Dear Terry:

After four months of perambulations through the east coast, an Air Force School in Alabama, and a month of getting settled into a unit here at Fort Lewis, I finally got everythirig unpacked and am back to painting miniatures! Can't wait to start getting SAGA, and the other magazines, with less than a 5 week wait for the mail get them Across the Atlantic.

Interesting phenomena I've already noticed back here in the States: I stopped in to the local hobby shop a month ago when I first got here, and there was a "mini-tournament" of ancients going during a weekend up in Bremerton, Wash using nothing but "Tactica" rules. Talking to a couple of local players, they indicated that most of the ancients played up here lately has been with those rules.

Now, I was at "Historicon" last year when Tactica was introduced, and talked to Art Conliffe for quite a bit about them -- even got an autographed copy of the rules, for when he becomes rich and famous. I have read a lot of pro and con things about them since, and I feel I have to say something to the "con" side.

Folks, I agree that Tactica is not the greatest set of ancient rules ever written. Compared to WRG, it is a rules straitjacket that not only closes off a lot of tactical options (which is not always unrealistic) but also any possibility of campaign battles, or any type of action other than a "fair and open battle" with a limited number of very mediocre army lists. BUT Tactica also provides a very quick, easy to play game which does present an exciting, well matched battle whose mechanics are easily and quickly grasped by beginners.

That, I feel, is Tactica's present strength: you can play it with very few arguments (excuse me: "rules discussions" in a very short time, and HAVE FUN DOING IT. If it's harder to delude yourself that you are recreating history, well, having done my master's degree work on Alexander the Great, I have always had trouble deluding myself with WRG as well.

What Tactica needs to make it better is more flexibililty in Army listings, the option for weather, terrain, or set-up peculiarities, including ambushes and night attacks and such campaign options, and the ability of commanders to directly influence units. Of course, these are all things that WRG 7 has already, aren't they? BUT WRG 7 also generates myriad "debates", "authorized amendments", and "interpretations". Surely there is some way to combine TACTICA's clean play with WRG's flexibility?

--Charles Sharp

Dear Terry,

Just received SAGA, vol.IV. no.3, last week and while I haven't finished it yet, I do want to respond to an item in your editorial. I would oppose publishing fictional short stories in SAGA and think the magazine would be ill served by such efforts.

It would take too much of your time. Editing is work; so much work that some people make a nice living doing it. The time spent editing fiction would detract from the rest of the magazine to no good purpose. I first subscribed to SAGA as an ancients gaming magazine. I've most enjoyed those articles that dealt with WRG explanations and clarifications, convention tournaments, historical research and notes, and the other hobby related information (NASAMW and figure reviews). SAGA should continue meeting those interests.

SAGA can best respond to the thirst of it's readership for historical military fiction not by publishing "vanities" but rather by identifying and reviewing commercially published works of interest to your subscribers. Two volumes ago, you ran a review of "Eagles in the Snow" authored by a British writer whose name escapes me. The book was a great read. I'm glad that a magazine like yours pointed it out to me.

To those who don't mind science fictional premises, I'd recommend four of David Drake's "historical" novels; KILLER set in early imperial Rome, BIRDS OF PREY set in late imperial Rome, VEGITTIUS AND HIS FRIENDS which is a collection of short stories set in the ancient Mediterranean area, and DRAGONLORD a gritty tale of an England under King Arthur. For those interested in imperial Rome, the post-Manzikert Byzantines, the Norman conquerors, and a bit of the eastern (or Varangian) Vikings, read Harry Turtledove's trilogy on the Legion of Videssos. Drake is a first rate story teller. Turtledove bases his books on his post-graduate degree's in Byzantine history (primarily focused on the Commenan reigns). I enjoyed both their works. I'm always interested in finding what else is out there based on your other readers recommendations.

Concerning would-be writers; If the work is good, it can get published (as you have Terry in MILITARY HISTORY). On the other hand, if an "easy" way to publish is found, sub-standard stories will fill it. Good writing gets published. I won't say it's easy. However, don't turn SAGA into to a psuedo-historical vanity press.

Be that as it may, I wish you a long and succesful run putting out SAGA. I've greatly enjoyed it so far and appreciate that it is a labor of love, not of financial gain. Good Luck and good gaming.

--Anonymous

Dear Terry:

I was reading through my Saga collection and noted that I just received Number 3 for this year.

I also wanted to know if you would send me a copy of the article that you submitted to "Military History" for August, 1989. I am interested in Aetius and the Huns, having researched a piece on the Hunnic army of Attila. My efforts are directed at refuting the rationale that the Huns had more native infantry than cavalry as proposed by Lindner (also in Ferril).

