Dear Terry,
I am looking forward to my next year's subscription to SAGA.
Since you sent out the last issue of SAGA, I have painted my 20,000th miniature. Now in all scales (15mm - 25mm), I have over 20,000 miniatures in my collection. In the month of April alone, I have painted ovor 500 figures. (Ed. Even the great Ardo (Gary Comardo) doesn't paint that many figures in a month...or does he? Mitch Abrams was once shocked when Ardo showed up at a meeting with a painted army of Mongols he purchased a day before!).
There is still no end in sight, maybe 5,000 more, I hope at least. It was back in January, 1988 that I purchased my first two historical armies. They were a WRG 1,000 point Nicophorian Byzantine and Minifig 1,000 point Mamluk Egyptian armies. Then I have to thank (blame) Tony Bath and his book Setting UD a Miniatures campign for inspiring me to paint all those miniatures, so I too could run a super wargame campaign like his.
With the Indian army I am working on now, I will have a good enough collection of armies to get started. Over the years I have been painting, it has been this book that has kept me going. With my lifetime painting goal almost achieved, it will be time to really get into the gaming.
Dear Sir,
I saw an advertisenent for your magazine in the credits section ARMATI. I would very much like to subscribe to SAGA and have enclosed a money order for one year subscription. My period of interest is from 700 A.D. through 1100 A.D., roughly, the Viking Age. Your magazine sounds like a great opportunity to increase my knowledge of this era and to share ideas with others.
Ed. This is my main field of interest as well, John. Perhaps one of "old guard" of subscribers, like Brian Lewis or Mark Bloon will write an article or two on the armies of those fascinating times [hint].
Dear Terry,
I have enclosod an article from Vol. I, No. 1 WARGAMES. It is an extremely interesting campaign. If the readership would be iterested, I would be willing to GM for the publication or privately.
Ed. I wish I could publish the article, but I have no reciprocal agreement with that publication as I do with SPEARPOINT, SLINGSNOT, and others. I encourage the readors to write to Stuart for a copy of the article if they would be interested in playing this campaign.
Dear Terry,
I received the latest issue of SAGA (#49) with my usual high level of anticipation. Congratulation the new look.
I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Phil Barker's letter.
First, I appreciate the effort that the Barker/Scott combo has put into DBA and DBM. Because my vocation, I can also appreciate the effort required to maintain and update the rules. Frankly, I don't give a good rip if the modifications are part of any official amendment. I compiled the modifications from a variety of sources and simply rpresented them for your readership's consdieration and experimentation.
Specifics: In Minneapolis, we have been using the differing general characteristics as an integral of our ongoing campaigns. As with the standards, the use of the differing generals was simply an additional factor in the game.
As to scouting, I feel a bit insulted by Phil's response. The modification that I presented is a response to the way initial deployment and the Aggression Factor works in DBM (the strategic situation), and to the use of skirmishers during the course of the game (the tactical situation). Believe me, I do know the use of Light Troops in the DBM world. The comment on Psiloi movement in line is good, and was discussed by my extended group of fellow gamers. I note Phil's comments on Kn(I), but I am not required to accept them; this also holds true with the double-based Cavalry. I do realize that this does change the situation against Warbands and Blades.
Artillery, uaaren;t combards cannon for all intents and purposes? We applied this rule modification for units using gunpowder. Frankly, the allocation of PlPs was a response to the way command and control works DBM. Personally, I like the challenge of facing a Regular army that can allocate the PlPs.
Finally, I find that Phil noted that the Bows modifications do slow other Bows and affects the play. Actually, attempt to stay closer to the letter of the DBM rule, we've allowed Bow units to function as Psiloi (regarding supporting other troops) if the army list gives the player the choice between selecting Psiloi that can provide support or Bows.
As a point of interest, I've been on the receiving end of many of the modifications. I still like and recommend their use, particularly for those players that use more interested in gaming or campaigning rather than tournaments.
Also, I believe that DBM does have some major problems, particularly concerning initial deployment (for which I suggest using rules for strategic scouting and mutual terrain placement such as those in WRG 7) and in command and control (for which I suggest a modified Armati approach).
I hope this promotes further discussion from the SAGA readers.
Sincerely,
Back to Saga #50 Table of Contents
Back to Saga List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 by Terry Gore
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