1. Take a look at the results of the Simon-Hubig ancients campaign on which I reported a couple of issues ago: Battle No. Simon's Army Pts Hubig's Army Pts Result 1 100 100 Simon's army runs off the field. 2 100 100 Simon's army runs off the field. 3 65 100 Simon's army runs off the field. 4 150 120 Simon's army runs off the field. 5 100 100 Simon's army runs off the field. 6 150 130 Simon's army runs off the field. You will notice a certain consistency (predictability?) about the results ... one might even say they're historically accurate. One might also think that, as in golf, Fred 'Show No Mercy' Hubig might give me a handicap each time we battled. Perhaps he could play blindfolded. The above table indicates - to me, at least - there is something wrong with the rules. It wasn't obvious during the first battle, perhaps, but by the 6th ... well, I, for one, certainly realized they needed fine tuning. I cannot understand why Fred 'Go For The Jugular' Hubig disputes this. 2.On March 11th, I'm off to England for a full three week vacation. If the TWA aircraft doesn't lose an engine, jettison part of its fusillage, drop off a landing wheel , or get blown up, I'm back on April I st. I only mention this because if, after six months or so, your April REVIEW has not arrived, you'll know enough NOT to write the editor. Wish me luck. 3.A letter from Don Featherstone indicated that he had seen Bob Coggin's article in the January '90 REVIEW. Bob had said some not- so-nice things about the writings of British wargaming authors. Don's comments, in this issue, seem to indicate that the thrust of Bob's criticism was too narrow... that, as seen by any given writer, it should have included ALL wargaming authors except the writer's own works. I agree! All published wargaming material - except my own, of course - is vague, incomprehensible, incoherent, obtuse, nonsensical and meaningless. I've noted this for several years now, but I've been too shy and modest to mention it. I'm glad the secret is out. In recent issues of the REVIEW, I note that the trend of my gaming setups seems to have drifted far from skirmish engagements into the realm of grand-tactical efforts. More and more do I take my little 15mm people off the shelf ... more and more do I leave my 30mm and larger figures untouched. Some people have expressed absolute wonderment at the shift and, in truth, so have I. In analyzing the transformation, however, I see a thread of logic. In part, I tend toward a grand-grand-tactical approach because one can concentrate on the gaming procedures rather than the nitty- gritty of the tactical presentation. In the universe of Napoleonics, for example, wherein one stand represents a unit the size of a battalion or more, one need not worry about how musketry falls off with range ... musketry is simply blended with melee, into a phase termed "combat. Similarly, one need not worry about how much faster skirmishers move than regular line troops... skirmishers are "assumed" to be out there and blend into the movement phase. One need not worry about the mechanics of companies forming square in the face of a cavalry charge. If the cavalry charge home unsupported, one can assume the battalion commander has wits enough to form square and again, there is a blending of movement within movement. I realize we're on the border between miniatures and boardgaming ... but there's no need to cross over ... there's still a lot of tactical ploys ... command, control. morale, unit reaction, etc.,... which keep us honest. 5.In last month's issue, I noted that HMGS now had a treasury just over $20,000, and that it was about to increase even more in light of the mid-March COLD WARS convention. A conversation with Bob Coggins, on the HMGS Board of Directors, brought out a couple of interesting points concerning this amount, which Bob contended is not that vast an accumulation of wealth: First, HMGS has, over the years, managed to build up its assets despite the extremely low weekend entrance fees for participants ($5 or so) and those charged to dealers ($50 per table). Contrast these with the fees charged at other conventions, which are multiples of the HMGS admission rates. Second, a large part of the credit goes to the fact that the Penn-Harris Inn in Harrisburg has been willing to toss in its convention center gratis, because of the number of hotel rooms booked during the HMGS affairs. Other sites may offer a discount, but not too many offer a freebee. Consequently, there's a savings in the order of $3000 per convention which adds to the amount in the treasury. Third, it well may be, says Bob, that HMGS has just about outgrown the Penn-Harris Inn, which can comfortably accommodate no more than 1000 or so attendees and dealers. If, so, then the cost of leasing a just-slightly-larger facility will increase expenses by a huge factor, and only with a fairly substantial bankbook could HMGS afford the move. Bob said he's suggested to President Dick Sossi that the organization attempt to keep no less than $15,000 in the bank, just-in-case. Back to PW Review March 1990 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1990 Wally Simon 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