"New MW - opinion of old MW readers ?" Topic

Now the dust has settled a bit – I was wondering what people who read the old MW thought of the new MW ?

As a Battlegames reader I'm totally happy with it, but although I got the first 150 or so issues of MW I have, for some time, only bought MW at Xmas, so don't feel really able to judge how different the new mag' is based on 1 issue a year, and the Xmas issue at that.

So – regular MW subscribers/readers – what do you think ?

I consider Henry has made so much needed changes.

It may be a reverse takeover but I think Henry has made MW a better read

Total reverse take over, but also a total success. MW went to the dogs years ago, this change is restoring it to the number one spot in the hobby. Great timing with the downfall of WI as it morphs to Battlefronts own version of White Dwarf.

Gave up on MW years ago. For a long while didn't regularly buy any of the mags. Finally decided BG was worth it and have subscribed for the last couple of years. Now lo and behold I'm an MW subscriber!

I prefer to wait until I've seen a few issues before offering a positive or negative viewpoint. Who knows what may or may not be introduced in the new mag, which may or may not please the readers.

But as an 'old' MW reader, I did enjoy reading the historical articles, especially those on areas I knew little about but meant to read more on (War of 1812 etc). I was always working, too deep into research and could never find the time to seek out, buy and read up on all the areas that attracted me. And they inspired me to later research and write Napoleonic and other articles.

But I know that type of article is not everyone's cup of tea. However, I do wish they would pop up now and again in all the mags. To me, it would make a refreshing change from just reading how other people played their games and what rules they used, although I'm always interested in how people adapt an action to their game. They might also attract wargamers to other areas and actions they may not have heard of or considered before.

I did wonder however, if a price drop might help sales, since other wargaming magazines I think offer more pages etc, and are around the same price? Would that make a difference in terms of sales? Just a thought.

Gazza – maybe henry could consider offering links to a web site where that level of history could be found, at teh end of a wargame related piece. That way we can get more info if it appeals beyond the initial game idea.

What do you reckon Henry – do-able tech wise?

Marc – if the contributor provides the relevant links and bibliographical notes, I'll publish them – which is what, I believe, I ask for in the new Contributors' Guidelines available at link

Henry

Marc the plastics fan

MW already does that to a degree, in that it places the OOB's online, due to the space they would have taken up. I guess a full list of sources could also be placed online, if there was a demand for them. However, the OOB's online is something I disagree with but that's just my opinion as a reader and a wargamer. When I'm reading something, I do not always want to have to go online.

But I guess any wargamer, providing they have the time and desire, can trawl the net for information on various battles and campaigns. There is a lot of info out there, although quite a bit is wrong, badly (or perhaps quickly) researched and sometimes spoilt by bias.

However, many wargamers do not have the time or might not want to search out deeper insights and information on battles, which is one of the reasons I found written accounts so enjoyable, plus it is not always that easy to obtain the books, especially out of print titles, or access the sources often given in books and on websites. And some of the good stuff is often not in english and needs translating, which again, takes up time.

If, however, you like researching, then you won't mind spending a considerable amount of time reading and searching out the numerous accounts available or translating material. But, from what I have observed, many wargamers and websites use only a minimum of sources. Again, possibly due to wanting to prepare and play a game as quickly as possible and then move on to the next game.

The historical article idea is to offer an account that has been researched as much as possible and then presented in a magazine, without the need for the wargamer to spend time searching out, obtaining and reading numerous books, viewing numerous sources or endless and often fruitless trawls on the net. (I know, I've done it) It is all there ready for them to adapt to their game.

On a personal choice, if I saw a magazine which included an historical account of an interesting action, I would be more inclined to buy it than one that did not, no matter how many wonderful pictures they might offer. But that is my choice and others might well think the opposite. That's life.

And one thing researching and writing up articles has taught me, is to appreciate those who write good and well researched books. But I have done and always will enjoy a good article, as long as it is well researched.

Gazzola aside, am I right to think all the comments so far are from people whom didn't buy MW in the recent past? (Excepting Henry who probably did [or got a freebie !] but has a "special perspective")

I've bought Miniature Wargames more or less on a regular basis throughout. It was a fine magazine in its day but in the latter years under Iain Dickie it had some real low points, most particularly with regards the photos which continued to look as though they had been staged using a mountain of fish tank gravel and figures and vehicles painted by the blind nuns of Bohemia Wargames group. This continued despite (or in spite of) comments from readers stating they wished this aspect of the mag would improve.
When Andrew Hubback took over things did improve, particularly the photos. I was happier to buy the mag and things were definitely looking up.
Now that Henry has taken over the reins I see even better things on the horizon. The magazine has a 'clean' structured look to it and I assume the content will continue to appeal. The photos also continue to improve.
All in all, I'm happy to continue to buy it and see no reason for it not to go from strength to strength. It's as enjoyable to read as Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy and more worthwhile than Wargames Illustrated.

I've read MW since the single digits. I had a spell of not gaming much or reading mags around a decade ago

In terms of interest:

MW – go to magazine, in part no doubt due to loyalty. Some terrible articles in its time, some fantastic stuff and plenty in between. Not too worried about show reviews (although I tend to go to more these days), nice to keep up with fantasy/sci-fi (even though I don't play that much) and looking back over recent issues there are some realy good ideas for 'alternative' games, particularly as a recent convert to megagaming.
BG – a bit too old school for me (and expensive for what it was). I picked up a few copies to see what the fuss is about. I don't mind some of the articles on new gaming ideas but the editing seemed a bit slack at times. Many aren't fussed about history in with scenarios, I'm not a fan of several pages of a transcribed podcast to be honest.
WI – some of the random stuff in the past put me off it (Mountain men – for several issues, really?) and although I pick up an occasional issue with an appealing theme, I'll not go hunting it down these days.
WS&S – coming up strong in the last year or so and probably the one I am most likely to stick with. I like the look of the magazine, which feels the most modern (despite the MW re-vamp) . The themes aren't always to my taste so will probably hold off subscribing for now.

Slingshot mainly for the history, although I liked some of the recent rule reviews, SOTCW journal for ideas for gaming (one mag I am looking to contribute to this year).

I don't mind some historical background in my articles, paricularly if it's a niche period, as long as there's a balance. The new MW magazine has some interesting stuff (the photography article has inspired me to have a go once I sort my games room) but for me I'd want the columnists and old-school articles to be less-prevalent (maybe alternating issues for contributors, particularly if it's just a ramble of a piece). I know Atlantic and Henry see MW's future as 'BG+' and if that's the case I won't be a regular buyer I suspect, which is fine. I can't see me feeling the urge for more than one per month these days and that will probably be WS&S. BG seems to have more than a following on here than MW so that probably confirms my decision. I will give it a couple more issues though, I just hoped for more of a 'Third Way' I suppose.

I'm not sure about the future for magazines – I've almost always bought in the shop rather than subscribing, just to help make sure they stock them and have them in view, but I look back on them less and less. For nice photos there's the web, along with lots of other resources. Magazines can be good for sparking off new thoughts though and I suppose I'm surprised MW or another didn't look at more of a web-forum presence, maybe bringing in some of the smaller producers who couldn't manage their own.

You know – I haven't looked at WSS for a while – I'll have to give it another look-see.