When is a book not a Book

By no means all of the Military Book market  consists of wargamers . Indeed, experience would tend to tell me that the 'wargaming end'  is only a small part of that market. Other sectors might include Militaria collectors, military modellers and simple student of military history, by no means all of whom spend their leasure time fondling little metal and plastic men .... and tanks.

This caused me to wonder how many wargamers actually collect 'serious' military history books. I know plenty who do  but I also know  of chaps whose main source of 'knowledge' is a rulebook or an army list.  Though  all of the Tantobie Warfare and Tactical Society have respectable libraries of their own. Now in the current climate are  games rules and army lists  'books' in other than  mere physical appearence? Ater all their function is closer to that of an instruction manual!

 Army lists can be the  worst- and I speak as someone who has written a few. At their worst they are like the instructions in a box of flatpack furniture with bits missing on the instruction sheet - despite the fact that you have one of those bits in your hand but no idea how it fits in. You know the army had unit A in it but the author of the list has either denied it exists or had missed it out, yet you have one there in front of you. Worse yet is when these lists are tailored to a specific 'game', as we are now seemingly supposed to refer to rules.Now just to be clear I am only talking about historical wargaming here where the parameters are the  specific historical period (or should be)  rather than some game designers flight of fantasy here, should he so choose said designer can go completly off piste.

 This train of thought was begun as I re-read a  rather useful 2 volume set  from my collection of regimental histories. This one being the Gordon Highlanders. I picked it up at a show about a decade or so ago and it is very detailed about such useful stuff as regimental strengths on a given date- so you are not in the least tied to the so-called 'standard' unit'  if you choose not to be, as many such histories have that kind of detail. This history also covers the services of the regiment including some of the lesser known battles of the Peninsular War  , especially those of the later stages in the Pyranees and southern France. Oman of course also covers them as does Napier and while I have both on my shelves Oman consists of seven or so large volumes and Napeir 6 smaller ones. The print in the latter being a bit on the tiny side these days ! 

One of my smaller bookshelves in what I laughingly call my 'studio'

There is also the point that Rules and Army Lists have very little style about them and none of that all important- at least to me- but indefineable, atmosphere. Why should they? They are instruction manuals. They do not try to conjour, in the minds eye , the sight of the Scots Greys and Gordons on that day in June 1815 or Piper Findlater winning his VC 82 years later and half a world away ,as his regiment stormed Dargai heights (that bit is in volume2). No, that is not their function, they are simply the bare -often very bare- bones of what we do. Instructing perhaps but not really informing and certainly not entertaining.

This does not mean they are without use- of course we need the rules and some may choose army lists rather than actual history.  They can be a very useful starting point , though I can't recall any set of army lists I have including anything as useful as a bibliography. 

I'm told that there is a part of the hobby known as 'list building'. It seems to pertain to those fellas who use  arcane points systems as part of the intruction manual in order  to build their armies- something I have not done since about 1984. Too dry and fiddle-farty for my taste, though I appreciate it has its uses especialy  if you are a competition player. To be fair an injection of eye-candy  into rules and army lists had had something of a beneficial effect but even the prettiest can only at best graduate  from instruction manual to 'picture book'.

Another one in the 'studio' 

The current fashion for publishing multiple army lists for a given set of rules can be somewhat annoying especially when the core rules are 30 quid a pop and army lists a similar price-  I wonder if  you have the cash to buy the armies after that little lot. If you are not careful you have dropped a ton  or two without noticing. I say that speaking as a bloke who has done exactly that with real books but never with mere rules or army lists. After all if you have the books you don't need the army list , you can make your own using actual history. It might be a bit harder in parts but it is a lot more fun.

Another boolshelf- with regimental history and other useful stuff.

So no they are not really books. They are a useful adjuct to them perhaps similar in physical form and sometimes even vaguely attractive but without the depth or life of the real thing.

And you know ... one day I will get around to putting them all in subject order.. one day. 

Corvus Miniatures - A Brief and possibly inaccurate history.

 Corvus Miniatures were a British wargames figure company that flourished  briefly in the 1980s before disappearing without trace sometime after 1987 .

 They produced a quite extensive range of 25mm figures that today would be called 28mm being around the same size as Foundry.

 The began production in 1983 but the first advert I can find from them is in Miniature Wargames no 12 

 Corvus advert from no 12 of MW showing 'New Releases'.

The company steadily added new items to its listings.  Including a Dark Ages range - which I had completely forgotten about - even though I'm sure I had some of the Normans and maybe some ofthe Welsh.

Another advert- this one from MW13

For me the best of their ranges was the ECW- much of it based on the the then very new Haythornthwaite book published I think by Blandford, which I may still have somewhere. The range would in time become quite extensive. 

The advert in MW14 announcing the ECW range. 

The next advert in MW15 shows more releases in different periods The company certainly had some ambition. My own view was that I almost always liked the figures I bought from them and found them of pretty high quality and detail.

Another ad from MW15 though they missed off the company name ! 

 Though as others noted the horses tended to be on the small side. 

MW18 had almost a page and a half of figure reviews from Corvus- these are the days before the internet- we used to actually read stuff back then! 

The 2 pages of the review. I note that while Corvus has sunk without trace Trev Dixon is still  going strong ! 

This review - also from MW this time no 21 gives a look at the models themselves. I  have a couple of the officer with half pike and 10 of the loading musketeer. plus a few Pikemen - all picked up a couple of years ago second hand. 

Some of the Corvus Normans. 

Another review  this time from MW27  August 1985- a bundle of ECW personalities- which I never got around to buying. 

 December 1985 issue of MW has an advert for the 1986 'Corvus Miniatures  World Team Championships run by the Derby Wargames Associates- with whom I and Old Glory UK would be happily involved sponsoring the World Team Championships  during the mid 1990s and on past the millennium

 Corvus' next advert in MW  that I have been able to find is May 1986 and the company has moved to a new address but is still making new ranges.

 The final mention of the company that I have so far found is from later in 1986 and shows their Franco- Prussian War range. This is a photo- review though the quality is no wonderful 

Corvus Franco- Prussian War.  I seem to recall seeing some of these at a Durham Wargames Group meeting. I was a member back then! 

