CONFESSIONS OF A SOLO WARGAMER - Part 2

Flouting the Rules

A quick inventory check conducted at the end of February informed that I have 22 rule books. The titles range from the original ARMATI rules to Volley & Bayonet.  Roughly one-third of these rule sets are stored (arranged alphabetically) in a labeled bin, while the rest are stored (also alphabetically) in another labeled bin. In this section, I am going to focus on the contents (nine rulebooks) stored in the former and most often used bin. 

There is a list of five “items needed to play ARMATI” in Section 1.0 (Game Preparation) of the Armati 2nd Edition rules. The first item is an opponent. The fourth item, after six-sided dice and tape measures, is figures. The full text of Item 4 reads: “To play the game, miniature replicas of the actual soldiers are used. Armati works equally well with all figure scales.” 

By contrast, there is quite a bit more information—and quite a few more words—provided in the Hail Caesar rules, under the “What Is Needed To Play” section. The basic or essential requirement remains unchanged, as the second sentence of the first paragraph states: “Whatever your preference you will need at least one opponent to fight, and both sides will require a model army to command.” After discussing the majority’s preference for historically valid scenarios or historical refights, the subject of models is considered. The first sentence under “Models” reads: “The game can be played with models of any size or scale, but for the most part we have settled upon models that are 28-30mm tall to illustrate this book.” Several sentences later, it is explained:

The majority of collectors purchase models as metal castings or plastic kits, 

        which they proceed to assemble and paint before mounting the finished pieces 

        onto bases for ease of handling. For those who do not wish to go through all this 

        effort, it is possible to buy models that have already been painted. Some will 

        gladly pay a professional artist to paint their collections for them; though they 

        will need deep pockets, for such skills are not purchased cheaply. 

It would be fair to remark that I am not one of those who “wishes to go through all this effort.” It would be equally correct, if not more so, to note that I do not have “deep pockets” and so, will not be purchasing ready-painted miniatures in any scale. I have given some thought to as well as investigated paper soldiers and similar representations, however.

The section on “Models” concludes with:

It must be said that the majority of players prefer to build collections of models 

        they have painted themselves, and most enjoy doing so. There is undeniably 

        something satisfying about completing each new band of warriors and adding it 

        to the growing army.

Again, it appears that I am in the minority. While I will never or very likely never experience the satisfaction of “completing a new band of warriors and watch the army increase in size,” I do experience something like that when each new colored cardboard army is designed, printed, and prepared for battle. 

On page 5 of the IMPETVS rules (2008 Edition), Section 1.1 (The Manual) informs, “Impetus is a set of wargame rules that aims to simulate battles with miniature figures in the Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance periods.” In Section 1.2 (Material Needed), the first sentence explains: “In order play Impetus you’ll need some miniatures.” 

On page 7 of the 2014 Edition of the L’Art de la Guerre rules, the first sentence of the “Equipment” section informs: “To play L’Art de la guerre you will need some figures, an opponent and a flat playing area, usually a table.” 

There are six items required for those interested in staging a game using the Tactica II rules. The first five are copies of the ARMATI list, with the minor exception of “handfuls of six-sided dice” being needed in addition to an opposing army commander and figures. Item 6 is “an optional cardboard screen (“blind”) used for the secret, simultaneous deployment of armies.”  

The “Game Materials” section of the TRIUMPH! Rules calls for two players, a game board, and armies, “typically consisting of 12 to 16 stands of troops.” In the “Overview” section, it is explained that, “a typical army will require anywhere from 50 to 60 figures.” 

Curiously and interestingly, under “The Armies” section of Simon Miller’s To the Strongest! Rules, the following paragraph was found:

Two armies will be required to play To the Strongest! These will usually be of 

miniatures, in any size from 2mm to 54mm tall. If however miniatures are not 

        available, the game can always be played with cut-out pieces of cardboard, or 

        even with the Lego bricks with which many of the author’s earliest battles were 

        fought.

There is no further explanation or specific context given, so I am left to guess that this well known figure in the hobby is talking about “developmental” scenarios using first drafts of these innovative rules or perhaps to “games of war” he played when he was a child aged 10 or 11. Either way, I found his permission or open-mindedness to be rather refreshing as well as little reaffirming. Admittedly, there is the risk of getting into a semantic discussion about what “miniatures are not available” means, but I think the general point is made. To wit: Miniature figures are not an absolute requirement to set up and play or even write about a wargame, whether it is a historical or counterfactual scenario. To be clear, I am not claiming that I was the originator of this idea, compromise or “work around.” I am simply stating that I have a fairly long history of using a variety of rules written for miniature wargaming to stage a variety of wargames wherein no miniatures were used. 

Reports of War

In the July/August 1995 issue of MWAN (Midwest Wargamer’s Association Newsletter - Volume 13, Number 6), Hal Thinglum was kind enough to publish “The Defense of Mulhernberg: A Seven Years War Battle Report,” my first attempt at writing a wargame report for a publication with a fairly large readership. Looking over this ancient and amateur effort now (early morning of 27 February), I cannot help but wince slightly at my writing style. The format of the battle report seems straightforward enough though. I begin with a descriptive narrative to “set the scene” as it were. From there, I go into an introduction and then consider terrain, deployments and battle plans. There are orders of battle and then a division of the action into several phases. Several hand-drawn maps accompanying and illustrate the report. There is also a brief critique as well as a short list of articles or works referenced while preparing the narrative. 

This wargame was fought/played five years before I attended my “first” LITTLE WARS convention. This wargame report was written when I was 30 years of age. Prior to reaching that milestone, I had been interested in military history and playing at war, in one form or another, for at least 20 or 25 years. (It occurs to me that some little boys gravitate—for no apparent reason—to dinosaurs, or trucks, or whatever. I was one of those who had an interest in the past.) However, this wargame report was not my first submission to MWAN. Courtesy of Hal, I made my debut in the September/October 1993 issue (Volume 12, Number 1). The title of this first submission was: “A Question of Scale, Another of Representation.” In addition to citing more than several authors and sources, the diagrams accompanying this article indicate that I had been thinking about and tinkering with an alternative to miniatures for some time. In reviewing the article, I was surprised to find mention of attending the LITTLE WARS convention in Arlington Heights in April of 1993. Another example of how memory works or does not work, or perhaps just a humbling example of the condition of my fragmented and porous memory. For one reason or another, I did not keep the program of this convention. I would imagine that I may have attended three or even four annual conventions prior to the year 2000, the one for which I kept or started keeping programs as evidence of my “participation.” Anyway. In the November/December 2003 issue of MWAN (Number 126), Hal was kind enough to accept and publish “Counter ‘Attack’ - An Approach to Wargaming in Miniature.” This was an enhancement or evolution of my “original thinking” presented in the 1993 article. 

