Remarks regarding some recent Research

Being an Amateur, Informal, as well as Subjective Summary of an Attempt to Review, Sort, and Tabulate a Fair Amount of Data

As of November 14, the discussion thread (some might refer to it as a sub-forum) titled “What was the last game you played?” had 4,257 replies. This specific, long-running, as well as silent but often lively conversation can be found under ‘GENERAL DISCUSSION,’ which is part of the larger ‘GENERAL CATEGORY’ label of SoA Forums (The Society of Ancients Forums). [The site can be accessed here: https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php.] Checking on the status of this discussion thread in the mid afternoon of November 26 (the day before Thanksgiving - at least as celebrated in the US - see, if at all interested, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_(United_States) and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thanksgiving-myth-and-what-we-should-be-teaching-kids-180973655/), it was noted that the number of replies had grown to 4,286. Over the course of 12 days then, a number of individuals had taken the time to add 29 posts of varying content to this evolving electronic conversation. Noticing that there were 35 days remaining until 2026 made its calendar debut, I estimated, based on the above hastily determined average, that there might (emphasis on the might) be around 4,400 replies by the time 2025 made its exit and then entrance into the history books. Whatever the actual number of replies turned out to be as the old year made way or gave way to the new, I focused my decidedly limited abilities and resources on an examination of the earliest and or older posts (dare I type “ancient history” or “archaeological layers”?) of this particular discussion thread. 

After considering a number of approaches and options, after a number of frustrating missteps (one of which being an incomplete draft that was over 9,000 words long), I decided to limit my effort to roughly one-fourth, or exactly 1,162 of the “guesstimated” 4,400 posts. Interestingly and perhaps even ironically, the smaller number of posts represented a little more than half of the actual life span of this discussion thread. If the reader will permit me to explain. 

The original post was made by someone identifying himself as ‘andyb’ on May 06 of 2012. This mysterious gentleman [1] edited the figurative seed he planted on the following day. Reply #1,161 was made on May 07 of 2019, by a fellow named Keith McNelly. The eight months (May to December) of 2012 were combined with the four months (January to April - plus one week of May) of 2019 to make a composite calendar year. Added to the years in between these figurative bookends produced a sum total of seven years. From the first day of January 2020 t0 the last day of December 2025 is six years. Including the eight months of a partitioned 2019 gives a total of 6 and 2/3 years, which is slightly less than the time frame under consideration by this complete amateur, who has no training or experience in statistics or in conducting a proper survey, and who also happens to be a dyed-in-the-wool solo wargamer as well as something of an outlier with regard to the traditional approach to the hobby of historical wargaming. Anyway. 

After some additional experimentation with transferring spreadsheet data into basic tables in order to present my findings, and the subsequent, albeit appropriate levels of frustration and disappointment when drafts of a blog post were found not to work very well with these incorporated tables, I decided to begin another text-centric paper or post. To avoid the problematic volume of an earlier version of this project (an incomplete draft of over 9,000 words? . . . wait, what?!), I decided to make use of lists, and format the results or again, findings, by using a hybrid of self-designed category and year, instead of the repetitive method of year by year, and then category by category. Hopefully, this organization, this presentation will make more sense to the reader (follower, guest, or accidental visitor) as he continues from this paragraph or section to the next, and then to the one after that. Without further preamble then (ahem, there has been quite enough already . . .), and for lack of a better introduction, I should like to start by reporting on the most prolific posters between early May 2012 and early May 2019, inclusive. 

__________________________________

A directory of the top producing posters for the time period under consideration: 

