Carthage vs Rome 

with Tactica II

Regarding the look of my 78 by 45-inch tabletop, I opted for a landscape design that could charitably be described as “hodgepodge.” For this fictional scenario featuring two familiar and great Mediterranean powers, I selected elements of Chaeronea (338 BC), Metaurus (207 BC), and Pharsalus (48 BC). To add a little more color to this admittedly unusual experiment in terrain “painting,” but being mindful so as not to complicate things, there were a couple of woods (one that was categorized as disordering, while the other was more open and less of an obstacle to the movement and meeting of troops), as well as a couple of patches of rough ground (also divided into two types). These patches being further classified as areas of scrub, which included a tree or two or three, along with a fair number of rocks and stones of varying sizes. There was also a small village. The bordering fields were cared for by the residents of this built-up area. The majority of the playing surface (no attempt was made to determine the exact percentage) was otherwise flat, featureless, and open.

Regarding the composition of the opposing forces, well, being an advocate if not aficionado of larger actions, I prepared a consular army reinforced by a praetor for the Republican Romans. These six legions, an equal mix of Roman and allied formations, were supported by a variety of auxiliary troops. I did not want to load down the model battlefield from table edge to table edge, but I did want to field a subjectively impressive force. The same reasoning or preference applied when the Carthaginian army was drafted for this fictional engagement. The Punic generals would command a polyglot force containing light and heavy cavalry, trained infantry, warbands and skirmishers from various points of origin. These component contingents were screened or supported by a small number of elephants. 

Opposing Plans

Had this been a different kind of solo wargame, I imagine that the plans of the respective commanders would have been decided by rolling dice (2d6 or 1d10) and consulting a chart or table for instructions on deployments and related battle plans. As this scenario was more of an improvised and again, fictional set-piece engagement, it seemed reasonable to develop a “strategy” based on the fairly traditional deployments. Dressed in the attire of a Roman consul (figuratively of course, though I should like to think that I would look fairly distinguished, experienced, and important, etc.), it was discussed in the council that the main effort would be made on our left and center-left, using the numerous cavalry units in conjunction with the full weight of the consular legions. Changing quickly and carefully out of this classical panoply into the simpler but no less indicative-of-rank garb of the Carthaginian commander, I thought that we would press on the wings. These moves would not be aimed toward envelopment, however. The Numidians would “shoot and scoot” instead of engaging in melee. As these flank actions developed, the mass of Celts would surge forward to crash into and hopefully, through the legionary line. The Spanish, allies, and Libyans would form the second wave of this attack. The comparatively poor quality foot on my left would hold the attention of the enemy, but advance no further. 

A Map-based Summary of the Action

Instead of my usual palaver, I thought I might try a type of visual narrative by reporting on the  stages of this fictional contest with a few simple diagrams. While the available caption space did not prohibit a detailed description of the tabletop action, the condensed or selective story of how the battle developed should, I hope, prove sufficient.  

Comments & Critique

To be certain and to reiterate, the look of my tabletop was more functional than eye-catching or fantastic. It would be quite a stretch to compare this miniature battlefield to the much more visually appealing representations found here https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/search/label/Second%20Punic%20War%20Campaign and here https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Operation%20Zama, just to reference two examples. That much admitted and that much aside, the selective combination of three historical battlefields into one fictional landscape served its purpose, and a fairly satisfying if also rather bloody solo engagement was managed. Some license was taken with the listed terrain types or features presented in the Tactica II rules, but I do not believe that this adjustment or tinkering negatively impacted the proceedings. In order to fit the assorted terrain features on my tabletop, I reduced their recommended 25/28mm footprint by 50 percent. A similar process was followed when it came to preparing the two armies and their various formations for the fictional battle. 