From this awkward and again, amateur start, I have built something that might be said to resemble or merit description as a kind of “body of work.” In addition to having material accepted by and published in MWAN (and its successor, MWAN Magazine), I have had the pleasure of privilege of seeing my “work” in the pages of LONE WARRIOR (The Journal of the Solo Wargamers Association), The Courier, Miniature Wargames, Wargames Illustrated, Miniature Wargames with Battlegames, and Slingshot (The Journal of the Society of Ancients). To be certain, I still consider myself an amateur, but with the quantity of material I have produced (somewhere in the range of 150 articles, columns, opinions, pieces, or submissions, when I include reports and other writings on my blog https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/), I like to think that, through years of experience, I am rather less awkward when it comes to writing and formatting. Then again, this concern has been replaced by worries about consistency, impact, relevancy, and a tendency to wordiness. 

In a post made on September 12, 2018, Aaron Bell offered “A (Slightly Revised) Taxonomy of Battle Reports.” (This is further evidence, as if more was needed, of his intelligence, informal approach and appeal, as well as importance to the wargaming community.) Assessing and or categorizing my so-called “body of work” against these various divisions or labels, it appears that is difficult to place my reports under just one category. For example, while many of my efforts were written for and submitted to wargame publications and so, could rightly be called “wargame magazine reports,” it seems that there are degrees of “self-deprecation” in these submissions. To be certain, a few of my articles could be deemed “newbie reports.” (Sidebar: Does this label only apply for the first wargame report, or does it apply to the first articles submitted to different publications? For example, my first submission to Slingshot was in 2010, some 15 years after my first battle report was published in MWAN. Would, then, the first Slingshot submission count as a “newbie report”? At that time, I wasn’t even a member of The Society.) As I am a solo wargamer, all of my writing could be lumped into this category. Then again, I should like to think that much of my writing was informative, and so, better placed in the “informative report” category. Upon further review, it seems that at least one wargame, wherein barbarians (Galatians, I think) faced Seleucids, would qualify as a “dual/multiple-perspective report.” On the other hand, perhaps it would have been simpler to go through Aaron’s list and cross off the categories that do not apply to me and my writing. For example, I do not believe I have ever written an “all-action first-person report.” Nor have I drafted, revised, and submitted a “pictorial report.” That would seem to be or be completely wrong, as I don’t employ painted and based miniatures. Similarly, I don’t believe I have ever written a “faux-historical report,” though I have done a number of counterfactuals. Neither have I submitted a “dramatic, short story report,” nor a ‘got the band back together’ report. 

Fairly recent developments (within the last two years) have, unfortunately, seen me make a shift from traditional wargaming publications to starting and trying to maintain a blog. It seems to me that the 14 categories “established” by Aaron could also be applied, generally speaking, to blog posts. The gentleman—now residing in beautiful New Zealand—remarks that the list was written “tongue in cheek” and is certainly not definitive. In addition to getting me to think more carefully and critically about my own efforts, I wondered about the rationale behind writing battle reports. What is it that inspires or impels one to do this? Is it a selfish or attention-seeking act? Is it for the advancement and betterment of the hobby? Is it for entertainment purposes? Is it a combination of these and other reasons that I have not thought of? Is it, perhaps, just a creative outlet?

At the risk of ending this section on negative note, I have often wondered when exactly I adopted the idea that I could not wargame without writing about it. I wonder if, at this point in my solo wargaming “career,” I could stage a wargame and not write about it. Without trying to appear philosophical or pseudo-philosophical, let me pose the following hypothetical: If a solo wargamer or group of wargamers fight a battle on a tabletop and nobody writes about it, blogs about it, tweets about it, or takes pictures of it, did it actually happen? 

A Solo Life For Me

In “Wargaming My Way,” an article published in the January/February 2020 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients, Gordon Lawrence offers a very brief hobby autobiography. The paragraph, I would argue, is worth quoting in full. So here goes:

When I tell you that I have been wargaming for over forty years you could 

        probably write the first paragraph of this article for yourself. Yes . . . Airfix toy 

        soldiers . . . blankets over books . . . trip to library . . . Don Featherstone . . . 

        blah . . . blah . . . and the rest is wargames history. But what makes me a little 

        different to most gamers who could start an article like that is that in those forty 

        odd years I think that I have had only about five battles with other people who 

        would call themselves wargamers. 

To be certain, there are a fair number of similarities between my early years and involvement in the hobby and Gordon’s experiences. I can claim nearly four decades worth of “command” or playing at war in one form or another. And yes, Airfix plastic soldiers (unpainted, based on cardboard movement stands, and occasionally “dressed up” with home-made standards or lance pennants taped to straight pins) were present in fairly large numbers. My focus or interest was on Napoleonics, but I did dabble in the AWI as well as the ACW. I also recall having a few boxes of Romans and Ancient Britons as well as French Foreign Legion and their desert dwelling enemy. Instead of “blankets over books,” I crafted styrofoam (polystyrene) hills that were painted green. In the process of revising this section, I suddenly recalled having and using lichen, model trees, some plain-looking and out-of-scale houses built by my father, and having five or six sections of stone wall, built on thick cardboard bases and fashioned out of landscaping pebbles secured from a neighbor’s yard. Granted these “terrain features” contrasted sharply with the rug or bare floor and the cream-colored or off-white plastic soldiers, but like Gordon and I presume others, the play or the game was the thing. Prior to “investing” in and collecting Airfix figures, I had a decent “collection” of Marx 54mm soldiers and their accompanying molded plastic and painted metal scenery. I have distant memories of large battles wherein British Grenadiers fought alongside Confederates as well as Mexican infantry. These “allies” would face off against Continentals, Union soldiers, and the brave defenders fo the Alamo. These battles were not wargames in any sense of the word. They were childish spectacles where imagination often was in control. Instead of trips to the library, I would be driven to the local hobby store once in a great while, so that I could peruse the shelves and racks of wargaming merchandise and products. It was here that I first encountered Wargamer’s Digest, produced by Gene McCoy, and issues of Battle magazine, a comparatively short-term product from England.

