Medieval Warfare

I played in one of your Medieval Warfare demonstration games at Historicon enjoyed it more than any other ancient/medieval game I have played. I intended to buy a copy from Jamie out in the tennis barn but couldn't locate him and ended up out of luck. Fortunately I was able to locate the complimentary issue of SAGA you gave the participants of the demonstration.

Anyhow, I wanted to say how much I enjoyed the game as well as order a copy. The game really fdt right. I had started writing my own rules set (who hasn't I suppose) and I was trying to use a number of the concepts and game mechanisms you employed including simultaneous marking of orders by unit and others. It was nice somebody translated these concepts into a fully realized game!

I also heard (I don't remamber who mentioned it) that you were looking into taking the game to a wider timeframe (earlier - and later(?)). If so, I would love to out in any way. I think I am well versed in military history and tactics from the early time frames and would be happy to playtest, proofread, research, etc. If you haven't done any significant work on extending the game to an earlier time frame I would be willing to offer documented, playtested ideas for suitable modifications if you that would be beneficial.

Also, what can you tell me about SAGA? I enjoyed the June-July issue you handed out and was wondering what the organization did.

Looking forward to receiving my copy (and being of assistance if desired).

Jeff Ball

Ed. Thanks for the rave review, Jeff! We are in the process of working the rules into a wider frame, covering the early Roman period up through the 5th century A.D. (where Medieval Warfare begins). It appears that what we have begun has touched a nerve of sorts as apparently more than a few gamers are tired of some of the existing rules and are looking for something a bit different. If I could only get Jamie away from 7th! Ah, but some continue to like what they are familiar with and can play with enjoyment. I know that Dave Ottney likes and plays (almost exclusively) ARMATI. Tom Thomas continues to laud the merits of DBM. Others use their house rules, Shieldbearer, Chris Parker's new Day of Battle, Might of Arms, and so on. It would be nice if all rules systems were given a try, but if you're like me, you have definite ideas of what you want in a rules set. If those existing sets do not provide what you are comfortable with, or care for, give another one a try!

Question about Scots and Irish

I would like to order the rules set Medieval Warfare Please charge it to my Visa card.

I also had a few questions. Mr. Chris Kinnear from the Society of Amcients recommmended I contact you, as he said that he did not know the answer, and that my questions were more along the lines of your area of experlise. I am in the process of putting together two large 25mm armies for both Brian Boru' Irish and MacBeth's Scots. As with most of my 25mm armies in other periods, I intend to use the units with standards.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any information on early to mid 11th Century Scots and Irish. I have tbe book of Kells, but of course, any designs I use from there would be conjecture. Are there any known flags? Can you recommend some sources?

Regarding shield designs: Are there any known shied motifs for the Scots or Irish of this time? Were there any specific colors? Were they left plain, painted Viking or Saxon style, or were animal motifs used? I assume lowland Scots used more Saxon style shields, and that some of the more Vikingized Irish nobles may have had more similar shields. Also on tbe topic of shields , were the Pictish style rectangular of "H" style still in use with the Scots? Perhaps in the Highlands?

Whet was the state of tatooing or body painting during this period? In Mel Gibson's Braveheart, it would seem as though the Highlanders still painted themselves with woad if not tatooing. However, I was under the impression that the Picts had givea up this practice by the 4th Century. What is the truth?

Lastly, I have a question concerning clothing. What were the most common colors of this time for the Irish Nobles, and the Irish commoners? How about the Soots? Was the tartan common? If so what were tbe colors? I would think that brown and black Tartans or two colored brown tartans would be easier to make. Lastly, was there any color resaved for the King of the Scotss or Irish?

My last question revolves around basing. I want to base my army to work with the maximum of rules sets. I do know what Medieval Warfare uses.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Bejamin MacNamara Checota

Unfortunately, I'm not big enough (business-wise) to take charge cards. This remains a hobby for me, and what money I manage to get goes toward buying more lead, books and related materials.

As for your questions, Ben, my own Scots and Irish 11th century armies have a very Nordic/Viking look to them. You are correct in assuming that there is little or no actual documentation dealing with shields, standards, etc. I actually used Medieval shield patterns to design my Scottish/Irish banners (i.e. the Cameron family shield pattern).

I also used a green background with gold harp for Irish and a variety of Viking standards as well. Since both Ireland and Scotland (as well as northern England) were inhabited by large numbers of norse invaders, I feel confident in utilizing Viking designs and shield pattersn for my 25mm armies. (See Osprey's The Vikings; The Vking Hersir; Anglo-Saxon Armies; as well as Ian Heath's Armies of the Dark Ages and Armies of Feudal Europe).

Highland clans wore tartans, but no tattoos or 'blue' painted bodies. Primary colors were red, blue, green and off-white. Nobles liked purples and reds. Of course, any color variations are probable, what with the diverse costuming of the times. Trade flourished during the early Medieval period, with much interaction between disparate cultures.

The 'H' shields could conceivably still be in use, what with swords and armor being passed down from generation to generation. Shields, if still usable, undoubtedly were passed down as well.

So far as basing, actually I am discussing changing the basing for MW as well as the forthcoming Ancient Warfare to a wider and deeper base size, just because of the fit problem.

