"Miniature Wargames Issue 366" Topic

Yes !

This is it – probably the best issue yet since the merger with Battlegames.

Good Article on Don Featherstone, and a great piece on the first UK wargame convention.

A complete set of rules for Hollywood wild west.

Henry Hyde refights a battle from DF's War Games.

Wiener Planspielregln – early Austrian wargames – brilliant looking article.

And some other articles, and reviews and comment columns.

For what it's worth – this is what I wanted MWBG to look like. Great stuff.

I was just about to post a review of #355. I think I'll wait until I buy #366 tomorrow and review that instead.

Eleven pages of ancient WWII rules which I suspect no one will use. Then another six on Wild West gunfights. Both these periods have new and popular rule sets out recently i.e. Chain of Command and Dead Man's Hand, I feel my money for this issue has been wasted.

I have to agree a good issue from Henry, it's always good to see rules in Wargames mags.

I agree this is a great issue. This is the sort of issue I love. What it has not got is useless eye candy pictures, info-advertisment articles and sycophantic reviews. It has got thoughtful well written articles about wargames, wargaming and wargamers experiences- stuff worth reading and sadly lacking in all the magazines recently.

Well done Henry!

Eleven pages of ancient WWII rules which I suspect no one will use.

Well, I was thinking of trying them out with a small 2mm setup.

Both these periods have new and popular rule sets out recently i.e. Chain of Command and Dead Man's Hand, I feel my money for this issue has been wasted.

CoC is a very different kettle of fish – aimed at small actions rather than mass battles.

Dead Man's Hand – very nice game, but quite expensive. If someone doesn't want to go Wild West Crazy then the set in MWBG might be what they are looking for. It's not as if Dead Man's Hand was the first ever Wild West Rules (I must have bought three or four sets over the years, and had literally dozens via magazines).

You're entitled to your opinion Belis4rius, but those WWII rules are absolutely current, having gradually evolved, and are being used by a large group of wargamers in Austria to this very day.

I published the article because I, for one, found it fascinating to discover how the hobby has evolved in one part of the Continent in parallel to what has happened here in the UK.

And besides, I, like many gamers I know, have a shelf full of rulesets for which I have paid quite a lot of money, but many of which I have used only once, if at all. From time to time, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a magazine to devote a chunk of space to well thought-through rulesets that can provide an evening's entertainment or that deserve to be seen and appreciated, even if not commercially viable as a stand-alone ruleset. The Wiener Planspielregeln were, after all, developed by a Colonel in the Austrian Army who served in WWII, which I think gives him reasonable credentials.

It just so happens that serendipity brought both the Wiener Planspielregeln and the 'Hollywood' Wild West rules together in this issue. And if I worried about what was coming out commercially, then I'd be too scared to ever publish a ruleset – or any articles at all, because of all the blogs and other magazines out there.

Heck, give them a try – you might even enjoy them.

Henry
Miniature Wargames with Battlegames

I, for one, found it fascinating to discover how the hobby has evolved in one part of the Continent in parallel to what has happened here in the UK.

Make that two.

Make that three!

Not only were the rules interesting as a parallel development to the Featherstone/Young/Grant style games popular in the UK, but they use a gridded terrain – a technique that is now being used again in rules such as Bob Cordery's Portable Wargame, to name but one.

I enjoy reading new, non-commercial rules in MWBG and elsewhere: I can try them out as written, adapt them if I want and, if they prove not to be what I want, drop them like a hot brick – but they won't have cost me nearly as much as buying a glossy, 'eye-candy' filled commercial set!

What pray, Belis4rius, would you rather have on the pages of a magazine?

I was tempted to not write anything on MWBG but after receiving issue 366 and not liking it I decided to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

If you read my original post I have issues with 366, not all the rest.

And, like some people, many in fact it would seem, like to praise MWBG, I decided to not praise this issue, and, as Henry mentioned, this is my right.

I do not need to say what I require in a wargame magazine, I either enjoy the content or I do not, usually it is the former, but in this case it is the latter.

I seem to be in a minority at the moment, but time will tell, it is early days yet. I have merely stated my opinion, so kindly get off my back!

For obvious reasons, I'm not going to make any comment about any of the contents of Issue 366.

However, I will say one thing that I disagree with, not getting on your back, just to point something out:

'I do not need to say what I require in a wargame magazine, I either enjoy the content or I do not, usually it is the former, but in this case it is the latter.'

The best way of influencing the content of anything is by constructive criticism. If you say 'I didn't like this because' then fine. But what would you like in it's place? If Henry finds out that the majority of people don't like one kind of article, he'll stop printing that kind of article. If he finds that everyone loves a particular kind of article, he'll try and print more.

