"Review of Miniature Wargames #367" Topic

OK, no time for mucking around let's just dive straight in.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS: Nice late Republican Rome photo on the front; about one turn away from the two battle lines crashing into one another. Salamanca is back (yay), another Featherstone article (or two) and much more we're assured.

BRIEFING: Henry pays tribute, again, to Donald Featherstone and describes a meeting in a cupboard at Colours where the Donald Featherstone Memorial weekend was conceived.

FORWARD OBSERVER: The name "Neil Shuck" appears right next to a picture of Flames of War's spin off, Fate of a Nation. This can only spell one thing: A pop at the game.
To be fair, Mr Shuck only says one negative thing about FoW but it's the worst thing he could have said: Wall to wall tanks. This urban myth about the game ranks alongside "Daleks can't go upstairs" and "Humphrey Bogart says 'play it again, Sam'" as fallacies that have been repeated often enough to enter some peoples' minds as truth. There is nothing in the rules, nothing built into FoW that insists on wall to wall tanks, it happens in some games because that's the way some players like to play it. I've played the game at 3 different clubs and seen it at enough shows to know that it's not done universally but that it is usually done by newcomers to the game (or WW2 gaming in general) and those more used to pushing closely packed legions and phalanxes around a table. If Mr Shuck wants to criticise the actual game mechanics, Battlefront's sales policy or the obsessive nature of FoW tournament players then fine, that at least has some basis in objectivity but to trot out the usual disparaging falsehood about the game smacks of lazy journalism. Besides, this bit departs from the Forward Observer remit and doesn't talk about new releases, but how he's looking to resurrect his old Six Day War game and pondering whether Cold War Commander would be right for it.

Compare that with a criticism he makes of Bolt Action later on. He notes that with the Pegasus Bridge model, troops at one end cannot hit those at the other end because of the range limits of rifles in the game. This opens up all kinds of debates about the merits of Bolt Action, the concept of abstracted ranges in order to promote manoeuvrability and whether 28mm is suitable for a 6x4' table but at least those debates begin with a point in those rules.

QUAY TO SUCCESS: Right, I need a big swig of coffee after that last rant. OK, the Wargaming Widow really has produced a stunning 17th/18th Century quay model using stuff commonly found in DIY stores. A great looking piece although it's a bit vague on scale (I presume it's for 28mm models) and dimensions.

FANTASY FACTS: Mainly looking at some nice figures in 15mm and 28mm for those "hard" SF games such as Hammer's Slammers, Tomorrow's War or, my choice, Striker.

FIRST IN THE FIELD: A look at Don Featherstone's place in wargaming history. I enjoyed this article but I know others, who thought last month's issue contained too much on him, won't appreciate the space being taken up by yet another tribute. It is enlightening to hear that his collected works are being released under the History of Wargaming Project.

SALAMANCA'S SIREN CALL: A welcome return to the series, which I've been following with interest. This time, Henry looks into the cavalry and artillery deployed in the battle. Less on the OOB, but more about the nuts and bolts about how to depict them in the game. Critics will note that it's page 23 before the first gaming article appears.

COMMAND CHALLENGE: The attack on the Papadopoli Islands in October 1918. I'd not heard of this battle before and one of the great things about wargaming magazines is the ability to bring you something new and previously unheard of. A good bit about the battle itself before getting into the scenario and the rules. I like the set up, although my one criticism is that the early game phase of crossing the river is entirely random: The Allies roll dice to see how far across the river and the Austrians roll dice to see if they spot them. There's no player choice involved here, such as the Allies deciding how fast they want to move or the Austrians setting search patterns. I think adding these will make for more tactical planning and thinking.

SEND THREE AND FOURPENCE: Just when you think there couldn't be more Don Featherstone tributes to be paid, along comes Conrad Kinch's. But don't write it off, because Mr Kinch says something terrific at the end: "The best way to remember (Don) is to share the hobby…Play some games with a new player, be they young or old. Try to be as welcoming as you can to newcomers at your club". Amen to that!