The above is the last mention I have so far found. It might be telling that the address given in the review is for a shop 'The Parade Ground' in Sussex. I have a dim recollection that Corvus may have become 'Sussex Miniatures' but have not so far found any documentary evidence to support this.. The above review appears in MW39 August 1986 . I have found no more mentions of the company in MW though I do have some early issues of WI to check through. and have so far found that Corvus seem to have been taken over by 

 The Parade Gound, WI no1 has an advert for the Osprey World Championships 1987 which had 'The Parade Ground (Including Corvus and Tin Soldier) listed as attending the show.  More info if and when I discover any. 

November 8th 2023.

 An addendum.

 In  WI no 2  October 1987. an advert for Sussex miniatures appears 'formerly the Parade Ground'   stating that they now manufacture the Corvus range under the trade name of Sussex Miniatures.  Now all I have to do is find what happened to Sussex Miniatures. The same Company also manufactured the Tin Soldier range so I wonder how long that connection lasted and if the current 'Tin Solder' range are the same. 

'Old School' , 'Retro' and 'Modern' .

 So which is which and why?- and do we really care?

 First question. Is there really any difference between the three.?

 Honestly no not really, but well, yes sort of possibly.

 First, speaking personally, I simply prefer the term 'retro'  for a certain style of wargaming to the term 'old school' because for me 'old school' has certain connotations. First I hated the bloody place and was glad when - many years later- I found out that some bright fella had run a bull dozer through it immediately making that part of Greater Manchester a better place. Secondly because a chap once told me that 'old school'  wargaming remined him too much of cardigans, Ralgex and Werthers originals. I won't say he was wrong. 

 Definitely both 'old school' and 'retro'. ECW guns one part of Peter Gilders collection. They were called 25mm when they were made

So, for me the two terms 'old school' and 'retro' wargaming are rather similar though it depends - as always- on your individual view.

 Now I began wargaming at the aforementioned Grammar School in 1970 which was a while back and definitely 'old school' by today's standards. Armies were mostly Airfix with a few very precious Les Higgins, then a little later Hinchliffe. Rules were Featherstone or Wise, then London Wargames section Napoleonics. or awful home written concoctions. I recall writing rules  for the Indian Mutiny. They must have been awful since we had bugger all knowledge about how mid 19th century battles were conducted and not much more knowledge about how the armies were organised. or looked.(So a bit like some modern 'game designers' then!) 

Modern Old Glory 28mm Napoleonic painted by James Main for a client who wanted them in a 'retro' style. 

 By 1974 or thereabouts I had joined the Manchester  Area Wargames Society whose members were actually adults and owned wholly metal armies. Rules were still often homegrown but WRG had made its appearance and compared to the school club stuff was complicated but there were more periods- I saw my first ECW game at one of the meetings. 

 Once I moved up to the North-East, despite a brief dalliance with the rules published by Derek Sharman- which used a 'spinner'  rather than dice for the 'random factor' then for the next few years it was mostly WRG all the way Ancients and Pike and Shot. 

 Old Glory 28mm AWI 'Modern' style? 

All of this is in many eyes 'old school' - but when you try to find out what MAKES it 'old school'  the answers all  differ depending upon the age of and time in the hobby of, the person being asked. Often 'old school' seems to mean' what happened before I joined in'  or 'different from what I do now '  or even 'not as much fun cos you had to know stuff '. 'old school 'perhaps but it is 'retro' ?

Indian Mutiny - mutineers Old Glory 28mm organised for Young and Lawford's 'Charge - or How to play Wargames' a 1960s rule set which I still find useful for smaller battles. 

For myself I tend to use the term 'retro' more for the look of the table and the  figure collection than for any other reason. Yes rules come into it somewhat but I can set up a retro looking game and use 'modern' rules- though I'm not sure why I would do this as many 'modern' rules are overly wordy- sometimes close to 'barkerese' that I can't be bothered to  spend the time puzzling them out or sorting out the useful bits in the overly pretty eye candy filled book. No always true but of modern style rules I have bought in the last 3 or 4 years only 'In Deo Veritas'  for large Pike and Shot battles in smaller scales  has made sense in less than  4 or 5 readings- but I don't really want to go into 10mm- though I will keep bending Jim's ear in that direction ! (He already has a bundle of 10mm SYW) 

Some of my deliberately 'retro' 30mm collection with  some of the plastic trees.

Mind you I HATE reading rules. The often arcane language is very off putting 'roll 97 22 sided dice in  alternate non -sequence while standing on one leg with a haddock in the left hand - then mark down one or possibly 2 casualty points but no more, then roll the 18 sided dice 13 times to decide your first unit's movement'  - yes I exaggerate rather more than somewhat-  but many modern rules do seem very dice heavy, seemingly replacing thought and decision making by dice rolling. If I wanted to plat a dice based game I'd play snakes and ladders. 

Ok , after that digression, back to the plot. The easiest way to spot what might be a retro game is the look- gloss varnish on the models is a good start and then possibly the make of models-  Minifigs possibly or Garrison or Hinchliffe or  Stadden or Hinton Hunt or Les Higgins or Lamming  or possibly even more obscure makes such as Corvus or  Vulcan.  

It is also not difficult to mix the styles. My Indian Mutiny collection  are all modern figures painted in a 'modern' style with matt varnishing are singly based and will be used for a 'Charge! variant- said rules by Young and Lawford being definitely 'old schll'  since they were published for the first time in the late 1960s but I can also use them for such modern sets as 'The Men Who would be Kings'  assuming I can get those rules to fit the Mutiny without destroying any period feel.

Does the owner of said, old lead dudes refer to them as 25mm rather than the  'cool' 28mm which is so old it dates from as long ago as the the mid 1990s. For the record two of my own retro projects are in 30mm - just to confuse the issue..

 I've also been told that 'old school' rules are more complicated 'all those tables and stuff' or indeed that they are very simple- by which they usually mean over simple really, once again old school seems to mean 'what I don't want' or even 'what I like' depending upon who you speak to.

