An Assessment 

of Indian Archery

An Unexpected Development 

Drafting a post about Indian archery or the representation and resolution of arrow volleys by Classical Indian infantry formations on a wargames tabletop was neither a major concern nor a serious consideration until the recent completion of a very brief report/memo on a GRAND TRIUMPH! solo scenario which featured 147 points of Seleucids versus 143 points of Indians. This summary description was shared with two forums, the dedicated platform for TRIUMPH! enthusiasts and the website for the larger as well as much longer in existence Society of Ancients. As per usual, a very small percentage of the combined membership (and or guests to these forums) took the time to read or scan the report. An even smaller number of  individuals weighed in, generating an appreciated amount of electronic conversation. Anyway, the first bullet point under the ‘Remarks/Take aways’ section of my admittedly hastily produced memo read as follows: “It was rather odd to field an Indian army and not have to roll any dice to resolve missile fire. (I gather that the effect of Indian archery is abstracted with the numerous Bow Levy units.)” 

For lack of a well-crafted introduction, this sentiment and observation would become the impetus behind this project. With no real planning or meetings wherein format options and content were discussed at length and potential source materials were suggested or even vetted, I launched into an experimental phase using a particular set of rules for ancient wargaming. These figurative laboratory trials being quickly produced as well as recorded, I proceeded to survey a variety of rulebooks in my little library, concentrating on how Indian archers were represented and how effective their bows and arrows might be during a tabletop contest. Initially, I thought that the experiments and my subjective remarks should be presented first. On further review, it seemed to make more sense to position the limited survey before the “lab reports,” as this would provide some context for readers of this post. 

Before I start on the survey, I should like to adapt the opening line in Simon Watson’s educational and excellent “How to Use Elephants in Tactica 2” article, published in the November/December 2020 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients. The veteran wargamer and admired advocate of the Tactica II rules explained: 

Now, I don’t proclaim to be an expert on Ancient India nor elephants (very far 

from it in fact) so what I have written here is only an overview of what I have 

gleaned from perusing general history texts (i.e., books), supplemented by some 

internet research. 

To be certain, I am no expert on the subject of Ancient Indian military history. (Indeed, like Simon, I stand very, very far from this admirable academic title.) I have very little knowledge regarding the development and battlefield use of the evidently long bamboo bow and the arrows employed by various infantry formations (chariot and elephant crews, too) for something like 800 to 1,000 years. What follows is the “work” of an admitted and complete but often eager to learn more amateur. The content of the following sections was obtained from a number of rulebooks, a number of Slingshot articles, and comparatively brief periods of time spent searching the Internet for additional information. Given the first bullet point of my recent report, it would be fair to remark that I had a preconceived idea or impression of how Classical Indian archers should or would perform on a tabletop. I confess that I would be challenged to pinpoint when or how this opinion developed. At the risk of teasing the reader, I am curious to see if this opinion or bias changed as a result of this process, and if so, to what degree and examine the reason or reasons behind this new thinking. 

A Brief Survey of other Rules

For the recently completed solo wargame, I drafted a Classical Indian army from MeshWesh (please see https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9e0e1af06001770979e/explore), which contained, as required, a rather large number of Bow Levy stands or units. For those readers not familiar with TRIUMPH! rules (Version 1.1, November 2019), permit me to offer the description/definition of Bow Levy found in Appendix D, page 47: “Poor infantry with long-distance missile weapons. Generally unarmored, untrained in volley fire, and provided with smaller supplies of ammunition. Their long-range fire is weak and ineffective . . .” In game terms, this troop type is Open Order and has a cost of 2 points per stand. Conversely, 

the Archer troop type is described as: “Infantry armed with long-distance missile weapons. Usually well-armed, trained in volley fire, and supplied with large numbers of arrows . . .” Like their lower-quality brothers in arms, Archers are also Open Order, but are twice as valuable, having a cost of 4 points per stand. 

The decision to depict Hereditary and Mercenary archers as Bow Levy is an interesting one, if only because every other set of rules in my small collection “argued” for a better classification or, at the very least, granted the Indian archers the ability to engage enemy formations from a distance. In no particular order, here are the findings from my informal survey of some of the rulebooks I have accumulated over the years. 

The Classical Indian [500 BC - 545 AD] army list on page 5 of D.B.M. ARMY LISTS - Book 2: 550 BC to 476 AD, allows a player-general to choose from between 12-30 bases, stands, or elements of Archers. These troops are categorized as ‘Irr Bw (S),’ which translates into: Irregular Bow - Superior. Referencing Version 3.2 [April 2011] of DE BELLIS MULTITUDINIS, a set of rules I have zero experience with on a tabletop, page 7 provides the following description of Superior Bowmen: “Exceptionally effective shooters with unusually powerful bows and high skill and morale, able to outshoot opponents and equally prepared to fight indefinitely hand-to-hand with sword and buckler, spear or two-handed cutting or concussive weapon . . .” It is interesting, but not a complete surprise, to find that two rulebooks or army lists have very different opinions on how a particular troop type in a particular army should be represented on the tabletop. On page 4, the Irregular classification is explained as a: “Somewhat arbitrary distinction, chiefly reflecting the ease with which they can be controlled by their general.” Studying Figures 10 and 10b: Distant Shooting, it was noted that units of Bowmen had a range of 200p (which would mean 4 inches when 15mm or 6mm figures were used, and other measurements when different scales were employed), in addition to an arc of fire that was defined as a rectangular box having a base that was equal to three times the frontage of the firing unit or stand. Firing results were determined by a competitive die roll, which may or may not be modified by certain factors.

The Classical Indian [500 BC - 535 AD] army list provided on page 123 of the colorful and thick L’Art de la Guerre rulebook (2014 Edition), allows a player-general to choose between Indian archers (Bowmen) or Indian archers in a mixed unit (Bowmen and Medium Swordsmen). These missile troops have a range of 4 UD (or units of distance; the dimension of this unit of measure will depend on figure scale being used) and an arc of fire quite similar to the box described and diagrammed in DBM. Similarly, firing is resolved with ‘shooter’ and defender rolling a single d6, each of which may be adjusted by certain factors.  

There are two Indian army lists found on page 17 of Extra IMPETVS 4, each of which permits the player-general to choose from 6 to 12 units of T Archers - Longbow B. Generally speaking, these T Archer units will roll 4 d6 when “letting fly.” The actual number of dice will be modified by range band as well as other conditions or variables. According to the Firing Table on page 33 of the spiral-bound rulebook (2008 Edition), units with Longbow B could “reach out and touch” an enemy formation as far as 30 inches away, depending again on the scale of the models being employed on the tabletop. A review of Section 6.0 informs (as well as reminds or perhaps chastises me) that it has been a while since these rules were utilized; that there is an arc of fire (45 degrees to either side of the center of the shooting unit; that indirect fire is possible, and that opportunity fire is also an option, though under strict circumstances. 

Checking the Indian army list [Antiquity Section, page G] of the Armati 2nd Edition rules, the Core FT (Foot) units of this army were Key with respect to army breakpoint as well as armed with Bows—Javs. Like previous sets of rules, the missile fire phase is resolved by competitive rolls of a d6. The scores of these die rolls could be modified. The firing unit has an arc of fire extending 45 degrees from the left and right front corners of its base or stand. Under these rules, Foot units armed with Bows have a range of 24 inches, which affords them plenty of time to “rain arrows” on enemy infantry, as the majority of heavy infantry types have a movement rate of 6 inches per turn. 

Studying the Pauravan and Mauryan Indians [5th-3rd centuries BC] army list on pages 38-39 of the HAIL CAESAR ARMY LISTS: BIBLICAL & CLASSICAL Supplement, it was noted that may of the available units were armed with or given the option to carry bows. These various units could engage the enemy from long range and short range, rolling between 1 and 3 d6 per try or volley. Reviewing the hardcover rulebook (2011 Edition), it was also noted that firing was resolved after movement but before melee. Reviewing the ‘Ranged Attacks’ section (pages 40-51), the maximum range of bows is 18 inches. The arc of fire appeared to be similar to other rulesets, though no definite angle measurement was provided. As with other rules, there were modifiers to either the number of dice being rolled or the scores needed on those dice. Unlike other sets of rules, HAIL CAESAR requires units that have “been hit” to roll saves. These defensive dice may also be modified depending on the situation and circumstance. 

On page 16 of Simon Miller’s TO THE STRONGEST! rules (Version 1.1), the following description was found:

Bowmen are organized in regular-sized foot units and start a battle with six 

ammunition chits. Bows have a maximum range of two boxes. When they 

successfully activate to shoot, they discard one or two ammunition chits and play 

one or two to-hit cards.

