"Miniature Wargames to merge with Battlegames" Topic

I don't think there has been any Imaginations stuff in BG at all. Here's why.
Imagi-nations is a relatively recent term invented within the last decade to describe fanciful parodies of usually 18thC countries. It is not the classic 28mm horse and musket wargaming of old.
Imagi-nations means games where (quoting from a post on the Imaginations board) the 'rulers' were responsible of economical choices, politics, diplomacy, grand strategical decisions and dirty tricks (assassination, blackmailing, smear campaigns, sabotage, spying…) Without these aspects, it is not Imagi-nations.
None of this ever appeared in the 18thC books published in the 70's, so saying that it is 70s is incorrect. Nor has it appeared in BG.
I would argue that Imagi-nations is more of a relatively modern American invention that a 70's British thing. Certainly there were fictional campaigns in the 70's, but these were more to give all players an equal start and not to force players to play sides they weren't interested in. The use of fictional countries saved players from having to find accurate information about historical armies which was extremely difficult to get hold of.
BG has been no more Imagi-Nations than Kriegsspiel was.
I don't see how one fictional force/campaign is better than another just because it is published in a Flames Of War book.

Both Charles Grant (senior) in The War Game and Brigadier Peter Young and Lieutenant-Colonel JP Lawford in Charge! referred to fictional, vaguely Germanic/Holy Roman Empire 18th century countries in their seminal wargame books.

Their books, however, focussed on tactical battles between relatively small forces, rather than on conducting campaigns with the detailed economic/political backgrounds and personal activities thehawk describes, which – IMHO – does not prevent them being early proponents of the Imagi-Nation concept. But they were not the first: it is clear from Lloyd Osbourne's accounts of the games played with his stepfather that Robert Louis Stevenson had devised a fictitious campaign background for their miniature armies, whereas HG Wells's Red and Blue armies in Little Wars were only fighting out tactical problems in similar manner to the Kriegsspiel.

Others have simply developed the Imagi-Nation concept further in more recent times.

Just to say I wish Henry lots of luck. What I've seen of Battlegames has been good.

MW went downhill in the Ian Dickie era and I don't think it changed enough in the AH period. In fact one or two of the regular contributors really were mistakes in my view.

Also the quality of photo content has been really poor since the turn of the Century. Its not particularly exciting to consistently see figures and terrain worse than the stuff you play with every week!

Its not particularly exciting to consistently see figures and terrain worse than the stuff you play with every week!

------------------
For all the anti-eye candy comments voiced by some re WI, i'd rather see pics that inspire me than ones that make me think 'I can do miles better than that' when I am paying for the privilege of seeing said photos

I don't think there has been any Imaginations stuff in BG at all. Here's why.
-------------------
ok then – i am not interested in reading articles about wargaming campaigns involving made up nations that I am not involved in, such as the recent article in BG which included discussing the merits of light and heavy cavalry in a made up Napoleonic era campaign – if other people do then great for them.

i'd rather see pics that inspire me than ones that make me think 'I can do miles better than that' when I am paying for the privilege of seeing said photos

Exactly, for me its like looking at some traders of pre painted figure at Shows and thinking why would I pay money for things that are worse that what I can paint myself?

My only gripe with WI is its existence as a FoW house mag.

My only gripe with WI is its existence as a FoW house mag.
-------------------
though to be honest if one excludes for example the Feb 2013 edition which was themed to Market Garden (and thus linked to FOW), the FOW content is not as overpowering as some would think

i am not interested in reading articles about wargaming campaigns involving made up nations that I am not involved in, such as the recent article in BG which included discussing the merits of light and heavy cavalry in a made up Napoleonic era campaign

As the editor, I don't recognise the issue you're referring to. Perhaps you could be more specific.

But I *have* used imagi-nations as a tool to discuss battle tactics and strategy, without the prejudices that often accompany references to real historical opponents, in the same way as armies have used 'Red' and 'Blue' for decades. And I shall continue to do so where appropriate. Just because the armies have imaginary names doesn't mean that the general principles aren't valid.

Henry

hi – it was the Win More Wargames article that I was thinking of in issue 33 – just not my cup of tea.

