Russ Lockwood writes,

We did Hastings the other week and once again, the Normans got slaughtered. We believed missile fire wasn't that deadly at all. Although the Fyrd got a rough going over once, the huscarls stayed pretty much intact even at short range. (They ended up charging the bow, routing them and causing subsequent routs). Morale seems to be very fragile and cascading in effect. The first side that blinks, loses.

[Ed. Reading accounts of battles in the Medieval period, you are struck by how quickly an army could be destroyed. One minute, everything is fine, then something occurs, a general falling, or a central unit caving in and running away. In minutes, an infectious panic takes over the entire army and it collapses.]

In the replay of Hastings, we thought it came out quite true to form--the cavalry bashed itself in wedge upon the waiting spearmen in shieldwall, and basically, bounced. The Normans need to be a lot more patient in order to win--basically arrowing the boys on the hill at long range for the better part of half a game to weaken them, then pounding away with wedged cavalry--so goes my genius plan (but then again, I was William in the aforementioned Norman disaster.)

[Ed. History is always a great teacher and it is sometimes hard to better the success rate of the generals who were victorious. William's tactics worked at Hastings and the Saxon player who simply sits and lets himself be shot to pieces will find himself on the losing end.]

Ken Brate writes:

[Note: Ken and his son are brand new to historical miniature wargaming. They do have some fantasy experience, but are novices to HM.]

Over all the rules were intimidating on the first read. They got clearer and made much more sense on the second and third reading, to where, with some exceptions, I think I could try a game. I don't think I (or anyone) can really tell how some things will work out until you play a game or ten. The first thing that's not clear is how you would handle "mixed" troops on a single stand. Take the Pict List you sent me. It calls out 24-96 stands of Spearman. A Pict army with 96 stands of Spearman would be pretty boring. While the Picts used spear they also had Javelin and Sword and Axe armed troops.

By 750AD I believe that at least some of the Troops had at least Light Armor. So my Pict army would have a mix of both UI and LAI troops with a few HI thrown in. The front rank armed with Sword or Axe with the second rank armed with Spear or javelin.

How do I base this?

[You don't. All figures on a base are assumed to have the same armor, weapons and morale.]

Is it even allowed?

[No.]

A further "problem" with the army list is that the CiC/General is listed as HC. Can you substitute HI?

[Certainly, just dismount him as HI.]

The next confusion comes in Section 3: Preparing for Battle B) Terrain Generation " Players may place up to two pieces of terrain partly or completely on the enemy side of the board. All remaining pieces of terrain are placed wherever they choose." except the enemy side? The second sentence seems to be in conflict with the first.

[Thanks for pointing this out. The sentence should read "…wherever they choose on their own side of the table."]

In C) Setting up Armies B) "Ambushers must roll a d6 for ...etc" This seems to mean that you will always suffer losses unless you are Veteran or Elite?

[That is correct. It would be risky in this time period not to expect armies of part-time fighters to take the opportunity to take an unscheduled leave of absence if given the chance.]

Section 4: Movement C) Light terrain and Dense terrain penalty "Deduct one third of a dice roll etc..." d6? d10?

[d6 is correct.]

I would guess d6 but the rules don't say. Section 4 also explains Wheeling. I think I understand. If I take a 3 stand unit of Large bases (about 7 inches long) and apply the "counting double the distance moved" I can move Loose Order Inf. 6" or about 40 degrees in a turn. (Strategic Movement of 12"). and yet later under Changing face I can turn the same unit 180 degrees using Deploy Orders?

[Remember, you may only have one order at a time. A unit may not both Move and Deploy in the same turn.]

Section 7:Morale C) Morale Procedure Die Roll Modifiers Under +1 UpHill, +2 Defending a Superior Tactical Position ( Defined as UpHill) ie Being UpHill is +3? This comes up in your example for Close Combat Norman's Morale Test: +1 Shield wall, +1 Uphill, +2 Superior Tac. Posit. (I know it would not make any difference to the results here but is this correct?)

[Yes, they get both modifiers. It was very comforting to be uphill and watching your opponents becoming tired as they tried to get at you.]

Section 9: Close Combat Which stands are eligible to fight? I really find this the most confusing part of the rules. Which 2nd and 3rd rank stands are eligible. I can't find anything in the rules that tells me. [After each weapon factor is the listing on how many eligible ranks get to fight. Axes only fight one rank deep, while spears fight two ranks deep, etc.]

The question about Basing is very well covered, I just need to see some in the flesh. I have a few Foundry 25 mm and I don't like the look of 4 on a 60 mm wide base. Seem crowded. I have been using 20 mm sq. bases that would mean 4=80mm. Bigger than you large size by 5 mm and "out of step". Just have to wait and see.

[Ed. Ken's questions are very informative as I have been exposed to the wargaming 'conventional wisdom' for over thirty years and sometimes can't see the forest for the trees.]