In strict terms of numbers, given my introduction to the hobby and given my dozen-plus years of attending an established wargames convention, I have participated in more face-to-face battles than Gordon. That much admitted, I still call myself a solo wargamer, identify as a solo wargamer, and given the choice, would rather command both sides in a tabletop scenario than, for a specific example, participate in a large multi-player Hail Caesar scenario wherein Romans battle against Carthaginians. (Note: In the November/December 2019 issue of Slingshot, Steven Neate provides a colorful narrative of just such a game. In the opening photograph, I count at least 11 “generals” and estimate a model battlefield at least 12 feet long if not longer by about 5 feet across.) Is this because I am antisocial? I don’t believe so. Although I believe that I have more characteristics of an introvert than extrovert, I interact with children and adults throughout the work week. This requires a certain level of skill, tact, resourcefulness, and patience as well as flexibility, for the situation can change (and often does) at the “drop of a hat.” If I think about it, the preference for solo wargaming may be more about having a sense of control, however temporary. There is also the time factor and inclination to play a turn or two instead of six or even a complete game to be considered. Being a “morning person,” I will often play two or three turns before the clock has struck the hour of eight. I cannot imagine that many fellow wargamers would be interested in moving troops and rolling dice before they have had their breakfast and first cup of coffee or tea! To be sure, there is also the “elephant in the room.” I do not use painted and based miniatures when I wargame. This approach eliminates any possibility of being on the receiving end of a “lip-curling sneer,” a damaging assessment received by Gordon several times when his efforts at painting or converting figures were judged by other wargamers. Instead, I employ color counters. Sometimes these are produced with a bit more detail and so, are fairly recognizable, representative, or even aesthetically acceptable. At other times, these counters are simply functional, so while representative, they do not present the most visually appealing aspect of the larger and more traditional hobby. 

I found it curious as well as interesting to see that in his first article (“The Play’s The Thing” - November/December 2019 issue), Gordon expressed a level of gratitude for my articles in Slingshot. The reason? Because I “had shown that good Wargames [sic] can be played without a toy soldier is sight.” Then, apparently contradicting himself, in “Wargaming My Way,” which appeared in the January/February 2020 issue of Slingshot, Gordon stated:

I am a wargamer, not a military modeller. Having said that, I do want my figures 

        to look good and every single one of my figures has been lovingly painted by me 

        and I do take a certain pride in them. I would never, even in the privacy of my 

        own wargames HQ, field unpainted soldiers or bits of card as tokens.

The right honorable gentleman ends this second short article or opinion piece with the following statement: “It is the diversity of approaches to our hobby which makes wargaming such a great experience. Vive la difference!”

I may very well be mistaken, but it seems that on one hand, Gordon lauds my approach. On the other hand, even if “my way” occasionally produces a good wargame or acceptable battle report, he would not dare touch such a method or manner of wargaming with a ten-foot pole. (Please see https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/449300/what-s-the-origin-and-history-of-the-phrase-ten-foot-pole for more information about this phrase and usage.) In contrast to Gordon’s beliefs and position, I am not at all uncomfortable switching between these two “opposite ends of the historical wargaming spectrum.” If I do wind up making the drive to LITTLE WARS 2022 (presuming it is still held) and do spend several hours walking around or do participate in a game, I will have no reservations about carefully and respectfully moving the painted and based figures, whatever manufacture and scale they may be, and rolling the dice when called for. Additionally, I will have no problem engaging in the requisite small talk and friendly banter around the tabletop. When defeat, victory, or a draw has been determined, I will have no problem returning or reverting to my usual non-traditional approach a week or so after I make an appearance at this annual three-day event. Indeed, I would not be surprised if I found some inspiration in a demonstration game or even purchased a new set of rules and immediately set about designing and producing color counters so that I could command two armies and perhaps an allied contingent, and play at war in this period or that one. 

Briefly considering other points or sub-topics of Gordon’s article in Issue 328, I find additional similarity in our lack of a competitive streak. I have never engaged in a tournament, though I do read and enjoy accounts of DBA and DBM gatherings. (The long-standing blog of John Graham-Leigh is an excellent source for DBM narratives and ideas. Please see https://www.jglwargames.com/.) Given my atypical but not completely original method of “miniature” wargaming, I have no need to use the “Collection Calculator” to count the figures in my collection(s). Indeed, I imagine that if I dedicated myself to switching to the traditional way of historical wargaming, I would not be able to match Gordon’s impressive, astounding, and in some regards ridiculous number of figures. (In “Wargaming My Way,” he reports having 22,684 tiny men of various scales. As this article was published a couple of years ago, I would not be surprised if that very large number was even larger.) Shifting briefly to his previous effort in the November/December 2019 issue, Gordon asks a serious question about balance in the hobby. Specifically, he wonders about the emphasis on “show” and “style” winning out over the “substance.” He answers his own question, citing the adapted Greek standard of “finding the right balance.” On this point, I also find myself in agreement with the gentleman who has his own wargaming HQ. I am given to wonder, though, to what extent an individual balance can translate into a universal or hobby-wide balance and vise versa. Following through on this balance “question” or “concern,” I find it interesting that, at least in my particular corner of the wargaming world, I have not been able to separate wargaming from writing. Going back to Gordon’s earlier self-definition or label, I also consider myself a wargamer, but perhaps a better category would be wargamer-writer. (There can be no question, however, that the amateur status of both “occupations” needs to be stressed.) 

In his 2011 opus, The Wargaming Compendium (an excellent reference and resource that only came into my possession a year ago), Henry Hyde (a familiar name among the upper-echelons of the hobby) provided a “shopping list” of the skills set of the “typical wargamer” on page 11. The long-time wargamer, former editor of Battlegames magazine, writer and blogger contends, “the typical wargamer” will assume, at one point or another, the following roles: “He/she will be an artist, a designer, a sculptor, an illustrator, a historian, a librarian, a researcher, a mathematician, and a creative writer.” The well known gentleman continues, remarking that, “the typical wargamer” will also assume a variety of command roles, from general all the way down to private, depending on the scale of the tabletop action. The specific rank titles will change depending on the terrain (land, sea, air, or even outer space) upon which the battle is fought.

If one accepts this detailed list as fairly comprehensive, on review, it seems quite evident that I “qualify” or identify with the creative writer category first and foremost. Wrapped up within that skill or talent are the related abilities of historian, librarian, and researcher. (As I type this, I am thinking about the “research” I did on the Battle of Murten or Morat, and the second effort I hope to complete just as soon as that book arrives via interlibrary loan.) I grant that at times, I am a bit of a mathematician. This depends on the set of rules being used and the number of factors or modifiers required to determine the outcome of a melee or exchange of arrows, musket balls, or rounds from artillery pieces. I have very little if any talent really, in the categories of artist, sculptor, and illustrator. As for the label or additional category of “designer,” well . . . the majority of my work is derivative, meaning that it is inspired by the efforts and projects and writings completed by others with more expertise and experience. However, on occasion, I will design one-off scenarios or the even rarer campaign games, so in this limited regard I suppose I do qualify as a designer. 

A Few Remarks about the Future

If I happen to win the lottery at some future date (in the next three to four weeks would be ideal, thank you very much), I imagine that I would set aside a small portion of that windfall (as well as source of bother and worry) and join those who advocate and support “traditional” wargaming, to use Henry Hyde’s phrase. (On that same page referenced above, he defines ‘traditional’ wargaming as that form “which makes use of small-scale figures and a tabletop decorated with miniature houses, forests, rivers, and other scenery . . . ”) The odds of this event occurring are very slim indeed, so, for the foreseeable future, I will continue with my non-traditional approach to the hobby wherein I use rules for miniature wargaming but employ colored cardboard counters. 