I often think that people judge the photos in MW on the basis of one copy they bought 10 years ago and they haven't looked at it since. Looking at more recent issues, all I can say is that if you play every week with stuff better than that produced by Kevin Dallimore, the Perry twins and John Treadaway then lucky old you!

Latest issue of WSS has article by Jervis on how painting standards in magazines etc have evolved (perhaps too far). I still find the old Grant figures pictures inspirational – not for the paint jobs per se, but for the fun the author clearly had with them.

It is nice to see "eye candy", but a good game demonstrated by pics is nice as well. The old Battle mag pictures were not the best (and black and white!) but still inspirational.

I bought a copy of MW last month and was shocked by the poor quality of the photos, especially how a particularly amateur shot had also been enlarged to fill a sidebar. I fully understand the concept of 'showing gaming how it is' rather than just having Dallimore-esque close ups, and hate to be critical, but I was amazed how the pics used could have even been considered for print by a professional magazine.

I think the latest copy of WSS has an article by Rick Priestley about painting standards in gaming, but not Jervis.

I wish Henry all the best and really look forward to his new venture.

Without an issue and page number, Pict17, it is impossible to respond to such as generalised criticism.

As WI is almost twice the size of MW they could put MW & BG together and have a good magazine.
I rather liked the 'win more wargames' articles personally.
There is a gulf between the average painter and those that do some amazing art work with their figures. It can possibly be off putting if you think you need to be that standard but a look around wargames shows/competetions gives a better impression of the standard painting of figures.
Perhaps BG just wasn't different enough or better than the established magazines.

@sumerandaccad

You can hear the facts in episode 101 of the Meeples & Miniatures podcast

link

Henry
Battlegames and now Miniature Wargames

Just seen an ad for the new MW look in battlegames, it has a white surround with inset box, WOW what a letdown, very bland and basic, is that really the best they could come up with for the new look?

Don't judge a book – or a magazine – by its cover. After all, when you're reading the book/magazine, you aren't actually looking at its cover!

Since – in my experience, anyway – most magazines aren't white, it should show up well amongst all the others on the shelves.

Patient Zero,

Sorry to be too general, I have dug out the copy of the magazine. It's MW Issue 357. My main concerns were:
pg. 8 sidebar – not in focus and not really showing anything
pg.12 sidebar – apparently a shot of a radiator and some dice
pg.16 sidebar – not in focus…
Regardless of personal taste as to the content of the pics,I felt that all these sidebars detracted from the content on the page and were not what I expected from a professional magazine with a cover price of £4.25 GBP.

P17 – sorry, you are so right. Glad we got that confusion sorted out.

Pict 17,

Given that 357 was published before Christmas, I am not quite sure how you came to buy it 'last month' but, be that as it may, none of the pictures you refer to are sidebars! (a sidebar is a panel or boxed off column containing supplementary information. It may or may not be accompanied by a photo). If you look closely, you will see the pictures are expanded versions of photos that appear in the main body of the article – that is (or was) the mag's house style and not necessarily something I control, but, in blowing them up, they naturally lose a bit of resolution. If that is the end of the world for you, I am sorry. If you have the balls to send me your real name and address, I will refund the cover price out of my own pocket and maybe that will shut you up.

Have quite enjoyed reading Issue 34 of BG (from Exact Editions). Am quite looking forward to receiving the first issue of the new hybrid. The white cover looks very, very good!

While the editorial in BG 34 addressed many concerns, what is the status of articles and reports submitted to Mr. Hubback? Will these be returned unused? Will they find a place in a future issue of MW w/BG? Will these contributors be compensated? What are the guidelines for those amateurs interested in writing up something for the new magazine?

Thanks in advance.

Chris

@Centurion of Caesar

Thanks for the compliment, Chris.

All articles submitted to MW have been forwarded to me for assessment and use in due course. All contributions published will be paid for by Atlantic at theeir standard rates.

I'm in the process of drawing up new Contributors' Guidelines for the meged publication and will make them available for download as soon as they are ready (which will be announced here and elsewhere).

If you want to keep up-to-date you might like to check out the Battlegames Facebook page facebook.com/battlegames (and I'm building a new one for Miniature Wargames) and my blog henrys-wargaming.co.uk . I shall also be building a new stand-alone website/blog for Miniature Wargames in due course.