THE IMPORTANCE OF IMAGI-NATION: A very enthusiastic and passionate article about using fictitious nations and army units in wargames…you know the sort, Ruritania, Duchy of Grand Fenwick, that kind of thing. I was sceptical at first but the author is so enthusiastic, you kind of go along with his idea. It reminded me a bit of Rick Priestly's excellent piece in WSS a few months back about the adventure and excitement of wargaming as opposed to dour button-counting.

PLENTY OF WEIGLE ROOM: See what they did there? An interview with Bruce Weigle, an American wargamer and author of "1866" who creates really good and accurate terrain boards for his battles. The article is less about his game designs and focuses on how he creates terrain boards that give players a more accurate appreciation of the battlefield.

WIENER PLANSPIELREGELN: Part two of the pioneering Austrian set of wargames rules that featured in the previous issue. This time it's the advanced rules with air support and engineers covered plus a scenario and OOBs for German SS v US armour. I know some people might be interested but a section won't be into this grid-system type of game at all. I am neutral although I will say this: They seem to like gloss finishes in Austria.

AN ONSLAUGHT OF SPEARS: Gaming the Danish invasion of England, 11th Century AD. Ethelred and his son, Edmund Ironsides, v Canute (or Aethelred v Cnut if you like). Good historical background covered and it describes how you can set up a campaign game around it. Some rules are discussed but the mechanics seem too complex, or just not described well enough in the article. You have a deck of cards and you deal a hand to each player (how many are dealt isn't mentioned) and it follows like Bridge with strong and weak suits which seem to do different things and actions are resolved using D16s (I was wondering if it was a typo and they meant D6 instead but D16 is repeated throughout the article). Or you can take the historical information and use SAGA instead.

RECCE: Are we nearly at the end already? The pace of the magazine has really zipped along. OK, nice reviews of books (the FN FAL by Osprey caught my eye), a review of the game Godslayer: Rise of Legends (which makes it sound like one of those interminable fantasy movies designed to make teenage girls swoon) and some really niche topics such as German colonial troops of WW1, the Roman general Germanicus and Peninsular war cavalry. Plus some funky bits of models that are accompanied by good photos.

Finally there's the Battlegames combat stress appeal plus the secret eye candy page…which is nice.

OVERALL: I enjoyed reading it. I got through the issue in 2 days, a record for me and which isn't down to a lack of content but rather the way the contributors have written it. No ponderous, stodgy writing here. However, this is an issue that most resembles Battlegames rather than Miniature Wargames and I know some of you prefer it the other way around. This issue has less wargaming articles than previously and more articles about wargaming, if you see what I mean. It therefore makes for an interesting read, but I won't be cutting out and keeping any scenarios or wargaming bits (other than the Salamanca one) from this one.

and actions are resolved using D16s (I was wondering if it was a typo and they meant D6 instead but D16 is repeated throughout the article).

No, they really do mean D16 – a sixteen sided dice. Something to do with the dice probabilities I understand …

Never seen one before.

To be fair , Battlefront don't help themselves over the ' wall to wall tanks ' thing – take a look at page 13 of the last Wargames Illustrated to see a picture of what can only be described as ' mass tank jousting '.
This perhaps also raises the question of how suitable Flames of War is for recreating Arab-Israeli conflicts as Israeli tanks were capable of engaging the enemy at a range of about 2000 yards , in 15mm scale this is about equivalent to 45 feet in real life. Good luck recreating that !

If you want to see examples of wall to wall tanks using other rules systems, they're out there: It's something not wholly the preserve of Flames of War. I remember seeing it on many occasions back in the 1980s with WRG rules, amongst others. One photo in WI does not a compelling case make. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all in FoW, or that Battlefront photographers will shy away from depicting it, I'm saying it's not in the rules at all and it happens because of the way some people end up playing the game.