Based on my rough calculations, the frontage required for the “sample Republican army deployment” diagram found on page 68 of the spiral-bound rulebook works out to around 110 centimeters or 43 inches in 25/28mm scale. Curiously, the skirmishers arranged in front of this suggested consular deployment have a frontage of 156 centimeters or 61 inches. It appears then, that at least five to six feet of tabletop would be needed in order to comfortably fit four legions, their cavalry, and their skirmishing troops. Restricting my efforts to the legion “problem” for the moment, a 50 percent reduction in suggested basing dimensions allows this same formation to be placed on a frontage of approximately 55 centimeters or a little less than 22 inches. In making and pursuing this modification or compromise, much of the traditional visual splendor can be or is lost, but the functionality, simplicity and within-budget costs are maintained. In subjective summary, a game can still be played. The models are markedly different, but the suspension of disbelief or the capacity for imagination are exercised a little more. 

Initially and indeed, throughout the first half of the recent solo project, there was some concern about the imbalance between the two orders of battle. The Carthaginians had an advantage of almost 80 more massed unit figures and an even greater number of points (around 1,500 more). As the battle continued and as it turned out, these advantages did not guarantee an easy win or even a major victory. Both armies were battered and broken after 11 turns of play. Instead of declaring it a draw, and there are strong arguments to be made for this decision, the battle was classified as a pyrrhic victory for the Carthaginians. (One imagines that two or three months will be spent reviewing how things might have gone better for the Punic generals and their heterogenous force.) This parenthetical offers something like a transition so that the opposing plans may be briefly reviewed. 

On reflection, it appears that the Romans were more reactive than active. Their main idea to strike with their left wing cavalry and to use the consular legions in tandem did not really come to fruition. The Celts and additional foot units were able to gain the temple hill first and so, to a large extent, dictate the terms or tempo of the battle in this general sector of the table. The light cavalry of the Numidian contingent was not really able to “shoot and scoot” as hoped, but they did tie up the enemy allied units and by sacrificing themselves in several chaotic melees, prevent any enemy cavalry from gaining the flank or rear of friendly infantry. From the Carthaginian point of view, pressure by mounted elements could only be made on the one flank. This attempt ran right into opposing cavalry, and the various resulting melees went back and forth for the length of the battle. On neither side was any exposed enemy flank able to be turned or rolled up. 

In slight contrast, the infantry struggle or struggles seemed to follow the respective plans, more or less. The clash between the Celts and the combined Hastati/Principes formations of the several legions seemed realistic and or historical enough. However and speaking as/for the Roman consul, I should have liked the pila volleys to have had more of an impact. The resiliency of the legions was also demonstrated. Even though it was not represented on my tabletop, I did wonder what the terrain in this hotly contested area might look like, littered with all those dead and wounded Celts, Romans, allies, Spanish, and so on. I also wondered, briefly, if I should have drafted a scenario or house rule to address such evolving battlefield conditions. (Here, I was recalling commentary about the state of the field at Zama, before the final clash of the opposing lines of heavy infantry.) And this parenthetical provides me something resembling a transition to a section on how the solo game played, or what modifications, problems, or additional tinkering I contemplated and or encountered. 

This recent effort adds another few pages or hours of experience with regard to the use of the Tactica II rules. (A cursory check of previous blog entries suggests that I have completed around six wargames or wargaming experiments with or on these rules.) Some of the following then, may be redundant. I would hope, however, that if any more experienced Tactica II players read this post, they will make the time to offer constructive remarks and or provide some answers. (Based on what I have observed on the dedicated Tactica II Forum as well as on what I have heard about from other sources, the amount of feedback and or interaction regarding Tactica II matters and material has been very low if there has been any at all.) Anyway, here goes. 

While I think there is much to be said for the missile rules found in Tactica II (especially the possibility of “missile halts”), I find the sequence of play to be a little odd. Ironically and coincidentally, I cut my ancient wargaming teeth with Armati, another set of rules from the prolific, respected and talented Arty Conliffe. Personally, I think having missile fire before movement makes more sense. This change in sequence would impact movement and plans more. It would also make remembering to remove “missile halt” markers and other aids to playing the game simpler, at least in my opinion. While I am on the subject of the sequence of play, I think there is much to be said for the army initiative values found in the Armati army lists. In the fictional Second Punic War battle just finished, the Romans won the move option five times, while the Carthaginians held the initiative for six turns. (The melee direction determination was divided evenly during the ten turns when there was physical contact between opposing units.) This “back and forth” or sharing seems practicable enough for game play, but it does not strike me as very historical. I rather like the idea of one side gaining and holding initiative until the other side is able to wrestle it back or it is lost by some silly (or not carefully planned) mistake on the part of the current owner. To continue. 

