Bridge the Gap "Thank you very much for publishing my letter and for your comments in your editorial. Since writing To you I have discussed my feelings with several other wargamers I know, and it surprised me to find how many agreed with me amongst the older ones, and how many disagreed amongst the younger ones. Perhaps we are now seeing the beginnings of a generation gap in wargaming, but I hope that a gap, if in fact it does exist, can be bridged before the hobby itself suffers. Possibly a little more attention paid to the younger members of a club by the older members might improve matters a little. I must admit that I have known some clubs where youngsters were allowed in but were virtually told to 'go over there and play and stop disturbing me whilst I refight the Battle of Waterloo'. Some of my most enjoyable games (and most instructive) have been fought with and against young opponents. I live in hope that someone, somewhere will do this, and that any fears I have are groundless." Bob Cordery of Abbey Wood, London Dusseldorf Wargamers "You may or may not remember that I wrote to you sometime ago bemoaning the lack of wargamers in BAOR. Since then we have managed to get quite 6 flourishing little club going in Dusseldorf. We have permanent accommodation in the cellars of a barrack block in Caernarvon Barracks. We have 6 rooms at our disposal which are used as follows:- A Clubroom with easy chairs, Library and coffee brew kit; Wargames room; Model display room; Diorama room; two model construction rooms. We try and cater for all tastes both wargamers and modellers. The idea is to get everyone to "have a go" at everything. Our German flats painter is a mean Napoleonic cavalry commander. We are very keen to establish contact with other clubs in Germany and in particular the Rhine Confederation whom you mention in your Newsletter. Perhaps you would be good enough to send me their address. Anyone wishing to contact us should write to me." Major R.J.Moore, RCT., 28 Tpt and Mov. Regt. RCT, BFPO 34 Longbow Doubts? "Although last time I wrote to you I put my foot in it I have decided to write with another f1poser". I have always (as most British) had a love for the longbow. Its long range and armour piercing qualities are renowned however, I am now having my doubts. Was there ever an advantage to using a crowwbow? This doubt was finally triggered by a line from the article "Guidance for Wargames Rules" in issue No.173, the author mentions "... the shorter range, but more powerful crossbow with their armour piercing quarrel." I have always had the impression that the crossbow was a weak, second best to a longbow but now I am not too sure and it is not only because of the above quote. I thought (probably misguidedly) that the crossbow was easier to load and fire, and so was better for lower quality, untrained troops. But here I might be wrong, as Genoese crossbowmen were experts, and not the cheapest of mercenaries. Sets of rules I have seen or obtained are undecided, but usually give the longbow an advantage over other weapons when piercing armour, or make it the only weapon able to do so. Perhaps these are not based on research but "common knowledge". Although the battles at which the longbow harvested the armoured knight are well known (need I name names?) were there any where the crossbow did likewise? The crossbow was also a more expensive weapon than the longbow to produce having - in the best models - an intricate firing mechanism, and the only advantage I can think of for having this is to enable the firer to carry the weapon loaded. But, surely, in battle with the crossbow this is of little use with the longbow having its high rate of firing. So, to put the queries without any elaboration which is better at piercing armour, the crossbow or longbow" Is there any other reason why the crossbow should be used instead of the longbow?" Graham Evans of Rugby Praise the Hobby "I read in the July Newsletter the article by Mr. Cronin on 1:300 scale Napoleonic wargaming and his article has made me wish to take it up, but the idea of painting a figure only 6mm high in any detail at all does seem a little daunting at the very least. I wonder if you could help me in this, matter? The July Newsletter was the first I had ever read, and I was a little upset to find so many references to the sorry state of wargaming today. I think that people should write to your magazine to praise the hobby, and so encourage people like me who are just starting not put them off before they have started." Steven Jones (14) of Melton Mowbray Failed COnvention "May I add a little to the discussion on the failure of the "American Military Heritage" convention? Firstly, if I had attended this as a spectator instead of as a trade stand, I would not have considered it a failure, as the lecturers were well worth hearing. Secondly, on the point that others have raised about the unpopularity of the period dealt with, I believe this is largely due to the presentation it is getting. Everybody knows Britain lost the War of Independence, but it is also true that the British army won most of the battles! If more had been made of this, instead of slavishly following traditional folklore about stupid