In stark contrast to other sets of rules, TO THE STRONGEST! employs a gridded battlefield and playing cards instead of rulers and dice. Looking over the Free Army Lists (Updated 30/6/2020), the Classical Indian army list [approximately 500 BCE to 185 BC] offers a number of infantry with longbow options to the potential riding-an-elephant player-general. If a prospective Porus opted to maximize his archer complement, then 12 stands or units of bowmen would have a total of 72 arrow ammunition chits. It would be fair but not at all original to remark then, that Classical Indians, at least with these rules, are or have a great potential to be a rather “shooty army.” 

The results of this informal and improvised survey strongly suggest and support the idea that Indian infantry archers should have the capability of engaging enemy formations from a distance. (Ideally, I should like to be able to study another 6, 12, or even 18 rulebooks for ancient wargaming, to see what these texts have to say on the pointed subject. My guess is that they would reinforce the findings presented here.) On further reflection, perhaps my disappointment or comparatively low level of satisfaction with the recently completed solo wargame involving Seleucids and Indians was simply a matter of me not being able to work within the level of abstraction engineered by the rules and their mechanics for resolving combat between opposing formations. It does appear that I have something of a bias for Indian armies that are able to “let fly” with a fair number of arrow volleys. One may well wonder then: How much actual evidence is there of battles between Seleucid and Indian armies? What is the win-loss ratio for these ancient engagements? Within this source material, how much information is there concerning the action and effectiveness of the Indian units armed with longbows? 

Reiterating my admitted and quite large degree of ignorance with respect to the military history of Ancient India, I do not have any answers for these questions. What I do have, however, are the records and remarks for a few controlled experiments conducted with the Tactica II rules.

Preparing the “Lab” and the “Equipment” 

Three “units” of Indian FT (Archers) were prepared for a series of experiments on my tabletop. These mock-ups were based on the Indian army list found on page L9 of the Tactica II rulebook. They were 25mm “models,” with each unit having a strength of 36 figures arranged in 3 ranks of 12. These infantry or missile troops had a FV of 4-6, were rated as Veterans, and carried Various weapons (i.e., javelins and swords) in addition to Bows. The formed line measured approximately 21.5 inches. There were no additional troop types present. There were no Elephants, Chariots, or Skirmishers. Neither was there any leader or divisional officer present. 

Roughly 20 inches away, there were three “units” of Greco-Bactrian pikemen (PH) drawn up in a line of battle. These “model blocks” were drafted from the Successor (Seleucid) army list found on page L11. These 48-figure strong phalanxes, arranged in 4 ranks of 12, had a FV of 5-6, were classed as Veterans, and were armed with pikes, of course. As they had the same frontage as the mock Indian formations, and as this was a simple experiment, each unit was matched up against its counterpart. The Greco-Bactrians were deeper than the Indians, however, having a base or stand depth of 8 centimeters. 

First Trial by Fire

Dispensing with most of the game move sequence phases, I advanced the Greco-Bactrians a full move (8 inches in 25mm scale). As the pikemen were now 12 inches away from the waiting Indians and so, well within the 15 inch range of “all bows and slings,” arrows were pulled from quivers, knocked, and then loosed. (It would be interesting to find out what the actual verbal commands were for the Indian archers, and if these various units employed volley fire, independent fire, or a combination thereof. It would also be interesting to find out what the average rate of fire for a unit of Indian archers was.) Anyway, I started with the unit on the left, rolling 12 d6 for the 12 “figures” in the first rank, looking for 6s. Unfortunately, the dice were not kind. Out of 36 total dice rolled, only 3 came up as 6s or “kills.” One casualty was marked on the right-most phalanx, and two casualties were marked on the left-most block of pikemen. 

A second move of 8 inches brought the bristling phalanxes closer to the apparently ineffective line of archers. The move was coordinated; the pikemen maintaining perfect order and discipline. The range being decreased to just 4 inches, another volley of arrows was loaded and loosed. It could be remarked that this barrage of missiles was better, as 6 “kills” were scored, with 4 of these casualties finding targets in the center Seleucid phalanx. However, with 36 dice rolled, only 1 out of every 6 “arrows” found its figurative mark. If my math is correct, this meant that approximately 16 percent of the arrows landed with any consequence. Even so, this volley was twice as effective as the initial one. 

Because 3 or more losses had been inflicted, the Greco-Bactrians in the center pike block had to take a ‘Missile Storm’ test to see if they would be halted. Normally, Veteran units need to roll a 7 or higher to pass this kind of Control Test. However, since 4 “kills” had been scored, the Control Test was modified. The pikemen needed to roll an 8 or above. As luck would have it, the phalangites rolled a 7 and so, received a ‘Missile Halt’ marker. This third of the Seleucid phalanx would not be able to move at all in the next turn. 

The space between the left and right units of this laboratory battlefield setting was closed as the Greco-Bactrians made contact with the standing Indian archers. (There was no closing fire or “hasty volley” option available to the Indians. Evidently, they just waited for the 5 or 6 rows of leveled pike points to arrive in their unprotected ranks.) The unengaged Indian archers loosed another volley and scored 3 “kills” on the faltering enemy phalanx. Another ‘Missile Storm’ Control Test was required, and the poor pikemen rolled a 6, which meant that another turn would be spent so close and yet so far away from the enemy unit figuratively vomiting arrows into their - disorganized, I imagine - ranks. 

In the two melees, the pikemen had 12 dice plus an additional 3 for being deeper than their enemy, while the Indians had 12 dice. When this initial round concluded, the Indian unit on the left had suffered 7 losses for 3 inflicted, while the contest on the right saw an even exchange of 7 casualties for each unit. (The Indians must have used their two-handed swords with some effect! At the risk of complicating things, it could be found curious that the Indians were able to react or engage the enemy, when the pikemen were using much longer weapons, at least in the initial round of melee.) 

The next turn saw just 2 “kills” scored against the central Greco-Bactrian pike block, so the ‘Missile Halt’ marker was removed. In the second round of melees, the right-most Indian unit took 7 casualties while causing 6. (The pikemen had lost their depth advantage, so were rolling 12 dice.) The left-most Indian unit absorbed 9 losses while inflicting 4. 

The Indian archers seemed to have run out of arrows, as their next volley only “killed” 1 Greco-Bactrian in the center phalanx. Not being cowed by scores or hundreds of missiles, the recovered pikemen were able to move forward and make physical contact with their enemy. Having been whittled down a little, this center pike block would not be able to claim any depth advantage against the Indians. In subsequent rounds of melee then, each side would be able to roll 12 d6. As the Greco-Bactrians were slightly harder to “kill” (having a FV of 5-6 versus the Indian FV of 4-6), it could be assumed that the Seleucids would emerge victors in an attritional close combat. Instead of completing the melees started in this first trial, the “laboratory board” was reset for another run through.

Remarks

In the May/June 2020 issue of Slingshot, Dr. Paul Innes offered interested readers “Tactica II: A Ruleset Analysis.” In the sub-section regarding ‘Missiles,’ this noted member of The Society, former Editor of the long-running publication, and veteran academic explained:

Concentrated missiles can disrupt an enemy’s plan by forcing a morale halt, or by 

doing so much damage to a unit that it has to be very careful. Armies that rely on 

missilery can be very hit and miss, if you’ll excuse the pun, since luck will of 

course vary from turn to turn.

While there was no detailed Seleucid plan involved, the “forced morale halt” was inflicted on an unfortunate pike block in this first experiment. As the good doctor remarks, this “stoppage” was due more to luck than apparent skill and training. (Being a fan of good puns, I thought the “hit or miss” word play was appropriate and well done. I might even go so far as to suggest that it was on target.) Even though the experiment was enjoyable, I did wonder if the reliance on luck (the rolling of 12 six-sided dice) bent more towards game mechanics and play or more towards an attempt to reconstruct history. I also wondered why the odds of inflicting damage did not increase, if only slightly, as the range between the opposing units decreased. Mentally reviewing the findings in the informal and short survey of rules, it appears that missile resolution, at least in this specific case, is either a comparatively simple affair of rolling two d6 that may or may not be modified, or a process involving slightly more dice, that may or may not require re-rolls based on unit characteristics and then saving rolls by the targeted unit. I wondered if there was a ‘middle ground’ or compromise - and if not, could one be developed - between these two points on an apparent “missile resolution spectrum”? 

Second Trial by Fire

Trying something different, the three units of Greco-Bactrians conducted a slow advance, coming to an orderly stop just outside of the 15 inch arrow range of the ready and waiting formations of Indian archers. In the proper sub-phase of the next turn, the three pike blocks stepped out smartly, advancing a full 8 inches toward the enemy archers. The Indians were able to launch a volley (three actually) at a range of a little over 7 inches. 