During one turn of this fictional solo wargame, a unit of Allied horse failed to roll against pursuit and was subsequently advanced a full move into contact with a nearby unit of Numidian light cavalry. This took place on the Roman left flank, as the provided color diagrams will or should have informed. Given the difference in weight and fighting ability of the opposing cavalry units, it seemed odd to me that the Numidians would simply stand around and wait to be hit by the pursuing enemy horsemen. It seemed to me that they would have evaded instead. However, as the skirmish/evade sub-phase of the move sequence had already been completed, there was nothing that the “frozen” Numidian cavalry could do. I wondered about this. After the turn was finished and notes had been recorded, I took some additional time to review the retreat & reform rule(s) for heavy cavalry, wondering if something similar might be developed for light cavalry in this kind of situation. I also wondered if I was crossing that recognizable line of “adding too much chrome” or “making the rules too involved”? 

Later in the action and on this same flank, the strength of the Numidian light cavalry division was very much depleted. I wondered about divisional integrity and morale at this point. I asked myself how long would these light and made-for-skirmishing cavalry hang around when faced with heavier and more numerous enemy horse? Understanding that the army breakpoint rules are based on the status of the “whole” as opposed to the condition of the “part(s),” I set this particular question aside for another day.  

On another turn, I found it somewhat unusual that a small unit of massed elephants would be able to inflict quite a bit of damage against an enemy unit of light infantry. I understood that light infantry could throw javelins at the elephants, but given the very small difference between range and movement rate and again, given the way the turn is structured, it seemed that this might be a fairly rare occurrence on a Tactica II tabletop. The FV (fighting values) of the two unit types were also noted. Elephants, regardless of their size or breed, are twice as hard to kill as light infantry (FV 5-6 vs FV 3-6). Ironically, I found myself recalling and then turning to the Armati rules, where Section 7.5.1a mentioned the “historical vulnerability of elephants to enemy light troops,” and has the elephant unit “using its special FV when engaged with enemy lights, while lights would use their regular FV.” I wondered about the possibility of drafting an amendment to Tactica II based on this process from another set of rules. 

As a third example or instance of rule revision/adjustment consideration, in a much later turn of the contest, a unit of Illyrian light infantry found itself between a rock and a hard place. In this specific case, the rock was a formation of veteran Libyan heavy infantry armed with spears, and the hard place was a friendly formation of allied foot armed with various. Earlier, the Illyrians had evaded the Libyans, but were now dealing with a confined space and having to decide if they wanted to about-face in order to face almost certain destruction or keep moving towards the friendly line, knowing that it would not really offer any kind of safe harbor. It occurred to me that the light infantry should be able to “dissolve” in this kind of circumstance and pass through the friendly formations of more capable foot. It also occurred to me that this situation was similar to that facing the Numidian cavalry in an earlier turn. The practical sequence seemed plausible, but there was a risk of “adding that chrome” to the sub-phases of an established game move sequence and therefore, an associated risk of complicating the flow of the turn. 

To be sure, these described “episodes” did not detract from the overall engagement and enjoyment of the solo wargame. However, they did provide grounds for further thinking, experimentation, and perhaps additional fictional contests set during the long and difficult years of the Second Punic War. On the whole and in summary, I think the contest went fairly well. Admittedly, it was more of a map exercise than a “proper wargame,” but it did serve as something of a creative outlet, and it did hold my attention for those available hours that could be dedicated to its play, completion, and preparation for a blog post.   

