) Been spending so much time on my Austerlitz project that sadly, little else has been showing up on my game tables. I do await SimTac's Rivoli with much interest, as well as Avalon Hill's Atlantic Storm, an excellent North Atlantic card game by Ben Knight with an awful title. Would it have hurt so badly to have named the thing Wolfpack ? Were they afraid that SPI would sue them ? On my ever-welcoming hard drive, however, are Diablo, truly mindless violence in the best "if it moves kill it" style, and Imperialism, another winner from SSI set in 19th century pseudo-Europe, where you too can become Lord Palmerston, using diplomacy, economics, and military to master the world. I have not delved into this game very deeply, but it seems to have much promise. Lastly, after reading Morehead's THE WHITE NILE, I scarfed up a copy of Source of the Nile from a generous soul on AOL. Can you or your readers offer any comments or suggestions about this game ? (CHV: Yes, once you get a river edge you can work it round to build enormous lakes in the centre of Africa, or was that only in the original? I also found being held prisoner by elephants an interesting concept!). Niall Taylor I bought Ed Wimble's game on Jena although I haven't had the chance to do anything with it yet. I don't entirely agree with his comments on Prussian aversion to fighting in terrain. The reports of their officers after the battle do not suggest this. Marwitz (who was an aide to Hohenlohe) says that Hohenlohe wanted to assault Vierzenheilingen with the bayonet but was dissuaded by Grawert to wait for Ruchel. There is no suggestion of his being "numbed" by combat as Ed suggests. My own feeling is that the traditional view of Prussian tactical rigidity in 1806 is at best an oversimplification. Still, if nothing else, Ed has encouraged me to take another look at Jena! Ulrich Blennemann Even if often disagree with your observations and comments, PA always is an interesting read. Keep up the good work! Steve Thomson I do wish you would not show such extreme temerity in expressing your opinion. CHV: It is a cross I have long had to bear, but I am planning to go on an assertiveness course to combat this weakness.(That is if none of you object?). Richard Martin Sloth like PA Subscriber that I am, I enjoyed the last issue enough to put the proverbial pen to paper. Well after a monthly interlude. Given my perverse desire to play AWE's games we did a while back have another bash at Europa Universalis. Part of the appeal was that one of our gaming group is a French student who is credited in the playtesting and we wished to make his Sunday afternoon the miserable hell that he deserved. Our prayer that perhaps he understood the rules was a forlorn one. The following week he brought in the Grand Siecle which he assured us is playable. On first inspection it looks very good. The game is clearly based on Europa Universalis, but a simplified form thereof. The Game centres on Europe but has an abstracted colonial system, with a clever mechanic of almost Germanic simplicity. The game like Europa Universalis has horribly twisty random events, whose ramifications are unclear, but encourage you to follow historical decisions. For the first attempt this makes such events simply part of the Scenario set-up, the second game you can treat them as variables. Shortly after the events sequence the problems arise. The designer seems to have a phobia against simple clean games. With a simplified form of Europa Universalis to work on, he then adds a whole set of extraneous rule to the systems. For instance Europa Universalis (or Empires in Arms) has a simple modifier for Cavalry superiority of 2:1 or greater, Siecle has the same thing but only if you roll an 8+ per combat round, Why Bother ?? Persevering despite a criminal error of the British/Dutch in the Low Countries, the combat results tends to be very inconsequential. The game therefore tended to a long war of economic attrition. This therefore provokes my main complaint that of the naval reinforcements. Each country has a base income in provinces, which is not likely to change a great deal. In addition they have a foreign trade income which is more variable. Each turn a country can make one attempt to, in turn to increase its trading fleets and its military fleets. Military fleets can do a good job of shredding the trading fleets. The cost of each action is all but inconsequential compared to the total rewards. So every country will perform both actions each turn. Unfortunately then there is a 1 in 4 chance of success. A dice rolling fest for all players, Given that at the start France & Spain almost have Naval equality with Britain & Holland, this then reduces the game to a farce, Whichever side succeeds in generating more fleets controls the seas, and therefore controls the variable income and thus will win the war of attrition. As to whether this is historically appropriate .. maybe.. but even if the alternative was a dozen French mistresses it still destroys the game balance. Given that the rules are in French we are unlikely to persevere with this one, when Europa Universalis looks so much more inviting. And one day perhaps someone will produce the errata and FAQ for Europa Universalis. Neil Thomas My own gaming has seen a change of emphasis. I still play a lot of boardgames (mostly the top 10 I listed a few issues ago, and TITO), but do now play a lot of miniature games, since I have finally decided to wield a paintbrush! More seriously, I find that I am far more inclined to do extra research for miniature gaming, and am always busy trying to write the perfect set of rules - a very stimulating but I suspect a fruitless task! I have also been playing the WARHAMMER (and 40K) games, and this set me musing on why they have proved so popular. The rather mundane fact is that both are very well designed products with straightforward basic systems and outstanding figures to go with them. In addition the "historical" background of the armies and races is very well done. So can we draw any lessons from the GW phenomenon? Well no, actually - at least, not directly. Historical wargamers tend to have a very wide range of interests and cannot be pinned down in the same way as fantasy gamers can get sucked into a world created by individual designers. Nevertheless, we should be able to see that a well designed and developed product can still sell huge quantities even in an