From the Indians’ point of view, 3 “kills” were inflicted on the left-most enemy unit; 2 were scored on the center block, and 3 were inflicted on the right-most phalanx. The Greco-Bactrians would have to take two Control Tests as a result of this fairly effective volley. Although stung by these missiles (by my math, a success rate of 22 percent), both pike blocks passed the required test. The orderly advance would continue without interruption. 

As they were within 8 inches of their targets, each pike block was able to “charge home” without any additional volley of arrows striking home. The phalanxes would not gain any impetus benefit (serried ranks of pikes versus a stationary target, etc.), but they would enjoy a depth advantage, so three melees would see 15 dice rolled by the pikemen against 12 dice rolled by the sword and javelin carrying Indians. (I imagine that some of them would be loosing arrows at very close range during the contests.) 

From left to right, for both sides, the “kills” scored were as follows: Indians - 6, 4, and 5. The Greco-Bactrians inflicted 8, 8, and 3. (Apparently, the Seleucid unit on the far left did not eat their Wheaties.) In the next round of close combat, the Indians managed to slay a total of 16 pikemen, but lost 23 of their own in the process. If this ratio of casualties continued, it seemed quite likely that the Indian position would collapse under such pressure. 

Being more interested in the mechanics and processes of missile fire resolution, this bloody melee was stopped, the units were restored to their original strengths, and the lines of battle were redrawn for another experiment. 

Remarks

Without intending to do so, it appears that I may have stumbled upon an effective tactic when I am commanding pike blocks against enemy infantry armed with bows. If I am careful to pre-measure (allowed by the Tactica II rules), then I can limit the number of volleys my phalanx units are subjected to. Relying on the “hit or miss” formula or philosophy of these rules, it seems prudent to ensure that my heavy or even formed light infantry units only have to suffer from the fairly random effects of a concentrated arrow volley. 

However, here again I wondered about the inactivity of the Indian formations. While there is some potential of “getting into the weeds” with regard to timing, historical accuracy, and so forth, it does seem somewhat strange that a comparatively large group of Indian bowmen would only be able to “let fly” with one volley of arrows. Of course, it is understood that this single firing phase likely represents the accumulated effects of a number of volleys drawn and loosed while the enemy pikemen covered the space between the lines. 

Third Trial by Fire

For this final exercise, the Indian archers remained in the same line of battle, quivers replenished and figurative unit leaders at the ready. For the Seleucid pikemen, the phalanxes were arranged in echelon formation, with the top of the stairs facing the right-most Indian unit, and the other blocks deployed as the middle stair and bottom step, respectively. The distances between the portions of these opposing lines were: 20 inches, 23 inches, and approximately 26.5 inches. As with previous trials, the game move sequence was modified so that movement, missile fire, and melee resolution could be resolved without having to address initiative, evading troops, rallying, and so forth. 

The Greco-Bactrians moved forward, which resulted in their left-most unit coming into the range band of the Indian archers. Accordingly, a volley was sent their way, which resulted in 2 “kills” on the advancing pikemen. The other phalanxes were out of range, and the Indian unit in the center was not allowed to shift or angle its firing figures (not even by a fraction) to add to the number of d6s thrown by their neighbors. (Note: I do suppose that the center Indian unit could have wheeled slightly to its right during the Indian movement phase, but then this would have shifted the ‘beaten zone’ of this unit away from the central phalanx as well as opened up the Indian formation, possibly, to a flank attack.) 

When the Seleucid infantry finished their second move, all three pike blocks were in range of the Indian archers. There would be no modifiers applied however, even if one unit of the phalanx was 4 inches away and another was about 10.5 inches from making contact. Coincidentally, the handfuls of dice seemed to understand my thinking, as 5 “kills” were scored against the closest block of pikemen, 2 “kills” were inflicted on the center formation, and a single “kill” was recorded against the bottom step unit. Needing a 9 or better to pass the required “Missile Storm” test, the pin-cushioned phalanx rolled a 5 and was immediately labeled with a ‘Missile Halt’ marker. 

In the next turn, the center phalanx crashed into the Indian archers. The archers on the left and right of this combat were free to deliver another volley into the serried ranks of their enemies. The left-most Indian unit inflicted 4 “kills” and succeeded in placing a ‘Missile Halt’ marker on the targeted phalanx. Unfortunately, the archers on the right side of the line scored just a single “kill.” The ‘Missile Halt’ marker would come off, and the Seleucids would be able to close the distance in the next turn. (One imagines that they had a thing or two to say to the Indian archers.) The melee was quite a struggle. Both sides removed 7 enemy figures from their ranks. The next round would see 12 dice versus 12 dice, as the Indians had removed the Greco-Bactrians depth advantage. 

Free to move, the left-most unit of pikemen advanced into melee with the Indians on the right. An embarrassment of a volley indicated only 1 “kill” against the halted formation, so the marker would be removed, and a third melee would start with the next turn. The mood and fighting ability of the Greco-Bactrians was on full display in this melee round. In two contests, the Indians scored an abysmal total of 4 “kills” against the phalanxes, while they took a rather punishing combined 16 in return. Ouch!

There was no additional turn played in this trial, as the unengaged phalanx would make contact, the Indians would not be able to volley once more before the enemy closed, and if the Seleucid dice continued to be so deadly, then it was only a matter of time before the Indian formation would be pushed to its breaking point. 

Remarks

This trial provided further evidence and support of Dr. Innes’ well-written assessment. The dice were kinder to the Indians during this experiment, until they were not. At the risk of looking at the larger picture, I wondered about the “reliance on missilery” aspect of the gentleman’s explanation. Stipulating again to my lack of knowledge about Ancient Indian military history, it seems to me that the Indian infantry armed with long bows formed a part of the “combined arms approach” used by the various kings and princes. While not as valued or important as the upper class riding on elephants or in chariots, it occurs to me that thousands of archers, even if not as well trained or born to it like the English bowmen of the 100 Years War, should have a certain impact on the ancient wargaming tabletop.  

In three trials or experiments, I rolled a fair number of dice for the Indian archers. In a few instances, I had some nice luck by inflicting enough casualties to force Control Tests on the enemy formations. I had some help as well, when the Greco-Bactrians rolled poorly and were subsequently marked as ‘Halted due to Missile Fire.’ Curiously, the Indian archers were not penalized for longer range volleys or rewarded for closer range shots. Neither did they receive any kind of modifier after having inflicted a ‘Missile Halt’ on a targeted phalanx. One might think that this success would be treated, in some fashion, like the “Impetus Inroad’ rules. One might think that, having “found the range,” a subsequent volley against a hurt and halted unit would have the potential to be as effective. 

Based on the very limited data set provided by these three trials, it seems safe to suggest that Indian archers probably won’t fare very well against Seleucid pikemen or any other heavy infantry formation. On further reflection, it appears that I could have added some stamina to the Indian formations by increasing their unit strength to 48 “figures.” This additional rank would have denied the Greco-Bactrians any depth advantage. Curiously, the increased strength would not have any impact on the unit’s ability to inflict damage from 15, 8, or even 3 inches away. This leads me to wonder if tinkering with the restriction on the frontage of heavy infantry formations would make a difference. For example, what if the Indians were deployed in units of 3 ranks of 16? This deployment would result in ‘overlaps,’ but how much would this increased frontage affect the “hit or miss” ability of the archers? Along similar lines, I wonder what might happen and how the Indian archers would fare if their missile units used the base dimensions given for Longbows in Section 1.2 of the rules? Using the rules as written, an Indian unit with a strength of 36 “figures” would have a frontage of 15.6 centimeters in 25mm scale, and a depth of 6 centimeters. Given the “beaten zone” restrictions, it appears that a small percentage of the archers in the above examples would be prohibited from participating in fire phase. For some reason though, these excluded archers would be able to fight in the melee phase when the Greco-Bactrians made contact.  

Additional Remarks

Even though I have managed to assemble and maintain a fairly comprehensive catalog of my wargame writing over the years, I have not been able to identify when the aforementioned preconception or bias regarding the archery of Classical Indians started. If pressed on this point, I would hazard a guess at my “formative” ancient wargaming years with the original Armati rules. The Indian army list in that ‘gateway’ set could be fairly described as bow-heavy. Various reading over the years has likely reinforced this initial impression. For example, I recall reading an Armati report about Battle Day Hydaspes wherein the Indian archers rained arrows down (with some effect) on the comparatively slow and bothered-by-elephants Macedonian phalangites. 

