1815 Brunswick Uhlans
"With reference to Mr. Gygax's article on the Brunswick Corps in "Newsletter" No. 151, I think I can supply a little of the information he requests. In 1815, the Brunswick Uhlans (Lancers) wore black uniforms with sky blue facings, similar in pattern to the earlier green ones described by Mr.Gygax; their girdles were light blue with a central black stripe. Czapkas of the rank and file had sky blue cloth tops, though it seems likely that some officers wore the older yellow-topped pattern in the Waterloo campaign. In this campaign, the Uhlans squadron had an establishment of 232, the Hussar regiment being 690.
The Avant-Garde was composed of four companies, two of "Gelernte Jager" and two of light infantry, the former wearing the grey uniform described by Mr. Gygax, and the latter black dolmans faced dark green, black trousers with dark green stripe, and a similar hat. Both the Avant-Garde and the Leib-Battalion had a strength of 672. In 1815 the six infantry regiments had the same establishment; facing colours were: lst line - red; 2nd - green; 3rd - white; Ist Light - pink; 2nd - yellow; 3rd - orange. Artillery uniforms of the Foot and Horse branches were styled on infantry and Hussar dress respectively, in the colouring described; an exception were the drivers of the Train of the Foot Artillery, who wore brownish-grey uniforms with black facings and yellow piping.
I realise these notes are brief in the extreme, but may be of use as a supplement to Mr.Gygax's fine article. Further detailsv and illustrations, will be found in my forthcoming "Uniforms of Waterloo" (Blandford)."
Bill Thurbon of Cambridge
"I am trying to get John Edson, the Western Writer, when he is a little less busy, to write me a scenario for a Western Gun Fight, based on his "Dusty Fop" tales, which Steve Curtis and his pals might wargame. John is very busy at the moment, but 1 will keep on working at him.
Did I mention "Weapons and Tactics" a Pelican paperback? The late Tom Winteringham wrote the first part shortly before his death in 1943 (there is a proof insertion on the beginning of the siege of Stalingrad); the second part has brought it up to date, written by Bashford-Snell. (A footnote says the book was in type before the "Yom Kipper" War - Bashford-Snell might have amended his views since the success of the Egyptian Tank Battles)."
Review Criteria
"The editor of Wargamer's Newsletter comments at some length in his September editorial on the need of his journal to increase its circulation. I can sympathise with him on this, particularly in view of the present economic situation, however, as a reader of the journal since it appeared in its larger format I must confess that I have found it something of a disappointment.
I obtain my copy from the local wargames shop (Skytrex) rather then through a postal subscription, and instead of this, had taken a six month trial subscription out I would have thought twice about renewing it. Had I actually examined the September issue rather than just picking it up and paying 30P (6/-), I would not have purchased it for contained nothing of interest to me.
It is the last comment made above which sums up my attitude towards Wargamer's Newsletter (it also reflects the views of several other wargamers with whom I have discussed the journal). My personal wargaming interests are Ancients and English Civil War (and this period in general), yet Wargamer's Newsletter has most totally ignored both Periods! Indeed the only issue of the new format publication to have any substantial material on them was the June issue. It might be that the journal cannot pay for articles and wargamers who are capable of writing them will not contribute material without payment, however, as Wargamer's Newsletter is now commercially published, presumably with a view to making, or eventually making, a substantial profit - the editor did state in his April editorial that publishers are 'in business to make money' - the paper should be prepared to pay for contributions in order to make it balanced, and so appeal to all tastes.
It may be that most wargamers are Napoleonic, American Civil War, Western or Colonial Skirmish addicts, which they will find Wargamer's Newsletter 'a must'; indeed on the basis of certain issues one could be forgiven for assuming that the journal catered almost exclusively for those interested in Napoleonics.
My own part I have found just as much interest in Ancients as in Napoleonics, and a growing interest in Civil War and associated armies on the Continent. If Wargamer's Newsletter fails to cater for those interested in these periods it will fail to interest a large body of potential subscribers (I shall chock the next issue before purchase and if it is on par with the current issue will not bother to purchase.
One final comment. In the April editorial referred to above the editor criticised "amateur reviewers". seemed oblivious to the fact that many of his own contributors must technically be described as "amateur" because they stated bluntly what they thought of a book or a figure. The point he was making was that commercial concerns are in business to make money, although why he should imagine that his readers were unaware of this rather elementary fact is something of a mystery. However, one expects a journal to be honest in aspect of the books and figures reviewed, after all wargamers are expected to pay frequently large sums for these commercial offerings, and many books and many figures are certainly 'bad' - whether the editor believes this fact or not, and I'd write that there "are no bad (editor's emphasis) books or figures."