2012 Andreas Johansson - 8; John Wyatt - 3; Dave Gee - 2; Tim - 2; DougM - 2

2013 Andreas Johansson - 4; there were 10 other names with a single entry/post each.

2014 Andreas Johansson - 24; Justin Swanton - 12; Duncan Head - 9; Chris - 6; Tim - 5

2015 Chris - 13; Duncan Head - 12; Andreas Johansson - 11; Dave Knight - 5; 

     Martin Smith - 5; Justin Swanton - 3

2016 Keith McNelly - 14; Andreas Johansson - 12; Mick Hession - 12; Dave Knight - 11;

        Tim - 10; Martin Smith - 10; Duncan Head - 9; Justin Swanton - 7; Chris - 7

2017 Andreas Johansson - 17; Mick Hession - 16; Keith McNelly - 12; Tim - 11; 

       Martin Smith - 11; Duncan Head - 10; Justin Swanton - 9

2018 Keith McNelly - 19; Tim - 15; Martin Smith - 15; Andreas Johansson - 15; 

        Mick Hession - 11; Duncan Head - 8

2019 Keith McNelly - 6; Tim - 6; Mick Hession - 5; Andreas. Johansson - 5

     Duncan Head - 4; Martin Smith - 4

Notes - 

1. I suppose some readers might judge this notes section as merely a device, just so that I can add the names of Prufrock (aka Aaron Bell), Jim Webster, John GL, Paul Innes, and gavindbm (aka Gavin Pearson). With the goal of being completely thorough and transparent, the names or identities of all individuals who published fewer than four posts or comments in a single year should also be included. But this comprehensive listing would invite a return to the 9,000-words and more level of text. 
2. It was both interesting and impressive to note the productivity of more than a few participants. Indeed, how can one not admire and or be a little envious of the efforts of Andreas Johansson? Duncan Head is/was another solid performer. There are several other names that could be recognized as well. 
3. The more I reviewed this collection of data, it seemed that there was a small squad or perhaps platoon (maybe reduced centuriae or a countubernia would be more appropriate word choices, given the ancient-theme and general subject matter) who did most of the “work” over the course of the seven years under the figurative, high-resolution, and expensive microscope - operated by a non-scientist and not at all trained statistician. 

__________________________________

A catalog of the rulebooks/rulesets most often used by the aforementioned group and their player-general colleagues: 

2012 DBA 2.2 - 6; DBMM - 5; DBA 3.0 play test version - 4; DBM 3.2 - 3; 

     IMPETVS - 3; War & Conquest - 3; DBA - 3

2013 DBA 3.0 play test version - 9; DBMM - 2; 11 other titles used once by the 

        opposing tabletop commanders.

2014 DBMM - 26; DBA 3.0 - 18; DBMM 200 - 11; DBM - 11; DBA 2.2 - 8; 

        Armati (2nd Edition) - 7; DBA - 6; OPTIO - 5

2015 DBA 3.0 - 21; DBMM - 20; Armati (2nd Edition) 10; DBMM 100 - 8; 

        DBA - 5; To The Strongest! - 4

2016 DBA - 79; DBA 3.0 - 35; DBMM - 26; DBM - 12; DBM 3.3 - 8; 

        L’Art de la Guerre / ADLG - 6; five other titles employed five times each

2017 DBMM - 58; DBA 3.0 - 32; DBA - 19; DBM - 17; OPTIO - 9; DBM 3.3 - 8; 

        DBMM 200 - 8; BBDBA - 7

2018 DBA - 74; DBA 3.0 - 50; DBMM - 46; DBM v 3.3 - 19; DBM - 18; 

        DBM 100 - 8; ADLG 120 - 8; ADLG - 7; Pulse of Battle - 4

2019 DBMM - 19; DBA 3.0 - 17; DBA - 15; ADLG 120 - 6; DBM - 6; ADLG - 5

Notes - 

1. My concern and suspicion is that some readers might fault me for not knowing the difference between the various versions of certain rulesets - for example, DBMM 100 and DBMM. Being familiar with many of these titles, but not experienced with regard to their employment on the tabletop versus myself or an actual opponent, I did not want to make assumptions. Further, as I was interested in recording the data or information as it was provided, it seemed both necessary and simple enough to transcribe the brief descriptions as they were originally provided. Phrased another way, I did not feel that it was my place to correct contributors on their description of what rules were used or indeed, any other point. If somebody typed that they used DBA for a friendly or competitive game when they actually used DBA v 3.0, then the former title was recorded and counted. 
2. The perennial dominance of rule versions from the DBA and or DBM stables is both readily apparent and perhaps even a little intimidating. One could not be faulted for guessing that this command and control of rules employed (see what I did there?) might continue into and throughout a better part of the decade starting with the year 2020.   
3. As I am aware and concerned about word count and am striving for relative brevity (at least compared to some of my other blog posts!), I think it would be acceptable to list some of the titles that were not as frequently used by competing player-generals. These were: Conquerors & Kings; Commands & Colors Ancients; LOST BATTLES; SAGA; Ager Sanguinis; Bloody Barons; Hail Caesar; Corvus; Lion Rampant; Field of Glory / FoG, and Mortem et Gloriam / MeG. 

