Great Saga, More Filling

May 27, 1992

Terry,

One piece of business, and then on to more pleasant topics. Saga must be quite a success! I was so concerned about letting my subscription lapse that I asked my wife to send the check in right away, twice. Which she did, (dutiful woman that she is) both times. Now, I do admire Saga, but I really have no need for two copies of every issue.

Therefore, would you please do two things for me. One, remove one of the entries of my name and address from your list. Two please apply the remaining additional subscription amount toward next year's subscription, OR put my name on the list for your latest publication, SCENARIOS FOR DARK AGE BATTLES. The latter choice would be my preference, and from a bookkeeping standpoint yours as well, I imagine. Sorry for the confusion. On to other things.

Saga was welcome when I first discovered it, and seems to be getting better all the time. I am relatively new to WRG, and thus particularly appreciate the articles for novices to the rules. I have Saxons, Sub-Roman Britons, Visigoths, Sarmatians, and Vikings which should make it obvious that I have few, if any, aspirations to great tournament success. It is still better to be utterly destroyed with understanding rather than to suffer the same fate after finding out that LMI have to take a waver test when charged by cavalry in the open, but not in the woods, which is where they were before you foolishly brought them out, but they still would have passed on your roll if they were "B"s, which you could have got with the amended list, but that would not have helped since you did not have then: properly supported, therefore they were already under one cause of unease which they could have ignored if your CinC was within 6" of the enemy and advancing which he couldn't do anyway because you set his unit up behind that 48 figure block of HI which does not begin to move until bound 43, and then only if prompted to do so.

Despite the previous sentence, (or whatever that was), I do like the rules, and become rather peevish when garners of other eras share nasty comments about them. It has been my experience that many of the complaints made concerning WRG are common in all rules, and generate more blatant errors in those rule systems. This seems to elude said individuals.

I'm looking forward to the SCENARIOS, as I put on several games a month with home grown rules, and am constantly on the lookout for new and challenging scenarios. One difficulty with our local group is a dearth of fellow painters/collectors. We have a good sized group (12-15) that enjoy playing, but only 4 of us have invested more than game time. Perhaps this is a common problem, but one for which a solution would be most welcome.

Finally, one suggestion. How about a "Dilemma of the Issue" feature. This would include mini-tactical problems, with a number of solutions. For example, Sixteen ways to Break a 48 figure Block or How to Fight a Hun Cavalry Army with Saxon Footsloggers. Other possibilities might be options to a specific situation, like maneuvering irregulars after they've been pinned, or pulling back a unit in the same situation (if such things are possible). This might be an editorial response, or perhaps a "Write-In" kind of thing. As above, the main benefit is to those of us new to the rules, and tired of being told what we can not do.

Keep up the great work!

--Harry Schrit

Editorial = Production

Hi Terry,

You had to do it didn't you? Your editorial in the last Saga finally shamed me into producing something. Well, I hope your satisfied, and that my mundane efforts will be acceptable. Besides. I really do get personal satisfaction out of writing short articles of this type. The series of illustrations and written sketches published in Sovietskij Voin on ancients has ended. They are now doing a series on the Napoleonic period. I don't know if I got all the ancients articles, but I do have a backlog of 15 or so. I will translate and use them during those periods when my own creativity is at a low, (seems to be a common state recently). The most serious hang up I have had in this, (other than being pure lazy), is in learning the new Desk Top Publisher system which I now own. As you can see from the copy submitted, the type printout is still amateurish even though both the programme and printer I now have are certainly capabale of better results. I just haven't yet figured out how to get the best out of the equipment I am still very clumsy at manipulating the system to achieve the results I want. The finished product will improve as I learn and become more comfortable with the system. Another factor is all the neat games this computer runs. It's so very easy to blow away a whole evening on some of them. I am ashamed, but unrepentant

Hope this effort reaches you in time for the next issue of Saga. Will send in material as I finish it If this current burst of activity continues we may be able to build up a small backlog of articles for you. On the other hand that WWII Eastern Front game a friend just gave me looks pretty interesting. (Just a joke').

