Modern Battles "I was interested in the letter in the editorial of the July issue of the Newsletter, as myself and two other members of our school wargames society fought, about two months ago, two battles using the method that the writer was suggesting. The battles were in the Modern period, using W.R.G. 1950-75 rules. The way we organised the battles was as follows. One of us was the umpire, and he drew up a map of the terrain, and gave each commander his forces and his objectives in the battle. The commanders had about a week to write orders. These were only rough, such as "advance along road, if enemy encountered, fire and report position." On the day, the terrain was set up, and the defenders troops set out. The two commanders were in separate rooms, receiving reports from elements which were able to communicate under the rules, and amending orders. In both the battles, NATO forces were in the defensive positions, and, in one battle won and in the other was unable to resist the assault of the Warsaw Pact forces. The battles were both one day in length, and enjoyed by all, especially the umpire, who could see both sides of the battle at once. And now a word about our school Wargames Society. It was formed four years ago, and has a membership of about 20. We had a "convention", our school (St.Olaves) with Ravensbourne School Society on Open Day. There was a Napoleonic wargame, the result of which was inconclusive, and a 1:300 World War II, which we lost. There was also an inter-society game, NATO vs Warsaw Pact, the Russians being prevented from reaching Hanover. Incidentally, two members of our Society have written rules for Middle Earth, which are to be published by Skytrex later this year. For wargamers who are in the area, there is going to be an Orpington Wargames Club. Those interested, please contact Ed. Johnson of 31 Maxwell Gardens, Tel. Orpington 34757." Andrew Merritt of Orpington Toronto Wargamer "In response to Mr.Hutching's letter in the June 1975 edition of Wargamer's Newsletter - yes, there is one wargamer alive and well and living in Toronto. Lack of interest is a fair comment on the situation here. I believe the Ontario Model Soldier Society (if that was their right name) had a Wargames Section but I have no idea if it is still going. There is a lot of interest in board wargames but not on an organised basis however. Rumour has it that York University is trying to get a group going on this. Personally, I fight Napoleonic miniatures in 20-25mm scale (yes, I use more than one scale - shortage of supplies is a problem!). I have about 5-600 French and British and am aiming for a 1,000 total. Wargames table is 6' x 8' and like most people in Toronto, I have a basement where a game can be set up and left for as long as I like! I have dabbled in 1:300 scale World War II (didn't like it) and have built up a small 1:76 World War II establishment, British and German. The only troops available here are pretty well Airfix (God Bless them!). I order Minifigs mostly which I have found excellent. There is a supplier about 2,000 miles further west(!) and in the States but selection is poor and it is still cheaper to import from the UK, pay surface mail and custom duties. For opponents I either solo or persuade some of my friends to participate. A recent recreation of Vinieiro was interrupted when the British High Command left for Saskatoon and part of the French to New Zealand on a business trip!" Christopher J.Stringer of Toronto, Canada Simple Rules "Whilst I have no wish to become involved in a protracted argument about what type of rules should be used (I'll continue to use my own, thank you) I must write to give my full backing to D. Moore's letter in the August Newsletter which advocates simple rules. To take just one point from the letter, how true is the statement "the more extensive and involved the rules, the more the twister gets his teeth into them." We have all faced this opponent, or been a twister ourselves on occasions! Only yesterday I played a small wargame with the 13 year old son of a visiting friend. We agreed on very simple rules and had a most enjoyable game, which I nearly lost. (In fact my victory was Pyrrhic and no credit to me.) The truth is I was being too clever and was too busy calculating what I could move where and how, so as to obtain the maximum benefit from my usual rules; which I might add include the single combat by dice for melees because I am now mainly a solo player and can take plenty of time over a game. My conclusions after this "victory" were that once more my rules had become overcrowded and needed pruning again. How much more realistic were my terrible blunders of yesterday (situations not covered by the simple rules were decided by a dice throw) when compared with the allseeing God-like control experienced with most complicated rules.  