__________________________________

A program of the kinds or types of games that were played over the composite seven years studied:

2012 Friendly - 20; Competition/Tournament - 11; Historical Refight - 1; Solo - 2

2013 Competition/Tournament - 1; Historical Refight - 2; 

        Campaign-based - 1; Skirmish - 1; Boardgame - 1

2014 Friendly - 61; Competition/Tournament - 31; Historical Refight - 5; Solo - 7;

        Campaign-based - 2

2015 Friendly - 48; Competition/Tournament - 25; Historical Refight - 4; Solo - 14;

        Campaign-based - 3; Boardgame - 1

2016 Friendly - 135; Competition/Tournament - 54; Historical Refight - 12; 

        Campaign-based - 3; Naval - 1; Boardgame - 1

2017 Friendly - 98; Competition/Tournament - 71; Historical Refight - 7; Solo - 10; 

        Campaign-based - 4; Skirmish - 1; Boardgame - 1

2018 Friendly - 121; Competition/Tournament - 128; Historical Refight - 9; Solo - 5;

        Campaign-based - 2; Naval - 2; Boardgame - 3

2019 Friendly - 50; Competition/Tournament - 27; Historical Refight - 3; Solo - 2;

        Campaign-based - 1; Boardgame - 2

Notes - 

1. The label “Friendly” seemed sufficient to differentiate this type of simple or one-off game against the more competitive qualities of “Tournament” events. This is not to say or even suggest, however, that Tournaments are significantly unfriendly or unwelcoming environments. 
2. Rather than identify all the historical battles that were refought and reported upon in this discussion thread, I will limit myself to one reconstruction from each studied year. The historical engagements recreated in miniature were: Plataea, Ilipa, Bouvines, Wakefield, Munda, Paraetacene, Asculum, and Arsuf. 
3. Given the inherent and recognized social aspect of historical wargaming and the comparative popularity of competition and tournament play, it was not surprising to see that solo scenarios were in a distinct minority. On further review, it was also not surprising to find that a contributor identifying himself as Chris appeared to be one of the “driving forces” behind this representation and reporting - at least for a certain 12-month period.  
4. The small number of campaign-based games were generated, obviously, from club organized and monitored campaign games. In looking over my notes and spreadsheets for 2017, for example, I found reference to or mention of a campaign played by Keith McNelly and his associates. There was also a post made in March of that year, wherein John GL provided a brief description of an MeG campaign battle, fought on an 8 by 5-foot tabletop with 12,000 points per side. 
5. In 2013, Prufrock (aka Aaron Bell) shared with readers his good experience with Machiavelli, which I believe was/is a multi-player boardgame. In 2016, Justin Swanton regaled readers with his performance as high-commander of the forces of ‘Good’ or ‘Light’ in The Lord of the Rings boardgame. In 2017, Aaron Bell participated in a campaign simulation which featured or recreated the exploits of Alexander the Great. 
6. Without question, naval engagements were very rare occurrences indeed. Dave Knight posted about one ancient wargame set at sea. In December of 2018, aligern (aka Roy Boss) related (sang?) the saga of a couple of ‘Dark Age’ naval actions. This is another possible point of comparison/contrast to the present decade. The question might be phrased like this: Are naval scenarios more frequent and or acceptable forms of ancient/medieval wargaming since the arrival of 2020? If they are found to be, the logical follow-up question would be “Why?” 

__________________________________

A selective compendium of the variety of armies that were mustered for action and deployed across numerous and varied tabletops included the following:

2012 Carthaginians - 4; Medieval Germans - 4; NKE (New Kingdom Egyptians) - 4;

        11 other forces deployed two times each.

2013 Medieval Germans - 2; Saxons - 2; Pyrrhic - 2; all other forces saw action once

2014 Marian Romans - 20; Polybian Romans - 10; Parthians - 8; Mithridatic - 5; 

        Seleucids - 5; five other armies were deployed four times each.

2015 Marian Romans - 6; Polybian Romans - 6; Nubians - 5; 2nd Punic War 

        Carthaginians - 5; Alans - 5; three forces used four times, and eight other armies 

        employed three times on the model field.

