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.