Best wishes to you and yours,

--Keith Wilkes

Miniature Wargaming Trials and Tribulations

'Ramblin' Scot Holder's thought provoking letter in the last issue of SAGA was interesting. He addressed several matters of interest to miniature wargaming in general

Scott need not be overly concerned about the "greed factor". It is ugly, but our civilization has never worked out a mechanism to contain greed. Can we hobby enthusiasts succeed where society has failed? Not likely! This is one we'll just have to live with.

Neither should Scott be alarmed at the "Rich Bowl" perspective. This sort of thing was bound to happen. It may work this time, or it may not It doesn't matter! Those who enjoy the pressures of competitive play have every right to participate in such tournaments. Others will stay away in droves. The sponsors risk their capital. The hobby possibly gains some high profile advertisement and everyone is supposedly happy. The main concern is that other groups continue to run their style of tournament allowing those of us who do not enjoy competitive play to also have our little place in the sun. The bottom line is VARIETY. There is enough in this hobby to provide interest to a varied range of personalities and types. There is no need to persecute or purge groups which are not in agreement with one another.

The above subject areas are not critical. Scott does bring up a crucial point when he asks, "What poor soul has to umpire this thing?". Conan the Destroyer would have difficulty fielding this one, which points to the fatal flaw in our pastime.... RULES.

There are many fine sets of rules. Each gathers it's own corps of adherents, and that is as it should be. Thank God there are people out there with thick enough skin to accept the flak when they do publish. The hobby would be in poor shape without those dedicated individuals. The problem is that NO ONE has done it right OK, I know that people who think everyone else is out of step are normally labeled as cranks or worse, but there are convincing arguments to vindicate the statement in this case.

For instance, why do current rules sets emphasize the role of Logistics? Do we lead pushers really care about supply and administration of our metal armies? I was once tasked with determining the logistics requirements to move a division by air. I know fun, I have had fun before, that was not fun. I get wickedly frustrated when my rules set tells me my missile troops have lost 80% effectiveness because ammunition stocks are low. Somebody fouled up. I recently purchased a model of a little lead gibbet to accommodate just that sort of incompetent. It will occupy a prominent place at the rear of my 25mm armies. Look, if it is necessary to include such nonsense as regard for missile supplies in your rules, at least make it a function of the general, the player himself, to purchase his ammunition stocks from his army points allotment That way, if supplies run short we at least know who the real culprit is.

The same thing with scouting. Were the Incan armies really so bad at reconnaisance that they were outscouted every time? In truth, they probably had scouts in the Spanish latrines' What good was the Spanish cavalry for scouting in that mountainous and broken terrain of the Andes. Shouldn't it be the function of the general to allocate scouting points from his army point resources?

What is being said here is that rules should concentrate on the problems and functions of generalship rather than the operations and capabilities of fighting formations. We lead-bottomed, table-top generals really want to out-Hannibal Hannibal. We want to out-nap Napoleon. Rules which stifle innovation are bad rules.

All the great generals were innovators. That was why they were great They wouldn't accept that the phalanx, for instance, had to be lined up just so, or that all troops had to be hoplites. They pinched here and poked there. They adjusted this and that The Romans played with their military system for hundreds of years. and eventually came up with an organization that could allow even mediocre generals to win a battle. As T.E Lawrence so aptly put it, "We of the twentieth century have two thousand years of experience behind us, and, if we still must fight, we have no excuse for not fighting well.". Those were two thousand years of continuous experiment and development Sure there were local areas where generalship became stagnant and ritualized, for long periods of time. Sure the wheel had to be re-invented many times over, but somewhere, someone was always being inventive, trying something new within the system, and that, surely is one of the main attractions of our hobby no matter how hard rules makers try to smother individuality.