2016 Polybian Romans - 15; Later Carthaginians - 14; Marian Romans - 11; 

        Normans (Hasting period) - 9; Maurikian Byzantines - 8; Vikings - 7; 

        South Welsh - 7

2017 Polybian Romans - 11; Seleucids - 11; Gauls - 10; Mitanni - 8; 

        Later Hungarians - 8; Late Judean - 8; Later Carthaginian - 8; six other armies 

        used six times each for tabletop contests.

2018 EIR (Early Imperial Romans) - 12; Feudal English - 12; Later Carthaginians - 12;

         Later Hungarians - 11; Patrician Romans - 10; Polybian Romans - 10;

        EAP (Early Achaemenid Persians) - 10; Sea Peoples - 9; Teutonic Order - 9;

        Marian Romans - 8

2019 100 YW French - 6; Later Hoplite Greek - 6; Spartans - 5; WotR Yorkists - 5;

        Early Carthaginians - 5; Patrician Romans - 4; Polybian Romans - 4;

        Early Slavs - 4; Early Shatuo Turks - 4; five other forces mustered three times 

        each for miniature battle.

Notes - 

1. As the calendar year advanced, the transcription of the number and varieties of armies commanded by player-generals became something approaching a Herculean-like task. There were simply so many types and or variations to list! At one point in the educational but repetitive process, I considered making a copy of the Army Index in my ADLG rulebook (2014 edition), and then tracking the frequency of appearance/mention with pen or pencil. These tick marks and armies would then be transferred to a clean spreadsheet.  
2. In this category (or sub-category), the same process for transcribing and entering rulebook information was used. I did not correct or interpret what the original contributor typed in their post/summary report. I recorded the army descriptions as provided. As a result, there were a number of Carthaginian, Roman, and Greek army types placed into this or that column on the dedicated but still rather basic spreadsheet.  
3. It occurs to me that I could probably take a full page or more and comment on the variety of armies encountered. Instead, it seems appropriate and sufficient to copy and paste a small section from an earlier draft (that previously mentioned incomplete and much longer attempt) of this project. Please see the next note. 
4. The variety of armies employed across a fairly large number of tabletops continued to impress if not confound. If I were able to wargame for another 25 years, I have significant doubts that I could make even a small dent in the number and variety of forces and formations used in the assembled list. Then again, I might well have a bit of fun trying. Let me see . . . I need to look into commanding the following foreign or foreign-sounding armies: Sogdians, Gasgans, Tibetans, Medieval Vietnamese, Later Amorites, Xi Xia, and of course, a decent-sized Scandinavian Union force. 

__________________________________

A comparatively short list of the scales of miniatures used over the course of these combined seven years and a little over 1,000 posts saw:

2012 Just three mentions - 25/28mm, 25mm, and 6mm.

2013 A single mention - 15mm.

2014 Six references to 25mm.

2015 Five mentions of 25mm.

2016 A veritable explosion of 16 references to 25mm, and half as many for 15mm. 

2017 A tie between 15mm and 25mm, with eight mentions each. There was a single 

        mention or use of 28mm. 

2018 In descending order of frequency or mention: 14 of 25mm; 12 of 15mm, and four 

        of 6mm.

2019 For this abbreviated data set, there were five mentions of 28mm and a single 

        reference to 25mm. 

Notes - 

1. The figurative desert with respect to the description of figure scale rather surprised and occasionally perplexed me. On further reflection, I suppose that either 15mm or 25/28mm scale is assumed or understood by most historical wargamers, unless specifically stated otherwise. Then again, the detail of figure scale may be thought of as unimportant when weighed against the more significant variables of the armies deployed, which rules were used, and the type of game played. 
2. On a somewhat related note, in a post from 2012, a gentleman by the name of John Wyatt shared a “sad” story (his basic description - though likely tongue-in-cheek) of using cork tile units for a WotR game that was played solo in a Manchester hotel room. 
3. If memory serves, Chris expanded upon this quite abstract approach through his various reports. I would have to double-check to see if the terms “colored counters” or “computer-produced units” appeared in the limited number of his posts to this discussion thread. (If memory also serves, this US-based individual had “developed” and employed this method of historical wargaming in the early 1990s.)  