With regard to actually finishing the solo contest, I should like to mention that this fictional battle was the result of a previous attempt that did not go so very well. In brief, this failure saw the same tabletop host a total of 15 Marian legions in addition to numerous auxiliary troop types for a based very loosely on Pharsalus scenario. However and unfortunately, the interaction of dozens of Marian legion cohorts proved too problematic for one brain and two hands. Lesson learned . . . Perhaps. Anyway, at the end of Turn 10 of this much more successful engagement, an accounting was made. The Romans and their allies had suffered the loss of 254 massed unit figures. Their army general was safe, even though he was within javelin range of some intense fighting. The Carthaginians had absorbed 338 casualties. The Celtic casaulties represented 47 percent of this bloody tally. The next turn saw 150 more figures fall on the fictional field. The Romans lost 90, while the Carthaginians suffered another 60 massed unit figure kills. Reviewing the “Tie-Breakers” paragraph on page 55 of the rulebook and doing some quick math(s), it was determined that the Romans had lost 111 percent of their army’s determined breakpoint, while the Carthaginians had lost 103 percent of theirs. Arguably a draw, but as related previously, I opted to label it a pyrrhic victory for the polyglot force containing warbands and elephants. 

Finally, a few sentences about some of the source material (not an exhaustive list to be sure) that was referenced before and during this project. In no particular order, I read the relevant pages of Warfare in the Classical World. Chapters 11 and 12 in Professor Philip Sabin’s LOST BATTLES Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, were also quite helpful. On the topic of terrain, especially in large battles, I relied upon Professor Goldsworthy’s explanation or statement found on page 133 of THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200. This phoenix-like project was also supported by reading various sections of Lazenby’s Hannibal’s War - A military history of the Second Punic War.

Appendix 1 - Orders of Battle

The Roman Army

Left Wing - 

Division A - 

04 units of 24 Allied HC, 8 x 3, FV 4-6, MG, javelins [96 / 480 points]

Division B - 

02 units of Allied HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [32 / 192 points]

02 units of Allied HC, 9 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [36 / 216 points]

Consular Army 

Allied Legion A

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 24 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, MG, pila & swords [24 / 168 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Roman Legion XII

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 24 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, Vet, pila & swords [24 / 192 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Roman Legion V

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 24 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, Vet, pila & swords [24 / 192 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, El, spears [12 / 96 points]

Allied Legion B

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 24 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, Vet, pila & swords [24 / 192 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Center-Right 

Allied Contingent - 

02 units of 18 Illyrians [LI], 9 x 2, FV 3-6, Vet, javelins/various [36 / 144 points] 

02 units of 36 Italian allies [FT], 12 x 3, FV 4-6, Vet, various [72 / 432 points]

01 unit of 36 Italian allies [FT], 12 x 3, FV 4-6, MG, various [36 / 180 points]

Praetor 

Roman Legion XV

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, MG, javelins [12 / 12 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, MG, pila & swords [24 / 168 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Allied Legion F

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, MG, javelins [12 / 12 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, MG, pila & swords [24 / 168 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Right Wing 

Mixed Cavalry - 

01 unit of 16 Gallic HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, various [16 / 96 points]

01 unit of 16 Spanish HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [16 / 112 points]

01 unit of 24 Roman HC, 8 x 3, FV 4-6, MG, javelins [24 / 120 points]

01 unit of 12 Tarantine LC, 6 x 2, FV 3-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 48 points]

Roman Horse - 

02 units of 16 Roman HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [32 / 192 points]

01 unit of 18 Roman HC, 9 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [18 / 108 points]

01 unit of 12 Illyrian LC, 6 x 2, FV 3-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 48 points]

By the Numbers . . .

Light Cavalry - 024

Heavy Cavalry - 270

Light Infantry - 36

Allied Foot - 108

Allied Legion Infantry - 108

Roman Legion Infantry - 108

Velites - 72

Total Massed Unit Figures - 618

Calculated Army Breakpoint - 309

Total Army Value - 3,472 points

Notes:

1. To supplement the army list provided on page L12 of the Tactica II rulebook, I turned to several sources. In no particular order of preference, these included Simon Miller’s PDF article, “The Polybian Roman Army in To the Strongest!” (Please see  https://www.scribd.com/document/726980350/Polybian-Romans.) Book 2 (500 BC to 476 AD) of the D.B.M. Army Lists was also helpful. I also studied the appropriated army lists found in the Hail Caesar Biblical & Classical Supplement as well as the information provided in the extensive army list catalog included with the L’Art de la Guerre rules, 3rd Edition.  
2. Strict adherence to the troop type percentages was not followed in the building of this army. For example, in a friendly or normal game, Allied Heavy Cavalry should account for between 02 and 05 percent of the total Roman strength. If my math is/maths are correct, then my model Allied horse units accounted for 26.5 percent of the massed unit figures of this fictional army. In terms of points, these horsemen represented 25.5 percent of the total. 
3. With regard to command and control, each division was assigned a commander. As per the rules, these are simply “markers,” used primarily to determine a unit’s ability to move. The Roman Consul was not identified by name, but he was classified as a “basic” Army General. This meant he would confer a +1 morale modifier when attached to units. If he elected to participate in a melee, he would add 2d6 to the violent proceedings. The value of this anonymous Consul was set at 20 figures against the determined breakpoint of the army.

____________________________________

The Carthaginian Army

Left Wing - 

Division 8 - 

03 units of 48 Allied (Spanish, Campanians, etc.) HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [48 / 336 points]

01 unit of 24 Allied (Greeks) HC, 8 x 3, FV 4-6, MG, javelins [24 / 120 points]

Division 7 - 

03 units of 54 Allied (Poeni, Spanish, etc.) HC, 9 x 2, FV 5-6, Vet, javelins [54 / 378 points]

SCREEN of 03 Elephants, FV 5-6, Vet, various [12 / 90 points]

The Main Line of Battle [left to right]

Allied Division 6

04 units of Allies (various) FT, 9 x 4, FV 4-6, MG, various [144 / 720 points] 

01 unit of Allies SI, 10 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

01 unit of 03 Elephants (Massed), FV 5-6, Vet, various [12 / 90 points]

Libyan Division 5

03 units of Libyans FT, 8 x 3, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [72 / 504 points]

01 unit of Moorish SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

01 unit of Balearic SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 4-6, Vet, slings [10 / 30 points]

Allied Division 4

03 units of Allies (various) FT, 10 x 3, FV 4-6, Vet, various [90 / 540 points] 

01 unit of Numidian SI, 10 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

01 unit of Allies SI, 10 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

Division 3 - Celts 

04 units of WB (Imp), 10 x 4, FV 4-6, Vet, various [160 / 1,040 points]

01 unit of Celtic SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

01 unit of Balearic SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 4-6, Vet, slings [10 / 30 points]

Division 2

03 units of Spanish Scutarii FT, 12 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, “pila”/swords [72 / 576 points]

02 units of Spanish Caetrati SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [20 / 40 points]

Right Wing 

Numidian Division

06 units of 72 Numidian LC, 6 x 2, FV 3-6, Vet, javelins [72 / 288 points]

SCREEN of 03 Elephants, FV 5-6, Vet, various [12 / 90 points]

By the Numbers . . .

Light Cavalry - 72

Heavy Cavalry (all types) - 126

Libyans - 72

Celts - 160

Spanish - 72

Allies - 234

Skirmishers - 90

Elephants - 09

Total Massed Unit Figures - 772

Calculated Army Breakpoint - 386

Total Army Value - 4,972 points

Notes:

1. The same sources consulted for more information and variation in troop types were used in drafting this fictional order of battle. 
2. As with the drafting and development of the Roman army, there was no strict adherence to the troop type percentages when assembling this Carthaginian force. 
3. In addition to the “marker” Division Commanders for this host of Carthaginians, there were two general offices present on the tabletop. The Army General was designated as a “Follow Me!” Leader, and so, had a +2 modifier in certain situations. He was also given 4d6 to contribute to any melees he joined. His value was 30 figures. The sub-general for this heterogenous army had a +1 modifier, would add 2d6 in melees, and was worth 18 figures. 