I would also like to pass on some news to you about local activities. As you receive Rostrum, I shall not repeat its contents. Two weeks ago the Hamilton club put on its annual tournament MIGCON (MIGS is the name of the club). There were two games using TACTICA involving Dacians and Trajanic Romans. The local OSA rep, Mark Degner, put on a 15mm 7TH Edition game using Persians and Neo- Babylonians and of course lots of games in other periods. This weekend. the Ottawa clubs are hosting CANGAMES and I expect there will be lots of news in an upcoming Rostrum. I missed this event as the base had its "open house" at the same time.

While talking to Mark, (and later with Keith Wilkes), I decided to organize a team event for Council Fires in October (held in Paris, Ont near the home of RAFM, Inc.). We want the MIGS and OSA groups to field a team of four players each using 3000 point armies in 15 mm. This could then become a regular annual event at this tournament, possibly with more teams involved. This type of event is easier to organizog takes less time and space and offers an alternative to the usual competition. It was your multi-player event at SIMCON that encouraged us to consider such a type. There-fore, I want to offer your group the chance to participate this year. Details for Council Fires will be known soon and you can probably inquire at the RAFM stand at Historicon (if there is one).

I can not say whether I shall be attending Historicon as I have asked for a NATO course in Germany in July. If this does not happen, then I shall be there with a local group. I want to attend just to find out about the future of NASAMW under new management. My only contact is with Scott and he has not yet passed on the news of planned events.

Well that is my news to date. Let me know how you are doing and what if anything is planned for attendance at Historicon. I look forward to seeing you in the not too distant future. May your dice alwavs be plus (except against Canadians!)

--Perry Gray

Sorry for delay in getting back to you; I am finally getting around to answering my mail; same like the stack gets larger and larger in a shorter amount of time.

One of the problems that I have with saying that it is not right that TACTICA or any other set of rules, for that matter, shouldn't use a pretty package or shouldn't benefit from it because there are other "More historical rules sets around" is that who judges what to historical or not; furthermore who determines to what extent a rules set is historical? I really have very little-interest in finding the most historical set of rules for my games.

What I am interested in is finding a system that fits my conception of what warfare was in the period and many times the historical aspect may be greatly reduced because of a need for increased playability. I have no problem with this at all - i.e. reduced historical aspects in favor of playability.

If the TACTICA people wish to take a financial risk and put their own money into advertising/pretty package, that in their business and they either make it or not.

To further illustrate my feeling; I have an interest in ACW. I an not in the least bit interested in purchasing or playing the "best" or most historical ACW rules set. Why should ancients be any different?

You mention that gazers should not ignore other rules sets because they are not packaged in a pretty fashion or given large amounts of advertising. Isn't this a personal issue as to which rules sets we are attracted by? Is it thet fault of the TACTICA people that they choose to take a financial risk? If we take that approach shouldn't the other rules writers who choose not to take a financial risk be attacked because they did not do what was necessary to make their rules sets more attractive? I think not, just as I think the TACTICA people did what they thought was good, Author X does what he thinks is necessary and the public buys what they want. I think wargaming publications do reviews on the rules sets they receive. They may indeed get more attention to some rules sets than others ones which seem to have more interest in them--BUT then I don't even know if this is true. I do know that I review what I received and don't think that I push one more than another -- I may but not intentionally.

If TACTICA attracts more-people into ancients, then that's good. If author X's rules set attracts more peole to ancients, that's good. Why should we be concerned if it is more or less historical than other rules sets? The barometer of a rules set is the number of people who buy it and play it and enjoy it. There is a more esoteric barometer of course, but defining what is more or less historical in a wargame can be very hard to do.

--Hal Thinglum

(ED. Hal raises some good points. I also like a rules system which fits my conception of warfare, but I also require one which replicates historical outcomes. I don't feel TACTICA is a realistic simulation. To prove my point, I simply went to the first volume my fingers touched on my bookshelf, Sallust's Jurgathine War, and looked at the first battle in it, the Battle of the Murthul River in 109 (108?) B.C. This battle just happened to involve ambushes, flank and rear assaults, intermingled units, a virtual collapse of parts of the Roman lines, myriad direction changes and attacks by the 'Battleline' of the Romans (the Numidians actually didn't have one!)... in other words, the battle is totally unplayable under TACTICA but easily reenacted using WRG 7th. So much for TACTICA's realism assertion ... and really, that is my main objection to these rules. The packaging wears on me because of the implied premise that these beautifully photographed Essex figures are being used in a rules system which simulates ancient warfare in the most realistic approach to the subject to come along in a long time. Wrong. I do agree with Hal that TACTICA is doing a good job of attracting new gamers into playing ancients, I only hope that many of them will also give the WRG system a try once they tire of their constant battlelines of the same troops battling the same enemies over and over.)