Realistic ranges in WW2 games. Again, not something you can dump at the foot of FoW. I use WRG (2nd edition) as an example: Tanks, even at 1/200th scale, could hit anything on the table. Infantry couldn't shoot down the length of a small cottage and hit anything. By all means, let's have a debate on realistic ranges in WW2 and modern wargames rules but let's also be fair and debate the pros and cons that each rules set brings to the issue. Some, which purport to depict realistic ranges, have led to players sitting back, dug in, on their start lines and shooting great distances at anything that emerges from behind cover. Others have abstracted ranges in order to promote manoeuvring on the table. You pay your money, you take your choice. Let's not blame FoW for all perceived WW2 gaming ills, though. My opinion is that Fate of a Nation will work out just fine if you play it. Or you can end up playing the Six Day War in 1/300th on an 8x6 table with you being able to hit anything within half a table length if you prefer.

I think the 'wall o' tanks' effect is exaggerated but really does happen. I have seen it too many times for it to be discouraged by the rules. Which means that something is wrong.

And it certainly isn't because of 'Ancients' players who are used to 'legions or phalanxes'.

I also think that a POV that sees an entire book on the FN FAL as something of interest, but German WW1 Colonial Troops, Peninsular War cavalry or Germanicus as 'niche' is something I would strongly disagree with.

PS – CWC handles the Arab Israeli wars very well.

Something is wrong. What? Is it a problem with the rules or a problem with the players' tactics? I have enough games of FoW under my belt and have seen it played at a number of clubs to give an informed answer and I am firmly of the opinion it's with the players' tactics rather than the rules. It's not the place of the rules to discourage tactics, it's the place of other players to discourage them with their own. Anyone who tries wall to wall tanks against me, I'll treat them as a target rich environment.

I never singled out ancients players as a group more prone to wall to wall tank deployment, legions also covers other periods, including sci-fant but, again, I cite a lot of experience of playing FoW in my favour as to giving an informed opinion. I have the opposite problem: With more 20th century wargaming experience I'm prone to spreading out in other historical eras and getting cut up by my opponents.

As for your second point, it's just my point of view. I find the FN FAL interesting as a subject for an Osprey book. And military history and wargaming is a niche hobby to being with; subjects within that are even more niche.

Excellent review. I enjoy comparing your view of each issue with mine. Totally agree re this issue.

The problems with range are particularly acute in trying to recreate the 6 Day War (or Yom Kippur) however as the terrain is largely open – the Sinai Peninsula , the Gaza Strip and even the West Bank to some extent. In FoaN a Centurian has a range of 100cm ,a T-54 has a range of 80cm. This equates to something like 140 metres and 100 metres in real terms , it's patently ridiculous for modern warfare and even more so than the Pegasus Bridge example given above. There were night battles , so I suppose you could recreate them , but anything else fought in the desert environment is going to be unrealistic : Egyptian tanks would not be able to close to a range of 100m before being destroyed by the Israelis. If you want to play ' shoot'em up ' with some cool new models then fine , but lets not pretend this is going to accurately recreate modern tank warfare.

I wish Mr Shuck had advanced an argument like that instead of the hoary old chestnut of wall to wall tanks.

Recent WW2 games like FoW and Bolt Action have paid only lip service to ground scale and they operate what I term "gaming scale", ie the ground scale equates to what they think works well gaming wise. Certainly, when I started wargaming, ground scale was deemed all important but it did lead to problems, mainly that tank and anti-tank guns had the range to fire and hit anything on the table whilst infantry only had a chance if they were practically in base to base contact. So "gaming scale" has emerged as a trend and on the other side you get a slew of operational level games where ranges have shortened because now each model represents many tanks or platoons (personally, I don't like that as much) and the ground scale changes to suit.

So, looking at the Six Day War as a game, you have to decide what abstractions you're happy to live with in your games. I've not played Fate of a Nation, so I can't answer definitively to that.

Having gamed Rapid Fire in 20mm and FoW on the same size table I know which game looked more 'wall to wall tanks' than the other, and it wasn't FoW.

So how does FoW discourage wall-to-wall tanks? People wouldn't do it if the rules discouraged it- they'd figure it out the first time artillery spanked them, the entire formation got stuck in a swamp, or they lost a game because they could only capture 1 objective.

I'm pretty agnostic on FoW- I think if you used 6mm tanks on FoW sized bases and kept the measuring the same the game would look and feel right.

Rich

Nice review. As for the Featherstone content, you can never have too much Featherstone content!