If I do sell MW to a major company, they will probably desire that larger base size to accomodate their figures. I'll simply place my existing bases on the larger ones, no need to remount and reflock over a thousand stands of figures!

I received your letter and rules. Thak you for your input regarding the Scots and Irish. I have a general idea, and though the factual information is slight, I keep hoping someone out there has an 11th century manuscipt complete with standards, etc. I guess I'll have to do my best. Thanks for the tips on tartans.

I read through the rules--very interesting. I like the fact they are not 100 pages long, but still allow for greater historical accuracy. I think that most sets do not allow for troops to act as they did, and there is often no benefit for using historical tactics.

My Napoleonic group is organizing a secondary campaign for Dark Age Europe, specifically for the 11th century, with 12 of a pool of 40 signed up and painting armies. Most want to use Armati because they have heard of it, but I wil propose Medieval Warfare as I feel it is more historical and less "game piece" feel.

Sincerely,
Bejamin MacNamara Checota

More on NASAMW

Dear Terry:

I was not going to reply to T.T.'s letter as he did not address my original points. But your request for such a response has prompted me to put pen to paper.

Tom, writing I presume on behalf of his wife [hope mother and child are fine], takes issue with my statement that NASAMW suffered "an incredibJe drop in membership" due to a change from WRG 7th to DB*. Tom, like the lawyer he is, attempts to confuse the issue when he knows he is on weak ground. He states the Society is above its historical average and that there has been an increase in the print run of each issue of Spearpoint he has edited. This sounds good and says nothing. The actual membership numbers are only known to the officers of the Society. As a rule they have chosen not to make such information readily known to the members. By gleaning back issues I came up with the following.

In the July/August 1997 Spearpoint Scott Dickson states NASAMW had 230 current members. This is HALF of the 400 Terry mentions were members when he was Editor of Spearpoint and a THIRD of what I remember to be an all time high of around 600 members. Now I don't know about the rest of you but a drop of 50 percent in three years should qualify as "an incredible drop". Tom would have you believe it is by mere chance this drop coincides with the switch from 7thto DBM.

My original point had nothing to do directly with NASAMW, which I have supported both as an individual and as a manufactwer since it's earliest days. My point was WRG's failure to support 7th, [for example WRG NEVER published army lists for 7th], is dooming a system popular with many American gamers and hurting the membership of NASAMW.

Tom, using a favorite legal tactic of crediting to his opponent positions, they never mention and then attacked these straw men, states "there has been an incredible drop in 7th players". I would agree. 7th gamers are the bulk of NASAMW's members. Unlike Tom who glibly states the vast majority have moved on to DBM or Armati, I would point to the drop in NASAMW membership and state many 7th players have left ancients gaming. Thus, my conclusion WRG's failure to support 7th being detrimental to ancients in the U.S.

Even with no support and such open hostility to it as shown by Tom, [who as the editor of Spearpoint and spouse of NASAMW's president should know better] this still a viable force. According to Scott Holder's reports, Historicon 1996 had 105 DBM players while 7.5 had 75, Cold Wars 1997 had 40 DBM and 25 7.5 and Historicon 1997 had 80 DBM and 55 7.5 players. A constant 40% are 7th players. And Tom. 40 percent ain't bad for a system on a respirator.

To conclude, my point remains unaddrtessed, so I will restate it. Different systems appeal to difforent people. WRG 7th and DBM obviously appeal to different groups. Arguing the superiority of one system over the other is inane; it is a matter of persoonal preference. Snide comments like "We historical gamers prefer..." with the implication that anyone who disagrees is not one, serves no purpose other than to get yourself asked outside to settle it like a man... something I find trying as I get close to fifty. I do not understand why WRG does not actively market both; much like Microsoft publishes both Word and Works. And if WRG has no interest in one of the systems, why don't they sell the rights to someone who does?

Finally I would advise Tommy that as an officer [editor] of an organization that has lost over half its members... his job is to bring people together and not lose another 40 percent.

Jamie

More on the Subject of NASAMW

DB vs. 7th and NASAMW
NASAMW Response to Jamie Fish

Legion

Dear Terry:

I hope this letter finds you (and Saga) well. I an writing to present you with a copy of Legion, the Society of Ancients' new rules publication. I would be grateful if you could arrange for a reviewer to take a closer look at the enclosed copy.

As you know, we have adopted a practice of occfering a subscription incentive every year. This year, we distributed over 1,000 copies of Legion--a novel combination of rules for 36 historical battle scenarios using a hex-based terrain grid, terrain, and counters. It is suitable for solo play, tournaments, and figure games. Admittedly, there is some preparation involved, but I think you will agree the preparation is quite good, consideraing the nature of our resources.

We have overprinted the game with the idea of selling to non- members of the SOA ( £ 5 for UK and £ 6.50 for rest of world: about $11.00 for US). Payment by credit card (Visa/MC) is acceptable.

Chris Kinnner,
President, SOA

For membership information, contact:
Richard Jeffrey-Cooke
20 The Meadows
Portsmouth Rd.
Guilford, GU2 5DT
United Kingdom