In his engaging article, Simon Watson remarked on the “handicapping of the Indian formations” in the tutorial or demonstration game used to educate the reader about how elephants were used in Tactica II. His main focus was on the elephants, chariots, and cavalry of the Indian army, not on the foot formations. The veteran wargamer commented that a “competent player-general” would likely make better use of these components on a tabletop. I reflected on this sound advice (if not necessarily supported by the historical record) as the “self-inflicted wound” of my recent TRIUMPH! scenario was still fresh. I wondered if I should play the scenario again, but use a different deployment or even modify the composition of the army so that I had more elephants, chariots, and cavalry. I also wondered about setting up a rematch, but providing the Indians with Archers instead of Bow Levy. If this substitution is judged too extreme or non-historical, then I wondered if the ‘Shower Shooting’ Battle Card could be adapted for use by the numerous Bow Levy units. Was there another amendment, approach, or option that I was not considering?

The naming of this rather hastily produced post changed quite a few times as the text body was drafted, reformatted, and rushed through its revisions. Other titles that were considered included: “Arrows and Bows, Bows and Arrows,” “Nothing to Quiver About,” “Experiments with Indian Archery,” and “A Consideration of Classical Indians.” The temptation to conduct additional tests and trials with the other rulesets listed is still present, but I wonder and worry about the time required, and if any of the reports and results would prove interesting and or substantive. At the risk of repeating myself, my guess or assumption is that three of four trials with these various rulebooks would produce similar results to those secured in the Tactica II tests. 

Stipulating to the small number of rulebooks studied, the very limited data set produced in the few experiments, and the additional knowledge gained from reading a variety of articles on this topic, I find that my position on Classical Indian archery has not changed substantially. I think that Indian foot units armed with bows should be able to engage enemy formations from a distance. I think that there is something to be said for having the range of this engagement influence the effect of the volley(s). In addition, I think allowance should be made for indirect or overhead fire, so that an arrow barrage could precede an advance by elephants or even protect a screen of skirmishers. Weather conditions might also be considered, as humid or rainy conditions could have an effect or effects. Terrain features and visibility would also impact the ability of archers to “reach out and touch the enemy.” I understand that Indian archers were rather low on the caste system ‘ladder’ of Ancient India. I also understand that nearly naked (i.e., unarmored) archers carrying bamboo bows and quivers with around 25 arrows are not as exciting to command on a tabletop as colorful elephants, four-horse chariots, and squadrons of cavalry, but I think they still are an integral component of this combined-arms quartet. At a minimum, as stated above, I think that Indian archers should be able to engage the enemy from a distance. What that distance is, how effective the volleys are, and when or how the process is resolved, well . . .

Source Materials Consulted

The is no particular format or organization for the following references. I will not repeat the various rulebooks mentioned in a previous section, as my guess is that most of the readers of this post will have some experience or familiarity with those identified. As mentioned, ideally, I should like to be able to expand the survey. My estimation is that most if not all of the rulebooks I have not studied will provide for Indian foot units that are capable of engaging the enemy from a distance. This educated guess provides something of a transition to the following short list of articles found in old issues of Slingshot. 

> In Number 266, Richard Lockwood provided readers with a battle report wherein the FOG (Field of Glory) rules were used. Please see “Alexandrian Macedonian vs Classical Indian - FOG,” on pages 36-40. 

> The same gentleman and long-standing as well as respected member of The Society reviewed a number of Indian archer figures/manufactures in Number 297. Please see “The Classical Indian Archer,” on pages 40-42. This was a rather timely piece, as Battle Day Hydaspes (2015) had been announced and scheduled. 

> Perhaps the most interesting and informative article was the one written by Jeff Jonas. In Number 297, so a nice companion for Richard’s figure review, Jeff provided a wealth of material in “The Ancient Indian Army of Poros,” which ran from page 12 to page 25. 

> A gentleman by the name of Michael Nursey engaged readers with “The Indian Six-foot Bamboo Bow and the Longbow,” which appeared in Number 172 on pages 13-16. 

> It might be suggested that Duncan Head, another respected as well as prolific veteran of The Society, had the first say on the topic when he provided readers with “Ancient Indian Archery” on pages 45-46 of Number 113 (May of 1984, to give some chronological context). 

Depending on one’s level of interest and the amount of time available, there is additional information to be found online. I found a YouTube video (8:35) about “The Ancient Archer of India.” Further digging uncovered a video on Archery Historian, titled “Archery in Ancient India - A brief History of Indian Archery - From Ancient to Medieval Times.” (This video has a running time of approximately 17 minutes.) I regret to inform readers that I have not made sufficient time to check what might be available through Academia.edu. A very brief look suggested that most of the scholarly papers were concerned with the athletic aspects and so, more modern concerns of Indian archery. Widening the search to “Ancient Indian military history” seemed to offer more promising results, but in this superficial survey, nothing specifically dealing with archery in early Indian warfare was discovered. 

An Editorial . . . 

of a Sort

Resolution or Ridiculous? 

Where was I in the summer of 2000, and what was I doing? An open-ended question to be sure and a relatively challenging one, as I do not possess an autobiographical memory - or highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM) - like Marilu Henner and a handful of other fortunate individuals. (Please see https://time.com/5045521/highly-superior-autobiographical-memory-hsam/.) However, given some time, I suppose I could dig through some ancient files and records, and put together a brief detailing where I lived, where I worked, what my job was, who my friends were, and what I did in my spare time, etc. For the limited purposes of this post or section of a post, though, I want to focus on what I was doing in the hobby of wargaming at that particular time. If the adventurous and patient reader will permit me . . . 

According to my records, and allowing for a certain window between submission of an article and its appearance in a publication, it appears that I was either working on a SHAKO scenario for Quatre Bras or thinking about disorder as it might apply to Napoleonic gaming. [1] As my wargaming world was rather small at this point in my “career” as a solo wargamer, I was completely and blissfully unaware that a gentleman by the name of Matt Irsik and his small band of colleagues had produced the first issue of Warning Order, “the official journal of the Wasatch Front Gaming Society.” [2] In the 24 or almost 25 years now since that electronic periodical’s debut, I have corrected my ignorance. Even so, I have not become nor have I been a consistent reader/follower of successive issues of Warning Order. In fact, it was only through a temporary membership to TMP that I first happened to stumble upon the excellent and rather professional-looking publication. For whatever reason or reasons, this happy accident did not inspire me to take a second and much closer look at the three or four-times a year magazine. In late December of 2024, I happened to trip over this journal again, and while no physical injuries were suffered (thankfully - it was a figurative stumble and fall), I decided to take some time and correct that previous mistake and become or work on becoming educated and informed - in so far that I could. 

Studying the well-designed Wasatch Front Historical Gaming Society website (please see https://www.wfhgs.com/), it was noted that each issue of Warning Order “runs on average from 20-40 pages.” Issue #67 (Fall/Winter 2024) is the most recent, and was the figurative spark that lit this current fire. Anyway, presuming an average of 30 pages an issue and multiplying this estimation by 67, I arrived at the figure of 2,010 electronic pages. Now then, if I set myself a goal of 10 pages per day, simple math informed that it would take me nearly seven months to familiarize myself with the entire contents of Warning Order. Increasing the number of pages to 20 per day, I could possibly complete this comparatively Herculean task in a little more than three months, which would leave me primed for the anticipated appearance of Issue #68. 

As I do not have a very good history with New Year’s resolutions (this is not an admission of flawed character or lack of perseverance, but more of a non-conformist attitude or approach and maybe a dash of cynicism), a reading assignment of around 2,000 pages seemed too large of an elephant to consume, even if it was digested a bite at a time. Options were considered. I thought about reading just the issues from 2022 to the present. I drafted a rough plan to read every editorial. I wondered if it might be worth my while to scan and skim all the issues and either note which pages I wanted to carefully read at my leisure or if it might be better to print those selected articles and pages so that I could annotate them. After going back and forth, after making a mental pros and cons list and checking it twice, I decided to focus most of my attention on the Editorial and article immediately following it from Issue #67. Exploring the catalog of back issues (without a map and without any real identified objective), I decided to respond to, ask questions, as well as provide further comments to three more editorials. For lack of a better introduction then, and for lack of a more organized and thought-out format, this is the plan. I have not decided if, when this post is finished and sufficiently proofread, a brief email and link will be sent to Matt Irsik for his consideration after this improvised ‘editorial’ is posted to my blog.  

The Search for Specialness 

Should anyone who reads Matt Irsik’s editorial in Warning Order Issue #67 be concerned? (Please see https://www.wfhgs.com/ - the icon or window to access the issue should be visible to your left.) Three times in the last two paragraphs of the comparatively if not objectively short piece, this accomplished wargamer, prolific writer, and evidently successful family man laments the lack or loss of specialness with regard to the hobby of wargaming. In order of appearance, Matt observes and or concludes: “Basically, nothing is special any longer.” He then poses this question: “Will we ever get back to where some things in the hobby are special?” The admired and respected fellow closes his Fall/Winer 2024 editorial with the following: “Not much in gaming is special any longer . . .” 