The vibe I got from Forward Observer was a bit grumpy in general this month. Surprising since Neil seems to be generally an up-beat sort of guy.

Never seen one before.

D16: Roll a D8 and a D6 together. If the D6 comes up 4+ add 8 to the result of the D8. Otherwise, take the face value of the D8.

I've seen an actual D16 before. It is an elongated die and one I'd question as to its ability to deliver "fair" probability.

I'd say the Flames of War rules don't actively discourage it any more than WRG, or Rapid Fire, or TAC, or Firefly or Tactical Commander do. You know, the more we talk about this the more it's becoming obvious that we're talking about perceptions rather than what is printed in the rulebook so the objectivity is being checked in at the door.

With the Danish invasion article, I really liked the setting and ideas expressed in it. As for playing the rules mentioned, I'd either like to play it to see how the D16s and the Bridge system works or else adapt it for SAGA. I don't think, purely on reading the article, that I could run the game based on it.

That description of rolling the D16 seems complicated enough in itself ! I can't see that being a selling point for the game in comparison with something like Hail Caesar or SAGA.

That description of rolling the D16 seems complicated enough in itself !

You probably only roll 1 D16. In HC or Saga you roll many D6s.

Does anyone play games where the ground scale matches the figure scale? What about this, exactly, impacts on a game's ability to recreate modern armoured warfare?

I've seen an actual D16 before. It is an elongated die and one I'd question as to its ability to deliver "fair" probability.

My D16s are not elongated. They are effectively two 8 sided cones back-to-back. I got them from Em4 Miniatures:

That description of rolling the D16 seems complicated enough in itself ! I can't see that being a selling point for the game in comparison with something like Hail Caesar or SAGA.

??? It's not a selling point – the rules are free!
The original "Slimline Middle Aged Spread" rules can be found in issue 226 of The Nugget available here:
link

That and the description of Jeffrey's mods in the MWBG article are all you need…

Does anyone play games where the ground scale matches the figure scale? What about this, exactly, impacts on a game's ability to recreate modern armoured warfare?

Chain of Command with 15mm figures will do exactly that.

Does anyone play games where the ground scale matches the figure scale? What about this, exactly, impacts on a game's ability to recreate modern armoured warfare?

Simply that it took place at much longer ranges than those FoaN is able to portray in 15mm scale. If you play on a table full of scenery then effective ranges are brought down somewhat by intervening terrain features ; the battlefields of the Sinai desert and the West Bank are largely open deserts and valleys however.

My D16s are not elongated. They are effectively two 8 sided cones back-to-back. I got them from Em4 Miniatures:

It's not completely regular either! neither is a D8 or a D10 (not to be confused with a D20 which is labeled 0-9 twice).

I have no problem with relativistic game scales of the kind made popular by FoW or BA but I know other people do and that's cool. I can see how the concept came into being, after getting thoroughly bored in my early days of WW2 gaming with tanks that could shoot to kill right across the length of a table and infantry relegated to the status of unwelcome hangers on.

Now looking at an old copy of some modern miniatures rules, popular in its day, I can see that the 105mm gun on a Centurion has an effective range of 1,500 – 2,000 metres. Using the game's ground scale of 1mm = 1m, I can shoot that bad boy up to 6 feet and score a hit 50% of the time. At 4 1/2 feet, I can improve that to a 2+ to hit. This scale also makes my virtually useless infantryman about 20 metres tall or, even at 1/300 scale, 18 feet tall. And this was the #1 set of rules at the time, remember. So, if I'm playing a Six Day War game, why would I want to come off my baseline and attack if my numbers are that good? All I've got to do is make sure I don't move so I don't incur a penalty and get the first shots off.

Now, with relative ground and figure scales, I can't do any of that. I have to move to secure the objective because the rules won't let me fire the length of the table. I have to do something different, manoeuver and shoot and scoot. My infantry are now empowered as well and can move with me in support and they're not giants with pitifully short ranges.

I recently bought a copy of Chain of Command and despite coming to terms with some new concepts and rules I'm not familiar with I like what I see so far but it's not a good comparison with Flames of War as the latter is a company level game and the former is a platoon skirmish game. Chain of Command begs comparisons with Bolt Action and Flames of War is more akin to I Ain't Been Shot Mum…which is another set of rules where ground and gun ranges are abstracted.