 One thing might be close to a constant 'old school' types are often more likely to question the rules and bin them if their own knowledge tells them said rules are garbage. On that score I am definitely 'old school' . Slavish obedience to 'da rools '  at the expense of the history is for fantasy dudes and games slaves, not open minds. Mind you there was a lot of that kind of stuff back in the day so maybe that is old school too! 

Now my collection of plastic trees are definitely old school- they take pride of place in my retro games and sometimes turn up in the 'modern' style too. For a start they don't scatter flock everywhere like the bog brush trees you often see. But I'm glad I bought most of them in the 1970s as they tend to work out at around 20 quid each for the larger specimens on ebay these days. 

It also seems that in ye olden days- depending on how far back that actually is- units were often larger- see Grants 5 officers and 48 man infantry units wheras today a 24 figure unit is not infrequently touted as 'standard'  but then so is '4 bases'  in rules where the models are often no more than counter decoration- but then even that is in some eyes 'old school' - Phil Barker opined almost exactly that is several of his rule sets back in the 1970s.

 So my point really is- beyond the look of the thing- is there really any such thing as 'old school' or is it really merely 'doing it my way' rather than merely being a consumer of the latest gaming fad. 

For myself I will always prefer 'historical period' to 'gaming fad'.

 So even the way I buy into any new (for me) period might be 'old school'  it usually goes ' That's interesting'- himm what models are available- how do I want to present them on the table?-  ok what rules can I use?- Which ones are any good, and will I lose the will to live trying to read the bloody things (reading rules can kill my interest in a period faster than any other single thing). Rule are always at the bottom of the thought chain I have often bought and even painted the armies before I have thought about rules.

I suppose that  makes me old school' then ... or does it?

 

Footprints

 How many times over the years have you rebased your collection - or at least parts of it. It is a right faff for sure, so I try to avoid it where I can. As I don't do competitions this is usually not a problem.

However in recent months I have come to wonder about the way certain rules and 'games' now portray the units for their given period and how the 20mm frontage for most infantry and 25mm for many cavalry has evolved, and is it the best way?.

What started this train of thought was looking at some assorted 28mm Napoleonic models of various nations all on 20mm frontage bases and also quite a few of the often called 'standard' unit(of which in reality there was no such thing) . Seen as units the troops looked too spread out with lots of daylight between each man. Don't think it was like that. Look at the modern Trooping of the Colour or even a decent re-enactment unit. They move about with very little space between each man most of the time.

Now this does not apply in certain periods of course. 17th century chaps needing more room to perform their drills- and it was not because of the baggy  breeches ! . No they mostly moved about  with some little distance between each man so my ECW dudes (or is than now W3K dudes) can stay as they are.

 No this is really about my 18th century collections 7YW and AWI really but with some Indian stuff  as well and maybe some Marlburians.

My first Marlburian unit. The rank and file are on 15mm frontage the 'Command' figures are on 20mm frontage. My reasoning here being that they should be bigger targets in the Grantian style games these will hopefully one day be used in.

 Now I have heard the argument that the larger figures won't fit on  smaller frontage bases so I thought I'd try a few experiments and - so fat I have not found any major problem with infantry. though I am keeping the depth at 20mm per model, as the depth of the figure won't allow much reduction.

Reducing the frontage per figure from 20mm to 15mm obviously reduces the frontage of the whole unit by a quarter as well as making the unit look- dare I say- a little more 'realistic' in its tabletop appearance.

This awful picture nevertheless shows the difference in frontage on even these two tiny units

 actually 2 grenadier companies from different AWI units. Both groups are from the same pack of models Old Glory AWI21. The upper group's frontage is 60mm the lower 45mm.

Another shot showing the two differing frontages side by side. I definitely prefer the closer look..

Now I won't be changing all of my troops. This will only be  chosen units for certain types of game. My 30mm Stadden and Willie AWI collection will stay on 20mm frontage(and shiny!) Shinyloo will stay as it is, as will the nascent 'Shinynine'... but if I ever get around to the Peninsular well that - and India will be a different story.

The Maze of Curiosity and Fascination.

 No not some 'new and innovative',  but the same as all the others in a different box,  Sci-Fant skirmish a like, but rather another train of thought. Yes I know I'm doing thinking again and it is not fashionable in today's wargaming world but then I don't give a hoot for fashion - wel not the wargaming kind anyway.

 No this is more about where my version of the hobby takes me and why. I know that these days- assuming you believe the magazines and some of the FB pages I see that the whole hobby is 'game driven' . We are no longer supposed to talk about which historical period we play in but only about 'which games' we play.

 To me this is terribly narrow. Obviously it is one of the unforeseen side effects of the commercialisation of the hobby. For many it is easier and more convenient to be merely consumers of what is laid before them especially in the hurry up world in which we now live. It is easier to simply take a game and obey the rules rather than take an interest in the historical period in which that game may be set- however loosely.- rather than follow the more tortuous path of historical interest.

What began this particular tortuous path was the arrival of a bundle of old  Journals  of the Society for Army Historical Research bought on ebay. This bundle of rather random copies  were originally published in various years from 1948- 1985 and will be added to the collection of back issues I already have. I made space for them by binning a bundle of old wargames mags- all published after 2000 but I may be binning some more in the near future as they simply often don't contain anything that really interests me any longer. I know how to roll a dice thanks- and reviews - while being useful at the time don't have much of a shelf life. 

These Journals however, are filled with  gold. In the issues I have recently bought, I have so far, found  first hand accounts - in letters and diaries published in the Journals, from the First and Second Sikh Wars, The Napoleonic wars,, the Nepal War and the Indian Mutiny. In addition there are articles on Mercenaries in English service in 1544- and how some of them defrauded Henry VIII of lots of cash, and I have not been through more than half of them so far.

Yes in some of the articles the scholarship is a bit- or even a lot- dated but taking that into account is part of the challenge. The words of chaps who were actually there, of course, never get old and provide information  and scenario ideas that  never get into most  wargames scenario books. This kind of stuff will always be of more interest to me than wading through yet another  set of games driven fluff in a pretty book written by a bloke who values dice rolling over period knowledge. 