age of computer gaming and the gross WD prices do not seem to put their customers off. And that includes me! Martin James I agree you get plenty of bang for the buck with Age of Rifles, for all its faults. Have started to play it with my 9 year old son, who has inherited my passion for history. His younger brother is also showing interest - to the despair of their mother who now has 3 of us babbling inanely about battles at breakfast. If we can persuade other PA readers to indulge in a similar frenzy of procreation, we may yet see the Witherer's plans at naught. You'll have to look at the list of subscribers and judge whether the cure is worse than the disease however! (CHV: Fear not I play games with my two children most days, and my five nephews include some major Attack Sub commanders. Do make sure you download the AOR scenarios on the Web there are a very large number certainly north of 100) While computer games have still to capitalise on their potential, one that impressed me was American Civil War, a strategic effort that reached the UK about 18 months ago. The innovation is in its treatment of leadership. The generals are rated for the usual initiative, combat, organisational ability, etc. The difference here is that you don't know what the ratings are and must discover them through experience - as Lincoln did. You can play with historical ratings, but real men like us go for the option to randomise them. So Grant and Lee could turn out to be dolts. Do you just promote a successful corps commander in their place? Not in this game, buckaroo. There is a substantial cost in public opinion for sacking someone without grounds - and mere incompetence doesn't always suffice. How like the City. You may also find that there is no support for the new guy's promotion among the army hierarchy - that's a further political cost if you go ahead anyway. The final twist is that ratings frequently change for the worse when a general is given increased responsibility. So your corps commander may fail (like Hooker or Hood) once you give him army command. Did you see the game? Virgin were stocking it recently, so I guess it must have sold pretty well. Don Greenwood I've also teamed up with my favourite designer, Courtney Allen, again. We've long wished to do a simpler version of Up Front which incorporated a board. We both like simple games - at least on a wargame scale - and like to do games where components replace rules but offer constantly challenging decision points. The object is to reduce wargames to the simplicity and rules level of fluffies. We just finished one on Hougoumont and are looking to do the next one as a WWII sniper. Six pages of rules - certainly less than Magic. Ian Drury The WD conference was fun, as ever, back in the dim distant summer. Since then, the only gaming activity I have to report is the rather jolly Megablitz system pioneered by various WD-ers. This uses 1/72 models to represent a company/battalion (depending on type and nation) so a pair of figures or a tank are effectively your counters. Groundscale is 4cm/km, and the emphasis is on logistics. Since all transport elements are modelled, the traffic jams that attend the arrival of a panzer division have to be seen to be believed. I was involved in an eastern front game during the autumn: basically a Soviet infantry army plus mechanised corps attacking across a river, and hoping to make enough ground to avoid a winter holiday in Siberia before the Fascist Beasts woke up & sent the Panzers to the rescue. The result was a fast-moving game (in the day's play, we covered 3 or 4 days combat) that offered far more than the 1/300 tankfests of yesteryear. Armour falls into its proper place, essential for exploitation but an expensive tool to actually break into the enemy front-line. What both sides felt short of was artillery and bog-standard infantry! I'm slowly assembling the wherewithal for a 1943 Tunisia/Italy game, 'cos I have lots of appropriate toys in the garage (left over from an episode of Inspector Wexford, but that's another story). At this scale, you suddenly realise why the German infantry preferred to be supported by the unglamorous StuG III, rather than the Tiger. The big cat runs out of gas halfway across the table, and can't cross a river on standard army pontoon bridges. One element under discussion by the Megablitz crew is how to meld FIBUA into the game system. Should you increase/de-crease both sides losses when fighting through a city (we Soviets had to liberate a large town during the game). I have some 8th Army stuff on how you can usually take the edge of a built-up area, because the corps artillery can shoot you in, but then the fun starts when you get inside and find the downtown area packed with German paras. My current solution is simply to double everyone's ammunition expenditure in city-fighting and only allow an armoured unit to use 1 (of a possible 5) combat point in action. The system is an interesting combination of figure game (pretty toys) and boardgame (all units are basically counters with hidden strength & logistic markers stuck on the back of the bases). I'm working on a review of Joe Miranda's WW1 system as in S&T 186. Weirdly enough, I am in the process of converting my American Civil War system to 1914 and Peter Perla tells me he's doing the same. A trawl of Washington & NY games stores revealed some new names (which I've already forgotten, in finest journalistic tradition) but basically more boardgames on familiar topics for the interest of the over 35s only. All games store owners, beard-wearers to a man, confirmed the general perception of the 'Great Withering' but no-one has a clue what the future holds. I will try to get to either Salute or the Triples show in Sheffield this April & see who's there, as I'm totally out of touch with the club scene ( as it was called in the 70s). (CHV: Didn't you have a small part in Boogie Nights?......) David Isby very much alive and well, by the way. Some folks are born consultants, others have consultancy thrust upon them. . . . Today was the last moonless night over Iraq, so I guess the F-117 book I am about to publish won't get the marketing push I was hoping the USAF could contribute. Give war a chance, that's what I say. Back to Perfidious Albion #96 Table of Contents Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 by Charles and Teresa Vasey. 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