Now then, perhaps it’s just me, or maybe it’s the current vibe and or socio-political climate in this country, or perhaps it’s that emotional “valley” between the “peaks” of Christmas/related holidays and the start of a new year, but I found it difficult to walk away from Matt’s editorial with the usual spring in my step and usual smile on my face. If Matt’s intention was to convey or create a tone of depression and despair in the reader, I think that he may well have succeeded. 

Interested in examining my reaction as well as exploring Matt’s thought process, I started by reviewing the definition of the word special. 

Acknowledging that some might view it as ‘bad form’ to rely upon or even refer to Merriam-Webster (online edition), in this particular instance, I think it might be helpful and constructive. Looking over the multiple definitions and examples, I noted the following. As an adjective, special can mean: “distinguished by some unusual quality,” held in particular esteem,” or “readily distinguishable from others of the same category.” As with many words in the English language, special can also be employed as a noun. For example, it can refer to a “kind of television program” or a “featured dish served at a restaurant.”

To be certain,  and despite over five decades of daily practice, I am no expert in or with the English language and its usage, but it seems to me that in the adjective form, there is more of a subjective assessment or quality than a universally recognized objective measurement involved when it comes to describing something as special. Understanding that Matt is likely doing what he can to produce consistently engaging and informative issues of Warning Order while simultaneously keeping the several other plates of his presumably or evidently successful and rewarding adult life spinning, it would have been nice to know exactly when “things in the hobby were special.” Was this a specific year or number of years? Was it a decade? Was this special time (sorry - unavoidable) focused on a particular period of military history and or particular region or group of wargamers? On a related note or question, can there be “a special time (or times)” for historical miniature wargaming that is separate and distinct from “a special time” for board games, fantasy games, and other niche interests or periods? If the answer is yes, then who or what committee/organization is tasked with making these kinds of decisions? What are their guidelines or parameters?

Seeking to better understand Matt’s concerns, observations, and arguments, I went back to the top of his editorial and started another close reading. (Disclosure: The page was printed out and subjected to a fair number of readings. In fact, the physical copy looks quite a mess, as it has been annotated to the point where it is now rather difficult to read.) Anyway, Matt opened with a quote from the villain in “The Incredibles.” Syndrome, whose real name was Buddy Pine and may or may not have had self-esteem issues as well as dysfunctional relationship with one or both parents, explained or exclaimed: “When everyone is super, no one will be!” Matt asked his readers to “apply that quote to today’s wargaming hobby and I think that you could be on to something.” 

My apologies for being a little slow or perhaps dense (acknowledging that I might be canceled for using that kind of language), but I am going to need some more direction and help here. Are we talking about becoming ‘super wargamers’? Are we talking about becoming wargamers who use just one scale of miniature, one manufacturer, one style of painting, one method of basing, and one particular set of rules? I confess that I am little confused with regard to the point that Matt is trying to get across here. The rest of his first paragraph did not offer any assistance or clues, as it was a kind of trip down memory lane, wherein he referenced old wargaming publications (many of these no longer in existence - sadly), and the inspiration or impetus of this old coverage with respect to “making one’s games better looking.” 

In the second paragraph of his short editorial, Matt refers to a kind of ‘sensory overload’ or would it be better to type immunity or imperviousness, with respect to the attitude of present-day wargamers who appear quite unimpressed by anything, even though significant advancements have been made in multiple areas of the hobby. The accomplished gentleman further notes that most gamers today appear to have a “weird lack of self-awareness, especially when it comes to their painted figs and scenery.” Evidently, a majority of these ‘zombies’ are of the opinion that their miniatures and terrain are worthy of awards if not adulation. In my several readings of this editorial, I wondered if there might be a connection or correlation between the statements made in this second paragraph and Matt’s experience described in the fourth and final paragraph. 

In his last paragraph, Matt shares an anecdote about his gaming group’s Hail Caesar Wars of the Roses demonstration(?) game staged at a convention. Evidently and unfortunately, the “700+ figures on their tabletop” were not sufficient to attract the attention of “the hundreds of Bolt Action, WH40K, Flames of War, and Stars Wars Armada” enthusiasts walking to and fro. Matt hypothesized that the convention participants were perhaps “too busy doing their own thing to pay attention” to his group’s carefully prepared presentation. Initially, I wondered if there might be some small connection to the “award-winning figures and terrain” mentioned in paragraph two, but then I recalled a video ‘lecture’ by Big Lee about the ingredients or steps for a successful demonstration game. I wondered if Matt and his veteran associates employed these common sense guidelines. [Disclosure: I have not completed exhaustive and thorough research into every issue of Warning Order, but would guess that Matt and his colleagues are probably aware of Big Lee and his impact/influence on the hobby.]  

Moving on to the third paragraph of this recent editorial, Matt once again revisits the halcyon days of the past. A specific (or hypothetical?) example of Granada 1492 is referenced, a ‘labor of love’ project which required a number of years, scratch building, research, and figure conversions in addition to the usual attention to numerous details. Advances (another word for progress) in the hobby have made myriad figure scales, periods of conflict (both historical and fantastical), terrain, and new sets of rules available to the masses. The caveats here, of course, are money and time. Matt does note these possible limitations, strangely lumping them together as “the only thing preventing you from playing any period.” [The basic requirements of money and time made me recall the several visits I have made to look at various YouTube videos of The Krause Collection. Along that same line, I suppose it would be appropriate to include links for/to the following: https://shedwars.blogspot.com/2024/08/battle-of-chaeronea-338bc-28mm-wargame.html; https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2023/11/campaign-report-assault-on-terragona.html; https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/, and https://www.blmablog.com/2024/03/the-battle-of-froeschwiller-worth.html. The mind reels at the number of dollars or pounds and the number of hours spent by these ‘stars’ or ‘planets’ of the wargaming firmament. I wonder if there are any individuals who keep careful track of their wargaming budgets and time spent painting or building terrain, and then post these records on their blogs?]

In review, I can appreciate Matt’s opinion. I ‘hear’ him, even though his concerns and observations were not spoken directly to me but conveyed on an electronic page that I just happened to stumble upon while perusing a few preferred boards on TMP. It is disconcerting to consider or discover that “special” - however it may be defined - has decreased by so much in this world-wide hobby. It is disappointing to think that “special” apparently only exists in the past.   

What does the Future hold?? 

The theme of loss or at least a lessening continues in a two-page article following Matt’s editorial. By my reading, there are three messages or ‘take aways’ employed in the conclusion of “Wargames Lite: The Future of Wargaming?” First, there is the adage “Different strokes for different folks.” [Aside: I believe the UK equivalent might be: “Horses for courses.” I should like to find out when, where, and how that British English idiom developed.] Being of a certain age and having accumulated a certain number of life experiences, I am quite familiar with the saying. I sometimes wonder though, how much seriousness or sentiment is behind the expression. It occurs to me that an interpretation (not voiced to the larger crowd obviously) might go something like this: “Well, you can do what you want, but I think it’s pretty silly, actually . . . I think my way is better (i.e., right), but OK, you do you. I rather doubt that we will ever meet across the wargaming table.” Or something like that. Next, the reader is informed that “the hobby continues to grow.” Generally speaking, growth seems like a good thing. However, when I look back over my annotation of the Matt’s editorial, I see that growth can be equated to the proliferation of scales, terrain, rules, playing aids, etc., which apparently results in “everyone being too busy doing their own thing to pay attention to anything special” that an individual or a group might try to present at a convention, show, or in a blog post, or by YouTube video. The third and final point, written by the author (likely Matt but without a byline one cannot be 100 percent certain) is: “the age of complexity is slowly passing by.” 

In this section, my focus will be on that apparent “age of complexity.” In the interest of transparency, I feel that I need to explain that my commentary is that of a historical wargamer, well . . . solo wargamer, who is not as accomplished, prolific, or connected/networked as the author of this op/ed piece when it comes to discussing the future of wargaming. This is not to say that I have never considered or thought about the topic, however. As the format or approach of annotating, re-reading several times, and ‘tackling’ sections one at a time seems to work well enough, this is how I will respond to “Wargames Lite: The Future of Wargaming?”