Henry
(currently somewhere between Battlegames and Miniature Wargames)

Patient Zero

Nice to hear from you Andrew.

I think all wargaming magazines will have a problem trying to please all the readers and their different interests, such as different historical periods, different miniatures, scales and preferred rules. However, from what I can see of the various magazines available, they all did a very good job in their own way. A shame that two have got to become one.

And the sidebars complaint for MW357 seems a bit harsh, since they are part of the article background. And I don't think they affected how the article looked or the reading of it. It certainly did not affect my reading of the articles and I did not really notice them until the complaint by Pict17.

But I imagine there will always be someone not happy with some element of a magazine, not enough this and not enough that etc, and that will probably apply to the merging of MW & BG publication. But I do hope it will be successful, since I'm sure we would all prefer to see more magazines available on our hobby rather than less. And new magazines will need to be given time to stake their place in the market.

On reflection I would like to retract the comments in my last post and apologise unequivocally to Pict17 and anyone else who was offended by them.
I may be 'de-mob happy' but that is no excuse for addressing a reader in such an unprofessional manner. I remain grateful for all the feedback, negative and positive, that is offered about MW and hope readers will give the new version of the magazine under Henry Hyde a fair crack of the whip.

Henry,

Very much appreciate the lightning response and suggestions on keeping up to date. I have added your blog to my bookmark bar.

Still looking forward to the appearance/arrival of the May issue of MWw/BG.

Best wishes,

Chris

Under Iain Dickie the photography in Miniature Wargames was quite frankly appalling and didn't make the magazine particularly appealing. Under Andrew Hubback the whole mag was being pulled round and put back on a better footing. Under Henry and being merged with Battlegames I don't see why this trend shouldn't continue. I also love the clean lines of the white, uncluttered cover. Personally, I'm looking forward to it.

I wasnt judging the magazine by its cover, I was judging the cover by the cover, after listening to Henry waffle on a podcast about how brilliant the new cover design is and what a good job he did of the redesign of the cover, it was an anticlimax to see the new MW cover was in all reality the Battlegames cover but in white, ok some small typeface differences but wow was that the brilliant cover these people were talking about. Oh and look in WHSmiths there are a lot of white covers out there. I am not judging the magazine itself as that is an imposibility becuase its not out yet.

@emoteuk

I think it's fair to say, Brian, that you are putting words into my mouth. To say that I "waffled on about how brilliant the new cover design is" would be something of an exaggeration. I simply described the process that I had been through over the last few weeks and, indeed, my own suprise and delight that the client accepted the proposals.

What I said was that I was commissioned to come up with a new front cover, I presented a number of options, the boss chose the option that he liked the best (and he was indeed effusive with his compliments), and so that is indeed the cover that will be used for the new MW/BG.

The cover is certainly minimalist in its approach – deliberately so – and it was also, as I explained in the podcast, designed to echo the design of the Battlegames front cover. That was the brief. Had I been asked to come up with a different sort of design, I would have done so.

In my opinion, the design is striking for the very reason that it *is* uncluttered. The wargames press has often fallen foul of trying to cram a quart into a pint pot visually, and my own professional experience has shown that less is often more. The whole point was to make the cover unlike that of any of the other wargame magazines – and love it or hate it, you surely have to concede that it achieves that goal.

But you of course are entitled to your opinion. One man's uncluttered is another man's boring, of course. I would prefer to think of it as elegant and stylish, with strong typography.

I've been a designer for a very long time and I'm used to the fact that you can't please everyone, and I'm sorry that you are clearly disappointed (though you haven't indicated what you would have preferred). But the proof will be in the results on the newsstands in due course.

Henry
Miniature Wargames with Battlegames

Henry, are the BG binders still available, as I will almost have an entire set for protection soon once I find number 34.

Mind you, if you could have reached 36 that would have completely filled the binder :-)

Looking forward to seeing the new design and the new combined mag – have not located any copies in London yet.

@Marc

I believe so -- Warners had the remaining stock, so best to contact them via subscriptions@warnersgroup.co.uk

I think they were doing them for £12.50 GBP incl. p&p UK.

I too was sad that we didn't make the full three dozen. :-( Ah, well…

If you want to see the cover, here it is:

H

emoteuk, I wasn't suggesting that you were judging the content of the new MWBG by its cover, just that covers per se are unimportant, what matters is the content.

