""The War Game" at Partizan" Topic

For those who were not there the Old School Wargamers put on a superb display of the Battle of Sittingbad at the Partizan show in the UK. Well presented and with requisite green emulsion painted step contour hills. Chatting to Steve one of the presenters I was struck how much effort had been taken to keep true to the roots of our hobby. It was quite touching to see presented a form of wargaming probably not seen at a public event for over 2 decades!

Can Action at the Twin Farms and Duffers Drift be too far behind?

Top hole chaps and lets see more :)

Wasn't Sittangbad from CHARGE! ?

Having been anchored to my Trade stand all day, I didn't get a chance to see ANY games but I was particularly disappointed not be able to view this one which I'd been looking forward to. So, the inevitable question – Where can I see some photos?

Doug

Henry had his camera busy all day so I suspect you'll be seeing photos on battlegames website in the very near future if not in the magazine itself.

I have a few shots of it one my blog:

grimsbywargaming.blogspot.com

I have to say that I dont really get this "sticking to our roots" thing.
Its a bit like insisting on watching an old 16" black and white TV when plasma screens are the norm or listeneing to vinyl records instead of MP3 or other ditigal system.
Each to their own I guess

Actually, Vinyl records are still popular with collectors. And it's not like watching a 16" Black and White TV over plasma, it's like watching B&W "I Love Lucy" re-runs on a plasma screen.

For the Sittangbang, it's realizing that the way you used to wargame gave you a lot of pleasure because it was fun, and there's no reason it can't still be fun.

yes, you can be more sophisticated and have dense rules and brilliant terrain, but it isn't required to have a good time playing with model figures.

I also think it's more accessible to new gamers. Not specifically the figures used, but the concepts of simplicity and no requirement to be fashionable.

You can just block in colours, not worry about basing standards, play a game with uncomplicated rules and have fun.

It is not saying that details rules requiring specific base sizes and brilliantly painted miniatures aren't fun.

Sometimes you want to read "Obscure Letters from British Parishes to English Regiments of the Napoleonic Wars" and sometimes you want to read "Sharpe's Rifles"

Jacko27,

2006 Mazda MX5 sports cars are fun to drive but so are 1961 Austin Healey 3000 MKI's.

Bill.

I dont doubt that it is fun guys-nobody does things that are dull out of choice after all.
I think it is just rather uninspiring for newcomers when compared to some of the newer terrain and basing techniques.
It wouldnt stop me playing a game "in the old fashioned way ", so to speak but it would be missing one of the main ingredients that attracts me personally to wargaming-the visual spectacle.

I think that "the visual spectacle" is there anyway. I love toy soldiers and the like as much as the "new way". It's wonderful to have so much to choose.

There's always room for nostalgia, as long as people realise that's what it is.

And that it isn't what it used to be.

Or was that neuralgia?

It may not be your cup of tea, and your opinion on that is valid, but please don't dismiss this an simple irrelevant nostalgia.

There are a lot of people who game with unflocked hills and even worse paintjobs.

There are a lot of people who use rules that aren't trying to be uber-realistic representations of historical warfare.

This is a valid, thriving and relevant section of our hobby. Different, like DBA is different from Warhammer Ancient Battles, but not to be derided as simple nostalgia, or lacking visual spectacle.

People who don't enjoy it are free to not enjoy it. This post is out of proportion to what has been said already in this thread, it's more of a pre-emptive post to try to keep people's minds open.

For the record, I'm a relatively new gamer who started with GW in '96 and have only recently been getting into historics.

Sittanbang isn't nostalgic for me, I never played that style of game. But it looks good and fun to me.

I'm a youngster and have found Old School gaming to be quite inspirational, seems more about just getting back to having a fun game then worrying about detailed realistic rules and painting the right coloured buttons!

Mike

I thought that the Grimsby photos were very inspiring and that the game was a visual spectacle as well. You can see more photos on the Yahoo Old School Wargaming site.

Jacko, as far as returning to ones roots, maybe a way to think about it is to liken it to some of your favorite movies. Occaisionally, I like to see some oldies like Red River, Casablanca, anything by Hitchcock in the 40s and 50s, or in a wargaming vein, something like Zulu or Waterloo, or The Duelists, or The Longest Day. Yes, some of these movies aren't up to the technical standards of today's movies with multimillion dollar special effects, but the people making the movies today all studied the great movies of the past while they were learning their craft.

Likewise, I find value in reading some of the early Don Featherstone wargame books to see how they did it when there weren't figures available for every possible historical period. Or reading Morshauser to see how he invented the idea of movement stands. Or realize that the wargame basically hasn't changed a whole lot in terms of things like I Go U Go, or writing orders, or the fact that morale rolls with dice have always been used. Pick up a copy of Charge sometime and read Peter Young's commentary and see if it captivates you and makes you remember that you are probably in this hobby to have fun.