Currently, my involvement or participation in the hobby is mainly in the form of blog posts. This infrequent activity is supplemented by the weekly visiting of a variety of wargaming blogs, most of which are probably familiar to those few, those gallant few, who have managed to make it this far. In the past, I used to contribute articles to a few publications. Prior to that enjoyable effort and experience, my hobby activities were centered around simple WW2 games. These were followed by a sort of graduation to Airfix figures, with a focus on the Horse & Musket periods. Anyway, this personal and likely fairly common history has been covered in a previous blog post, and is perhaps a long way of admitting that I have not been aware of “this trend (of simplicity) which has turned into a virtual tidal wave and is in the process of washing over the wargaming hobby.” 

Reviewing the paragraphs, I felt a twinge of nostalgia at the mention of The Sword & The Flame rules. I do not want to think about how long this booklet has sat/stayed in a labeled hanging file, which is in a labeled storage bin. I think, however, that I might be able to recall the last solo wargame in which they were used. It was a Boxer Rebellion scenario. However, I would have to check in order to confirm this. It might have been a scenario wherein some revolutionaries crossed the border to attack a Texas town. Anyway. If it is true that the “battle” between complexity and simplicity has been going on for approximately 50 years, then I am given to wonder how and why one side has suddenly developed such an apparent devastating and tremendous advantage. Is it possible that this is yet another example of the detrimental effects of social media, of the ubiquity of iPhones and the like? (It never ceases to amaze and or frustrate when I see people at the gym sitting on a piece of cardio or weight equipment, scrolling through something or engaged in a long text session.) But seriously, I wonder if this is another case of subjective versus objective, similar to the editorial about the apparent loss of or at least severe decrease in specialness? 

On a possibly related note, I have read and enjoyed the statistical analysis and thought-provoking questions derived from same that Jon Freitag has provided on his popular and award-winning blog. (Please see https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/.) He mines and then analyzes the data results from the annual Great Wargaming Survey. (For just one example, see https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/search/label/Great%20Wargaming%20Survey.) I would be surprised to find out that the issue or question of complexity vs simplicity has not been addressed in some way or another over the decade, approximately, that his standard-setting blog has existed. 

In trying to make sense of my annotation on the first printed page of this article, it appears that I highlighted the section about “the many different genres was wargaming today,” the “divergence” or could it be migration from one period or interest or collection to another, and then the variety of causes and reasons for this shift. Again, in trying to relate this explanation to my own history and evolution as a historical wargamer, I went backwards as opposed to forwards. I did not do a great deal of “jumping around” if any at all, really. In broad overview, I started with WW2, then moved to Napoleonics, and then went back further, until I landed and have stayed - with the rare exception - in the expansive eras that qualify as ancients and medieval. I guess then, that in a sense, my participation is simple in that it is limited, albeit to a period of history that spans thousands of years. At the same time, it can be rather complex to try and figure out how Roman line relief worked and then model it on a tabletop, or how to play a satisfying wargame wherein New Kingdom Egyptians face off against Normans or perhaps even 100 Years War French.

Moving on. I have no direct experience with Undaunted: Normandy. I think, however, that the well-known blogger Aaron Bell has posted a couple of times about his experiences and experiments with this game. (Please see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/search?q=undaunted.) As a result, I cannot answer the question which asks, “Is this game a wargame?” However, I do agree that it is a worthy question. Indeed, it might be beneficial to revisit and or attempt to establish a common definition for what a wargame is. My worry here, however, is that we might run into any number of subjective obstacles, of which the topics of simplicity and complexity will play either small or large parts. 

At the risk of distracting myself or even of annoying the reader (I wonder if anyone has made it this far?), I find myself wondering about the apparent requirement (is it written down somewhere?) that one must know something about the history or tactics of a certain military period of conflict in order to participate in a wargame of that particular period or conflict. Phrased more succinctly, and referencing the aforementioned example of the Normandy landings game, it appears that one “doesn’t need to know anything about WW2 at all to be successful in the game.” Well, for as much as I can wrap my head around this potentially complex and worthwhile topic early on a dreary Sunday morning, I think it’s perfectly okay that a participant does not know anything about a particular conflict but can succeed in a wargaming scenario or situation. If the issue is complexity versus simplicity, could we not provide assistance or a ‘controlled environment,’ so that the involved party would enjoy the experience and perhaps, just perhaps, be engaged and excited enough to find out more about the battle, the period, and the personalities or troop types involved? 

In the middle paragraph of the middle column on the second page of the article, the author observes: “The other aspect of this trend is that basically the gamer needs to do very little to put on a game.” He cites Undaunted again, explaining that everything is provided for the player-general. There is “no need for figure prep and painting, terrain building, research, etc.” Is this ‘game in a box’ approach a bad thing? Does it limit or prevent learning? Does it hinder or lessen enjoyment? Does it impact the growth of the hobby? Answers, opinions, and positions will vary, of course. As much as I have thought about this larger issue or ‘problem’ of complexity and simplicity, it seems to me that these subjective (or objective) qualities are the sides of a single coin. I would respectfully submit that one cannot exist without the other. 

In the last several paragraphs of this article, the author equates the hobby or wargaming to a pie. (Unfortunately, he does not identify what kind of pie. Nor does he indicate if it is a la mode. I wonder if pies can be graded along a complex-simple spectrum? My guess is that there may be an episode of “The Great British Baking Show” which deals with this question.) It is an interesting analogy. Perhaps ‘delicious’ would be a better word choice here. Setting aside the few proofreading quibbles, I wonder why the figurative pie has to remain the same size if the hobby is, in fact, experiencing a fairly consistent rate of growth. I wonder too, how Simon Miller’s To The Strongest! rules earn an apparent complex designation when they are promoted as fast play and have proven quite popular. [Visits to the dedicated forum as well as looking over Simon’s wonderfully spectacular demonstration games, indicate that these contests are comparatively quick and quite congenial. Please see https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2013/09/thapsus-is-going-to-colours-on-saturday.html and https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/tothestrongest/.]  It seems to me that the underlying concern is the popularity or accessibility of prepackaged games or traditional board games over historical miniatures. Based on my limited involvement (recall the small number of blogs that I visit on occasion), it seems to me that this corner of the hobby - sorry! - slice of the pie, is doing just fine. The individuals or clubs and groups who prefer board games are not immune to the natural process of aging. Their time will come, as it does, eventually, for us all. At the risk of turning this in a philosophical direction, I suppose one might ask, “How do we want to spend our time/the time we think we have left? Do we want to engage in the complex, or would we rather keep things simple? Is there a satisfactory, subjective, and middle ground - a compromise - that can be found and maintained?” [3] 

I will conclude this third section with a few remarks pertaining to the hypothetical gamer/individual “who would not drop Vanguard: Normandy in order to paint up hordes of miniatures as well as terrain to play Battlegroup Panzer Grenadier.” Well, my first thought is, why does one need “hordes of miniatures” to play this particular game? This leads me to the concern of “bigger being better,” which is another subject in its own right. Playing a little bit of “Devil’s Advocate,” it does not seem too much of a stretch for someone interested in WW2 gaming to expand their interest in this period. Could Battlegroup Panzer Grenadier be entertained as a group project? Would a person who plays Vanguard: Normandy turn up their nose at participating in a Battlegroup Panzer Grenadier game at a convention? It seems that in terms of the overall subject, the Vanguard product would be on the simple side of the spectrum, while Battlegroup would be on the other. It also seems to me, and I may well be basing this on experience, that starting with the simple is better or more comfortable than jumping into the deep end without sufficient preparation. Then again, there are those individuals in the hobby (and life) who rather enjoy or prefer diving in and then trying to figure things out. I would guess that the majority of these individuals have no substantial fear of failure and or are very capable of adapting to an unfamiliar and likely stressful situation. Then again, under discussion here is tabletop wargaming. This is a hobby and not a profession or an episode requiring informed and serious decisions which might involve matters of actual life and death. 

Of Magazines, Options, and Retrospection . . . 

In Issue #30 (Summer 2011), Matt reviewed the ‘state of wargaming magazines.’ He began with a quick summary of the BTI (Before the Internet) period of wargaming history. He related to the reader his personal history with wargaming publications, and then ended on a ‘status of the industry note,’ to which he added either a depressing or realistic assessment, offering that “the sense of wonder has faded . . .”

If the category is ‘wargaming publications and how many do you still have,’ then it seems that the esteemed gentleman - who belongs to a group of dedicated historical miniature wargamers (and other genres) located in Northern Utah - and I have something in common. Inspired by this 13-year old editorial and made to feel a bit nostalgic for younger days as well, I took stock of my accumulated as well as unplanned collection. The following is not a brag, but simply a statement of my habit or practice to store things that are deemed valuable in an organized manner. As of this typing, I have nine plastic bins in which 10 different journals, magazines, newsletters, and convention programs are held. [4] Like Matt, I don’t often find myself looking at old or even ‘ancient’ issues of this or that publication. However, this library proved a fairly reliable source of information as well as inspiration when I was writing for this or that journal or magazine. This library has also proved rather valuable in terms of supporting this very amateur, non-traditional, and so, comparatively unpopular blog. Anyway.