For the past several years, it has been my practice and pleasure to participate, albeit from far, far away, in The Society of Ancients annual and signature Battle Day. A combination of variables will see me taking a pass on this year’s selection (Adrianople, 378 AD). Recent and unexpected developments at Slingshot have given me (as well as perhaps a few others) pause, and renewing my subscription and maintaining my membership in The Society has yet to be decided. I recently started a blog, which allows me much more freedom than writing and submitting to recognized publications, but this benefit is checked by the pressure of a self-imposed ‘publish or perish’ concern. Along with this greater editorial control is the management of various platforms on which I can announce my latest games and projects, and the costs in money and time associated with this management. My present focus is on a long-term ahistorical project wherein Spartans engage with Vikings. In addition, after quite a few years, I have decided to embark upon another solo campaign. There is the Murten follow up previously mentioned. I have also become interested in or inspired by recent chatter about wargames featuring Classical Indians and Successor armies. Admittedly, it is rather unusual for me to have an agenda or “calendar” of projects. Typically, I wargame “where the wind takes me” for lack of a better explanation. I confess that I am feeling a little pressure to carry through and complete these various items now that I have set these solo-wargaming and writing goals. Then again, I rather doubt that there will be any significant impact on the wargaming world if I fail to finish six games between Spartans and Vikings or start but do not finish the planned campaign game. Perhaps this year will see me taking an extended break from moving “troops” and rolling dice, pulling chits or drawing cards, or even discovering another aspect of the hobby to which I can give my attention and donate my limited discretionary funds. And perhaps, just perhaps, this year will see me finding out if I can actually stage wargame without writing about it. 

SPARTANS vs VIKINGS: Part 2

For this second of a planned six scenarios wherein the sons of Sparta faced off against the sons of Ragnar Lodbrok (or Lothbrok), I would make use of Rick Priestley’s Hail Caesar rules. (For the first installment of this ahistorical experiment, please see “Spartans vs Vikings: Part 1,” posted to this blog on January 17.)

The Armies

The Spartans were drafted from the Hoplite Greek army list found on page 34 of the Biblical & Classical Supplement. Additional information was borrowed from the “ ‘With Your Shield, Or On It’ - Summer 426 BC” battle report, provided on pages 122-127 of the rulebook. There were four divisions of heavy infantry (hoplites with long spears), each formation containing four standard size units. Three of the divisions had attached skirmishers, small units of helots armed with slings or javelins. The “true” Spartans benefitted from a number of ‘specials’ such as being drilled, stubborn, elite, and the phalanx rule. Other formations of hoplites were drilled troops with a lower phalanx rule modifier. The Spartans fielded no cavalry or light infantry. 

The Vikings were drawn from the Vikings army list found on page 42 of the Late Antiquity to Early Medieval Supplement. Additional information was secured from “The Battle of Brunanburgh 937 AD” scenario reported on page 154 to 161 in the colorful rulebook. The Viking army was essentially a mirror image of the Spartans. There were four divisions, each containing four units of infantry. The Vikings only had eight units of heavy infantry, split, albeit not evenly, between Huscarls and Hirdmen. The other eight formations were Bondi. The Vikings had three units of skirmishers (two armed with bows) and one unit of light infantry archers. Like the Spartans, the Vikings had no mounted contingent. Their single Huscarls unit was fairly loaded with ‘specials’ such as stubborn, elite, tough fighters and valiant, to name just four. Some of the Viking heavy infantry also enjoyed the benefit of berserkers, which gave them an initial impetus or additional dice in the first round of close combat. 

The Terrain

For this second counterfactual contest, I decided to repurpose the terrain used in the “ ‘With Your Shield, Or On It’ - Summer 426 BC” scenario. The Vikings would take the place of the Athenians and so, enjoy the advantage of the sunken road on their left. The Spartans would reprise their original role, advancing with an olive grove on their left, a patch of scrub on their right, and the slightly angled roadway to their front. Generally speaking and noting again the exception of the sunken road (more like a slight depression, really), the fictional battlefield was comparatively flat, plain, and rather green in its overall color.

At the last minute, a long, low hill was added to the Spartan side of the field, so as to break up the flat, plain, and rather green landscape. 

Deployments

The Viking commander, Ivan Longbeard, drew up his four units of Heavy Infantry Huscarls and Hirdmen to the right of the sunken road. A small unit of Thrall skirmishers was posted in front of this fearsome-looking line. Another division of Heavy Infantry Hirdmen was drawn up to Longbeard’s right. These formations were essentially the same as the commander’s, though they did contain fewer berserkers. This formation had some skirmishing archers ranged across its front. Another small unit of archers screened the division of Medium Infantry Bondi which held the right of the line with four units. Back over on the left flank, hidden in the sunken road, were three units of Medium Infantry Bondi. The only indication of Viking troops on this flank then, was the unit of Light Infantry Bondi (archers) standing in front of the depression/sunken road and the single unit of Medium Infantry Bondi standing in some scrub behind the sunken road.  

Four divisions of Spartans, each consisting of four units and three of the divisions having a small screen of skirmishers, were deployed in a slight echelon arrangement. King Pilates was on the right with his best troops. Two more phalanxes of Heavy Infantry Hoplites were positioned to the left of these veterans. The far left of the Spartan line, where the olive grove was located, was held by a group of Allied Heavy Infantry Hoplites screened by a small band of slingers. 

Picture 1 / Taken from the left end of the Spartans deployment, looking down the simplistic battlefield. The Viking warriors draw up their line along the road; their far left division hidden by the sunken road. A very slight “stair step” arrangement can be seen to the Spartan line of battle. Both sides have a handful of skirmishers deployed as well. 

Picture 2 / A close up of the best Viking formation: 4 units of Heavy Infantry Huscarls & Hirdmen benefitting from a number of “specials” and led by the army commander. 

Picture 3 / The Spartan counterpart to the best Viking formation, this photo shows the most experienced division of hoplites advancing through some scrub. The orderly ranks of the heavy infantry are quite evident as are the number of “specials” assigned or attached to each unit. The red dice showing an 8 indicate a successful command roll, as the leadership rating of the Spartan army commander is 9.

Summary of the Contest

Unusually, the Viking formations elected to remain stationary for most of the engagement. Their men, including those hidden in the sunken road, were ordered to wait until the Spartans and their allies had advanced to within heavy weapon throwing range. Frustratingly, the Spartans and their allies were beset by poor command rolls. When two orders were given, only one would be heard and obeyed; when one order was given, the men apparently or simply ignored their officers. This was especially true on the left of the line, when the allied hoplites spent a few turns “lounging” in the olive grove. 