Reading, Research, and Rumination

I am not a subscriber to The New York Times. However, on occasion, I will pick up a copy after completing my early morning perambulation. This infrequent purchase depends on what draws my eye as I peruse the sections of the paper while standing in front of the display rack. As luck would have it, the October 31 edition contained, among dozens of other articles on a wide variety of events (obviously), two pieces that applied to my fairly long-standing interest in matters pertaining to ancient history. The lead story, under the ‘International’ label, was titled “Virulent Plague Might Have Obliterated Stone-Age Scandinavia.” This piece was based on an article that appeared in the July issue of the journal Nature. I do not subscribe to this publication either. Having recently been through a pandemic, like billions of others, and as I am currently living with the short, medium, as well as long-term effects and impacts of that crisis - again, like billions of others - this was a difficult but interesting as well as relatable read. I went online to search for more information and discovered, unsurprisingly, that similar scientific evidence and papers about this topic have been published before. Beneath this summary report about the “Neolithic decline,” a second article attracted more of my attention. Being a student of ancient military history as well as an ancients wargamer with around 12 years or so of cumulative experience, the piece titled “Shred of Tunic at Greek Tomb In Dispute: Was It Alexander’s?,” was more interesting and more applicable or relevant to my range of interests in this broad period of history. (The generally accepted range is 3000 BC to 1500 AD, though there are different camps or schools of thought on this topic.) It was also, thankfully, not at all a triggering read. Even though I have been comparatively quiet on the Society of Ancients forums for some time, I thought I might copy and paste the links to these news items into a brief message and post it to the discussion board dedicated to ‘Ancient and Medieval History.’ A quick search of the recent activity on this sub-forum suggested that neither of these topics had been shared. Unfortunately, my impromptu plan was foiled by a “subscribe now” window, which sprang into place and prevented interested parties from reading the complete online version of the information discovered by happy accident yesterday morning. Weighing this loss against the wealth of material already posted to this particular discussion board and figuring that one or more of the accomplished, active as well as erudite members of this long-running and august society would likely find and post one or both items in full, I accepted this minor defeat, and proceeded to trim the torn out page of newsprint, cut the two articles apart, fold each neatly, and then put them in a reference folder which was, in turn, placed in a storage bin. Whether or not these articles and their information will be of future use remains an open question. 

_____________________________

Memory is an interesting thing. Suffering cats, my former high school English teacher would probably roll her experienced eyes at that kind of sentence. Some readers may puzzle over the choice of interjection as well. Let me start again. Memory is an amazing and interesting faculty. There, that’s a little better, even if I do say so myself. I have not read very much about the neuroscience of it, but the few articles and books I have managed to wade through have left me mentally breathless as well as more appreciative about how the human mind - and especially memory - works. For example, one day last week, I suddenly recalled that there was a wargaming scene in the movie “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.” Or at least I was convinced that there was. It turns out that I, or my memory, was correct. There is a You Tube clip, approximately a minute in length, which shows two minor characters in this 1968 film playing at war with what I am guessing are some version of the well known Britains. The models or miniatures deployed on the floor of the quaint English house appear to be made of wood, not metal. They are painted; they are flats (designed to show the left and right sides of the figure as opposed to the front and back), and appear to be somewhere around 30 centimeters/12 inches in height. This very short sequence of two adult men (actors) playing at war with toy soldiers reminded me of the photograph found at the top of page 55 in Henry Hyde’s THE WARGAMING COMPENDIUM. The historical picture was taken from the January 1913 issue of the London Illustrated Gazette. Anyway, this sudden and random memory got me to thinking. I wondered if this scene might be the first example or evidence of wargaming in modern cinema? To be certain, I am using or proposing a very broad definition of wargaming, but even so, I did wonder. In the very short scene from the film, the two gentlemen, sorry, actors (they were pretending to be veterans of a shared military service), do not use any obvious or familiar rules. Instead, they engage in verbal exchanges of what’s happening on their terrain-free “battlefield,” with the occasional book - wait, what?! - or similar household item thrown to inflict damage. Anyway. This line of thinking led me to recall the earlier film “Cleopatra,” featuring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. Although I would argue that it cannot really be called wargaming, I believe there may be something relatable or relevant in the scene where Cleopatra, along with Roman and allied generals as well as servants, are standing around a large table that is populated by miniature models of ships. As the Hollywood interpretation of this battle unfolds, the condition of the opposing navies are updated on this model tabletop. (Just imagine a modern wargaming show or convention where a group put on a demonstration of an ancient naval battle and during the course of talking with interested bystanders, set fire to their model ships!) 