On the one hand, I can see and would even support Matt’s contention that “the sense of wonder has faded.” Recently, I took a brief trip to a major book store in a local mall and spent more than a few minutes perusing the myriad titles in their magazine section. (At the risk of appearing dramatic, parallels could be drawn between this experience and that excellent scene in “The Hurt Locker,” where the character played by Jeremy Renner is almost incapacitated or nearly overwhelmed by the variety of choices available in the cereal aisle.) Eventually, I found what I was looking for: the latest issue of WARGAMES illustrated^®. Well, the August 2024 issue . . . Near enough for mid December. As I have often done in the past when I have made this infrequent purchase, I hesitated, wondering about the value of these 93-odd pages for the listed price. Finding some sort of justification or rationalization, the colorful copy was bought, taken home, flipped through - with only some articles read - and then set on top of one of the aforementioned storage bins. Even though I did not derive any particular ideas or inspiration from this impulse purchase, it was nice to be able to see, aside or instead of the ‘mountains’ of material available online, what was going on or being reported in this established corner of the larger hobby world. (It just occurs to me that I should have referenced the pie analogy mentioned earlier.) Anyway, as this current project started to take shape, one of the ideas for part of its content was a comparison and contrast of this August 2024 issue with a randomly selected issue from one of my bins. For a couple of days, I seriously considered putting this ‘recent’ issue and the March 2011 issue side by side. This work-in-progress plan was set aside for possible future consideration. 

Again, stipulating to the fact that I am not as connected or networked as Matt or other veteran wargamers and writers, it does seem reasonable as well as logical to conclude that the Internet has had an impact on the physically published word, the monthly or bi-monthly magazines and the like. A brief period to time was spent looking around on the Internet (that would qualify as irony, right?), and several titles were found. WARGAMES illustrated^® continues to thrive, apparently. Though, as I have said or suggested, the magazine is different from what it was in March of 2011. Its competitor, Miniature Wargames, seems even more different if barely recognizable. Here, I am referring to the January 2025 issue (Number 501). I am familiar with the titles of Strategy & Tactics, Wargames, Soldiers & Strategy, and Ancient Warfare, but do not subscribe or regularly read any of them. This handful of titles appears to be doing well, or well enough. While the sense of wonder may have decreased, at least for some or many of us older wargamers, I think that the traditional magazines and journals still serve as a kind of foundation, bastion or rally point, from which information can be obtained and inspiration derived. The sense of wonder mentioned by Matt may have shifted, but I think there is still something to be said for traditional wargaming publications. Admittedly, today, the 12 or 13-year old might marvel at the look and feel of an actual magazine, and may even suffer a paper cut or be dismayed when a beverage or gooey food items spills on a colorful page, but I think that this potential ‘recruit’ to replenish dwindling ranks will find something of value nonetheless.   

_________________________________________

After several readings, and after making a veritable mess of the printed page with different colored highlighters, pens and pencils, I confess that I am not quite how, exactly to react or respond to the “Doing Everything is No Longer an Option” editorial from Issue #45 (Spring 2017). If I proceed paragraph by paragraph but choose carefully, it appears that I might be able to formulate something in less that 1,000 words. 

With regard to getting into the hobby, I think Matt and I might have something else in common. In 1976, I was all of 11 years old. It is hard to recall with any certainty (where is that HSAM ability when you need it?!), but I may have switched to Airfix figures of various periods from the Marx sets I used to play with when I was younger. At some point after the bicentennial year, the accomplished and admired fellow from Northern Utah and I went our separate ways in the world of wargaming. I chose a solo path, though I did make a point of attending annual wargaming conventions once I became aware of their existence and was able to arrange transportation and address other logistical concerns. While these fairly regular annual excursions allowed me to keep abreast of what was going on in the hobby, these one or maybe two-day campaigns of playing in select games and buying a few magazines or other items were superficial. Evidently, I was not as tuned in as others, and so, did not notice the perceived change in or crossroads reached by the larger hobby in the mid to late 90s. 

Near the top of the middle column of this editorial, Matt asked - perhaps rhetorically: “ What gamer doesn’t want better paint options, terrain in every scale, figures for every ancient army, and so forth?” He then answers his own question or at the very least presents a caveat. Evidently, “The price is that you no longer feel that you can do everything.” 

At the risk of playing “Devil’s Advocate” again or perhaps at the greater risk of simply being viewed/written off as annoying, the first part of Matt’s question presumes that all wargamers paint. Granted, there is likely a vast majority who do paint, but my guess is that some of these do not especially enjoy it. [5] Some gamers, again, the exact percentage is unknown to me, might prefer to purchase painted armies or paper armies or even those interesting figurines/models offered by WoFun. (Please see https://wofungames.com/.) I seem to recall there being a Blucher game (please see https://sammustafa.com/blucher) wherein neatly colored cards are used to represent the various troop types and nationalities. Interested player-generals would not have to spend time and money painting before they could assume the roles of Napoleon and other commanders during these years of warfare across Europe. I do not presume to speak for any other gamer than myself, but in my long history of playing at war, I have never desired terrain features in every scale. After a number of years of exploring and experimenting with what might be done on a tabletop, I have pretty much settled into a comfort zone of 3000 BC to 1500 AD. That said, and accepting that I am something of an outlier, I have also never wanted to be able to choose figures (in any scale) for every ancient army. I may be completely mistaken here, but this ideal of “paint options, terrain in every scale, and so forth,” brings me right back to that cereal aisle scene from “The Hurt Locker.” Based on my reading, it seems that Matt recognizes the possibility of a problem in this particular regard when he remarks, “Too much choice also has the effect of not being able to get people interested in periods or new rules that you may be interested in if you could get a group project together.”

Having just about 300 words remaining, let me jump to the end of this particular editorial. In the last paragraph, Matt offers some advice to new gamers. Essentially, he suggested that they choose carefully, stay focused, and try not to get distracted by all the new products or latest gaming craze. Matt noted the value of “being grounded” as opposed to “ending up like most gamers, who have interests that are a mile long and about an inch deep.” Out of curiosity, I checked to see where I was and what I was doing in when Issue #45 dropped. Reviewing entries in my catalog of wargame writing, 2017 found me heavily invested in Ancients. In fact, and again not to brag, but I was submitting articles and other material on a fairly regular basis to the tolerant editor(s) of Slingshot. Prior to this ‘tenure,’ I had played ECW, ACW, AWI, SYW, Napoleonics, Colonials, and of course, WW2. Oh yes, there was also some WotR and battles featuring Vikings or the like. As I was not an academic with an advanced degree, my interest or level of knowledge was probably pretty shallow. However, for an evolving historical wargamer, I think it was sufficient. 

Re-reading this last paragraph in conjunction with studying the WFHGS website, I was both impressed, interested, and struck by what appeared to be irony. Under the ‘What We Game’ section, the following information was provided:

Most of our miniature collections are 15mm for the Seven Years War, 

Renaissance, Early Sudan, and ACW, but we also have 28mm figures for the 

Thirty Years War, Napoleonic skirmish, WW2 skirmish, Samurai era, and more. 

On top of that we also have naval miniatures in various scales, 10mm ancients, 

and 1/285th micro-armor for WW2 along with air combat. To complicate things 

further we sometimes play different sets of rules for these periods

By my count, that is eight identified periods, along with four other categories. This certainly is or represents a wide variety of interests. On the one hand, this accumulation of periods, associated miniatures, and scales represents quite an accomplishment and it both admired and applauded. It seems, however, to be a contradiction or something like that of the counsel offered. How is that apparently important level of depth achieved and maintained when the listed interests of this small group of veteran wargamers ranges from “10mm ancients to 1/285th micro-armor for WW2”? 

_________________________________________

Six years ago, at the end of “Looking Back at 50 Issues,” which appeared in the Winter 2018 edition of Warning Order, Matt wondered if it was time to “cash in his chips” and withdraw from the wargaming magazine game. Producing 50 issues is no small feat, to be sure. The gentleman could justifiably rest on those laurels, having enjoyed the “long, strange ride.” Matt wondered if his “labor of love” could continue, pondering the destination and direction. Well, as this post (already some 6,800 words long) was a ‘reaction’ to the editorial and an article in Warning Order Issue #67, obviously, Matt continued his long hours in “the salt mines.” Again, I have not made nor taken the time to study the content between Issue #51 and #66, so I am not the person to answer where the electronic magazine has traveled and in what direction or directions it has moved in those half-a-dozen years. 