So it really, really is in your interest to say what you personally 'require'.

Greenwood and Ball, now that brings back memories, top of the range 25mm.

Thank you.

And, like some people, many in fact it would seem, like to praise MWBG, I decided to not praise this issue, and, as Henry mentioned, this is my right.

Always praising MWBG is not something I'm always said to have done ( )….if I don't like an issue I'll say so but this issue was (for me) excellent. And like GarrisonMiniatures said – if there's a general trend of "don't like that" responses to certain articles then that should hopefully shape the magazine in the future.

On a related point, I have run across individuals on this or that forum who believe they are not "responsible" for the content of this or that magazine. They are consumers and should be entertained or given their money's worth.

When I quietly suggested that they pick up a pen or spend some time sitting at a keyboard, I was told – in no uncertain terms mind you – that producing content was not their responsibility.

How does one argue with that? (Coincidentally, Mr. Barry Hilton has a humorous piece in the October issue of WI about the Internet and what it has done to the hobby.)

There is a saying: If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it.

While I do think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, it seems to be a matter of common civility. If you don't like something, fine. It's much easier to be a critic, to find fault, then it is to – again – pick up a pen or tackle the keyboard and make a contribution.

Chris

I have contributed to wargame magazines for just over 25 years.

Perhaps if you used your real name, people would have realised that, Belis4rius. Anonymity is a two-edged sword.

Henry

No, it is the internet thing, people assume stuff because it suits their argument. Therefore he came out with a time worn argument, put up or shut up. I doubt if he knew my name he would have put two and two together and come up with four.

I am not looking for an argument, I simply wrote I was not keen on the latest issue, end of.

I won't change my mind simply because people take the opposite view to me and are vocal about it. If they like the issue then fine, they do not actually have to pick on me for not liking it as though I have committed some kind of crime.

In the wargame society journals I think its's a great thing for as many members as possible to join in – common interests should be shared.

In the glossies I'm in two minds. If everyone wrote something most of it wouldn't get published (10,000 articles coming in every month, phew !).

On the other hand the best way to get a magazine to be "what you like to read" is to get the ball rolling in that direction.

On the whole, like any other product, I think the purchaser is free to say "this is great" or "this sucks a lemon". If I get a kit that's hard to put together – I'll say so. If I get a magazine that's dull – I'll say so. MWBG 366, for me, was a right good read .

Belis4rius,
If my final question came across as 'picking on' you, I apologise – that was not my intention.
Nor was I expecting you to 'change your mind'. I was simply interested to know what you would prefer to see – as you say, it may be the internet thing; I'm sure had we been talking face to face it would not have come across like that.
Arthur

The Austrian article is one of those nuggets that I am always in hope of finding in wargaming magazines. I'd really like a close-up look at the collection of buildings and figures. The article ticks the boxes – something fresh, a new approach, in context pics of figures and buildings, something on implementation of the system, popular subject, in-depth coverage and so on.

Yet I found the wild west article to be mind-numbingly boring. Why? Although in theory it ticks some of the boxes, it is a topic too familiar already probably. What makes a western game interesting? Choice of personal weapons and your horse.

Yet again someone who posts something that isn't 100% approval and recieves:

- censure for saying there was an issue they didn't like, instead of just shutting up and not posting. I mean, it's not as if the magazines themselves post reviews where both positive and negative comments are made about commercial products…perish the thought.
- a dig about not using their real name, even though there are plenty of others on here who choose not to do so. What difference does it really make and shouldn't you be addressing the point instead?
- an insistence that they should be writing their own articles, despite Henry never responding to negative criticism by asking for people to do so. If Henry isn't printing the articles they want and says he's happy with the magazine as is, why should they (personal circumstances permitting) spend a lot of time producing something that won't make it in the magazine anyway? There are plenty of reasons for not writing articles anyway and it's ridiculous to suggest that we should do so before holding an opinion contrary to others.

Some things never seem to change…

For any particular issue of a wargames magazine, there is always a certain amount of criticism:

"It doesn't cover my favourite period."
"It doesn't cover my favourite scale."
"It doesn't cover my favourite set of commercial rules."
"It has too many reviews."
"It has too many ads."
Etc.

Although one might not like a particular issue – and I am sometimes in that camp as well – I guess that most wargamers are smart enough to realize that not every single issue can be 100% to their liking and judge a magazine over the period of a whole year. Criticism on a single issue should not be extrapolated to criticism on the mag as a whole.

