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?)