Dennis Leventhal writes:

I agree with Dave Bonk's assessment (in SAGA, No. 68, Feb. 99, p.11) that "we know far too little about Eastern European history." In the interests of sharing resources in this area, please be advised of "The Khazaria Info Center," located on the 'Net at www.khazaria.com .

My particular interest is the Khazars so I'm especially appreciative of the hot links on this page which include such titles as (a) An Intro to the History of Khazaria, (b) The Khazar Fortress at Sarkel, (c) Khazaria Image Gallery, (d) Crimean Archeology, and (e) Birka at the Silk Road. (This last has an interesting theory about Khazarian managed trade into and through the Baltic Sea.) Other links will take you to Proto-Bulgarians, Alans, and a host of other tribal groupings covering the period from 4th to 11th centuries. What's even better is that most of the "linked" articles include not only maps, but also bibliographies. This is a great site for the seeker of knowledge about the so-called "Dark Ages."

By the way, for people interested in a "good read" about very-late-medieval Poles, the book for which the 19th century writer Henryk Sienkiewicz (pronounced 'Sin-KAV-vitch') received the Nobel Prize for Literature, is now available in English translation. Sienkiewicz is remembered in the West primarily for his Quo Vadis?, which was turned into a movie classic by Hollywood. However, his 1134 paged opus major, which was originally published in 1884 and took the Nobel Prize, is entitled With Fire and Sword (New York: Collier Books, 1993) and offers a swashbuckling tale of the sunset years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Focussing on the terrible Chmyelnicki Rebellion of Ukrainian Cossacks, it follows a series of heroes and armies back and forth across the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian, Byelorusia and the Ukraine. It's a colorful and absorbing read . . . [Ed. I read it when I was about 12 or 13 and remember the vivid battles and exciting characters. A very good book.]

Rich Knapton writes:

Herb Gundt asked about books on New Kingdom Egyptians warfare in issue #68 of the newsletter. There is an excellent book on chariot warfare and its demise in The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. by Robert Drews [ISBN 0-691-04811-8 (hbk); ISBN 0691-02591-6 (pbk) - $14.95]

It is Drew's assertion that hoards of light infantry swept threw the Near East around 1200 B.C. destroying the great chariot armies. Chariots were not simply replaced by cavalry. When Near Eastern countries recooperated they did so around cavalry armies. Chapter 2 is a survey of chariot armies in Anatolia, Cypres, Syria, The Southern Levant, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and the Aegean Islands.

Chapter 10 is a discussion of Chariot Warfare which includes 'The Beginnings of Chariot Warfare", "Chariotries: Numbers and Costs", "How Chariots Were Used in Battle", "The Battles of Megiddo and Kadesh".

Chapter 11 discusses the role of infantry which includes ""Runners": The Role of Infantrymen in Chariot Warfare", "Recruitment of Infantrymen in the Late Bronze Age", "Infantry Forces in the Catasrophe".

Chapter 12: "Infantry and Horse Troops in the Early Iron Age".

Chapter 13: "Changes in Armor and Weapons at the End of the Bronze Age"

I think that this is an excellent book for a historian or wargamer.

Steve Phenow's letter in SAGA #68 got me to thinking about why I left ancients. My first entry in wargaming in 1972 when I met up with some guys playing ancients with WRG 3rd ed. One of the group was Charlie Tarbox who corresponded with Phil Barker. We enjoyed this set and we tried to transfer over into 4th ed. Then came 5th and 6th ed. It became more and more complicated and unplayable. I went on to other time periods but never lost the attraction to ancients.

I never took to playing Tactica or Armati. I felt that I had to conform to their tactical organizations. To me they seemed like a 3D board game. When you have a unit factor you need to standardize the unit. This may be fine for the SYW where they had standard organizations but not for ancients. I did not want someone else telling me how my army should be organized. I also do not like move - countermove. Such games seen too much like a chess game. If I want to play chess I'll play chess not ancients.

I also have to admit that the fantasy aspect of meeting ahistorical opponents has great appeal to me. I love to see beautiful and exotic armies fight on the gaming table. I also like to research different ancient periods and build their armies. DBx was no solution! It abstracted gaming for too much for my taste. And so I waited.

A month or so ago I came across a review of AW. I sent for the rules. Maybe this will bring those armies out again. Or maybe Warhammer. We shall see. I took my first stab at playing your rules and I have a couple of suggestions. First, I always make a house rule that 'units may not voluntarily offer their flank to the enemy'.

This avoids WRG flankitus. Also, the tiny command cards are a hassle. I took a blank die [green], placed a small round tab [green] on each side of the die with the command or part of the command written on it. Since there are only 6 commands and the die has six sides it works out perfect. When it comes time to assign commands I simply place the die with the correct command side facing up. Now I don't have the clutter of all those little pieces of paper.