If this is the policy of Wargamer's Newsletter in respect to reviews, and the insipid, almost totally uncritical comments in the "Must List" feature it is, then we cannot place much weight on it as a guide to the quality of material available. To illustrate the point further; in the current issue reference is made in "Must List" to the "impressive collection" of new Tradition castings. Now I am not a Colonial addict but if these are anything like Tradition's matchstick-like Ancients then I certainly know many wargamers will not be rushing to add them to their armies - I have yet to meet a wargamer who actually likes Tradition's 25mm figures. Now I realise that my attitude here is subjective, although based upon a comparison judgment, and that opinions must differ, however, one would expect that a reviewer would be sufficiently of opinions Within the ranks of those engaged in the hobby to know that certain figures do evoke highly conflicting opinions. The point here, though, is whether we can expect an objective review of figures produced by the firm that now produces Wargamer's Newsletter, or, for that matter, whether the journal is willing to be critical if to be so means loss of advertising revenue? Or is it a case of the editor trying to be nice to everyone? If this is so then, in the last analysis his advertisers may be happy, but can his wargaming readers be expected to place much faith in his comments as to the quality of any particular product, particularly as any evaluation published is done so in the light of the need of a commercial concern to make a profit."
On Criticism
"I have just received the latest issue of the Newsletter, and have read your editorial concerning circulation. As you know, we have several times mentioned the Newsletter in our own magazine, however, I hope you will not mind if I also make a couple of suggestions on this subject.
First, it is a fact (though one remarkably little understood in this country, and especially in the wargames world, I fear) that you cannot sell people something unless they know of its existence, and, as you say, a remarkable number of people DON'T know about the Newsletter. Secondly, within the Clubs you are preaching to the converted you need to get to the "ignoramill in the public too.
On another subject, in the current Newsletter, what a good couple of articles "Muffling's" and C. Zanelli's were, and what a chronic moaner , G.F.Hutton (non-availability of 20mm figures) seems to be. Some people do not know when they are well off! He should think of the situation only a few years ago, when figures in ANY scale were few and far between. Airfix now do a growing and INCREDIBLY cheap range of 20mm Napoleonics - something I spent many a fruitless year praying for -- but no, they are "most unsatisfactory" so apparently do not count towards the "paucity of 20mm plastics suitable for wargaming"; poor old Marcus Hinton hasn't varied his scale and has constantly added to his range ever since he started wargames figures, now many years ago, but no! His "unrealistic price range" apparently bans him too and leaves an equal "paucity" of lead figures -- this means, I presume, that Mr. Hutton has not the patience to wait a bit, tot up his orders and buy in reasonable bulk.
What about Jacklex? What about Phoenix? What about Scruby? No one can be happier than I am at the present proliferation of wargames figures and equipment, but it does seem to be leading to a situation in which some people are getting thoroughly spoilt. If Mr. Hutton does not like the figures available, rather than hurl dark accusations about "mercenary con-tricks" on the part of the manufacturers (I can think of only one manufacturer who abandoned 20mm for 25mm, and that was a long while ago) why doesn't he get down to it and cast some figures of his own? All the information and materials for this are readily available today, and it would be a much more sensible and practical response then sitting back and indulging the "World Unfair to Me" mentality."
Postings
"I was very interested in your September editorial. I first come across the Newsletter about two years ago in Minden, and although I thought it was an excellent magazine, because of the price, when compared to "Glossy's" such as "Military Modelling", it was purchased by only one member of the Club and then passed around.
I have just been posted to my present regiment and am now busy forming a new "Club", at the time of writing seven strong, and was intending to do the same again. However, in view of your editorial, I will do my best to encourage the other members to become subscribers. I only hope that as circulation figures rise, we the readers do not take second place to the "commercials" and professionals.
Which brings me onto my second point. I must agree with G.F.Hutton of Devon about the way manufacturers try to make us change from one scale to another, with the aid of some of the commercial magazine writers. I for one refuse to budge from the 20mm HO/00 scale which goes for the members of both Wargame Clubs to which I have belonged. I must disagree with G.F.Hutton about the Airfix Napoleonics though, we now have a few thousand which we can make look as good as any others in the scale with a little patience. They are easy to convert, which to us is half the fun of the hobby.
The other big complaint of us in the Forces is the way Magazines, and distributors of models, always want us to pay overseas postal rates, when BFPO postage is exactly the same is inland U.K., so why the extra charges?"
Financials
"I was very sorry to read in your current editorial of the financial difficulties of the Newsletter but would encourage you in your determination to increase revenue by other means than changing the character of the 'letter - it really is unique. Thoroughly enjoyed "Muffling Through" and "The Skirmish Line" - I still get that curious feeling of personal friendships with contributors to the *letter even though most of them are now total strangers to me.
