I am prompted to write after reading your Editorial in No. 171 and also the letter from Mr. Cordery.
First of all, the question of people finding rules too complex and hard to understand - yes, there are some very complicated rules about, I have before me a set that has movement factors over different terrain for over 70 types of Napoleonic troops - and firing factors as well! In most cases the difference is too small to have any effect on the table, and probably had little effect in actual practice. I could go on over many sets, including my pet horror - those that ask the player to work out complicated percentages for each little shooting skirmish or contact.
Having said that I must go to the other side of the coin and from evidence gleaned over a long period state that a number of people come into the hobby who would be better advised to stick to noughts and crosses! They cannot help it, and this is not a sneer - the sneer is reserved for those who "take up" wargaming and expect instant results. When they find they are actually supposed to Think, and what is more to Organise, Plan and Execute as well as learn something about the quality and capabilities of the "troops" they will have to use then see them run a mile!
This is not peculiar to wargaming. Any hobby or sport has these people who come in expecting instant success and rapidly fade out when they realise that there is actually work to be done. When I was involved in model aircraft flying we had them then. They would try to do, from scratch, what we had built up over a period of testing, calculation, trial and error and many disappointments. What is more, they mostly cannot be told - not for them to start with something proved and relatively simple - they had to start on a difficult scale model, or a stunter before they knew how to glue two pieces of balsa together. You will find there are the same types in wargaming, and you must expect a larger proportion of drop-outs from the hobby as it becomes more popular.
We then move on to those who have the mental application to get down to it, and here we get Mr. Cordery's bete noir - those who must have their forces composed only of the best, in full strength, with no concessions to historical accuracy. Oh yes, and all uniformly brave, willing to fight to the last man, and moving exactly where they are told. No fouled-up orders, no communications problems for them. Mr. Cordery I really do sympathise - if you can ever get down to Worthing on one of our Club days I can promise you we will be able to give you entertainment suitable to your feelings on the subject.
A further gripe over the types I have mentioned: many cannot bother to paint, or get others to paint figures, for their games. One sees unpainted Airfix or metal figures "painted" with one flash of a spray bottle, they then represent almost anything the "player" wishes. This has even cropped up at National Conventions and apart from giving a bad impression of the hobby it is just plain bad manners. I see that models have to be properly painted as a condition of entry for this years Convention, and about time too.
As I warm to the subject I should mention those who come into the hobby full of gallant cavalry charges, heroic last stands, and with the fixed conviction that some types of troops were veritable supermen, and others invariably skulking cowards. This attitude they try to bring onto the wargames table, and too few people try to remind them that these were the exceptions rather than the rule instead far too many players try to bring in, as part of a set of rules, special provision for all the unusual, bizarre, and "one off" happenings that actually took place. I have had, for example, people writing in asking if there are any rules to cover the Charge of the Light Brigade! Whatever for? This was both a gallant feat of arms and a useless military exercise, and I cannot imagine why anyone should want to actually play it.
Commemorate it in a diorama, or by means of a demonstration and lecture, but please, not as a wargame. No, rules should be based on average performance, with the dice taking care of the odd exception. This way, sometimes, a unit will hold out against impossible odds, sometimes a sauve qui peut will affect a formation, but not to order.
If one wishes these things to happen to order then do a demonstration, as I remember the fascinating Battle of Hastings set up in which I and a number of other lucky people assisted you 10 years ago (10 years?). Yes indeed, it does fly does it not?
My own feelings towards rules is that the mechanisms should be as simple-as possible, so that a unit, ordered to a position, or to do a certain thing, will carry on automatically until either you send it a fresh order or circumstances cause it to do other than intended. I am not really interested in the exact positioning of skirmishers, nor do I wish to concern myself with the sort of argument that revolves around "my spears are a foot longer than yours so I must have an advantage" Far too much time is spent on arid discussion over small differences in armaments and weapons when what should be uppermost in players minds is how to so order their deployment and orders so that they can use their forces to the best advantage and at the same time deceive the opponent as to their intentions until he has commforted himself. It should be possible to plan intricate moves and have the whole thing fall apart in your hands when your opponent does something that is not in the book. Wargaming should have to be learnt. It is not something that one can take up like a game of Monopoly.
Also, Don, I cannot go along with you when you mention that rules should be such that "the wargamer can superimpose aspects that reflect his own temperament and personality". If this means altering factors based on reasonable research because one feels that, for example, heavy cavalry should sweep all before it, then this is quite wrong, and would certainly result in table-top wargaming bearing only a coincidental resemblance to reality. If I am wrong in this assumption please explain what you mean by "reflecting his own temperament .... etc". If, on the other hand you mean give the player the opportunity to make a colossal Cobblers of his deployment and battle plan, then I am with you - this is what wargaming should be all about.
(Bob's broad generalisation of my meaning and intention can be answered by the equally sweeping assertion that what we are doing is playing a game for pleasure and relaxation, NOT conducting a military T.E.W.T. or exercise! There are so many aspects of warfare impossible to realistically reproduce on the table-top that there seems little point in rigidly adhering to wargaming practices that are dull and unpalatable to the temperament and character of the wargamer if by manipulating the rules within reasonable historical limits, the resulting game is made more enjoyable. Don Featherstone.)
Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 173
To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1976 by Donald Featherstone.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com