From Kevin Boylan

You may recall that I contacted you about a month back regarding some questions on the various Irish and Anglo-Irish army lists. In the interim, I've been trying to assemble #49 Scots Isles and Highlands and #58 Medieval Scottish armies, and have some questions concerning their army lists as well if time allows you to look at them.

They are as follows:

1) #49 allows 0-36 out of the total 36-72 Islemen LAI Veteran Axe/Sh or Jav/Sh to be upgraded to HI, but #58 makes no allowance for a HI upgrade. Is this correct, and if not, what proportion of the 0-18 Islemen in #58 should be upgradeable? My read on this is that one would be more likely to find unarmored men fighting in an Islemen contingent fighting in a Scottish army since they would likely be well-equipped mercenaries, while the more poorly-armored men would be more likely encountered in an Isleman army (particularly if fighting at home).

[You're trying to keep me honest here, aren't you? List #58 should have a new line under seven reading "Any - Islemen may be upgraded to HI @ +1"]

2) #49 implicitly allows any Highlanders to be upgraded to Fanatic, but #58 allows this for the UI Average Axe/Sh or Jav/Sh only. Which is correct?

[As mercenaries or allies, I cannot justify upgrading the better-armored Highlanders in the later list. The clannish unarmored types were more prone to carry their unbridled ferocity everywhere. Archers likewise were less likely to be fanatics when used as mercenaries.]

3) #49 allows 20% of all Highlanders (adding together 8-24 UI axe or jav and 2-6 UI Bow) to be upgraded to HI. #58 makes no allowance for a HI upgrade, [this has been subsequently changed to "-4 Upgrade to HI Veterans @ +3"] but instead allows 13% of all UI Highlanders to be upgraded to LAI Veteran. Which proportion is correct for armor upgrades,or are there two proportions, one for the LAI Upgrade and another for the HI upgrade? My research suggests that this could be interpreted either way. Furthermore, should the HI upgrade also include an upgrade to Veteran?

[You read my mind…see upgrade mentioned above.]

4) In #49, about 20% of all Highlanders can be archers, while in #58 the proportion is 33%. Which proportion is correct, or is the difference attributable to variations in armies fighting "at home" vs. "abroad"? [Again, mercenaries hired and numbers being smaller in the 'Allied" army attribute to the differing percentages of higher quality troops in the later list.]

From Matthew Seibel:

I would like to toss in my two bits on the subject of multiple rules vrs. singular rules in the wargaming hobby. The reason I wanted to write in was that I felt I might be able to interject a fresh view on the controversy. Some readers might wonder how fresh my perspective could be. That's easy to answer. I'm new to this hobby, thus I can give a somewhat unbiased view.

As Terry mentioned in the editorial in issue #68, having a diverse selection of wargaming rules to choose from can only benefit the hobby as a whole. I agree with Mr. Gore's assessment, in that it concerns me in particular. As I said, I'm new to this hobby and what makes it worse is that there is very little support locally. Most hobby shops (in Oregon) only carry models, R/C cars, etc. and to my best knowledge there are no clubs or conventions here either. Which makes it nearly impossible to connect with other players and build the necessary networks to support the hobby locally. While there is no "historical" wargaming community here, there is a steadily growing Warhammer Fantasy and 40K scene.

[Ed. Not an unusual situation…our own local hobby shop has changed hands and is now strictly fantasy/magic orientated…aargh!]

That leads me to the main point of my argument concerning the validity of having more than one or two sets of rules, in keeping this a wonderful hobby fresh with new blood. This is especially true in the case of WHAB. If it wasn't for WHAB people like me would have a hard time being introduced to the hobby

[Ed. Jervis, take note!]

Ever since WHAB was released locally the interest in historical (especially ancient and medieval eras) wargaming is taking root. Though WHAB may only act as a bridge to the hobby for some, it will, in my opinion, be a key player in the future of the hobby.

Phil Barker writes:

With reference to Steve Phenow's letter in SAGA 68, the reason that period specific rules will never dominate is that too few people have the armies they cater for. In his case, the relatively few Hellenistic players would be split between his rules and "Shieldbearer", even if none of them were satisfied that DBM dealt with their armies realistically. And many are. For instance, the DBM Hellenistic army lists mostly come from Duncan head, author of "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars."

Tournaments with extended era sets can still encourage historical match ups where these are possible. It is routine in the British DBM tournaments that I take part in that the first round games are historical match ups, and in two this year this has been extended to later rounds.

[Ed. Phil is absolutely correct here. I think that this is what should be aimed for in all of our tournaments.]

At Burton, my Tuareg met plausible historical opponents in all but the last round. Unfortunately, the main historical opponents for Tuareg are Western Sudan (which nobody owns [Ed. Except for Dave Sweet!], and Fanatic Berber, who massacre them with wall to wall spearmen. In real life, the Tuareg did all their invading in the Sudan and sold the slaves they took to the Berbers as recruits. Would that I could do the same!