It has certainly grabbed a hold on me. Now I game with 30mm figures in units of 48 to 60 figures in three ranks for SYW — and let me tell you that you will see nothing more awe inspiring than that. To each his own.

I've seen the Old School Wargamers yahoogroup mentioned a few times, but my attempts to actually locate it by searching yahoo have failed dismally.

Have you got the exact url?

There is absolutely nothing to denigrate about "old school" wargaming-please dont think that I am being critical of anyone who prefers to game in that style-its all about what floats your respective boat frankly.
Please dont try however to pretend that it isnt a deliberate choice to game in this way to try to re-live the infancy of the hobby-its nostalgia in action pure and simple.
And there is nothing wrong with that at all-it doesnt need justifying or defending.I am not attacking anyone when I comment.
The rules sytems of yesteryear could of course be played on fully terrained tables with textured based troops-it would make no difference to the game but it would look so much better-but to do so is not remaining true to the nostalgic theme you are recreating I guess- a kind of heresy.
I want to have fun when I game but part of the fun for me is seeing the best visual display on table and I am afraid that you will never convince me that plain bases and flat multi-level blobs of polystyrene look better than the alternative.

Jacko27 —

"The rules sytems of yesteryear could of course be played on fully terrained tables with textured based troops-it would make no difference to the game but it would look so much better"

All we are talking about here is a difference in aesthetics.

The design of the figures and terrain we used for the Sittangbad game is in no way 'worse' than the most highly detailed terrain made by the other display gamers at the Partizan show. The same amount of thought and work went into making it, and in painting all those figures to a particular standard. And frankly, anyone who puts, say, a Stadden or Suren figure next to something from Foundry or Front Rank, say, and can't acknowledge the masterful sculpting and animation, let alone the far superior human proportions, of the earlier figures is either blind or being disingenuous.

But instead of 'better' or 'worse', let's just say 'different'. There is no way that I will be wargaming in this style every day, but it *is* evocative in a way that, I swear, no other type of wargames I have ever played are.

Now, perhaps that is indeed because there is a powerful and acknowledged elemnent of nostalgia woven into the fabric of this particular kind of game, but I believe there is more to it than that. I believe that it truly captures what I call 'the spirit of wargaming'. It needs to be played in a particular way, with a particular vision, and by people who have certain feelings about the way they should conduct themselves whilst playing, for the good of the game and the enjoyment of their fellow participants.

It was interesting that one of the people who stayed with us almost all day is a senior employee of Games Workshop. They get a bad press (often undeservedly in my opinion) but they do have a deep understanding of gaming and what makes for a fun time at the tabletop. I believe that the early writers like Young, Grant, Featherstone, Morschauser, Wise and others, also understood this extremely well, but that subsequent generations, in our blinkered pursuit of 'realism', have been in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

All we initially hoped to do with our Sittangbad game was remind people that there is another way. As it happened, the response we got to our game was overwhelming, with folks who are supreme exponents and collectors of modern, diorama-like terrain and competition-winning standards of figure painting coming up and telling us how much they liked and admired what we were doing, _and the figures and terrain we were doing it with_.

Now, it would indeed be interesting to play a game using the same rules but "…fully terrained tables with textured based troops." But would it *feel* the same? I very much doubt it, but I would welcome anyone who ventures to experiment.

Henry

Absolutely right Henry-it is about aesthetics.
I have said nothing about the comparative merits of the earlier ranges of figures that are used in old school gaming as compared to the newer figures as I agree that they remain classic examples of good sculpting.

I have also said nothing about relative painting standards-because this is an area where I consider myself to be "old School" in that I believe in never criticising another gamers painting ability-or in my case lack of ability.
From my perspective at least 50% of the attraction of wargaming is the aesthetic qualities it has-and these qualities can be enhanced by good terrain/basing or vitiated by poor presentation in these areas.

Perhaps you are right though that the older ranges of figures used would look incongruous on more modern table layouts-that there is a kind of synergy between those types of figures and a more basic table set up that would be lost if they are placed on the flocked hex tiles and smooth rolling hills and the like you can get commercially now.
This could be the "feel" you refer to.
So I retract my earlier possibly perjorative comparisons-better vs worse etc and embrace your suggestion of "different"
Keep up the good work with the mag by the way
Richard Jackson