What I should like to do or attempt in this last section, and with less than 1,000 words, is go from the end to the start of “Looking Back at 50 Issues,” and stop at selected points along this journey to comment, remark, or even question. Then, once I have finished this figurative road trip, I should like to overlay a map of my experiences and see how they might be compared to and contrasted with Matt’s long history in the hobby. 

In the second to last paragraph, Matt ponders what role Warning Order plays in the larger hobby. He mentions a declining number of emails, and likens his society’s magazine to a tiny island or small sailing ship perhaps, in a very large and one imagines choppy “sea of wargaming products.” He worries about the relevancy of Warning Order and its content with regard to the enormous (and growing all the time) variety of aquatic and avian life in that same sea. 

In the text above that mental image, Matt lets the reader know some details about his life outside of wargaming. Given this brief list, it is a wonder that the gentleman found or made the time to start and continue with Warning Order, let alone all the wargaming that he was able to do with his friends/colleagues. 

At the top of the middle column of the second page, Matt describes the challenges associated with laying out and putting together each issue. Evidently, there have been a number of times over the past 18 years when he was ready to “throw in the towel” and perhaps take up a new hobby. Fortunately for the dedicated and regular readers of Warning Order, that “line in the sand” has never been crossed. 

Apparently, the tone of Matt’s editorials has left more than a few readers wondering if he might be a “hobby glass half full” kind of person. As I mentioned in previous sections of this post, it is something that I picked up on rather quickly. My argument or amateur assessment needs to be reinforced however, or refuted, so it looks like I will have to make a point of reading all the other editorials. 

As Warning Order developed and Matt became more comfortable and practiced at formatting and so forth, he found that the time saved could be spent elsewhere, such as on writing longer articles. His apparent mission statement was: “to show other gamers what he and his fellow members were doing and to help them along.” Interestingly, but not surprisingly, as Matt marked the arrival and completion of Issue #25, he encountered a crossroads very much like the one he pulled over and stopped at for a while with Issue #50. Interestingly, the binary choice with the earlier milestone seemed more positive, appeared to be a “win-win,” in contrast to the “win-question mark” of the latter milestone. At the risk of employing the word too many times, it might be interesting to see where Matt is and what his mindset is with the anticipated production and arrival of Issue #75. I suppose some readers might wonder if there will be Warning Order Issue #100. 

For as much as I have thought about it - and it does not add up to very many minutes, to be honest - it seems that the vast majority of my wargaming writing has been selfish as opposed to philanthropic. Given my approach [6], practice, and participation, I did not enter into the hobby wondering what role I might play, or much later, ask myself what impact my articles and blog posts might have. I simply knew that I liked to wargame, and I discovered that I liked to write about wargaming. It occurs to me that if the reader accepts the comparison of Warning Order to a tiny island or a small sailing ship, then my various efforts would probably be the equivalent of one of those very small fish that swims in one of those large shoals, surrounded by tens or thousands of other very small fish. 

In a previous draft of this section, I considered making a Venn diagram and inputting known data for Matt and myself. Within the shared or intersecting space, there were some general similarities like gender, race, ethnicity and age. There was another level of similarities with regard to the hobby. I have already mentioned the large number of magazines we have collected. While we both have rulebooks, I am quite sure Matt has many more volumes than I possess. Of course and obviously, he also has all those miniatures and the terrain on which they fight. Turning back to the shared interests, we are both writers, though here again, Matt is what one might call a super-heavyweight or several-time Olympic champion, while I am simply but comfortably an amateur. On this particular topic, I can both sympathize and empathize with the gentleman about the challenge(s) of writing. It is almost funny that something so enjoyable and often rewarding can frustrate so completely, give you gray hair, and make you think seriously about taking up the banjo, gardening, or even meditation instead of drafting a battle report or similar material. 

As I have recounted or explained in other posts on this blog, I did not start out with a carefully thought out one-year plan, three-year plan, or five-year plan with regard to writing about wargaming. If a period or battle captured my interest, I would write about it. For good or bad, there was never a mission statement that was part of my hobby pursuits. If I could spin Matt’s words or purpose, I would, when editors did accept my submissions, share what I was doing as a solo wargamer. If, by reading my article, another wargamer, somewhere, was helped in some way (small or large), then it was entirely by accident.  

On reflection - and what better day than 31 December to engage in that? - I suppose one might be able to point to a number of ‘crossroads’ that I have encountered in my history with the hobby. There was a time when I wrote for or submitted to Lone Warrior. Then, for this or that reason, I stopped and submitted material elsewhere. For the past couple of years, my efforts have been pretty much focused on my blog. A check of the computer clock informs me that a rather or potentially significant crossroads is about eight hours away. What will 2025 bring or mean in terms of my engagement with the hobby of historical wargaming? I confess that I have no idea. I have prepared no resolutions about what kind of articles I want to write or will write, or resolutions about what kind of games I will play and how many. In the greater scheme of things, I could remark that I have more important and truly serious things to wonder and worry about, as well as conditions or situations that I have to resign myself to. It might be the case that the arrival 2025 will signal the end of my solo wargaming “career.” Again, I don’t know. No one does. However, guesses could be made. If 2024 does prove to be the last year of wargaming for me, then instead of lamenting all that I have not done, like never getting to attend a Battle Day in person, or learning to paint figures to a very high standard, or setting aside enough discretionary funds to purchase said figures, or refight Gaugamela using Tactica II, I should look back - with a suitably modest degree of pride of course - on what I have written, and recall with near child-like joy, the hours of fun I had when ‘playing at war’ while sitting or standing next to a tabletop. 

Notes

1. “Quatre Bras Considered: The Research and Development of a SHAKO Wargame,” appeared in the pages of MWAN (Midwest Wargamer’s Association Newsletter) - Number 107, September/October 2000. “Several Degrees of Disorder: Thoughts Concerning Unit Cohesion in Napoleonic Miniature Wargaming,” was among the various contents of the November/December issue of that same publication. 
2. In the two paragraph editorial or introduction to this debut issue, Matt explains the intention behind Warning Order, describes what the electronic magazine will contain, provides a brief history of his gaming group and its preference with regard to scale, and closes with an open invitation to other gamers to contribute to the pages of the nascent publication and or to send an email in on “any gaming topic.” (Interestingly and intriguingly - or is it simple nosiness? - brief mention is made of the development/history of the current club “after a split from a larger group.” What was the reason or were the reasons behind this division?)
3. Early on the morning of the last day of 2024, I happened to retrieve Issue 367 (November 2013) of Miniature Wargames with Battlegames from one of my storage bins. It has been ages since I looked at this particular publication. Anyway, it just so happens that this issue contained some material about Donald Featherstone. On page 21, I stumbled across reference to an interview with the Daily Telegraph in 1995. The very well known figure in the history of the hobby reportedly said or believed with regard to wargaming: “One, the rules must be simple. And two, we’ve got to be able to finish the game by quarter to ten so we can get down to the pub before it closes.” Some readers might interpret this as an appeal to authority, but setting aside the pub visit for a pint, I think the respected gentleman was on to something or at least knew something, based on his years of experience. 
4. In no particular order, the list of titles includes: Miniature Wargames; Battlegames; Miniature Wargames with Battlegames, Slingshot (The Journal of the Society of Ancients); Lone Warrior; The Courier; Historical Miniature Gamer; Military History; WARGAMES illustrated^®; MWAN (Midwest Wargamer’s Association Newsletter), and 11 years of convention programs from LITTLE WARS. I have not taken the time nor made the effort to count how many issues there are in total. I would guess in the neighborhood of 300, give or take. Until certain factors forced a realignment of  ‘discretionary income,’ my subscription to Slingshot was not renewed after the arrival of Number 347. 
5. I have read many accounts, descriptions, and lamentations regarding the “lead mountain.” Stipulating that I am so not qualified to comment on this, I am still driven to ask or wonder, “Could there be a kind of Sisyphean character trait in historical miniature wargamers?” Along that same line, “I wonder if there are any professional or non-hobby equivalents to this apparent habit or practice?” 
6. Conrad Kinch considered the art or role of compromise in wargaming in his “Send three and four pence” column, which was published in the August 2013 issue (Number 364) of Miniature Wargames with Battlegames. The gentleman noted that, “Certain chaps are willing to play with unpainted figures which is definitely a compromise too far for me.” Given that 11 years have passed since he wrote this column, I am given to wonder if Conrad is still active in the hobby and if his expectation or judgment bar has moved at all. (Note: This was just another example - of several - of stored magazines that I have not bothered to take out, look at, read, or reorganize in a fair number of years. Given this lack of attention, one could fairly ask the question of why I bother to keep them in storage, or why don’t I downsize or even declutter?)