Whether one voices his criticism in gentle or stronger tones, if at all, is more a matter of style than anything else.

Clearly it's a marmite thing with MWBG. Why is that?

I like it, but then I like WSS as well. But WSS does not seem to get knocked in the same way – why is that? Is it bevcause Henry is on TMP and responds, or is it deeper?

I tend to take a long term view to the magazines – I know I won't like every issue, but there will be enough to keep me going over time.

@ Phil Dutre

That list of points – well, yes…and no.

Battle – I read everything, cover to cover, several times. Even the stuff I didn't understand (so, what is a romphia exactly ?). Could put that down to youth and enthusiasm for a new hobby.

Practical Wargamer – I read everything, cover to cover, at least once. Even the stuff I really wasn't interested in (WWII Naval campaigns as it happens). Why ? Because it was all worth reading.

Battlegames – pretty much ditto to PW. Have gone back and reread Henry's Imaginations series a couple of times.

MWBG – got off to a good start, but IMO then had a couple of "shakey" issues (too much comment & reviews – I'm not sure exactly where the balance point is but I suspect it's somewhere around 25% as a real maximum of the magazine). MWBG 366 is quite like BG and PW. For me – it's back on track. For others it may be a disaster !

I will post a full review of #366 on Wednesday. Fingers crossed.

What I will say until then is that the "bedding in" phase of MW w/ BG is over: This format isn't the new one anymore, it's the standard.

A link to your blog would be useful as well.

This issue seemed more BG than MW to me in style and content.

A good thing, surely. MW seemed a bit stuck, so Henry has breathed fresh life into it with the BG slant.

@Volleyfire – that's it in a nut shell to be honest.

We used to have Miniature Wargames and Battlegames, we now only have Battlegames, and I feel we are worse off for it.

Oddly, the issues I buy seem to be Battlegames and Miniature wargames combined. Maybe you need to have a word with your retailer if you only get Battlegames.

Jeez, that's a cheap shot, I would be embarrased having bothered to post that Gerard, I feel bad having replied. And where did you get that ridiculous name, or is it supposed to be cool and unique?

A good thing, surely. MW seemed a bit stuck, so Henry has breathed fresh life into it with the BG slant.

Depends entirely on your point of view.
I think Andrew tried various ideas out to try and bring MW more into the current realm of magazine content, some of it worked, some didn't. But you don't know until you try. I thought some ideas could have been continued, I liked the idea of traveling the UK visiting different clubs and interviewing their members with some pictures of typical club games etc.I can see the shortcomings in the idea, but as a way of promoting grass roots gaming and possibly persuading some solo gamers to perhaps go join a club, or for people who didn't even realise they had a club near them and have been wanting to join one for ages I thought it might work.
Anyhow, as someone who stopped subscribing to BG a while ago after giving it a good run because I wasn't interested in much of the contents as it seemed too old school to me in certain aspects, a bit 1970's in some parts in style and content perhaps, and that's the bit I'm not too keen on with MW now, for what my humble opinion is worth. I thought MW was getting better in some areas in the last 2 issues, but I was disappointed with 366 I'm afraid. I know it's all a matter of personal taste and you can't please everyone unfortunately, for all the many reasons Andrew Hubback and Henry Hyde have mentioned in numerous posts on TMP in the past, and I for one don't envy them in their position having to edit a magazine such as this. I surmise there are many who would think its possibly their 'dream' job, but it looks a thankless task at times, and you need a pretty tough hide ( no pun intended Henry!)

Hubback era MW was solid meat n' potatoes stuff for the most part and I don't look back at that era and see all kinds of problems. It was the kind of magazine where you would skip over the bits that didn't interest you to focus on the bits that did because sometimes the writing or the subject matter didn't have a hook to reel you in. Columnists and themes for columns seemed to come and go; the Dark Horizons bit looked like it might break out into its own magazine and I was often baffled by Gary Mitchell's tastes in Sci-fi movies and TV (John Carter was good? Really? I mean…really?). One thing I didn't like about the previous era were the paint jobs and photos of the WW2 models; shiny Airfix kits with glossy finishes set in a backdrop of sponge like lichen all too often.

MW w/BG is that same meat n' potatoes but now with all kinds of exotic sauces and trimmings over it prepared by argumentative Michelin star chefs.

@ubercommando

For real, I laughed out loud.

Thank you. That cheered me up no end as yet another deadline thunders towards me like a freight train (367 goes to press Friday).

Which one of us is Gordon Ramsay?

Henry

One thing you can honestly say about MW from the beginning I think is that the pictures and their subject matter had never been it's strongest point. At least that aspect has improved over the last couple of years.