To be certain, wondering about the coverage or representation of the hobby through the medium of film or television is not original. A brief look at TMP informed that this question had been asked and answered on two previous occasions. The first exchange was initiated in May of 2010. (For those readers who may be interested, please see: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=198693.) The second exchange or update on this particular topic took place in March of 2019. (Please see: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=503804.) On a related note, I seem to recall that there was a dedicated program (produced by the BBC, naturally) which covered or promoted the hobby of historical miniature wargaming. The program name and when it was broadcast escapes me. My guess is at some point during the 1970s. However, I do believe that Peter Gilder was one of the principals behind or involved in the limited project. Further rummaging around in the massive “junk drawer” of the internet turned up more than several results regarding the 2020 film, “Miniature Wargaming: The Movie.” I discovered this ‘passion project’ through one of the gentleman from Little Wars TV. His review of the effort, if I recall correctly, was lukewarm. He seemed more disappointed at a missed opportunity than anything else. It might be suggested that the niche market movie earned two or two-and-a-half stars out of a possible four.  

Personally, I find human memory to be a very interesting and complex topic. I really should read more about it. The goal would not only be to expand my basic knowledge of how it works and perhaps even improve my own memory, but also find out, perhaps, why it is that I can suddenly recall the wargaming scene from “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” - a film I have neither watched nor thought about in decades - but why I am not able to, even if offered a thousand dollars or threatened with a mild electrical shock, name and or describe what I had for dinner last Thursday evening. 

_____________________________

The accomplished, prolific, and respected academic Adrian Goldsworthy provides the ancients wargamer interested in refighting the 57 BC contest of The Sambre with a wealth of information (including a couple of maps) on pages 244-250 of his well-reviewed 2006 book, CAESAR - Life of a Colossus. As is often the unintentional case, after randomly rereading these pages, I began considering ways in which I could approach this subject as a possible wargaming or just as a writing project. To be sure, this source was reinforced by a number of others. Anyway, for some reason(s), I found myself drawn to and then rather occupied with the idea of a Battle Day Anniversary. 

In 2005, for the second Battle Day gathering hosted by The Society of Ancients, Caesar’s near catastrophe against a confederacy of Belgic Gauls was selected for reconstruction on a number of tabletops and with a number of rulesets. According to the coverage provided in successive issues of Slingshot (241, 242 and 243), this sequel to the premiere Battle Day was deemed a success. Evidently, there were nearly 60 people present, and nine rulebooks were employed to stage, by my count, 13 refights of the historical engagement. Mid April of next year will mark the 20th anniversary of this particular Battle Day. My guess is that it will not be marked on anyone’s calendar or calendar app. My amateur actuarial estimation is that a small percentage of the almost 60 attendees are, unfortunately, no longer with us. Then again, perhaps a handful of those who were there will take a few moments and reminisce about their participation. Given the passage of time, and given the production of new sets of rules as well as new scales and types of wargaming figures, I think there should be some serious consideration given to establishing a 20th or 25th anniversary of either all of the previous or just a select few Battle Day events. 

Looking over the rules poll/survey posted by ‘Imperial Dave’ (aka Dave Hollin, aka his Editorship, and soon to be honored (deified?) as a modern day Roman proconsul or Eastern Potentate as a result of his dedication to The Society and Slingshot), I cannot help but wonder what The Sambre would look like and how it would play if the following sets of rules were used: To The Strongest!, Comitatus, Commands and Colors, FoG (Field of Glory), Hail Caesar, Impetus, Tactica II, Morten et Gloriam, Scutarii, Sword and Spear, SPQR, and Strength and Honour. By my count, this informal list adds up to an even dozen rulebooks. If a third of these permitted two games to be staged on the hypothetical day and there were five or six participants for each refight, then the success achieved by the original 2005 Battle Day could be easily matched if not easily surpassed. Finding this idea rather appealing, I seriously considered preparing and playing to completion a mini-Battle Day of The Sambre. As to the number of games and sets of rules, there would be three. First, I would try Simon Miller’s no need for dice or rulers To The Strongest! The second reconstruction would see Arty Conliffe’s Tactica II rules being used. The ‘match game’ would be played with Triumph! That’s another rulebook that can be added to the above list. To reiterate, and understanding that I represent a completely minority if not fringe opinion, I think a 20th or 25th anniversary of Battle Day Sambre would be educational, entertaining, and an excellent experience overall.  

