"Review of Wargames Illustrated #316" Topic

FIRST IMPRESSIONS: Assaults from the sea (although that's a slight misnomer), Zulus, ACW, fighting sail and a spirited Saxon seaborne assault up an ill-defined cliff all grace the cover.

EDITORIAL: This month's theme isn't a specific historical era, it's assault battles covering a number of eras. An interesting idea which makes a change and we'll see how that pans out.

GODWINE'S GREAT GAMBLE: The first of the theme articles covers an Anglo-Saxon sea assault against other Anglo-Saxons; specifically Earl Godwine's campaign against Edward the Confessor. It ticks all the boxes: Good historical background, great photos and a couple of specific scenarios with special rules to be used for your chosen rules system. There are no set OOBs or battle maps but there's a link in the article that will take you to a website with downloadable maps and other component parts so, in effect, you're not going to miss having them in the article itself.

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF DUST: Normally WI steers clear of sci-fi and fantasy but here they're previewing the new game Dust Tactics, a Weird War 2 set of rules and miniatures with walking tanks, re-animated dead Nazis and the war continuing into the late 40s. Not my bag, but I know plenty of gamers who are salivating at the prospect of this. The preview isn't giving anything away rules-wise, but as a taster for the set up and models, it'll do.

THE TURKS ARE COMING! The second assault article sees Barbary pirates attacking the English and Irish coasts in the 17th Century. Like the first article, the historical set up is good, the photos very good and it's non-specific in terms of rules but you could use this for Donnybrook, Witchfinder General or Sharp Practice etc. OOBs but no tactical maps.

ONE SIDED WAR: The designers of the new Black Powder Zulu supplement talk about it and the choices they made. An interesting taster for the book.

BREAKING THE BLOCKADE OF BREST: I should hate this article. It breaks a lot of my rules for what constitutes a good wargame magazine article. It's a write up of a game that happened where 1/56 scale Napoleonic warships with 28mm figures do battle on a 22 foot long table. There's practically nothing I can take away from this article and apply it at home or at my club. But you know what, I don't hate it. The game is so big, so ludicrous in concept it ceases being an informative piece and instead enters the realm of wargaming art. It reminded me a lot of that pre-WW1 game that a man had going on in his back garden; something unique that makes you sit back and enjoy the photos.

OUTFITTING ACW ODDBALLS: Rounding off the uniform and equipment series of the ACW we get a brief look at the Zouaves, Chasseurs, Sharpshooters and Iron Brigade.

ADCOCK'S FUNNIES: Battlefront designer Tim Adcock shows how he adapted the FoW Churchill AVRE into other types of Hobart Funnies. There's good supporting material on the funnies themselves, some good photos of Tim's work and a nice list of tools he uses to do the job, all of which are commonly available. If this article lacks something, it's a guide to how to do it yourself.

NO RETREAT: A Flames of War assault scenario of the siege of Kustrin, 1945, with the Soviets attempting to storm the Oder river to seize the city. Once again, the historical background is well covered and there follows suggestions for a mini-campaign plus a very good scenario that, designed for FoW, can be adapted for other games. It's a historical scenario that's infantry based and isn't dictated by the lists or points system which shows the game hasn't shut the door on doing proper historical scenarios, which is welcome news.

A FIREBELL IN THE NIGHT: Another ACW rules set to consider. This is a playtest of Firebell in the Night and it comes across like a more thoughtful type of game where expenditure of ammo and fatigue plays a large part. Not a complicated set, but complex in the decisions players have to make.

SAVAGE WARS OF PEACE: Another long running series comes to an end; this is the twilight of the Victorian small war era, the Boxer Rebellion and THAT 55 day siege. So the new rules introduced are the Life and Limb that determines the fate of your character if they "die" in a battle. 'Twas only a flesh wound, perhaps? The history of the rebellion is thorough and I'm disappointed there are no maps or OOBs for this one. There's a scenario but it's not done to the same level of detail that previous battles in this series have done so a disappointing end to a great series.

WARFARE 2013: A review in photos of the Reading show which contains a criticism of how rude and tetchy competition gamers can be. I'm sure a lot of us have encountered our fair share of Bobby Fischer types in the hobby and will sympathise.

CARVED IN STONE: Pete Brown asks whether the concept of giving a +1 to all charging units, elite units, veterans and heavy cavalry are really warranted when you analyse history and do gamers taken those modifiers for granted?

OVERALL: Very entertaining and one of the strongest issues of WI in the last 12 months. The assault theme was nicely done, although two of the scenarios weren't really assaults from the sea (one was at sea, one was across a river). Elsewhere the standard was pretty high with a mix of eras covered so I hope WI can keep the standard this high or higher throughout the year, after a patchy 2013.

This was a pretty good issue and worth buying. Certainly there should be a follow-up on the Pete Brown article , he raised some very interesting points about modifiers and this could be expanded to look at different periods in greater detail.