__________________________________

A related-directory of those individuals who frequently commented, remarked upon, or asked questions of reporting posters: 

2012 Jim Webster - 2; Rob Broom -1; DougM - 1; John Wyatt - 1

2013 Justin Taylor - 1; John GL - 1; aligern (aka Roy Boss) - 1; Andreas Johansson - 1; 

        WillieB - 1

2014 Patrick Waterson- 17; Imperial Dave (aka Dave Hollin) - 14; Duncan Head - 9;

        Justin Swanton - 9; aligern (aka Roy Boss) - 9; Andreas Johansson - 8; 

        Jim Webster - 8; Mark G - 8

2015 Chris - 13; Patrick Waterson - 10; Jim Webster - 8; Duncan Head - 6; Mark G - 5

2016 Patrick Waterson - 16; Martin Smith - 12; Chris - 11; Tim - 9; Duncan Head - 6;

        Andreas Johansson - 6; Mark G - 6

2017 Patrick Waterson - 17; DougM - 15; Justin Swanton -13; Keith McNelly - 13; 

        Martin Smith - 12; Imperial Dave (aka Dave Hollin) - 11; Andreas Johansson - 11

2018 Martin Smith - 17; Keith McNelly - 13; Dave Knight - 12; 

        Prufrock (aka Aaron Bell) - 12; Denis Grey - 11; Jim Webster - 10; Patrick 

        Waterson - 8

2019 DougM - 4; Erpingham (aka Anthony Clipsom) - 4; Jim Webster - 3; 

        Martin Smith - 2; Tim - 2; Dave Knight - 2; Keith McNelly - 2

Notes - 

1. As with the earlier and related list of those individuals who posted briefs or summary reports of the games they had last or recently played, it was interesting to note the frequency of both appearance and production by certain familiar as well as new names or identities in this particular sub-category.  
2. Again, and at the risk of sounding or appearing obsequious, one cannot help but admire Andreas Johansson, Martin Smith, and Keith McNelly (to name just three) for burning the wargaming candle at both ends by participating in both sides of this long-running and obviously healthy discussion thread. 

__________________________________

In addition to determining which entries or posts were comments and remarks instead of “proper” summary reports and keeping track of which person made how many contributions over the course of a year, I would often type brief notes about the content of said comments and remarks. A separate but related spreadsheet was also created. This was a “catch all” document, labeled ‘other notes of significance.’ Of the opinion that there is some value (albeit subjective) to be found within these various comments, remarks, and ‘other notes,’ I think it is worth including a selection of them in the following paragraphs. 

As might be imagined, the first year (eight months, technically) of this dedicated discussion thread did not see a whole lot of traffic. According to my records, there were only 35 posts made. However, within these few dozen announcements, there were still several milestones. For example, Paul Innes reported on refighting Plataea at Carronade using a large amount of 25/28mm Greek and Persian figures. A fellow going by ‘yesthatphil’ (aka Phil Steele) attached the first picture (part of an Egyptian camp and army) to a summary report when he related his experiences playing a game of Call It Quids at a conference or show. The Manchester hotel battle of John Wyatt has already been mentioned. In a late May post, DougM reported on playing six games of DBA 2.2, but provided no additional details. Hindsight being what it is, it would have been nice, and it would have made the “research” done by future individuals with a large amount of spare time on their hands easier, if only ‘andyb’ had established some kind of format or guidelines for the content of these brief reports. Of course, this ideal situation presumes that subsequent posters would have adhered to the rules established by ‘andyb.’

It was rather surprising to see that the “chatter” on this particular thread decreased by nearly 50 percent over the course of 2013. What might have been the cause of this, I wondered. Even so, some things were still happening. WillieB provided an update on a campaign wherein Dux Brittaniarum was being used. A link to a description of his refight of Ilipa was provided by Prufrock (aka Aaron Bell). Justin Swanton offered a very general account of seven games of DBA Version 3.0, that were played in a day. Erpingham (aka Anthony Clipsom) provided a nice holiday (between Christmas and the New Year) story of a family wargame, wherein he and his daughter were victors against his wife and his daughter’s significant other. 