Well now perhaps I should put on my metaphorical Tin Hat and duck below the parapet. If I do bin some more magazine I will let you know before they go to the shredder. 

Elite troops?

 In a short  FB exchange with Martin Gane recently the subject of elite troops was mentioned in passing and the idea was mooted that elite might be a very moveable feast. Indeed one might opine that some troops are only elite some of the time and for different reasons in different wars and campaigns.

Are these British Footguards elite or  the Line troops nest to them? They certainly think so and have proved it numerous times in their history. So how do you deal with their wargames counterparts? 

Of course, if your wargaming is army list  and dice roll driven you may choose to obey the diktat of the 'game designer'  rather than your own researches. This  lightweight approach is something we all do- I do it for periods I only have a passing interest in, such as most of the Ancient world, though even here, actually buying an army according to an army list is not to be done under any circumstances,  especially if I'm paying. I'll read a book or two. So I don't care if your ordinary hoplites are six points each and your  Sacred Band are eight points each  because they are elite. The question for these, and indeed any other supposed elite units throughout history is WHY are they considered elite in the first place?

Discipline and weapons training are two pretty obvious reasons  but of course those two factors don't come close to telling the whole story. If you know your history you can think of plenty of elite units who had such training who sometimes did not come up to the mark for various reasons in individual campaigns or battles. The Gardes Francais at Fontenoy perhaps or  some of the Imperial Guard at Waterloo? Make your own minds up but try to be dispassionate if you can. Are some troops 'automatically' elite? British Footguards - sometimes  but not always by any means.

The Earl of Essex's regiment of foot in the ECW usually performed pretty well up until their capture at Lostwithiel but does that make them elite@ 

Equally time and place have a part to play. Take admittedly a slightly obscure example Earl Brtytnoth's Hearthtroop at the Battle of Malton in 991 . After  Thorkel the Tall's vikings broke the Saxon shieldwall and killed the Earl the Hearthtroop apparently fought on expecting to 'lie in the dust at the feet of our leader' as the Song of Maldon tells us. Now it may not have been quite like that but people of the time believed it was or should have been. Likewise King Harold's Housecarles at Hastings so do we rate these as 'elite'  for other games?

The Iron Brigade in the ACW - does a different hat and coat make you elite ? Even thought it makes you stand out form the crowd. The Brigade does seem to have performed better than some.

Pride of course plays a part- this will feed into unit cohesion and can make the given unit hang on for longer but then there is also 'backs to the wall' syndrome- nowhere to run so we must fight on - Roarke's drift being a good example here.

 Of course so called social class is no automatic granting of elite status , except perhaps in the mind of those 'socially elite' troops. Obvious examples are the Philadelphia Light Horse in the AWI- who apparently would not do outpost and vidette work- as is the role of light horse- because it was beneath them. I also seem to recall a mention of a troop of New York Light Dragoons in the War of 1812 - again  from the 'cream' of New York society who scarpered at almost the first shot at the Battle of Bladensberg - quickly followed by most of the rest of the Americans leaving the  rear guard of US Marines and sailors with their guns to do the bulk of the fighting. Equally the Cumberland Hussars at Waterloo  socially upper crust- off as soon as the guns began.. So so called social class often has nothing to do with  elite troops. 

The Irish Brigade were key to the French victory at Fontenoy. Does that make them elite everywhere else?

There is definitely a case for 'variable morale' on the wargames table- after all how can any general be sure that his troops will perform as expected- he might be sure of some of his units - but what about that lot over there> Arses out of their trousers and filthy from campaigning, or those there, bright and shiny and new - never been shot over. There are historical examples where both types have performed above and beyond and equally examples where both have performed poorly so you take your pick and hope for the best. 

Unit Sizes- the 'All armies are the same' problem.

 How do chaps these days build their armies? Has it changed from the 1970s when I started?  What dictates the sizes of units in  given army or for a given period? Historical prototypes? Personal preference? The look of the thing? The chosen rule set or army list? The packaging style of your chosen miniatures range ? All or none of the above?

Speaking for myself I would say historical prototype first every time,  followed by the look of the thing, possibly influenced by chosen rule set and perhaps personal preference.

Aunit of Marlburian Infantry- Irish in French Service at around 1 :20 so 36 figures equates to 720 men. Bases on 15mm frontage for the men 20mm per fig for the command. . These will be used in Grantian style games but in AOR also.

 I like to build an army mostly to a set 'figure to man' ratio.  I accept that these are often somewhat notional and may have little to do with the chosen rules, but then all a ruleset really does is tell you which dice to throw and when, all the rest is often guff and marketing- especially these days.. I am fortunate in that our gaming group does not contain any rules lawyers. 'History Lawyers' 100% but rules lawyers nary a one thankfully. So for example my SYW armies are at a nominal ratio pf 1 figure to 20 men, so a British Cavalry or Dragoon regiment has three squadrons each of 8- 10 models- mostly 8 . Infantry Battalions range around the 20-32 figure mark, based where possible on actual numbers dug out from various sources and always with an eye to 'the look of the thing'. Otherwise why use model soldiers in the first place? My ECW armies are much the same but with a figure to man ratio of 1:10 so a single cavalry troop can be anything from 4-10 figures depending upon time and place. Regiments being various numbers of Troops.. Of course there is a bit of number crunching and fiddling to get a viable unit but  that is part of the price you pay. Infantry units can be large but as in the period they can be split into 2 battalions if the scenario demand it.

Individually based Scots Greys- these will do for Retro style games such as 'Charge!' on indeed any game where the model is paramount rather than its base. 

I also tend to build my armies so that I can use them with more than one set of rules So my Marian Romans can fight using Tactica or WRG or even Tony Bath without harm. My AWI, Black Powder or British Grenadier or Warfare in the Age of Reason. Since I don't do competitions and always do both sides for a period then I don't expect to have arguments about this base being 5mm larger than that base. I base for visual appeal- mostly - rather than rules lawyering.