Our system is a set of rules which attempts to historically depict warfare at various points in time. These rules don't have to be complex to be historical' Look at the game of chess for example. Six types of pieces with varied moving patterns operate on an eight by eight square board of two alternating colours. That highly intelligent men and women devote their lives to mastering the complexities inherent in the simple chess system. It is not the system that is complicated. The challenge is in the play, how the pieces combine, concentration of force, bluffing, knowing when to attack and when to back off, assessing your opponents style and being flexible enough in your own methods to adopt effective counters, and more, much more' Sounds familiar you say? Isn't that what generals are supposed to do? Hmmmmm...

Historical table-top wargaming rules are generally too complicated. We, the players, get lost in a clutter of unnecessary detail and complex restrictions Look at the WRG 7th concept of ambush. A map must be drawn showing the placement and facing of the ambushing unit Why? What right thinking general would pay the fatigue point penalty to put troops into an ambush that cannot react to enemy movement without revealing themselves? They should be allowed to spring their ambush from any point in the selected site, and in the most favourable formation to ensure success. It should be up to the opponent to either scout the site, thereby pinning the ambushers, send in enough force to neutralize them, or cleverly avoid the situation by not approaching and allowing the ambushers to observe the rest of the battle in peace The onus should be on the players to provide the solutions, and NOT on the rules' WRG 7th is only used as an example rule set because I think its system comes closest to satisfying requirements needed for ancients wargaming.

The principles of generalship have often been enumerated. There are about ten or twelve of them depending on whose list you read. They are usually presented in uncompromising clipped military format, and are easily grasped and understood. Applying them successfully is. however, a profoundly difficult matter. Many have attempted the task. Few have been remembered by history. The best set of historical wargaming rules will concentrate on those principles, allowing tabletop generals to create their own victories or defeats. 

NASAMW has done it again. Just when I thought I could live with those guys, just when I was seriously considering renewing my membership with them, they managed to piss me off! I have a love-hate relationship with NASAMW. It's like a marriage gone wrong. We've been separated for several years now. Reconciliation is not insight

The dedication and effort they put into improving the hobby is admirable. I heartily approve of tie herculean task they have accepted to clarify and interpret WRG 7th rules. I appreciate the fine tournaments they organize. So, what's my problem? In the final analysis, they just don't get it right.

Example: I was overjoyed when I recently learned the 1992 Historicon tournament was scheduled to highlight "Dark Ages Armies". Wonderful! Just the stimulus needed to finish painting up my Slavic tribal host. Pause, as I dream of the imposing sight of Slavs arraigned for battle on a table. Wait a minute! What's this fine print? "Troops capable of wedging must pay one point extra cost per figure." WHAT' But that's almost the whole Slav army! How many figures, 150? 200?. I don't know. NASAMW wants me to enter a competitive tournament and based on somebody's whim I have to spot my opponents at least 150 points? No thanks! It won't wash. If I'm going to compete I want a level playing field. I am quite prepared to accept the demands of the rules and of the inherent disadvantages of the army and period I select--the slow movement of a foot army, the often crippling results of morale failure when being charged by cavalry in the open, the lack of armour, and the doubling of melee casualties. That's OK, but giving away 150 points is definitely unacceptable.

That's the sort of thing which keeps my checkbook in my back pocket when it comes to NASAMW membership time. It doesn't take a genius to determine that a competitive tournament is no place to introduce trial rules. Why do they do it? Well, it doesn't matter. If I was serious about competitive play I wouldn't be using gimmick armies like Slavs or Incas. Sure they can win big, but believe me, most of the time they don't Those armies get played because people love them, not because they're effective. If you really want to win, take a solid little army like Romans, Syracusans or Byzantines. They will surely outperform the gimmick armies in the long run.

I have expressed the following opinion on the floor of an NASAMW general meeting years ago when I was a member, and it is still valid criticism. If they could tear themselves away from playing with someone else's rules and put all that energy, talent and persistence into writing their own, both they and the hobby community would be the beneficiaries. You never know, they just might come up with something that would set the standard.

I'm going to go and paint some Slavs.

--?