On a completely different tack, is there any good Samaritan who would loan me the first 20 issues of the Newsletter or any War Games Digests? I am willing to pay, to insure, to place surety, etc., and would only require for about a week whilst Xeroxing. Might even be able to reciprocate by filling in the Samaritan's gaps in Newsletter or other periodical runs. Also wish to borrow a few of the out-of-print "Heere" and "Tradition" standards plates to copy and complete my collection."
Periods
"I have enjoyed the Newsletter immensely. By the way, on the Napoleonic myth I think the real reason why non-Napoleonic wargamers react so violently against that period is that they feel (quite rightly) that the emphasis on Napoleonics has restricted figure makers from adequately covering other periods. Thus as the Napoleonic field is filled out, other periods of equal interest or importance are ignored or given only token attention. There are other reasons of course, that depend more on individual quirks. Despite suggestions in the July Newsletter that wargamers and historian must be drawn to this period I find, as both a wargamer and an historian that I am not. If, as it was also suggested, it is merely a matter of variety of terrain-that can be used, the same variety can be found in the American Civil War (the U.S. has one of the most, if not the most varied geography contained in one nation), the Indian sub-continent (not all battles were fought on the N.W. Frontier), Russian and Turkish Colonial campaigns after the Crimea, and of course in W.W.I (why was it suggested that only W.W.II offers the same variety?). My own feelings may be based on perversity more than anything else.
Each period of warfare has a "pinnacle", a period, or an army when warfare of a particular style reaches as near perfection as can be reached in war. I prefer periods where things are a bit more ragged. Thus, in the Ancient period I shun the Romans and prefer the Assyrians who solved major obstacles with a sinister ingenuity rather than with the steady, disciplined tread of the Romans. In Horse and Musket I prefer the 30 Years War with its confusion of cavalry tactics, use of armour and pike, and the increasing importance of musketry. The Colonial period is about as ragged as you can get, with magazine rifles, machine-guns, long range cannons and high explosives making the scene, while infantry uniforms and tactics lag behind. For that same reason I prefer W.W.I to W.W.II. All war is "ragged", and I guess I prefer those periods where the raggedness is obvious and accentuated to those where near perfection is emphasised and battles become "set pieces" for later generals and historians to use as models."
Charm of Wargaming
"Just a few comments on the October Newsletter, just to hand. How very much I agree with the sentiments you express in the last paragraph of your Editorial. The charm of wargaming is its variety - Heaven forbid we should ever get down to one set of rules like chess - and even the chess players seek variety for relaxation. I must say I sympathise with Mike Friend and Mathew Gonneau in their comments on "Tolkienism" - after all, if people are keen on Tolkien, or Science Fiction, why not wargame these, just as Steve Curtis wargames Western gun Fights.
I have recently been doing some work on the Knights of St. John, and it occurs to me the sieges of Rhodes and Malta might provide interesting games."
Fun Wargaming
"Thank you for your letter and review of the Column, Line and Square Battle Manual. I do feel privileged to receive personal attention from one of the pioneers of our hobby.
I have just read my copy of the letter-I sent you with the Battle Manual and now feel I was unnecessarily critical in making the point about differences in our ideas on the merit of simplicity in wargame rules. I only meant to dissuade you from a hasty judgement against a complex set of rules. Our ideas are not as far apart as it might seem. I too enjoy simple games where "all the rules can be written down on a card," but I also enjoy complex games. I feel temperamentally suited to both extremes and the broad range in the middle. Our actual point of difference seems to lie in what is a "fun affair." Fred Vietmeyer chastises me for not being a diorama-history-fun player (his opinion) and Don Featherstone chastises me for not being a fun player who values gaming above winning. Finally I want a well defined game so that foolish arguments don't take the fun out of it. In other words we all seem to went fun but of wargaming but differ in our ideas of just how that will come to pass.
I believe we are all correct to some extent. (1) Certainly all miniatures enthusiasts are intrigued by the diorama aspect. (2) All wargamers must find something enjoyable in the recreation of history or we would not be attracted to wargames but would prefer some non- historical competitive game such as bridge, chess, etc. (3) Surely mature people play games primarily for fun where winning is the sometime icing on the cake. I should think that a player who could only enjoy himself by winning was simply immature; not a shortcoming unique to wargaming. (4) Finally, what one of us really likes arguments in the middle of a game?
Furthermore I agree with your idea of fun wargaming, i.e. it is nice to play with friends who value the game above winning where only simple rules are necessary. But unlike y6u I do not believe complex rules preclude fun. Fun to me, is not a function of complexity. There are some simple games I enjoy and some I do not. Column, Line and Square is the only really complex game I play (complex in the sense of complicated rules, not complicated game strategy such as chess or Go which have simple rules and complicated strategies). In practice our Column, Line and Square is played by thousands of wargamers across the country (U.S.A.) who apparently do not share your distaste for complexity, but seem to have fun at it.
Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 152
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