IMHO, it's rather sad that so much importance seems to be attached to cover design and quality of photographs and/or of painting of the wargame figures illustrated therein. I love my copies of books by Featherstone, Wesencraft and Morschauser, none of which have beautiful photographs or covers.

But that's because I enjoy playing games with my toy soldiers far more than I do painting them, and I appreciate that others feel differently.

This is the first time I have seen what the front cover will look like and I must say I like the way the word 'Wargames' is so prominent. And the white background also helps the wargame image stand out.

And I don't think any wargamer would buy a magazine based solely on what is on the front cover. Most wargamers I know always look at the contents and then decide if they want to buy it or not.

actually to solely judge it by its cover, that May 2013 edition looks very good

oooh – I likey that a lot :-)

Well, if that is the standard of photography to come then us "lead porn" gamers will not be able to complain too much.

And Henry – thanks for that, I shall order from Warners direct.

Now to find a copy of BG and the new Beatles album, sorry, white cover WI

I think that's a great cover. Thats the kind of picture I like to see in a magazine, great figures and attractive terrain. Photography as inspiration.

I love the white background.

Oh, and if any one has a spare BG binder for sale please let me know – Warners do not sell them :-(

Not a good start to my future relationship with them…

Dear Henry

Hi, long time no speak. Heard about your appointment. I don't know if congratulations or condolences are in order, but I know from writing for Historical Gamera and the Courier that publishers of gamezines are always in need of content. I am therefore sending you about 100 articles that I have published in the small private mag I put out, "Saxe and Violets" over the past 8 years, and you can pick and chose any you would like to use for your endeavor. Just let me know and I'll punch them up and modernize them if they need it and send it on. Many have lots of artwork with them in Jpeg and that's coming to. The package should be there in about a week. They are virtually ALL of them on Imagi-nations and the how to do of it, or what others have done.

Good Luck

Otto

Thank you Otto, I look forward to your package.

Henry

All articles submitted to MW have been forwarded to me for assessment and use in due course. All contributions published will be paid for by Atlantic at theeir standard rates.

I'm in the process of drawing up new Contributors' Guidelines for the meged publication and will make them available for download as soon as they are ready (which will be announced here and elsewhere).

Henry,
At the risk of appearing impatient, will contributors whose material has been selected for publication be informed of this honor? If a submission has been declined, will they also be told?
Having looked over your guidelines for contributors, I fear that my report to the previous editor (sent in November of 2011) will not meet your standards.
C'est la guerre, non?

Regards,
Chris

@Centurion

Chris – I certainly will be in touch with all contributors. I've had a mountain of stuff to catch up with, as well as getting the first of 'my' issues out (published this week). I have plans in place so that as far as possible, ALL contributions will be used, possibly with revision where necessary.

So, hold your fire, Chris, I'll be in touch, hopefully within the next week or two. (I mustn't over-promise on timings because we have the gigantic Salute show here in the UK next Saturday.)

Henry

Henry,
Thanks for the update. I do appreciate that have more than a lot on your plate. I have a program for SALUTE. I've never been, so I cannot really compare it to LITTLE WARS, an event coming up in two weeks.

Have an enjoyable (and profitable) day at SALUTE!

Looking forward to the arrival of the first issue of the merged mag!

Thanks again.

Chris

Speaking as both a contributor and as a wargamer, I think it will be a big task for any magazine to attempt to please its readers all the time. One magazine alone cannot contain articles on all the various historical periods, fantasy, miniatures, rules, books etc.

They can only do their best and offer as much as they can per issue. This means that wargamers will probably, as with all magazines, be very happy with some issues but a little disappointed with others. I can't see it being any other way.

I doubt many of us (apart from subscribers) have bought a magazine that did not contain even one small article covering our perferred wargaming period or miniatures? So that suggest that the need to contain as much variety as possible is essential for a magazine's existence.

But thankfully, with MW+BG, we have not lost two casualties, we have just closed ranks. Plus, in my opinion, and as much as I employ the net, it is great to think that there are still magazines available with which you can sit back, relax and enjoy at leisure. In my case, with a nice cup of tea. (I'm British, what else!)