Esteemed List,
—————-
I liked the look and vicarious "feel" of the Sittangbad photos viewed yesterday. These may perhaps be an encouragement to the younger set who might contemplate that type of style as easily doable to get themselves underway. A smaller segment (a guess) might even think, "Whew, I don't have to build the magnificent terrain that I see in magazines and at shows though I might want to someday. I can get started a lot quicker with such a pleasing 'Old Schoolish' terrain system. I have enough to do with just getting units bought and painted."
—————-
I yearn a little to have the magnificent terrain systems shown in magazines and brought to shows again. I had such a system until a flood destroyed most of it. Though it did not compare equally with say Peter Gilder's terrain systems or Duke Siegfrieds for that matter, it was a pleasure to use and enjoy visually. I had sloped hills, actual rutted roads with hoofprints and a wonderful serpentine stream with cliffs. Most of it connected like a puzzle so I could change the scenery – and so the roads met each other. It was a problem to store and haul to shows. Still I might make another serpentine stream again.
——————-
Today I use flat homasote boards favored by model railroaders. For each game I repaint damaged areas, reposition roads and mark in various multi-colored areas to represent fields of this or that and the edges of forests. I also carve sloped ridges of 2'-4' in length to position atop all of this. In terms of storage and shoving units along on the tabletop, this is very user friendly.
———————-
So for the younger set, try flat boards and put stuff on top of them to get going faster. Later if you wish do indeed build those magnificent terrain boards.
—————-
Havae fun creating your tabletop world – whatever you decide.
—————
Sincere Regards,
Bill Protz

Martin,

The URL for "Old School Wargaming" is:

link

Enjoy.

— Jeff

Richard

Thanks for a very civilized and stimulating discussion and, of course, your kind words about Battlegames.

Before I take myself off to the bed I should have got into hours ago, let me just mention the wonderful 'old school' terrain created by Phil Olley for this game. Anyone who hasn't seen it can take a peek at the pictures in the Sittangbad folder of the photos section at Old School Wargaming and I'll be putting more on the Battlegames site soon.

It's a very fine line indeed between creating something that is elegant and simple, and something childish and, frankly, rubbish. Phil did an extraordinary job walking this tightrope: the buildings he made in particular are, to my mind, little short of genius, being at once evocative of that earlier age and nostalgia, but at the same time being recognisable as the kind of edifice one can actually see to this day on a drive through mainland Europe. Not many people could have pulled that off successfully — but then, Phil has been famous for years for the highly realistic terrain he also makes for other games.

If I had to sum up the difference, it is this: 'new school' games require a terrain that is cinematic in its detail and scope, to set off the heightened sculpture and painting techniques of our models; whereas Old School gaming is more, shall we say, 'theatrical' in its approach, and the terrain is a stage, rather than a film set, with items of terrain fulfilling a more symbolic role.

Thus we have two methods of designing, for a particular purpose in each case, and though these methods are related, they are distinctly different.

As for me, I love both the movies AND the theatre; I love cinematography AND stagecraft. And just like in theatre, I love the gaps in the script that Old School gaming allows for the players themselves to fill, just as much as I understand and admire the endless pursuit of perfection that a 'modernist' might strive for.

Henry

Dear Jacko: I didn't take anything that you said as derogatory and so I'm certainly not offended. I thought that you made some good points. I agree that the two styles can be blended to good effect. I paint my figures to a high standard and terrain the 1" square bases with spackel, flock, gravel and static grass, just like the New Schoolers. Once in awhile I have the opportunity to game on purpose-built terrain squares, but not very often. But I'm perfectly happy to use a piece of green felt with custom made buildings, roads and tree groupings etc. Bill made a good point about terrain squares. I look at them and wish that I had them, but don't have the time or the talent to make my own, so occasionally I like to be reminded that I don't have to have all of that "tabletop bling" in order to have a fun game. The Sittangbad game did that for me.

cheers,

Alte Fritz

I like that analogy, of stage v cinema. Like Jacko, Old School's not my bag, btu I can see the attractions. Siggins has an interesting piece on it in Battlegames 2.

Wow Minifigs must be rubbing the hands with glee If this sort of thing catches on people will be queeing up to buy those quaint old fashioned 25s they still sell. In fairness I can see the appeal I have an old and treasured copy of wargames campagins by Featherstone and I still find the pictures have a certain lure. Would I swop all my Foundry Artizian, A&A and Crusader minis for a load of old minifigs and Hinchcliffe……….um no

Cheers Jon

Old School does have a way of opening one's eyes to new figures that have been around for a long time. Where once I looked down on Minifigs, now I kind of see their appeal, particularly if both sides of the game battle are done entirely with Minifigs. This doesn't mean that I intend to start collecting and painting Minifigs, but now I don't have a bias against them and can see them for what they truly are. Same is true for the 30mm Staddens. I just discovered these last year and have been painting 60 figure battalions of Prussians like a madman ever since. I dusted off my old RSM collection and remembered what truly great looking figures these really are. So I ordered a bunch more and started a new RSM project for the SYW.