pipeclayed regulars being shot down by a population exclusively consisting of heroic backwoods riflemen, the bicentenary might have had more effect on wargaming. Even your demonstration battle was Saratoga, a battle the Americans could hardly have lost even if Arnold had been tied hand and foot and gagged! Why not Guildford Courthouse or Germanstown, where each side stood a good chance and the decision was close? Why not even Long Island, the American defeat through Washington's inexperience and incompetence that, properly followed up, would have won the war handily? Would you expect to get an audience in Paris for a re-enactment of Waterloo, or in America for Bladensburg, with no chance of the decision being reversed? We have in fact been to three shows this year where the response was less than enthusiastic, and all of these had one thing in common. There was little or no wargaming. When will organisers get it ,into their heads that wargamers like to see wargames, enjoy the tension and competitive atmosphere, and that it is seeing a game that recruits wargamers? "Ah", they say, "But the general public aren't interested in seeing wargames." To this I reply that potential recruits are, and that while the public may pay at the door and keep the organisers happy, it is the wargamers that pay at the trade stands and keep them happy. A shining example was provided this year by Glasgow, with nearly 20 games featuring well painted figures and excellent terrain, packed full of excited visitors. We can do with a few more like that. They even provided cheap but scrumptious hot meat pies, a far call from those extortionate 20p cups of luke warm coffee at AMH. Phil Barker of the Wargames Research Group Percentages in Dice "I would like to take issue with G. de Domenica who writes in the August issue of Wargamer's Newsletter giving the conversion from normal to percentage dice. I am afraid his mathematics is not correct. There are 56 possible ways in which two dice may fall. Only one of these will give 2 so that the odds are 1 in 36, or 2.78%. 3 may be thrown in two ways (I on dice A and 2 on dice B, or vice versa) which gives odds of 2 in 56, or 5.56%. The probability of throwing a 2 or 3 is 2.78 + 5.56, i.e. 8.34% 4 may be thrown in three ways, and so on. The whole table can easily be drawn up with the aid of a pocket calculator and is as follows, to the nearest whole number:- 2 = 3%; 3 = 8%; 4 = 17%; 5 = 25%; 6 = 42%; 7 = 58%; 8 = 72%; 9 = 83%; 10 = 92%; 11 = 97% and 12 = 100%. It is interesting to construct similar tables for three normal dice, two average dice, one normal and one average dice, and so on." Maurice Rotii of Chellastoli, Derby Intelligence "In Problem of the Month, by John Cook, in issue No-173, he mentions Intelligence in wargames with particular reference to light cavalry in Napoleonic period. This is indeed a very interesting aspect and one has only to look at some of Frederick the Great's marches when his armies moved 'blind' surrounded and 'escorted' by Austrian Light cavalry and irregular Light infantry. It may be of interest to know that we have incorporated this in our 5th Edition Ancient Rules. A force very deficient in cavalry compared with its opponents is assumed 'out scouted' and has to deploy in full before he does. We have also brought in a provision for possible flank marches or a force to be held off the table and come on at a specified time. There are risks to this of course, but it adds another dimension to the game, and a number of people have taken the trouble to write to us in approval. Having been on both ends of the out-scouting I can vouch for this - it certainly makes one watch ones deployment and cover flanks and puts a stop to the blokes who used to put a line of infantry from table edge to table edge. The whole procedure of out-scouting, terrain choosing, and making any flank marches only takes a few minutes. I shall ask Phil to consider it for the successor to our 1750-1850 Rules which he is finishing off at the time of writing. Finally, thank you for your offer of space for a rebuttal of the "Norseman" comments on 5th Ed. Ancient, but I am afraid I have not seen it. I assume Phil has. For my part all the people I have met seem singularly unconcerned over the changes in this Edition and are bashing on regardless and seem to be enjoying themselves. I am at present 'training" a group of friends in wargaming, and they have all plumped for Ancients, and 15mm scale, as first choice. The Rules do not seem to bother them, but they are of course making errors in deployment and timing, but are rapidly learning by experience." Bob O'Brien of the Wargames Research Group Somme Congratulations "I thought your editorial in the August edition of the "Newsletter" - the sociological effects of the debacle of the first day of the Battle of the Somme - was the most concise and outstanding comment which could be written on that appalling day. That single paragraph justified the publication of "Newsletter" 173!" Philip Haythornthwaite of Nelson, Lancashire Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 175 To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1976 by Donald Featherstone. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com