Scale is always a problem. Especially if you are comparing figure scale, buildings scale and ground scale – 1 building equals a town? or a building? How do you reconcile a rifle with an effective range of 2-300 yards with a tank and 1-3,000 yards? or artillery piece with a range of 15 miles?

Mine, of course, was how to fit a 3-500 foot long ship onto a wargames table in a reasonable way with 20mm figures.

Fact is, you can't really do it. You have to accept that, in most cases, you are going to have to compromise if you're going to have a reasonable battle. Any 15-28mm WW2 battle that wants to recreate tank warfare has no choice but to make some serious visual and scale compromises.

A look at Don Featherstone's place in wargaming history. I enjoyed this article but I know others, who thought last month's issue contained too much on him,

If Don Featherstone isn't worth a couple of pages in 2 consecutive issues then I really don't know who is.

It's my understanding that he's only going to die the once, and since he rather generously gave us our hobby (whether people know it or not) I can "put up" with the odd reflection on his passing.

Chain of Command is a great game but it's an infantry game at what for armoured vehicles is point blank range. Doesn't mean you can't have fun with AFVs though. Whatever FoaN can portray in 15mm scale (pace CoC), few games portray 15mm figures in 15mm terrain. Whatever the range is depends on the ground scale, not the figure scale. If there should be terrain, show it, if not, leave it out.

The AFV miniatures could be 2 foot across. That has no bearing however on how the rules portray modern armoured warfare. What does?

I should add that obviously for aesthetics' sake, everyone uses terrain scaled roughly to match the figures. But that doesn't affect how the rules treat the situation.

Liked the review – looking forward to getting my copy. Shame about the thread hijack – needs a new thread about scale etc. My take on FoW is based on the pics I see, and they do look a boit "wall to wall"

And BA – made me laugh remembering a Western skirmish where the guys could not shoot across the street

Well, I don't consider the thread being derailed as we're talking about issues that arise from what was written.

I wouldn't put much store on photos that get published either in magazines or online. A lot are staged and are hardly representative of what's actually going on. I think there are enough FoW players who refute the idea that wall to wall tanks are a problem with the rules to get a better perspective as to why the phenomenon occurs. And as has been shown, FoW isn't the only game this happens in, it's just become a lazy stick to beat the game with.

I should add that obviously for aesthetics' sake, everyone uses terrain scaled roughly to match the figures.

I know an awful lot of people use buildings "one size down".

I wouldn't put much store on photos that get published either in magazines or online. A lot are staged and are hardly representative of what's actually going on.

Why on earth would you stage a picture of an FOW game with wall-to-wall tanks?

To shift product and to appeal to that section of the FoW crowd.

You know, all this talk of wall to wall tanks in FoW and yet no one has suggested what's in the rules that causes it, if indeed there is anything in them. That should be a big clue that the problem isn't in the rules.

and to appeal to that section of the FoW crowd.

You mean that section of the FoW crowd that thinks that wall-to-wall tanks are cool / fun / historical (delete as appropriate)?

Ok Uber – I just thought the thread was areview of the mag, not a FoW scale discussion, hence the "new thread" point. There are enough FoW threads, and the mag is good and thick, and the comment is just one tiny point.

On the way home I picked up my copy, and thoroughly enoyed it. If I had a minor gripe it would be that Fantasy Facts always seems to be Sci-Fi, but neither get me too excited so I pass.

The Bruce Weigle piece needed more space, more pictures, and more "how to" -in fact, just more please for a future article. I love the look of that man's tables.

You're right, Marc. In my defence I'm responding the comments people have been making about the wall to wall tanks phenomena but comments about anything mentioned in this month's issue are greatly welcomed.

Yes, more photos of Mr Weigle's work would have been great to see. Maybe he should be invited to write a follow up article on how he does it.

Definitely – Henry, are you listening?

The other thing was there seemed to be a slight increase in the number of ads, which is a good thing – loved the Perry page.