Picture 4 / Over on the Spartan left flank, a division of allied hoplites would have problems navigating a minimalist representation of an olive grove. The command roll shown is greater than the leadership value (very nearly a blunder), therefore, the progress of the division is halted until another turn allows another chance. 

Eventually, the handfuls of skirmishers screening each side came within range of each other and arrows, javelins, and sling stones were soon flying to and fro. On the Viking left, their light infantry archers did rather well against the protected-by-large-round-shields heavy infantry advancing at a slow walk. Withdrawing into the terrain feature and behind friendly lines, the Viking archers could be satisfied with a job fairly well done. This was the extent of the fighting on this wing however, as neither side elected to negotiate entering or exiting the sunken road in order to engage in close combat. 

The first and perhaps deciding melees of the battle took place on the Viking center-right. Instead of waiting patiently for the Greeks to advance, the Viking warriors moved out to meet them a short distance from the road. As might be expected or imagined, the fighting was fierce. The Spartan hoplites would reap the benefit of favorable dice, even though the Vikings adopted a shieldwall formation. A Viking unit on the right was pushed back and then routed. This was followed by another damaging combat, which left the Viking unit shaken. In ten more minutes of fighting (an estimate to be sure), the Viking division crumbled and a rather large hole appeared in the Viking defensive line. 

Picture 5 / This is a snapshot of the action between the Spartan center-left and the Viking center-right. The small skirmisher screens of both sides have been withdrawn to let the heavy infantry formations engage. The Vikings have adopted a “shieldwall” by closing their ranks. While this tactic provides for a greater save modifier it also restricts their ability to dole out punishment. As can be seen in the photo, one unit of Vikings has been forced to give ground in disorder. 

As this situation was evolving, some Medium Infantry Bondi grew tired of waiting for the allied hoplites to stop eating olives and advanced in order to pick a fight. There was also the passing thought of perhaps slipping a unit around the Spartan center-left or center-left rear. Just forward of the olive grove, the two sides met in a fairly loud collision of shouts, shields, shoving, and spears. The allied hoplites quickly gained an advantage over the Bondi infantry and were soon in a position to threaten their right flank. Once again, however and unfortunately, command rolls were failed and the opportunity to destroy another division of Viking warriors was lost. 

Picture 6 / Over on the Viking left, the warriors in the sunken road remain in place while the Spartan hoplites slowly advance. The Viking archers have inflicted several hits of the Spartans (note the red markers on the one unit), but neither side wanted to move across or out of the terrain feature. Essentially, this flank wound up being a kind of staring contest while the battle was being waged elsewhere.

Picture 7 / Since the allied hoplites were having trouble moving through the olive grove, a division of Medium Infantry Bondi decided to go and meet them. As the dice would have it, the hoplites got their act together and were able to engage the Vikings just outside of the grove. The combats went against the Viking warriors, and their right flank was turned. However, in the course of the fighting, they did give the allied hoplites a bloody nose. 

Back in the center of the field, to the right of the sunken road, another melee developed between the best Viking formations and what might be called the second-best division of Spartan hoplites. In these back and forth melee rounds, the to hit and  to save dice favored the Vikings. Although one of their units was forced to give ground, the Viking line was able to mete out more punishment against the hoplites. In fact, one unit was broken and another was shaken from accumulated losses. True to his nature, Ivan Longbeard was in the thick of the fighting. His presence and actions certainly helped, but in one round of the chaotic melee, he was wounded and promptly removed to a safer portion of the line. His warriors did not lose heart, however. 

It was only upon discovering that the division to his right no longer existed and that a few enemy formations were approaching his exposed right flank and right rear that Ivan swore mightily and then, after wincing as another bandage was tied around his wound, issued orders for his men to disengage and fall back. 

Picture 8 / This shows the fighting in the center (the Viking center-left and Spartan center-right) as two rather good formations of heavy infantry engage in a protracted struggle. With their heavy throwing weapons and combat steadfastness, the Vikings are able to inflict quite a few losses on the enemy formations. Even though one unit was forced to retire in good order, the fight was maintained. The Viking commander entered the fray and though he was wounded, he helped to turn—at least temporarily—the tide. 

Picture 9 / Another view of the Viking right flank, showing the reduction in the size of the division fighting the allied hoplites. Fortunately for the Vikings and unfortunately for the Spartans, the allied hoplites were not able to capitalize on their local advantage. The Bondi proved quite stubborn. 

Picture 10 / A view from the Viking right looking down the field after the Viking center-right had been routed. Three units of hoplites can be seen past the road, but these formations need to wheel and reorder their ranks before making a concerted or piecemeal attack on the exposed flank of the Viking center-left. Sufficient to say, the Viking line of battle had been breached and the Viking position was in trouble. 

Picture 11 / Taken very near the end or when the scenario was halted, this shows the Spartan hoplites having made those aforementioned wheels but slowed by poor command rolls. The Viking center-left (the best formation) is occupied to its front and vulnerable on its right and rear. The piercing of the Viking line and the very real threat to their best division forces the now wounded Viking commander to order a retreat in the face of mounting pressure. 

Remarks

Nine turns were played until the decision was made to halt the scenario. In strict terms of numbers, the Vikings had lost six units compared to just two units broken on the Spartan side. There were two or three Spartan/Allied units that were rather worse for wear, but on the whole, the Spartans were in a much better position when the fighting was stopped. The Viking line had not been “rolled up,” and the flank of its center-left formation had not been attacked, but this was inevitable. Indeed, when the center-right Viking formation gave way, I considered awarding the field to the Greeks, for I wondered what army could or how an army would maintain its morale when a fourth of its strength had been defeated and a rather large hole had been made in its line of battle. 

The Hail Caesar rules are certainly colorful and rather complete, but they are not complex, at least in terms of putting together a piece of Ikea furniture way. I do find the rules to be a little cumbersome, however. This subjective assessment stems from the number of dice that need to be rolled and the number of variables or factors that have to be taken into account for each melee. For an abbreviated example, when one of the better Viking units attacked an opposing unit of Hoplites, I had to decide if the Vikings would “close ranks” so as to adopt a kind of shield wall formation. That choice made, I picked up seven dice and rolled them, looking for results of 4, 5, or 6. If I declared a charge, then I could also count 3s, but I would not be able to “close ranks.” The number of hits would be the number of save rolls made by the Spartan unit. In turn, the Spartans would get to roll to hit the Vikings and these warriors would get to make saving throws. The basic mechanics of melee are “complicated” by the various characteristics a unit may have. For example, if the Vikings are “tough fighters,” then they get to reroll one missed attack or to hit die. For another example, if the Viking unit contains Berserkers, these animal-skin-wearing warriors are rated as “wild fighters,” which might provide 1, 2, or even 3 re-rolls, but only for the first round of melee in a battle. So, overall, more die rolls and more modifiers depending on the circumstances. To be certain, it adds some flavor, color, or “chrome,” but personally, I find it a bit tiring. I would rather roll one or two dice to resolve a melee rather than 17, 18 or even more when factoring in hits, saves, and morale checks. Ideally, I should like to find or perhaps even develop some middle ground or compromise between these “extreme” ends of the melee resolution spectrum. 