So rules that force a non- historical  organisation upon the players will usually get very short shrift from me, binwards they will often go. This  is one of the reasons I dislike DBR intensely and find much of Pikeman's Lament risible, to name but two that have aroused my ire. Both of these in their different ways enforce a non- historical organisation on the players  for the simple reason that the rules mechanisms demand such. I've heard the 'Forsyth argument' (Good game good game)  but that does not wash for me as they both  butcher the historical prototype something rotten, again each in their different ways - though to be honest it IS possible to get something out of Pikeman's Lament with a bit of 'reverse butchery' ,if you could be bothered, but there are plenty of alternatives out there so why bother.?

A rather aged ECW unit based for WRG . Would not base them this way today but I'm not about to destroy someone else work for the sake of a few millimetres.  Represents a unit of about 400 men.

I LIKE my armies to have different sized units in them as did the historical prototypes. Look for example at any 'Horse and Musket' period order of battle form anywhere in the world and you will see Battalions and Regiments (units) in the same Brigade or Division(formations)  at differing strengths. For me this gives the units character and dare I say it historical verisimilitude -tenuous thought that last may be. As an aside I might note that such difference have at times played havoc with a players  battle plan if a unit was found to be too big or not strong enough for a give task but that is one of the risks of generalship surely? 

Anyway an army where all the  units were identically sized - slaved to a rule set would be mightily tedious to paint. Endless obedience to some anonymous games designer who possibly knows a lot less about the period than you do (but has some - at least in his view- smart games mechanism that he can force a bit of history into, he may even be right) . Nah just does not fit with me. so I mostly avoid rule sets that dictate the unit sizes- especially where those sizes seem to be dictated not merely by the writer but seemingly by the packaging methods of his favourite companies.

All armies are not the same they do not automatically have the same organisations - look at the history and you will quickly find this to be true. I understand the lure of 'gaming convenience' and am not always immune to this- my 15mm Moderns suffer a little though not enough so that I would use a rule set such as Cold War Commander which again - according to chaps who know more than me, butchers organisations to fit the rules.. My own moderns will fit with Team Yankee or Combined Arms. We tries CWC but hated it tend now to go with a modified version of TW - though a set called Sabre Squadron  needs to be tried. 

I suppose part of my problem is that I am not PRIMARILY  a games player but rather a historian who plays historical wargames- with the emphasis on the historical; so non- historical items in purportedly historical wargames rules are going to at least raise an eyebrow! But after all I'm writing this post to provoke discussion - which I know for some is anathema (I've been accused of being a 'Gate keeper' whatever that piece of silliness may mean- in the past when posting other discussions) but surely out of discussion comes new ideas ..... or does it? 

Differing Visual Aesthetics in Wargaming

 There I was varnishing  some refurbished old lead dudes and a thought came to me- well it happens once in a while -  and this  singular occurrence prompted another thought. Wow two thoughts joined together I'll be doing stream of consciousness next ! But no, I am not James Joyce nor was meant to be, the thoughts were in fact idle musing upon the Visual Aesthetics of wargaming and how much they have changed and morphed over the years and equally how much my own views and attitudes to the visual side of the hobby have changed .

 Now to be accurate I have always viewed "the look of the thing" as somewhat more important than the actual dice rolling.

 After all, if this was not so, then I would not bother with the model soldiers in the first place but would stick to screens or little bits of cardboard. I am aware that this is heresy to some who view the actual game play as the epitome of their hobby. Fine. No problem, enjoy yourselves, that is the point do not involve yourselves in the rest of our hobby  there is no need you can get your  painted armies delivered  to your door and begin fondling your numbered  cubes over the table almost immediately.

 Now I am not(well not much) having a go at people who use painting services. I have done so myself. and, once in a while still do. There are some fine chaps providing these services. I have units painted by Steve Skinner, James Main, Darren Taylor and Jez at Shakespeare Studios to name but four and I have never been less than pleased with their work. There are of course other fine painting services out there who do sterling work to judge by the amount of gear I send to them repeatedly on customers behalf's.

Mind you, I have also  several times encountered painters who are complete pillocks and seem to spend half a lifetime telling you why they have not completed your order on time, or even started it yet, and the quoted "6 weeks" inevitably becomes 6 months or more. This is especially galling if you have been daft enough to pay them a deposit. I know of one customer who has been sorely tried by the fact that  for various reasons "Painter X" simply will not finish his commission and has half painted units scattered about like confetti... ten months and counting for some of them .As my Granddad  would have said "Sod that for a game of soldiers". Buying it done,  is not always the simple option.

 No hopefully this goes a bit deeper. The problem , for me at least,with buying your stuff  "ready to play"  means that if you are not careful you are buying someone else's view  of how YOUR collection should look  someone else's vision , someone else's aesthetic. Now if you are a games player you may not give a monkey's about this and that is all well and good for you. But not me. Being only a games player would be to deny  much of the interesting "other stuff" that makes up the idea of the "Compleat Wargamer" (to misquote Isaac Walton) and yes in some  very small way possibly a more complete, thoughtful and rounded human being- something that seems to be in shorter supply now than formerly, though mostly(only mostly) , in my experience, outwith  the wargaming hobby.

 

However, let us not be too precious about this, let us simply, for the sake of discussion, assume that you think the look of the thing has some importance for you . Okay so that is decided . Where do you go next?

 

Sikh Cavalry painted in the  "received style" of the 1990s. These by Dave Jarvis.

Indian Mutiny figures. Painted and based by me again in the 1990s received style.Though I always undercoat white or grey rather than the colour killing black.

Surely the next thing to do is to decide what kind of look you want for your collection and for your tables when you use that collection. Now when you go to shows or read a magazine or up to a point browse the zillions of wargaming sites on the internet the does seem to be a certain "received look" followed often seemingly by worshippers at the "Church of the Bloody Expensive Rulebook" and those who kneel to the altar of  the "eye candy" within said B.E.R. Now don't get me wrong, sometimes this is appropriate and even necessary but somehow these days I find all of these set ups looking very similar to each other so that you can barely tell one from another- especially when they have been bought and paid for rather than built by the owners fair hand. I've done a turn at "received look"myself, sometimes alone sometimes with   significant help (though never by simply buying it done) and sometimes still do,   but I have never been a slave to convention. After all the "received style" changes every so often as a new B.E.R. appears Indeed rather the opposite- "The Resistance Lives On" so to speak. I want something a little different something a little closer to unique. Not always, but sometimes when the mood takes me, I want out of the current wargaimng rut. 