On a related generational note, Chuck the Grey introduced his grand-daughter to the hobby in June of 2014. Evidently, the young commander showed some natural skill. Comparisons to the intellect and strength of the goddess Athena followed. In another country, Justin Swanton provided a brief introduction to his OPTIO rules in September. The erudite and inestimable Patrick Waterson (who passed away in January of 2020 and is still missed by some forum frequenters), offered active and passive readers of the thread some thoughts about ancient warfare that may have been inspired by an Armati (2nd Edition) Numidian civil war scenario. 

Perhaps the most interesting and notable comments from 2015 were the ones by Duncan Head about the composition and drill/movement ability of the phalanx. 

Patrick and Duncan were fairly busy in 2016, with the former participating in a number of side conversations, while the latter was perhaps more deliberate about the “battles” he chose to join. Apparently, there was some discussion about the number of elements that needed to be lost in DBA 3.0 in order to be assured of or claim victory. Martin Smith, a self-described “true believer” in these rules, weighed in quite often on this particular topic. In other news, Dave Knight shared a warm story of introducing the hobby to an elderly friend in a March post. Mick Hession provided some clarification regarding the ways in which DBMM battles could be played. Keith McNelly shared his obvious and impressive talent with any who were interested. For just two examples of this gentleman’s artistry, skill, and experience, please see https://ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/the-glory-that-is-rome/ and https://ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/conquest-results/.

The next year witnessed an exchange between Imperial Dave (aka Dave Hollin) and Erpingham (aka Anthony Clipsom) regarding the benefit of having a semi-permanent tabletop upon which to solo game or simply experiment. Evidently, Dave was playing around with the To The Strongest! rules. Patrick Waterson was holding court on a variety of topics again, the most engaging being one about “excluding chance by allowing a range of tactical challenges” - if I have transcribed that portion of the short passage correctly. A number of visitors to this sub-forum weighed in, offering their opinions and thoughts. Sometime in May, Prufrock (aka Aaron Bell) was engaged with Alexander. Please see http://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2017/05/alexander-great-diversion.html. In another part of the globe, Justin Swanton continued to improve his OPTIO rules, even if he often “suffered” for his efforts at the hands of the “deadly Delia.” Shifting the temporary focus to tournament play, Mick Hession was fortunate enough to attend a DBMM competition that was held on a North Sea island. Duncan Head, a consistent presence, shared brief remarks about his experiences at The Society Conference in a mid October post. Turning the calendar back to March, the prolific Andreas Johansson commented on his participation at the annual ITC show. According to this veteran wargamer, “the player-general skill level was pretty high, while painting and terrain levels ranged from excellent to uninspiring.” Although I have not been to very many conventions, and have never entered into a tournament, I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of historical wargamers would readily second - if not expand upon - these observations made by Andreas.  

As for notable events taking place in 2018, well, it seems appropriate to start - randomly enough - with Martin Smith’s very short account of nine games of DBA in a stretch of six hours. This bushel basket of wargames was the result of a “dice-driven campaign system” for Hordes of Things, that was set in ‘Dark Age’ Britain. In other news, Mick Hession was finally able to meet and chat with Andreas Johansson at the annual ITC show. Dave Knight was fairly well engaged in the first third of the year or season. Please see http://leadwarriordavek.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/vapnartak-2018.html / and then http://leadwarriordavek.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/sextuple-dba-fun-with-two-marks.html. DBA regulars Keith McNelly and Martin Smith were quite busy as well, accumulating more experience through more than several wargames. Revisiting the occasional generational theme, Dave Knight was schooled by a five-year-old, I think, at the Falkirk Big Roman Week. In a July post, Justin Swanton explained how he fell victim to the dice-rolling skills of an opponent’s pre-teen daughter. 

Since a little more than four months of 2019 were investigated for this survey project, it was not at all surprising to find fewer comments and remarks worth transcribing. That time-window limitation aside, in February, Imperial Dave (aka Dave Hollin) posted about his experiences/experiments with The Saxon Shore is Burning. Jim Webster and Erpingham (aka Anthony Clipsom) - two consulars, or even pro-consuls, if there ever were -  had a sidebar conversation about certain mechanics of the IMPETVS 2 rules. Being a student-scholar of the Medieval period(s), Anthony also commented on Tim’s plan to refight the battle of Grandson. Finally, at least for the purposes of this specific year and this particular section, Mick Hession shared his experiences of the Munster Open, wherein he played a number of games using ADLG. His summary assessment explained that he was “underwhelmed” by the rules, but acknowledged certain preferences and bias. An admission or observation, I would wager, that the vast majority of historical wargamers can readily identify with and or relate to. 