Shifting to a direct comparison/contrast with the last set of rules employed, the command and control mechanics in Hail Caesar are quite different from those used in Armati 2nd Edition. The ragged or disorderly advance of my hoplites stands as a case in point. Instead of a uniformed or measured movement across a relatively simply battlefield, my hoplites started and stopped or just decided to take an extended lunch break in an olive grove. At one point, on a blundered division order, several units of hoplites suddenly decided to “drift left.” Fortunately, there were no friends in the way, but I thought it odd that hoplites would “drift” in the opposite direction of where they normally tend to move so as to keep within the protection of their neighbor’s shield. There was also the case of a single unit of Vikings (over on the left, behind the sunken road and not hiding in it) that blundered and made an “uncontrolled flight” right off the battlefield. I pondered what impact this development might have had on the other units in the division. I wondered if the unit should be allowed to rejoin the scenario once the men had changed into clean trousers. I wondered too, although perhaps a turn or two too late, if seeing this would have inspired the opposing Spartans to give chase and thus, get “sucked into” the rough ground of the sunken road and a fight against its garrison. 

I have not calculated the points value for either army involved in this latest scenario. I do know that the unit numbers were essentially equal. Each side had four division containing four units each. Neither side had any cavalry, and both sides were accompanied by a handful of skirmishers. The Vikings had a slight advantage here, in that they deployed a unit of light infantry archers. It might be remarked that the terrain favored the Vikings, but as no fighting took place in this sector, I think the terrain can be ignored. 

As remarked above, the Viking plans, such as they were, seemed a bit out of character. The Vikings simply stood and waited for the Spartans and their allies to come to them. The Spartans tried to oblige, but the command dice were not supportive of this plan. To the extent that a “shieldwall” formation was adopted, it seems fair to remark that this was and is a defensive posture. In Hail Caesar, if your formation “closes ranks,” then you cannot hit your enemy as easily, but you do stand better chance of saving against wounds or hits inflicted. On further reflection, the “close ranks” option seems more generic than period specific and necessarily so, given the broad sweep of history covered by the Hail Caesar rules and its supplemental army lists. 

In typing up the narrative of the first scenario of this long-term project, I gave myself a grade. I continue that practice here, and believe that a “low B” or “high C” is in order. This scenario was colorful, in its own way, and did, to an extent, offer another experience of what it may have been like if Spartans and Vikings had crossed spears, swords, and shields. However, it was not very engaging or entertaining. I attribute this to the simple design or adaptation of the scenario and to my general dislike of having to roll handfuls of dice to resolve combat (whether missile or melee). I should also like to acknowledge that Hail Caesar appears to function best as a large and social game, involving at least four player-generals if not also an umpire.   

The score in this long-term project presently stands tied at one win each. The forthcoming IMPETVS scenario will give either the Spartans of the Vikings the temporary lead. (Of course, the planned solo wargame could also result in a draw.) I wonder what kind of grade this tabletop battle will earn, if I will be more engaged and entertained, and if I will find a more promising paragraph of rules detailing the advantages and disadvantages of forming a shieldwall? 

CONFESSIONS OF A SOLO WARGAMER - Part 1

Randomly Accessed Memories of Miniatures

According to the typed and laminated label secured with magnetic tape to the black plastic storage container, the contents of ‘Wargaming Bin - 6’ include the following: assorted copies of eight-plus volumes of The Courier magazine; a handful of copies of Historical Gamer; a couple of copies of Military History magazine, and nearly a dozen programs from LITTLE WARS, this last being an annual wargaming convention, sponsored by HMGS (Historical Miniature Gaming Society - Midwest / please see http://www.hmgsmidwest.com/ for additional information) and held at various locations within a comparatively short drive (approximately 30 minutes, give or take) of the city of Chicago. I confess that I don’t often inspect, refer to or even have reason to inspect or refer to the contents of this particular bin. Near the end of February 2022, however, while struggling to find a way to introduce my next blog post and simultaneously struggling (or procrastinating) to continue a Hail Caesar scenario wherein Spartans were engaged with some Vikings, I took a few minutes to take a look at what has been sitting quietly or waiting patiently in what might be called a plastic tomb.

The “collection” of Courier magazines is by no means complete. I do have Volume 1, Number 5 though, which was published in March-April of 1980. (Wait a minute . . . that’s 42 years ago!) On the cover, there is a large black and white photo of Jack Scruby at his workbench or in his workshop. The issue contains articles written by Bob Beattie, Ned Zuparko, and Larry Brom among other contributors. Issue Number 82 of the “new” Courier has a full-color cover. It appears to be of a 25/28mm WWII game, taking place somewhere in Russia before the heavy snow and merciless cold has set in. Looking briefly at the article list, I see that Bill Rutherford wrote a comparison/contrast essay about three sets of WWII rules. Paul Koch wrote something about using DBA-like rules for Napoleonic gaming. Bob Beattie was there again, this time writing something about the “new” DBA 2.0 rules. Shifting to Historical Gamer or Historical Miniature Gamer magazine, I could find no date information for Issue 7. (I have the first seven issues.) There was a full-color cover however, and the table of contents listed articles by Howard Whitehouse on building terrain; Brian Beale’s complimentary review of Duke Seifried’s “extravaganza” at Origins 2005, and a group effort interview of Scott Bowden that was conducted at Historicon 2006 and afterwards. As subjectively interesting as it is to review some of these stored wargaming publications, I should like to narrow my focus to the programs obtained from attending, apparently, nearly a dozen LITTLE WARS conventions. Specifically, I want to take a close look at the first program in my “collection.” This is the one from LITTLE WARS 2000. 