The Need for Individuality.

This is one of the reasons why I have- for some games and periods, some of the time- reverted to older "retro" rules. They have a different feel to them . It is the same with "retro" figures they frequently have more individuality. They lack the tediousness of "perfection". With many of today's plastic(or indeed metal) perryclones you are hard put to tell one make from another, still less when all are painted in the "received look"- often with extra knuckles.  I like models and units with a little  style and a little individuality so,  in some cases, I mix makers in the same army or even in the same unit. The idea of having the same army based in the same way for the same rules as every other  chap has absolutely no appeal whatsoever. One of the advantages of older figures was that you could tell a Lamming from a Minifig from a Garrison from a Willie . Variety was the spice of my earlier armies.

Even within my own pretty modest collection I don't want all the armies or games  to look the same. Up to a point each period should have its own look . Sure. there will be similarities and sometimes even a bit of crossover- especially with scenery - but the idea is to create something  with a little individuality rather than another same old same old. In terms of the look of the thing this might sometimes mean a more "stripped back" and simplified terrain more consistent with the "retro" look of some of my armies.

An example of a somewhat more "stripped back" terrain style which seemed in keeping with the  retro feel of "Charge!. by Young and Lawford. 

So my "retro" ECW collection looks subtly different from my "modern" one even though they  have sometimes appeared on the same table for a bigger game.  Its the same for the retro and modern AWI groups too. Though for these , being smaller collections by far -are not quite stand alone yet, but once they are will be used for different style games. The "modern " set being used for rules such as British Grenadier and the "retro" set for Featherstone. Of course they can, at need, come together for larger games in either discipline where a "pure" look  for either is not needed during er... playtime . 

"Retro" E.C.W. painted in the style I used in the 1970s- though these days hopefully with more skill. Most of the figures in this unit are Les Higgins 30mm castings out of production since  the late 1970s.

More "Retro" E.C.W. This time mostly Hinchliffe Foremost- still available. Again painted in the shiny 1970s  style .

You may have gathered by now that the actual game play is the bit of this hobby I treat with the least seriousness. The reason is simple, the actual dice rolling is of no consequence. I don't do competition so I don't often care about such minor matters as win or lose. Win UNHISTORICALLY mind, now that is of some matter -at least to me but  in our group that is very difficult to achieve in Umpire controlled games where the Umpire knows his period and the rulebook is merely a toolbox  for him to select the bits he needs to run the game. No army lists no points systems simply a scenario and a narrative.

The more usual "look" this time a 15mm game our group did at the Durham show in 2019. Models Blue Moon Marlburians from Jim Mains collection

 My point here is that each wargamer should be free to choose his own "look". I have for instance "gone off" - for some periods the heavy terrain boards in the Marlburian game photos in favour of the more portable cloths and "assorted things to stuff under cloths" to make hills and dead ground. For some games that approach is simpler and more effective. I have -in this case- reverted to an earlier time. 

Another demo game at Durham- this time 15mm moderns. Those MDF boards do weigh a bit- but look good. 

A similar game using the same models but with a different look.  That "desert cloth" fits in a holdall rather than a van ! 

The choice as they say is yours ... discuss! 

Is an army ever "Finished"?

More than once on various blogs and Facebook pages I see a statement that runs  on the lines of
 "Only 1 more unit to do and this army is finished"
 This seems to be quite a popular thing out in wargameland so I wonder - how do you tell when an army is finished?
 Personally I can't tell. As far as I am concerned an army is only "finished" when I don't want it anymore. This is usually because it has not been used for several years.
 This can happen for several reasons. Usually it is simply because I have moved on the other periods- other bits of history if you like. I don't always dispose of armies that I am temporarily bored with- so I will never sell my ECW for instance  but others lose their magic. However that is not really what I am on about here. I suspect my real question is more on the lines of-
"How do you impose limits upon your collection - assuming it actually interests you in itself.and is not merely an aide to the dice rolling?"
 Again using my ECW collection as an example I can't imagine NOT being interested in the period, after all I have a bookshelf full of books on the war possibly two bookshelves, so I am hardly likely to "complete" my armies for the period any time soon.

This army is not finished. It will remain part of my collection .

 My 15mm moderns are not complete either despite the fact that I have not added any new units for a couple of years or more. I still want a 120mm Mortar battery for the "Harraquis" and an Engineer unit for the Brits. the "72 Virgins Martyrs Brigade" need some more pickups.
 Perhaps I don't"finish" armies because I am not a rules slave. I expect nay even demand that most of my armies can be used with more than one set of rules. I do not share the obsession with rules that many games players have. The rules are merely the means to an end and not the end in or of themselves. If a mere set of rules imposes limits upon my collection then in the bin it goes.
 Of course I can see a finishing point if you are reproducing the order of battle for a particular campaign. So I know a chap who is doing Gettysburg in 15mm and another Austerlitz and a third Waterloo. When they will finish is anyone's guess but they do have a finite finishing point supplied by the battle they are studying.

 This lot are finished. All  my 28mm  painted Brooks mins Brits and Taliban are for sale. I shan't be using  them again.

 In theory my ECW Parliamentarians are Essex's army in about October 1642  and the opposing Royalists  actually about 6 or seven months later but the chances of my finishing both armies is pretty minimal as I like large units and paint quite slowly.
All of these armies have seen table action  so on that level they are "active" rather than those forces such as my Indian Mutiny and even more recent Sikh War  which are still under construction .

 Other table ready forces- Sinyloo and my AWI collection are still having items added to them 

 So Gentle Readers a question. Do you "finish armes ever? 

The Changing Face of Taste in Wargaming.