"Normally WI steers clear of sci-fi and fantasy but here they're previewing the new game Dust Tactics"

WI's owner, Battlefront, has recently entered a distribution agreement for Dust Tactics and this presumably explains the magazine's sudden interest in a game which isn't 'new' at all but is several years old.

link

Ah, that will explain it. As a non-Weird War 2 fan, I didn't know Dust Tactics had been around for a while.

Once again, ubercommando, thanks for doing these overviews. They are very helpful, in this case particularly since I normally disregard WI as having very little content that appeals to my hobby interests. I might have missed this one completely, but I'll be getting it after reading your review.

Thanks for the informative review.

Normally WI steers clear of sci-fi and fantasy but here they're previewing the new game Dust Tactics

I'm a big fan of this stance, obviously: I see no need for 'period apartheid' in gaming magazines.

But then I would say that, wouldn't I?

John T

I don't understand why WI and WSS don't do Sci-fi or fantasy.

I don't understand why WI and WSS don't do Sci-fi or fantasy.

ubercommando, I think I understand. The 'historical only' gamers can often be very vocal when defending hat they percieve as their 'turf' and it must be disconcerting for editors to recieve mail with lots of complaints. Non-historical gamers almost never do the reverse*, in my experience.

Any of the big wargames shows, Salute being the obvious litmus test (in the UK at least) and the only one I have organisational experience of, are – in my opinion – the best indicator of trends and ideas, likes and dislikes in the general gaming hobby.

Salute, like most on the show circuit, has a good mix of historical and non-historical games, along with – frankly – games that inhabit the 'middle ground' (by which I would point out some slightly post WW2 games with paper panzers, a Very British Civil War games, and its ilk, and even some versions of Steam Punk).

Why this 'broad church' and – patently – "what the mass public seem to want" – approach is not universally embraced, I don't really understand, though. I guess not everyone is broadminded enough? Or just too scared of alienating what readership they have, not being confident of the newer readership they may gain?

Beats me…

Anyway, that's just my somewhat biased point of view (though – in my defence – one with a fair deal of experience in shows and magazines to back it up)

John T

* I've personally read thousands of questionnaire responses from Salute for most of the last decade (probably more than anyone else on the planet) and the Historical gamers do complain more about non-historical games than the reverse. Mind you, the Historical gamers never complained about the borderline, "wierd world war" type stuff I mentioned earlier. Generally, they only seemed to complain about Fantasy games (typically Warhammer)

Thanks for sharing, John, and of course you're in a better position than I to comment on what goes on with the sci-fi/fantasy side of wargaming. From my own experience I am a big Traveller fan and Striker was this very well thought out set of wargames rules that just happened to have a science fiction element to it. When Warhammer first came out I was enthusiastic and embraced the concept of wargaming fantasy armies even though I never bought the game. It strikes me as a bit odd that WI, with its emphasis on the new and shiny, has positively declared that it was sci-fi and fantasy free and will continue to do so; however it will prominently display photos of sci-fi/fantasy figures from convention painting competitions. Likewise WSS, which has positioned itself as a rather alternative magazine from the big two won't go down the sci-fi/fantasy road either. It's left to the…and I mean this politely…venerable MW to carry the banner even though on the surface it's an old school style of magazine.

Just to echo JT's point, I trawl dozens of blogs every month and see what people are saying and note that I only ever see the intolerance of a small, but noisy, number of historical wargamers who say there is "too much f-sf content"; I've never seen a genre gamer complain about "too much historical gaming".

The title of my magazine is "Miniature Wargames with Battlegames". Nowhere does that imply that any one genre should outweigh any other. The content reflects a balance of my own interests and — as far as I can tell — the vast majority of our readership.

I like any gaming that makes the participants think a bit about what they're doing, regardless of the setting. Someone wise once said that the best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas, regardless of whee they come from.

Henry
MWBG

Mathematically impossible as this may be, I'm 110% behind what Henry has said.

I play games – certainly I have played games – in every period going, both historical and non-historical. My interests (though not my expertise!) are very broad and I like magazines that reflect that and don't try and channel me in one direction or another.

John Treadaway

Strip away the settings and what you've got are miniature figures, organised into armies, fighting across model terrain and utilising strategy and tactics to try and defeat an enemy force all moderated by a set of rules. And that's what every miniature wargame does no matter what the setting is.

Very true, ubercommando.

And I suppose one could also discern some similarity between endeavouring to create rules to portray battles of the past from incomplete and contradictory sources, and trying to create rules to portray the fictitious events of a fantasy novel from a one-sided, often incomplete and occasionally contradictory narrative…

I don't understand why WI and WSS don't do Sci-fi or fantasy.

We do. Just 'of this earth'. We've had Lovecraft, Spy Fi, Superheroes and Steampunk all in recent issues.