The program being in my possession, there can be no doubt that I was there. The “problem” is, I have no actual memories of attending this convention. To be certain, I do recall the location and the rather dingy or sub-par, at least to me, environment in which the dealer tables and games were held. I can remember that the facilities (i.e., washrooms) were certainly not suited to the volume and habits of the attendees. However, even after looking over the program for a couple of days, I cannot recall playing in any significant or memorable game, seeing an especially spectacular wargame, or finding some new and must-have product in the dealers area. Scanning the listing of events for the three-day convention, it can be remarked that many periods and tastes or preferences were catered to. For example, on Friday, one could choose from the following:  25mm Colonial, 20mm WWII, 6mm Napoleonic, or 1/144 Sci-Fi. The Napoleonic game was a refight of Lutzen (1813) using Napoleon’s Battles. The Sci-Fi game was called “Tatooine Scream - Pod Racing.” In the early hours of Saturday (Day 2 and by early I mean starting at 9 a.m.), one could choose from 25mm Pirate action (set in the 1700s), 25mm ACW (Gettysburg - Day 1), 1/600 ACW - Ironclads, or 20 mm War of 1812 - The Battle of Lundy’s Lane. The “Battle of Giza,” scheduled for six hours (from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday) caught my attention. This was a 25mm Ancients game for 4-12 players using home rules. The description or summary is worth quoting in full. 

Muwattilis has defeated Rameses at the Battle of Kadesh and has followed the 

        Egyptians down in to their heartland. The Egyptians will make their last stand 

        on the plain of Giza under the watchful eye of the Sphinx. The landscape is 

        dominated by the massive configuration of the Great Pyramid. The sculptures 

        cut in to the very living rock are reminiscent of Abu Simbel and the area is 

        further complicated with a number of exquisitely decorated temples. Indeed, 

        this barren landscape is a treasure trove of Egyptian art and tradition, and you 

        are there at the moment of this historic encounter. This is an “Uncle Duke” 

        extravaganza, featuring sound effects, background music, special lighting, and 

        Duke’s own CHARIOT rules. Prepare for a magnificent foray in the past!  

Having reread this—I want to call it an advertisement or commercial—several times now, I am starting to think that maybe I did happen upon this extravaganza while walking around the games and dealer area. Perhaps I even took some photos of this colorful and massive game. I would have to check my computer photo albums. Perhaps it’s my “advanced age” or perhaps a “conservative” or “traditional” belief when it comes to playing at war, but I find myself feeling a little exhausted or even overwhelmed on reading the description. Sound effects? Background music? Special lighting? Goodness! I am tempted to ask, “Is this wargaming or is this some kind of performance art?” (Sidebar: To what extent can wargaming be considered performance art?) 

The fighting or gaming wound down on Sunday. “Diehard” wargamers could get their fill by choosing from a reduced number of events. The variety of scales and periods was still abundant. For example, one could be a Viking, Saxon, or Norman in a 25mm Dark Ages scenario. One could also assume the role of a dashing 25mm Musketeer and defend La Rochelle. Another option offered enthusiasts the opportunity of “driving” a 1/64 scale Nascar “75 laps around a tri-oval race track.” If one waited until 10 a.m., then a 1/285 scale refight of Zehlendorf (April 1945) was available to 4-8 player-generals. 

I will conclude this section with what might be called “full disclosure.” First, I do not have a complete “collection” of LITTLE WARS programs. I have copies for 2000 through 2005, and then from 2010 to 2014. I am not sure why there is a gap from 2006 to 2009. I also don’t know why I have not kept any programs from the past eight years. I am fairly certain that I attended at least one or two conventions when LITTLE WARS was held in Lombard, Illinois. 

Second, and perhaps with some slight embarrassment or even regret, I have never joined HMGS-Midwest. This would have reduced the registration fee for getting in the doors of the annual event, but that savings would have been canceled out by the cost of joining HMGS. Never have I volunteered to run a game at LITTLE WARS, or even volunteered to help out in some way or another. I suppose these admissions could be counted as “black marks” against me and my wargaming character. As a further point, I am a confirmed solo gamer. Very early on, I was introduced to wargaming in a social setting (an after-school “club”) and I have played a number of games (plastic miniatures or boardgames) against a living opponent, but the vast majority of my gaming experience and life has been conducted on my own, playing against myself. It is not that I have a “phobia” about sitting or standing around a table with half-a-dozen strangers for several hours while moving troops and throwing dice. It is simply that my preference is for—lacking a better description—something more functional and minimalist than expensive, aesthetically pleasing, and competitive. There are other factors or variables, such as time, inspiration, convenience, and so forth. Thinking about my attendance at these historical conventions, I rarely went for more than one day of the scheduled three, and I was rarely there for more than six hours. I would estimate that my average stay was around four hours. I would circulate, taking in the variety of games and rules on display. I would sometimes “people watch,” wondering if there was some sort of causal relationship between the perceived health of many attendees and the comparatively sedentary nature of the hobby. I would also wander in the dealer area, more often shocked and dismayed by the price tags than I was amazed and impressed by the latest product or idea. I guess one could take a negative view of my attendance or experience at these LITTLE WARS conventions and “argue” that I was somewhat parasitic or even judgmental. I would “attach” myself to this annual host and “suck” some ideas out of the larger body. I would form new opinions or reinforce old ones about this or that topic. On the other hand, a less graphic or negative perspective would simply offer that I made an annual “pilgrimage” to get some new ideas, find some inspiration, see what was going on in the hobby, and maybe, just maybe, participate in a game if the period, rules, and scale caught my interest. 

I’ve had the program from LITTLE WARS 2000 for 22 years now. I have not kept an exact record (ironic, I know, as the program is in a hanging file that has a typed label, and that hanging file is in a storage bin with a typed and laminated label which would suggest . . .) of how many times I’ve retrieved it from its bin and looked at it, but I would venture it’s less than the number of fingers on both hands. Given this infrequent usage, I am compelled to ask what purpose does the program serve, and further, why I would keep something from an convention that I have no real memories of attending? Related to this line of inquiry, I see that LITTLE WARS 2022 will be taking place at the end of April. It will be held in a new location. As of this typing (early morning in late February), I wonder if I will decide make the drive out, register, and then spend several hours walking around? I wonder if I will buy anything or even participate in a traditional miniature wargame?

Addendum: March 04 - Unfortunately, I was not able to find any pictures from LITTLE WARS 2000. I might have had, at one point, a traditional photo album, but life events and a few days of  decluttering saw the cannibalization or recycling of these tangible photographs. I was able, however, to locate some photos from LITTLE WARS 2016. (That is odd. I have programs for some conventions and photos for others. I do not have programs and photos for the same gathering.) Following, please find more than several pieces of “eye candy” that might provide some distraction before the remaining sections of this “confession” are read. (Format Note: The decision was made on March 05 to divide an approximately 7,500 words long post into unequal halves and publish the pieces within a few days of each other.) 

Picture A / If memory serves, this was taken at one of the three or four tables reserved for an ADLG (L’Art de la Guerre) tournament. Evidently, it was an open competition, as this particular contest featured, I think, Romans versus Aztecs with a Spanish allied contingent. The color of the native troops and their European allies is quite evident. The uniformity of the Romans is also apparent. The lack of battlefield terrain is also apparent. This scarcity did not detract from the enjoyment of the player-generals, as I recall.