Oops, forgot, another thought at risk of thread hi-jack was how nice some 6mm basing is (in my personal view) and how obtrusive other types are. Bruce's 1860 stuff on thin metal looked good, and the back cover ad for next month's (which loook like 6's to me (or are they 15s?) which were thin and used matching flock. Whereas the Spanish Naps picture looked too thick and too big to me – and crossing the river looked very strange. I know everything is a compromise, and thick bases are probably easier to pick up, but I prefer the unobtrusive thin style. Anybody else thought on this?

I wish that the "secret eye candy" photos were larger. Perhaps spreading them out over 2 pages? If the art of the hobby is what we're about, then why not make the visual impact that much more impressive by including larger pictures?

Thanks,

Chris

Hello everyone.

@Marc Like a bat hanging from the rafters, of course I'm listening. Perhaps you can't hear the clicks in the gale-force winds that are currently threatening to shift MWBGHQ several hundred metres closer to the South Downs.

I'm glad to see you're all having fun chatting about the magazine. I won't bore you with repeating what I say every time about an editor only being able to publish what he's got (darn, there, I've gone and done it again), but I can tell you that there will of course me more on Bruce Weigle in due course. You can bet that if I'd taken up a single extra page with it this time, someone here would have been complaining that it was too much.

I did, incidentally, submit a priority Hobby News story to publicise this issue, but it appears to have been ignored by Bill and his new assistants, as has my follow-up query, so I'm sorry that this appears to be the only discussion thread on the subject this month.

Flames of War is clearly the Marmite of the wargames world. Perhaps I'll ask Neil to do a 'Bob Barnetson' comparing it to other WWII systems – unless the lovely Bo were to turn up himself and offer to do so?

Incidentally, @Major Bumsore, the 'one size down' thing has an honourable tradition – I remember Charles Grant doing so in The War Game.

@Just Plain Chris The 'eye candy' page is intended to be a bit of a filler, but I did give you a couple of nice Peninsular War photos this time.

As ever, imagine each issue to be a jigsaw where I don't have all the pieces until the very end and the final product inevitably delights some people and annoys others. I think John Treadaway has summed it up very nicely on the issue 366 thread. This also applies to columnists like JT and NS, who are reliant on publishers/manufacturers sending them stuff to talk about – if JT was sent a raft of fantasy stuff, I'm sure he'd talk about it, but the fact is that we get very little, even for the Recce section, which is a real shame. Is anyone listening out there?

@ubercommando Thanks again for taking the trouble to do these reviews.

And finally, no apologies about the Don Featherstone stuff – if commemorating the man who basically got the hobby off the ground in this country and was appreciated worldwide for five decades isn't worth a few pages in a leading magazine, as @20th Maine says, then I bluntly have to question some people's morals. Many gamers come and go from this world with nary a murmur, but I'll be damned if I'm prepared to let that happen to Don or any of the others who have devoted huge portions of their creativity and intelligence to our wonderful pursuit. I see it as part of my role as Editor to acknowledge the achievements of key figures in the hobby – it's one reason I started Battlegames – and Don was peerless. It makes me sad to think that there are people out there who aren't prepared to pay the respects due to those who have made their hobby possible.

In a couple of weeks, wreaths will be laid at the Cenotaph in London for – amongst others – men who died in the year Don Featherstone was born and men who served alongside him in WWII. Lest we forget, we murmur in unison. And I, for one, will not allow Don Featherstone to be forgotten.

Henry

As Henry said, I'll review, space permitting, anything F&SF I'm sent, topped occasionally with material I come across of my own volition (like the review I did of the Dan Dare Haynes Manual, bought for me as a present and great source material for SF games but not something the publisher is ever going to send me!).

My active part in this is keeping my ear to the ground, visiting shows and – nowadays – perusing the net. From my years at PW (and web stuff aside), it was ever thus. That and people just sending me stuff!

John T

Henry (or Batman ) – are the eye candy photos at the back available for enlarging on the website? I must admit I would like to see them bigger, but appreciate there is not the room (and I would prefer articles like the Austrians and their rules development to just page after page of glossy photos). So is that possible please?

@Marc I'll see what I can do.

H