Convention Criticisms "I endorse your criticism of the Convention, I do not think it is possible to out out the argument however. Simplifying the rules does not help as the battle may hang on an Umpires ruling and one may rule differently from another. This has happened often in the post especially with reference to the crossability of obstacles. When different rulings are given on identical battlefields a lot of bitterness is likely to be engendered. The Umpires are not to blame, they can only use their own judgement if it is not in black-and-white. The players who come as contestants mostly seem a pretty highly strung bunch. About the only accolade an Umpire can receive is when the battle ends the players both report him for being biased in the others favour. I had the doubtful privilege of umpiring a Renaissance game. I have no experience in this period at all so it did not help having Assyrian cavalry and Napoleonic Prussians on the table (as other types.) The scenery was nothing spectacular and the players fell out with one another right from the start. One challenged the composition of the other's army and this being upheld delayed the start for three quarters of an hour. The battle was argued through move-by- move. Funnily enough the one glaring anomaly in the rules was accepted by both players. At the end we had to have four re-counts of the points and the loser -- vowing never to enter a convention again -- refused to sign the record sheet. The latter with its attendant instructions is the best I have seen. I think it should be mandatory to have correct type fully painted troops and more attractive scenery. Despite this and the delays I think Leicester 1973 was one of the best run conventions." --J.L.Mumford of Bathgate, Westlothian Iriquois "The Red Indian with the crested hairstyle referred to in the November "Must List" is not a Huron. It was the Iriquois who wore their hair in this fashion. The Hurons not only wore their hair long, but had been totally annihilated by the same Iriquois during the 17th century. Pardon my pickiness." --H.Martin Lange of Toronto WRG Shortcomings "After reading Terry Morgan's comments on the "W.R.G.Rules, I feel the desire for the first time in five years of reading the Newsletter to put pen to paper in reply. First of all, I agree that the W.R.G.Rules 500 BC-1000 AD are the best apart maybe from the effect of disorganisation which is catastrophic). However, who can take the Napoleonic Rules seriously?! I for one cannot. One of the many shortcomings in the Rules is the lack of a morale table. Without this essential any set of rules is bound to be unrealistic. Proof of this, if proof of this was needed, comes from the mouth of the great Napoleon himself. quote - "Morale is the single most important element in warfare." A general failing of the rules which is one of the shortcomings of many rules, is the lack of charecterisation. There is no difference in the performance of a Russian foot regiment and that of a regiment of Saxony infantry. A study of the period shows that though the Russians had an amazing ability to absorb casualties, (at Moskova the Russians lost 40,000 perhaps 55,000 yet left the field in good order). The tactical mobility and musketry of the Russians however left much to be desired. Similarly, there is no difference between Polish lancers and the French lancers, some of whom believed that lances were barbaric, good only for sticking in trees. But most annoying of all, I find that my regiment of Caribiniars, the show troops of the Empire are no better than a shower of dopey dragoons!!! The explanation for cuirassiers being no better than ordinary heavy cavalry can be found in Nolan, cry the rules! So I sprint along to the Glasgow University library and found a copy of this book, written by this decidedly unfortunate young man. What does the book prove? That in certain isoolated cases, such as in Russia where a regiment of Cossacks on ONE occasion defeated cuirassiers, and the example of the British Guard cavalryman at Waterloo who killed 6 French cuirassiers. Cuirassiers are not invincible they can sometimes be beaten. Now for the positive proof that cuirassiers are better than heavy cavalry. After the Battles of Waterloo, and their experiences against the French cuirassiers, the British introduced cuirassiers for their Guard cavalry. In 1812 Russia reintroduced cuirassiers for their cavalry after their experiences against the French. Books about the period are filled with cuirassiers riding down lighter cavalry - an example of this is Manercon's book "Austerlitz" which in the opening phase of the battle a melee between armoured French and unarmoured Austrians, and the resulting rout of the Austrians due to lack of protection, is described. I would implore the W.R.G. to think again and re-draft their Horse-and-Musket rules. And if they need a model Stephen Reed's rules though a wee bit complex, contain an excellent Morale table which can cover the Old Guard to a not so enthusiastic Neapolitan regiment." --William Wilson of Renfrew, Scotland Reprint and DNO "We would 1ike permission to reprint your Editorial (or parts) or your current issue (excellent!) and the one from No-139. I do not know when we would use it (at least, no earlier than No.8 of Conflict). This type of comment needs to be said. Just yesterday we started a multi-player game of Drang Nach Osten the mammoth War in the East game with about 3,000 pieces plus seven regular sized hexagon boards. The game fell apart within the first turn!! Largely for three reasons. One, improper understanding and mutual agreement upon the rules (it was a new game and the first time it was played). Two, a couple of players on either side disliked losing and have their own set view of how the rules should be; not what they are (I could do better syndrome). Finally, one side wanted to play an historically relevant game, while the other side wanted to win. That is not to say one side wanted to not win, but it wanted to be reasonable and accurate. The other side just wanted to win, especially with the loop-hole rules. I was called in to arbitrate. But one side refused to accept compromise. Not only did they want a victory on the field of battle, but a victory in the rulebook too. Give 'am Hell." --Jack Greene Jr., Simulations Design Corporation, U.S.A. Down Under Squabbles "While not wishing to involve you in the petty squabbles that plague the Australian wargames scene I feel I should comment on Bob Hart's letter in the September Newsletter. I founded the Victorian Wargames Association three years ago, not eighteen months as Mr.Hart states. In the first 18 months of its existence the Club grew from a small circle of friends into a large, loosely run and very stimulating fun games group. Sadly, following our Easter 1972 convention a new type of member appeared on the scene. It soon became evident that some of the new members were only interested in the Club structure and the access to the media which Club office would give them. The reorganisation Mr.Hart refers to then took place. I enclose the letter sent to all members at this time. It will probably amuse you but it sounded the end of adult but friendly wargaming in the Club. The Club was rapidly transformed into a child minding playground in a quest for new members. It probably still has at least the number of Members Mr. Hart claims, but he does not mention that most of them are well under 10 years of age. In desperation all the early members broke away and formed the Miniature General's Club. Last June we hosted Australia's Third National Wargames Convention. Mr.Hart fails to mention that although the V.W.A. had advance notice of the convention they held their own event on the same weekend thereby doing their best to damage an event of national wargames importance. Even the media was confused. One columnist walked from Dunkirk to Austerlitz and back to Vittoria asking loudly for the location of Sword Beach. The convention was also covered in a national television programme run at peak viewing time. Since then we have worked hard to promote the game and another convention will be held in Sydney in several months time. I hope the above does not sound too silly but I feel that the situation here should be made plain. We welcome adult gamers of any age and would be pleased t, assist any newcomers." --John Hayes, President, Miniature Generals' Club, 4 Harrison Street, Wee' Heidelberg 3081, Australia. Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter #143 To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1974 by Donald Featherstone. 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