Is there a "Mainstream" anymore?

Once in a while I ponder upon the hobby we are involved in. It is not enough - for me- to simply sit back  and as one chap once put it on TMP "Don't think about it just do it"- surely as asinine a line as you will see anywhere. However having said that- don't make the mistake of thinking-

 A/. That it matters in the real world
 or
 B/. That I really care other than from the perspective of an interested observer of the Human species- or even Wargamers- not always the same thing in my experience.
or
C/.I expect anyone to change the way he or she indulges merely because I'm not a fan of Dwarf- fiddling  or Badger mumbling or Interstellar Steptoe and son or whatever other off the peg brain free "game" you decide upon. In that respect my opinion is not to the point... after all if you choose to be a consistently lightweight mere consumer that is up to you.
or
D/.. That I won't take the mickey out of everything I see. Let's be honest I find an awful  lot of the  current crop of stuff very very gamesy and quite risible, designed by and for people whose first and sometimes only interest is the actual game to the exclusion of all else. Nothing wrong with that as it stands but far too narrow for my taste. Not for me. Now to explain why- take Pikemans Lament and Lion Rampant. I choose these because I own copies and both purport to be periods that interest me and that I know something about.. The following remarks do for both sets as they  have very common roots.  As simple games they may be OK assuming you know nothing nor want to know anything about the periods in question. As introductions to gaming they are not bad. As introductions to gaming their supposed periods they are at best mildly misleading- that would be Lion Rampant  at worst actually running very much counter to the  type of warfare they purport to depict. Basically Pikemans lament is a fantasy game in 17th century clothing . I have seen it argued that they "got me into the period" - this may be true but if you did not explore the period further than that  they failed  to get you into it Three dozen soldiers fictitiously organised does not a period  army make. But as "toe dippers" simple fare they are doubtless successful


So what I see these days are various chaps trying to shoe- horn everything  they see into one so called broad church - cos its all gamin' innit.  The reasons for this are often- though not always- commercial and out of this commercialism has arisen the idea that if it is popular it must somehow  automatically be good . Hence the drivel that is Cold War Commander  or the Twaddle that is Pikemans Lament both of which may or may not be good "games" but neither of which bear much historical examination but I'm supposed to like this dross because others deem it popular and it's all gaming .

 . I beg to differ. I don't do "gaming" . I'm not interested in "gaming" for its own rather nebulous sake. I do not have a "gaming" licence !!! Nor do I want one.. I'm not even sure I actually LIKE "gaming" as currently so often portrayed in the pages of the magazines. I find quite a lot of it completely vacuous and with roughly the same intellectual level as a backward haddock.  Apparently these days I'm supposed to like it because it is "fun"and because the mysterious fun police tell me to.. Well lots of  it isn't, it is often simplistic and risible   so I prefer my own kind of fun thanks.

So what is my kind of fun then I hear you ask- aside from taking the piss you mean?. Well at least some or perhaps most of the time I prefer something with at least some intellectual meat upon the funny bones. This does not always mean complicated rules or 6 inch thick rule books with an additional 10 volumes of supplements and army lists - often quite the opposite. It does mean rules that either have a good grounding in the chosen period or can be made to be so after a few local amendments to suit our view of what went on then and there. . It does mean an Umpire who knows his stuff. It often means that the all elusive but vital "period feel" is far more important than mere dice rolling. That the look of the thing is more important than somebody else's army lists. It also often means a decided choice not to baa like the other sheep. To paraphrase Orwell "Gamin' good thinkin bad" seems to be today's fashionable mantra. I choose not to comply so it must be room 101 for me then where I would be , devil a doubt, forced to play Lamentable Rampant or Horror of horrors warhammer 40k with some overweight but underwashed  drooling GW fortysomething fanboy until my brain turned to porridge (assuming it has not already.).

 Another thing that seems to have disappeared in our "adventure gaming niche leisure market" (thanks for that nifty Mr Preece) is  reasonable debate and discussion. A recent example which I found quite eye-opening in a depressing sort of way was a spat on FB- apparently you are not allowed to criticize GW in any shape or form. Now my poor  opinion of 40k especially is well known  but these fellows are so thin skinned it was astonishing, merely stating this opinion resulted in bad language and accusation and the stricture that if I don't like something I should ignore it . I find the 40k "universe" dark, nasty and cruel, full of pseudo religious twaddle and desperately short of jokes. The actual game system is slow and clunky in my very limited experience. Quite why I should not be allowed to share this is beyond me and equally why the fanboys are so small minded that they choose to take it personally is also baffling.

Not that this narrow attitude is confined to our hobby by any means- see a recent post from the Tantobie Internet Tattler for example outlining his similar experience in another area. One does wonder if some of the younger generations are actually equipped for the hurly-burly of the real world if they cannot handle such minor differences of opinion as this then what happens when something important arrives within their limited ken?. Further, the idea that you simply ignore something you don't like leads us  to the possibility of going down a dark road indeed. Surely you discuss debate, take the piss , and hopefully something different and better may emerge both within the hobby and more importantly out there in the real world.

The Death of Debate?

I did think about calling this piece "The Problem with Fantasy and the Death of Debate" but the death of debate is not simply a sci-fant problem (after all look at the total mess our selfish and idiotic political classes have got us into) and the problem with  much fantasy gaming these days is that - paradoxically- it is far far more restrictive than much Historical gaming. The reasons for this are actually pretty simple when you think about it. Much , but not all, sci-fant has ONLY the game to lean on . This is especially true of many of the one off skirmish a likes that we see today. So the game is all there is in terms of background and depth which is possibly why they all look so samey. Now this is less true of say LOTR or even the various GW games which have fairly consistent and deep backgrounds that the more open minded can explore but speaking personally I do find so much sci-fant very thin on content. Which is why on my very rare excursions there I prefer my own back stories cobbled together from various sci-fi novels  and a set of generic rules rather than some other blokes view of how I should do it. Yet having said that there is no doubt that in terms of general miniatures gaming varios sci- fant is very much in the commercial driving seat. After all  with history you have to  "know stuff" and that is definitely out of fashion in the internet age. "Knowing stuff isn't cool innit"

In this I find I agree with Phil Dutre's point that many more "modern"  wargamers are simply consumers of what is placed before them rather than what he calls "tinkerers" . This is a fair point . Speaking personally I'd much rather be a tinkerer , putting my own stamp on something rather than merely a consumer of someone else's often very shallow fare. Indeed I'd go further and say that without the tinkering and the modelling and the collecting and the research  I simply would not bother with the hobby at all as there would be sod all in it to interest me. After all, rolled one dice rolled 'em all.