Guy

On the other hand, ubercommando, that is like saying that stripping away the setting of a novel, revealing that they are all just words on paper, means that all novels really just do the same thing; tell a story with characters. So, you might as well read any one novel as any other since they are all the same. Likewise movies, right?

Setting matters.

Though many gamers play multiple genres, think of wargaming as a "big church" and beat the drum for inclusiveness across the board, there are others whose interests are more focused and regard this as an intrusion on their hobby. They would be no less receptive to calls for more articles on knitting or scrapbooking, which are just as alien to their interests as fantasy/scifi.

I fall somewhere in the middle, although leaning historical. I don't mind the occasional article that covers non-historical gaming subjects (although I sometimes just skim through them, depending on the subject matter) but any wargame magazine that doesn't keep the majority of its content tied to historical wargaming quickly loses my interest, and my subscription.

Jeff

"Though many gamers play multiple genres, think of wargaming as a "big church" and beat the drum for inclusiveness across the board, there are others whose interests are more focused and regard this as an intrusion on their hobby. They would be no less receptive to calls for more articles on knitting or scrapbooking, which are just as alien to their interests as fantasy/scifi."

Let me turn that argument around and use your novel analogy.

Let's say there's a magazine devoted to books and literature. The editor publishes some articles on science fiction and fantasy novels and some of the readership protest that those genres aren't proper subjects for novels and that they want the magazine to stick to books set in the real world. Isn't the editor entitled to say "but genre fiction is still literature and thus within the scope of this magazine?"

Stripped of setting, a novel is a framework but it's still a novel that shares conventions whatever the setting or genre. Likewise, fantasy and sci-fi wargaming is still wargaming and share conventions with historical gaming. All are moderated by rules, the vast majority use dice to resolve actions and they have miniature figures organised into armies fighting over model terrain. I'm not a big fan of most Ancient wars, but would I argue that it shouldn't be the subject of a wargaming article? No. Even when the miniatures for those ancient wars are based in part on speculation, the history sometimes guessed at from fragmentary sources and the games a matter of informed guesswork? It's still battles with models. MW and MW w/BG has never given over an issue to largely sci-fi or fantasy articles so there's this fear with some gamers that the genre is taking over when, in fact, it has always been one or two articles, tops. Before I started reviewing the magazines, I would have skipped over articles that featured Ancients or American War of Independence or most Mediaeval wars. I can understand if people wanted to skip over the sci-fi and fantasy articles. But to argue they have no place in a wargames magazine is wrong.

To some extent I agree with War Artizan. For the same reason that I wouldn't join a wargames club that banned a particular period – no matter what that 'missing period' might be* – I would probably not buy a magazine that narrowed its interests and scope too much to, say, just one genre.

For example I stopped buying White Dwarf after issue 56. The field of interest was just too tight for me, even though F&SF is my primary gaming area.

John Treadaway

* I mean that I would never join a club that banned F&SF games any more than I'd be a member of a Fantasy/SF ONLY club.

to argue they have no place in a wargames magazine is wrong.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't making that argument. (Actually, I wasn't making an argument at all . . . merely an observation). In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anybody make that argument.

I have heard others make the argument that sci-fi or fantasy gaming articles have no place in a publication dedicated to historical wargaming, but that is self-evident. To call for such an inclusion would be as nonsensical as insisting that White Dwarf should make more room for historical wargames.

The editor of your hypothetical magazine would deserve to endure his readers' protests if the magazine was "Historical Novels Quarterly". Not so, however, if the magazine is just "Novels Quarterly". It all comes down to the chosen audience of the magazine. Bottom line: an editor is entitled to include whatever material he feels will best serve his chosen audience. However, a consumer is entitled to spend his money on publications that best cater to his interests, and withhold it from those that do not. Add in the limited pool of resources that the editor has to choose from, and you have the Editor's Dilemma (the main reason why I am soooo thankful not to be a magazine editor.)

Not an argument. Just an observation.

Jeff

I wasn't accusing you, Jeff, but the logic of gamers protesting at the inclusion of F&SF in a wargames magazine.

As far as I can determine, neither of the 3 major wargames magazines bill themselves as historical, they just call themselves wargames magazines. As Guy Bowers pointed out, WSS is not adverse to Victorian SF, superheroes and Spy-Fi content. Now WI has included Weird War 2 so maybe their previous "no F&SF" stance has softened.

Actually, what really bugs me in wargames magazines is pages of content devoted to a summary of a period without much wargaming content. If I want to find out about the 30 years War there are books I can buy – what I want from a wargames magazine is discussion of rules and figures available, scenarios and the like.

Conversely, Littlearmies, why spend all that time on the internet doing research, or rummaging through half-a-dozen books on a historical period, when you can have someone who has done all that tell you about it in a couple of pages? There is a balance required, of course, between background and gaming but I think you need both, especially when the magazine obviously does not cater to experts but the general wargamer.