Yet I do not wish it to appear that I advocate simple rules without conditions. I am at preseni surrounded by an absolute wilderness of complications because of a massive set of Napoleonic campaign I am fighting solo. What I am trying to say is for conventions and exhibitions, etc., let us get ba( to a game spectators can grasp (how often have I seen veteran players consultin their own rules because they cannot remember everything about even such a basic problem as Morale but let us continue in our own homes to play the wargames we like, the way we like them." Terry Wise of Woolaston, Glos. Orders "With reference to your Editorial of July 1975 when you refer to the difficulty of passing orders. As a solo wargamer I have a series of Chance Cards for aides-de-camp, who in my solitary battle take orders to subordinate commanders, such as "aide-de-camp wounded, proceed at 5 inches per move", "unable to find Commander - delay order for one move", etc. These Chance Cards give the message abo six chances in ten (I use ten cards) of getting through. It may well be argued that this is somewha severe. However, I base this on Picton's remark to a new A.D.C. at Waterloo who warned the new A.D. that he (Picton) had so far killed all his A.D.Cs, the grim reply came "Not so unlucky as myself, Si for I have killed all the generals whom I have served." As a matter of interest the A.D.C. in question was Lieut. Barrington Price. During the period I have been "solo" I have, of necessity, used a number of methods to introduc the element of surprise and the unexpected into my games, which brings me to the main purpose of thi letter. There must be many like myself who from choice or necessity are solo wargamers, and doubtless have evolved many ideas to make a game more interesting. Would it therefore be possible to devote part of our magazine to "soloists"? It might even be possible to form an "Association of Solo Wargamers" to exchange ideas and even indulge in Postal wargames with, say, a meeting every year at the Annual Convention? Perhaps other solo wargamers might care to air their views on this subject throu our magazine. At the Annual Convention will we see 15mm army matched against a 25mm? Or will the organisers have to arrange competitions by sizes?" C.P. Stupid Rules "I am sure that every fantasy wargamer will be glad to read the mention you gave to the Sword and Sorcery Society, even though in rather bad light. I would also like to comment upon the recent upsurge of stupidity concerning rules. Taking the Napoleonic period for example, I believe that an integrated system encompassing every aspect of warfare, not merely whether a column can move a maximum of 6" move or period, but also should take into account the origin of the troops concerned, discipline, training, supply, experience, quality of officers, etc. Thus the ultimate set of rules would show the differences between cavalry using horses from Normandy and not German ones, would show the effect of ALL types of terrain from the savanna of the 1812 war in America to the Indian plains in which Wellesley fought, as well as comple and realistic naval sections. In other words, such a set of rules covers all the necessary possibil ties and allows for the inclusion of others as well. One must integrate all aspects such as - a highly complex (by necessity) section on orders, con trol, initiative etc., realistic and flexible movement rules; delay factors; man to figure ratios; frontages; quality of troops as based on the ingredients above; morale and control; -visibility; weather; dead ground; EFFECT and POWER of fire from rifles, muskets, carbines, field guns; buildings and cover, the effect of training, etc (above) upon melee; recruitment and training (above); rivers bridges, etc.; FULL campaign rules, including sieges, engineering, supply, ammunition, tools, etc. But one of the most neglected points in wargaming is what is its objective? By the careful use of well designed ground, vertical, and time scales are we trying to find out why Napoleon lost at Waterloo or are we trying to find something more profound? I think it is high time every wargamer stood up and made his views known, so that those concern do not misinterpret them, the REAL subjects of this discussion, being the masses of unsuspecting people who participate in this hobby of ours." L. Hannington of Peterborough Tabletop Battle Reports "I am now in a much better position to pursue my interests in wargames and indeed have fought a English Civil War campaign with a 12ft x 6ft board permanently set up. I have noticed too that in the magazine the content of wargame battle reports has not been to a standard I remember when I first subscribed back in '68 save possibly for the skirmish 'type' games which seem to be increasingly popular. Perhaps I should have a go at writing one of our battles up? Joe Newton of Newcastle upon Tyne 6 Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 163 To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1975 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