__________________________________

And so, in closing . . .

Ideally, I should have liked to have been able to organize and provide complete administrative as well as material support to a team of 12-16 individuals who had been tasked with sifting and sorting through the 4,257 chronological entries (at least as of the late afternoon of November 14, 2025) listed on the “What was the last game you played?” discussion thread or sub-forum found in the ‘GENERAL DISCUSSION’ neighborhood (or should that be subura?) of The Society of Ancients Forums. As an equally improbable alternative, I should have very much liked to have been part of the 12-person team (a roster of 16 would include several alternates, in case an original member had to excuse himself due to eye strain, repetitive stress injury, or some other complication that interfered with performance) set in motion by some wealthy but anonymous ancient/medieval wargaming benefactor. If each team member (I imagine these would likely be middle-aged to older [between 45 to 70-plus years?] gentlemen wargamers, whose primary interest(s) revolved around the ancient and or medieval periods) were assigned a quota of 50 entries/posts a day, then this fictional 12-person team could review, categorize, and comment on an average of 600 posts per day. Simple division informs that the aforementioned 4,257 entries could be analyzed, processed, and presented to a very small portion of the discerning wargaming community in approximately seven days. It does not seem unreasonable to round that estimate up to 10 days. This additional 72 hours would permit revising and reformatting of the findings into, perhaps, more acceptable (i.e., digestible bits) or useful sections of information. 

Unfortunately, I am not a part of a 12-person survey team that has been assembled and trained in just a few days before being ordered to “blaze a trail” into and through a figurative jungle of data. I am but a simple and progressively aging or degenerating solo wargamer, as well as a rather nontraditional one or “outlier” at that. Further, I acknowledge and appreciate that the findings or results of such a focused survey might not be judged very interesting or, in the grander scheme of things, be deemed as necessary or relevant. Indeed, the argument or suggestion could be made that these accumulated (and accumulating) posts to this particular discussion thread or sub-forum constitute a kind of archeological history of The Society of Ancients since early May of 2012. As such, these so-called findings might only serve the interests or satisfy the tepid curiosity of a handful of members of this august society. Then again . . .

As explained in the introduction to this post, a decision was made to examine, review, sort, and tabulate posts in this specific discussion thread from May 06 2012 (edited on May 07) to the same calendar date in the year 2019. While this did allow me to survey seven years of data/information, my solo amateur, informal, and unavoidably subjective attempt only covered 26 percent of the available material. [2]

As related in previous posts to the ‘GENERAL DISCUSSION’ category, my interest in what might be justifiably called “a silly little project” is less than six months old. The initial idea was not developed in order to prove a point or points, and throughout this brief period of admittedly repetitive “work,” I did not review any of the data or related information with the intent of crafting an argument or even developing a debate position or two. Simply put, I was curious. On further reflection, I suppose I was looking for some kind of distraction as well - not only from the tsunami of discouraging and depressing daily national and international news, but from an exceedingly low interest in developing and staging solo wargame scenarios. 

I readily acknowledge that my approach and methods are likely not the most efficient way to tackle such a project. (In an earlier draft of this post, I attempted to compare the effort of surveying this limited set of data to the thousands of traditional wargamers who are fascinated as well as frustrated by their varying in size “lead mountains,” composed of purchased but unpainted figures/models.) Similarly, I stipulate to the fact that my categorical spreadsheets may not have been the best way to organize the studied material. It follows then, that this revised presentation of these limited findings may well not be the best format for such data and related information. 