Volleyfire wrote: 'One thing you can honestly say about MW from the beginning I think is that the pictures and their subject matter had never been it's strongest point.'

Personally, I think the fact that MW was not 'picture-led' was a major point in its favour!

And MWwBG appears to be following suit – it does not seem to me to be picture led, but the quality of the pictures has improved immeasurably. I think the range of subject matter is interestingly wide, which in my mind is a good thing.

If I wanted to wallow in my own hobby interests, I could just browse the dozens of wargame blogs devoted to the types of games that I play.

The last thing I want from a wargame magazine is a mirror that reflects only my little corner of the hobby. I don't want the editor to create the issue that I want to read; I want him to create the issue that he wants to read, so I see the hobby from his perspective (and that of his columnists). Andrew did that, and Henry does it even better.

Agreed.

Don't feel bad Belis4rius, after all, it was a cheap shot and I wrote it, not you so cheer up, it's not the end of the world! I use the name Jubilation T Cornpone because I sang it when I was in Lil Abner. Nothing cool or particularly unique about it. I agree, it's fairly ridiculous though, lol!

…and in the Lil Abner stories, he was a rubbish general.

I have to disagree with War Artizan, I'd rather read about things that interest me and absorb me than something obscure which is neither. As for columnist's points of view, well they are subjective obviously, and I prefer the ones in WSS over say Mr Shuck because they don't paint such a negative picture of specific rules or games which he does with ones he doesn't particularly like. I too have some sets I dislike more than others, but I that is my personal preference based on previous experiences which I tend to keep to myself and I don't see why it should be broadcast in a magazine. I don't buy magazines to be wound up about things associated with a hobby, I buy it to relax with and enjoy when I want to unwind after a long hard week. If editors or their columnists want to be controversial or bait their readers then fine, I'll stop buying their magazine. After all, hobbies are supposed to be fun, that's the whole point isn't it?

I, too, frequently enjoy reading about my specific interests, Volleyfire. My point was that a wargame magazine (which is a collection of material assembled by someone who doesn't know me and likely has very different tastes) is an unlikely place to look for that. And, if a particular issue of a magazine happened to be packed end to end with nothing but things that interested me, I'm sure a majority of other wargamers would fail to find it anywhere near as fascinating as I did.

Anyone who relies on magazines to cater consistently to their particular tastes, issue after issue, is doomed to disappointment. That would be like going into an ice cream shop and ordering a random flavor ("Oh, I don't know . . . surprise me!"), and then expecting it to be your favorite every time.

What a magazine is good at is opening a window on the many and various ways others enjoy this hobby.

As for negative reviews, I find them useful and interesting, whether I agree with the reviewer's assessment or not. I get tired of endless parades of enthusiastic "kewl!" and "awesome!" type reviews.

Yes, hobbies are supposed to be fun. That is the whole point, but fun comes in many different flavors . . . sometimes strikingly different.

It's true, he was a rubbish general. Hence the song!

A magazine editor has no idea what you, the individual reader, wants to read so to expect them to print articles that cater for your own tastes is unrealistic. Of course, you can give them feedback later on and that might influence articles in the future but that's about as far as that line of argument goes.

As for opinionated columnists, going after a particular set of rules and railing against it isn't as good as extolling the virtues of a product that you do like. Maybe it's because I'm a glass half full person but a rant against game X doesn't appeal…doubly so if I like the game being slagged off.

I'm with you on the last bit Uber. I always thought Andrew's feedback pullout and post section every year was a good idea about getting feedback from as many of his readers as possible. Given that Napoleonic and WW2 feature at the top of the list for most popular periods every time though you would almost expect every editor to squeeze something in covering one or both periods every month just to keep the majority of readers happy, wouldn't you? That way they help keep their sales up.

@Volleyfire
The response to those questionnaires was tiny — sometimes embarrassingly so, and certainly not statistically significant enough to base editorial decisions on. Bluntly, I use my experience and judgement instead.

If I had more articles sent to me on the major periods accompanied by half decent photos, you'd be seeing them more often. The burden of drumming up good photos *relevant to the articles* (as opposed to just random eye candy) is the biggest one I face, especially as a monthly magazine devours content at a startling rate.

Apologies for sounding like a stuck gramophone, but editors can only publish the material they get sent and fill the gaps where they can. As it happens, 367 has both Napoleonics and WW2 in it!

Henry

Ooh – Naps and WW2. Looking forward to it. I must admit I like teh Naps that are used each issue to advertise the next issue, but always slightly disappointed not to see any more of them. Tease