Picture B / I am not sure what scale this game was, but it was a WWII (or perhaps a modern contest - as the planes seem more like jets - they have no propellers), involving flights of German planes over an urban/suburban map. I am not certain what rules were used, but it appears that movement and perhaps combat was hex-based.

Picture C / A rather impressive game of the American War of Independence. This was a strategic-level wargame, as the table encompassed the entire 13 Colonies as well as Nova Scotia and Quebec. There are labels marking the various colonies and there are tiny buildings indicating large towns and cities. There are stands of troops, but I doubt these were for “traditional” battle use. I would guess that these “tiny men” served as physical symbols of divisions or armies, given the large scale of the endeavor. I cannot help but be reminded of the Avalon Hill boardgame 1776 as I look at this picture. 

Picture D / My guess is that this was a Bolt Action wargame. The individual figures mounted on circular bases and the model AFVs not mounted on any base suggest Bolt Action or some similar skirmish-level WWII rules. The terrain is impressive. Talk about your cobblestone streets! The detail on the shutters of the destroyed house are also worthy of a mention. 

Picture E / The large terrain feature, the white tents of the British camp, and the thin deployment of the infantry companies are three clues as to the identity of this large miniature refight. 

Picture F / The modern period was represented at LITTLE WARS 2016. Here, Russian helicopters fly in advance of ground troops advancing across modern-day European terrain. My guess is that this was a Flames of War variant, perhaps a demonstration of the Team Yankee rules? 

Picture G / Why watch Charlton Heston in the movie when you can become Ben Hur on a tabletop? While the terrain is somewhat simplistic, the focus is on the race, on beating your competitors. It appears that these races were well attended. I am given to wonder if someone somewhere, at some show or convention, staged a representation of the combats seen in the movie GLADIATOR? 

Picture H / A combination of miniatures and Commands & Colors Ancients. The hexagons are evident as is the overall size of the model battlefield. Conveniently, there are wooden holders for the display and organization of cards. The contest appears to be a 15mm one, and my guess is that one of the armies is Roman, of one iteration or another. 

Two Wargamers, Two Roads

In the September 10, 2021, post to his popular and well-regarded blog “Here’s no great matter” - A wargaming blog (232 followers as of 18 February 2022 and I would imagine, several thousand more casual readers/visitors; please see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/), Aaron Bell, the right honorable gentleman from New Zealand (formerly from Japan) admits and explains:

Knowing that there is no chance of my managing to paint up all of the armies in 

        all of the eras I would like to, I have been exploring an alternative approach. 

        While I have a decent collection of ancients armies, I have nothing for the horse 

        and musket era, and little chance of having time or spare money in the near     

        future to remedy that. So what is a person to do? Well, I’ve decided to         

        experiment with craft products and boardgames.

On the one hand, I am struck by the initial impression created. There is, at least to me, a tone of defeatism and negativity to these words. One could even suggest that there is a small measure of self-pity. On the other hand, there is a certain amount of realism at work here as well. Like many other participants in this wonderful and varied hobby, it seems that Aaron has problems separating his wants from his needs. I can completely relate, (indeed, I could be a standard-bearer for this contingent) for I have often wanted to attend one of The Society of Ancients Battle Day Events, but I don’t really need to do so. In similar fashion, I would like to have a collection of figures like and a blog as successful as the one established by James Roach (please see and prepared to be impressed with http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/), but again, I don’t really need those splendid models and I don’t really need to have as popular a blog. Like many others who play at war, to one degree or another, at least with specific regard to his hobby pursuits, Aaron might benefit from establishing some SMART goals.  (The acronym should be fairly familiar. S stands for Specific; M stands for Measurable; A stands for Achievable; R stands for Relevant or Realistic, and T stands for Time-Stamped. Please see https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/smart-goal/ or https://www.sandiego.edu/hr/documents/STAFFGoals-PerfPlanningGuide1.pdf.) Here again, I readily admit that I could also benefit from establishing and working toward some of my own SMART goals. It is not my intention to find fault with or analyze this specific post made by a long-time blogger and well-respected member of The Society of Ancients, though I fear that some readers of this blog post may interpret this section and these lines as just that. Worse, they may view it as a kind of personal attack. As I live in a very glass house, my purpose here is not to throw stones. That would be very foolish as well as counter-productive. I admire and respect Aaron Bell. I read his posts as well as his contributions to The Society of Ancients Forums.  I have read, enjoyed, and been inspired by his submissions to Slingshot. I have, on a number of occasions, exchanged emails with the gentleman. I think he is an excellent representative of the hobby. 

Aaron’s comments—now approximately five months old, as this section is being drafted early in the morning of 18 February 2022—struck a chord. In addition to being able to empathize and sympathize with his feelings and situation, I was also impressed by the irony. It would appear that decades ago I came to exact same disappointing but realistic conclusion. To the limited and precious resources of time and money, I would add talent. Very early on, I realized that I was starting out in this wonderful and varied hobby with three strikes against me. Unlike Aaron, I do not possess “a decent collection of ancients armies.” In point of fact, I have no collection at all. I do not own a single painted and based miniature. What I have, instead, is a collection of rule books, some used and some just stored away. (All are arranged alphabetically in hanging files, and stored in labeled bins, of course.) I have a number of books about wargaming. I also have a couple of storage bins containing wargaming necessities such as dice, markers, rulers, and so forth. I also have an assortment of what might generously be called terrain pieces or features. Full disclosure: I do have two unpainted 25/28mm figures on my work/writing desk. These gentlemen stand, patiently and unmoving, just to my left, in front of the pile of colorful post-it notes and just to the right—as one looks at it—of my printer. One is French voltigeur, I want to say, with slung musket, full pack, and blowing a bugle. The other is a Viking warrior or some similar “Dark Age” personality. This fellow has a short chainmail shirt, an axe (not the two-handed variety), and a round shield that will sometimes stay in place but often lies at the feet of this tiny metal man. I really should glue it in place. Anyhow. Rather than dwell on what I don’t have or what I haven’t accomplished in the narrow terms of this hobby (I do quite enough of that in my life outside of wargaming), I started experimenting with alternatives to painted and based miniature armies at an early stage of my involvement. This flexible and functional approach or “method” has allowed me to command armies and formations ranging from British and tribesmen in Afghanistan during the 1880s to Prussians and Austrians in Europe during the 1750s to Athenians and Persians in Greece during the 430s BC. Reviewing Aaron’s September 10 post for the twelfth or thirteenth time, I had to chuckle, imagining the parallel universe wherein I decide to make the shift from colored cardboard counters to actual miniatures while he “graduates” from painted and based miniatures to other, non-traditional representations of armies and units of this historical period or that one.