At the risk of introducing and considering a new topic or point of view at the end of this post, I “crunched some numbers.” Specifically, I was interested in seeing what kind of relationship there was between the number of report posts and the number of comment/remark posts. The simple math was completed for the five years between 2014 and 2018. The percentage of comments/remarks out of the annual numbers of posts to this discussion thread ranged from 45 to 56 percent, with a calculated average of 51.4 percent. Some additional math (or maths) was (or were) done. For the entire time span of this amateur and informal survey project, 49.5 percent of the posts to this discussion thread were comments or remarks, and not briefs or summary reports. Of course, I wondered if this essentially equal division between the two types of posts would be found or indeed, could be hypothesized starting with the year 2020 and moving forward. I confess that I am especially curious about 2023 and 2024, as this pair of years witnessed a greatly increased flow of traffic or activity, and so apparent interest in this discussion thread. The total number of posts for 2023 and 2024 exceed the composite seven years looked at by 249 posts. If a similar survey of these two recent years is completed, will approximately 700 reports of games last played be found and cataloged? Or, is the sudden increase in traffic during these two years simply a product of more comments and remarks? Is it possible that more individuals - other than the usual cohort of regulars - are taking the time to follow this discussion thread and offer the occasional comment or opinion, thereby increasing the total number of posts? How does one explain the surge of traffic (i.e., numbers of posts) in 2024? 

At the risk of committing another cardinal error when it comes to writing or speaking, and broaching a second new topic or related thoughts to “work” that has been previously completed and evaluated in this post, I looked at the Member Directory of The Society of Ancients Forums, and then arranged this alphabetical catalog according the to the number of posts produced over the course of an individual’s membership. (My cut-off point was those members who had posted 1,000 times or more.) It was not at all surprising to find more than several familiar names. It seems reasonable to suggest that the frequency of activity by this select group on the “What was the last game you played?” discussion thread is more of a correlation than it is a causation. 

Since the start of this long-running conversation in early May of 2012, the various reports, comments, remarks, and questions have been viewed approximately 47,000 times. Simple division would inform that this works out to an average of 3,357 views per year. For as much as I have been able to discover, there is no way to check or determine how often a particular post (be it brief report or comment) has been viewed. However, one can track how many times a post has been liked. It strikes me as objectively ironic that the originating post by ‘andyb’ has only been liked once. It is also possible (though rather laborious) to note how often a post or part of a post might be used a “quoted text” in a subsequent remark or response. Anyway, this is perhaps or in fact, probably not the best way to explain that the relevancy of any post to this discussion thread is fleeting, is very temporary. Player-generals submit a brief account and then move on to the next game, which they might or might not type up and report. Passersby or temporarily unemployed player-generals might offer a comment or remark, and then proceed on their merry ways. 

On the one hand then, this discussion thread seems to promote, if not require or at least excuse, a kind of short attention span. It may be suggested that a kind of history is being written, but it would appear that not a great deal of attention is being paid to that history. Lest I be misconstrued on this point, I am not making a broad accusation or general judgment. This is simply an observation. Even though I have played a role (a very small one, to be certain) in the creation of this history, I confess that I could not actively remember any of those solo wargames played in 2015 until I stumbled across the corresponding posts that are, from the perspective of this present moment, rather dated. This group of forgotten solo wargames, this subset of forgotten as well as specific memories, brings me back around to the reason or reasons for this kind of project, this kind of amateur and informal survey. 

To the extent that this will be accepted by readers who have made it to this point, I can only reiterate that I was curious about these “ancient” snippets of electronic conversation. I wondered if there might be any patterns or trends revealed if a portion of the available data was reviewed, sorted, and tabulated. As related in the various sub-sections of this post, I have been able to develop some answers. There is much more “work” to be done, however. At the risk of teasing, disappointing, or challenging the reader as well as myself, perhaps the arrival of 2026 will see some additional progress in this regard. Then again, perhaps the rapidly approaching New Year will be one wherein a variety of completely new constructions are started. Ideally, the vast majority of these figurative buildings or wargaming projects will be finished - on time, and under budget.

Notes

1. A check of the Membership Directory of The Society (conducted several times, but most recently on the morning of 27 November), resulted in no matches for ‘andyb.’ According to the original post, however, he is listed as a member of The Society, but only has or had 28 posts to his name or online identity, and - to the extent that I have been able to determine - never contributed another brief or summary report to the “What was the last game you played?” discussion thread. I cannot help but wonder if he is aware of his legacy and what he might have to say about it. Then again, it seems reasonable to suggest that the discussion thread this mysterious gentleman initiated is a shared legacy, is a collaborative effort, and one nurtured by a comparatively small as well as arguably consistent community.  
2. I added the original post of ‘andyb’ to the #1161, Keith McNelly’s post made on May 07 of 2019. I divided this simple sum by the approximated guess total (by the end of December 2025) of 4,400 posts.