Some chaps seem obsessed with "mechanisms". I'm not, a mechanism is merely a tool and how is a hammer interesting of itself? Equally what- essentially is the difference between rolling a couple of D6 and as it oftens seems, standing on one leg and rolling 15D19 in succession to get the same result. This was highlighted to me in a set of ECW rules I recently purchased. "The Kingdom is Ours" is supposedly fast play. Now leaving aside the silly formations and the huge number of pages wasted on advertising  the range owned by the rule writers, How in the hell is rolling 17 dice  in 3 or 4 groups to resolve one single attack fast play?. Repetitive yes, tedious certainly - especially for those of us who do not regard dice rolling as an intellectual exercise. Since I am also informed that Cruel Seas  also takes 17 dice to resolve a single torpedo attack I wonder if 17 is the new 42 (If you have never read Douglas Adams you may not get that one )  but more likely this is merely another facet of the current fad for replacing dice rolling for actual thinking or period knowledge. It may also mean that "fast-play" actually equates to "rolling dice instead of thinking" or indeed doing anything rather than thinking and further putting Joe Wargamer in the hands of game designers rather than in his own hands .

Once again I choose not to comply.  At least not all of the time. I want more from my hobby than mere dice rolling.

These days you get an awful lot of "I don't have the time" based excuses used for not doing whatever the person in question does not like or want to do. Be it figure painting or  reading or indeed anything but actually rolling dice, seemingly. Now sometimes you actually DO NOT have the time as work and life and other assorted bullshit(usually government crap in my case) intrudes so you do have to tailor your hobby to what is available to you. BUT does that HAVE to mean  going intellectually down market? Playing ONLY another skirmish - a - like. But then perhaps you have a very high boredom threshold. Personally again I choose not to comply. I would far far rather play fewer "better" games- with of course my own definition of "better"- than the same skirmish a -like in a different box week in week out.

Now don't get me wrong here if you like playing same old same old week in week out go ahead  but I was always under the impression that one of the big pluses of the broad church was its diversity but then again I may be wrong after all Lion Rampant ,Dragon Rampant and Pikemans Lament are  supposedly different aren't they - other than the models in different hats I mean,

One of the things that attracted me to this hobby was its open endedness . The idea that  in theory there are so many possible paths. Some would say that this is even more the case- more scales more toys more rules etc. They are not wrong BUT for some the rules, army lists  and mechanisms straitjacket has become absolute. Again that is - mostly their choice. I choose not to comply. Like Fleetwood Mac I will go my own way- so of course will everyone else. Which is exactly as it should be.

Painting services.

Now in my line of work I come across an awful lot of figure painters. Some very very good indeed. Some not so and some middling. Prices are the same ranging from a good deal to  WTF!! is he having a larf ! Now all of these are of course subjective value judgements not facts. People will pay for what they want so some bloke will be quite prepared to pay £30.00 for a single 28mm foot figure.  Especially if they only want a dozen for their whole"army" . Personally I won't. Hell will freeze over first. Of course I can paint a bit myself but do not have the stamina to be a full time painter. I like to paint what I fancy when I fancy and it is never- for me- about "finishing an army". No army of mine is "finished" unless I sell the lot, usually because it has not been used on the table for a few years. As I have said previously once I sort stuff out quite a few things will have a "For Sale" sign over them . This will include units by some professional painters past and present.

These little 10mm dudes are part of James Main collection. The figures are Old Glory Gradscale 10mm. Jim has also painted numerous units for me and does take commissions but is not a full time painter. He is a builder by trade. 

These 15mm Old Glory Africans were painted for me by Jez at Shakespear Studios. I have always found him very reliable.

However over the years I have used more than a few painters and even pursued one through small claims court- which amongst other things showed me that there are painters out there who are complete arseholes.
 To counter that however many are not. Many are sterling chaps.. Of those in my collection who are still working  full time as figure painters I heartily recommend the following Shakespeare Studios- Jez does the most excellent 15mm moderns including camo and is tasty at other stuff too- including Napoleonics. He did my Falkland War and Rhodesians as well as African Guerrillas. Oh and a lovely battalion of Austrian -Hungarian Grenadiers. All are on the Old Glory UK website. Dave Jarvis  painted stuff for me before he went full time and before I was OGUK. I only have 1 unit of his left- again on the website these being Sikh Wars Ghorracharra  cavalry.

These Sash and Saber 28mm Rebs were some of the first models Darren did for me back in the 1990s 

Old Glory 28mm Turkish Dellis- painted again by Darren Taylor

A bit of wierdness- Cairo Janissaries and Mamluks in 28mm . Old Glory figures again painted by Darren Taylor. The Napoleon in Egypt project there were for stalled a few years ago. I may revive it.

However when I was going back through my collection I realised that I have quite a few units painted by Darren Taylor- a chap I thought had stopped working- but I was wrong as we reconnected over a mutual client recently. Darren - even as I type is still at it. Over the years he has painted all sorts for me ACW, ECW Ottoman Turks and Napoleonics. The header picture for my first post of this blog are Kings Lifeguard that he painted for me in the late 1990s - still going strong.

These Sash and Saber Prussians were painted for me by Jim Main - as Hessians for my AWI collection. 

So yes there are plenty of painters out there doing a fine job but me I still like to paint my own. Some how I gives me a better sense of ownership of the units or armies in question.

More of Darren's Sash and Saber ACW in my collection. 

These 40mm Thirty Years War figures - Romanoff ans Sash and Saber were painted by me. Included here  simply to prove I do not only use painting services.