Coincidentally, as I day dreamt about the possibility of arranging a 20th or 25th anniversary of a particular Battle Day, I took the time to “attend” Big Lee’s talk about Gatekeepers. (Please see his video post of 20 October: Gatekeepers can grow the hobby.)

I found myself both distracted by as well as interested in this 10-minute presentation. As of the early morning of 02 November, I have watched it three times. On the second and third viewings, notes were typed, which sometimes required me to pause Big Lee, so that I could finish either a basic transcription or record my own comments and thoughts about what was being said. Anyway, while I maintain that a Battle Day Anniversary is a good idea, it seems that the Veteran and or Purist Gatekeepers, as defined by Big Lee, might block this suggestion. As I understood the informal lecture, Veteran Gatekeepers are usually resistant to new developments (i.e., ideas) and or change, while Purist Gatekeepers are adherents to certain ways of doing things. It seems a fine distinction to make, but I guess I can see their respective points. I do not dispute that The Sambre has already been selected as the historical battle for The Society’s signature annual event. I would simply offer that if it worked so well in 2005, I should think that it would work even better in 2025 or 2030. To adopt one of the other points made by Big Lee in his presentation, a Battle Day Anniversary would be an opportunity to invite newcomers to this kind of gathering. It would also serve as a second chance for further study and would allow those who were too young or otherwise occupied to assume the roles of either Caesar, Labienus, a legate/tribune, Boduognatus, or one of his allied kings/chieftains. 

_____________________________

After an embarrassing as well as frustrating number of attempts to get something decent down on electronic paper - which is apparently part of my “process” - I managed to produce some 5,000 words for a post tentatively titled: “Embedded with the Eighth and Eleventh: Tinkering with Tactica II, Refighting a Sector of the Sambre.” Unfortunately, and to my further consternation, the “writing wheels came off” as I struggled with the ‘Comments & Critique’ section. Rather than consign this attempt (draft number 15, I think) to the scrap heap, I decided to salvage what I could in the hopes of providing at least a summary of this thwarted effort. The new plan was to limit the narrative or report to less than 1,000 words.

As indicated by the partially alliterative and perhaps overly long title, I was using modified Tactica II rules to refight just a third of the Sambre. In brief, the tinkering was focused on reducing the figure base dimensions provided as well as how the cohorts of a Marian legion were modeled. On this specific point, I referenced and relied quite a bit on the information found in THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200, also written by Adrian Goldsworthy. In terms of numbers, the Roman legions contained 240 and 249 figures respectively. This strength represented 7,824 heavy infantry according to my “established” or “work in progress” scale, and added up to a value of 3,912 points under the rules. The Viromandui or Veromandui were depicted with 14 warbands, organized into 3 divisional commands, which were led by an anonymous king. These warbands contained 580 figures, so there were 9,280 Viromandui present for battle. In terms of points, this contingent was valued at 3,802.

As this project was really more of an experiment than a wargame, the terrain and the troops were simple, functional, and inexpensive. As a result of this non-traditional approach, they were less than visually appealing. (For context, consideration, and comparison, I have included a couple of pictures and captions at the end of this section. Referencing Big Lee’s short video post about Gatekeepers, it seems fairly safe to remark that the several identified types of these self-appointed individuals would likely find a lot of negative things to say about my treatment of Caesar’s center at the Sambre. Then again, perhaps they would voice their opinions by not making any comments.) As part of the experiment, I did spend some time estimating what the cost might be for a Marian legion modeled with traditional 28mm miniatures, for a legion depicted with 28mm or 18mm figurines secured from WoFun, and then with 6mm figures purchased from Baccus. The final price tag will vary of course, depending on one’s preference, talent, and amount of discretionary income available. Obviously, refighting the whole of the Sambre is going to be more expensive than fighting just a fraction of it. My approximate estimate for eight Tactica II Roman Marian legions in 25/28mm scale, painted and based to acceptable wargaming standards, was 4,000 dollars US. This projected cost does not include estimates for any auxiliary troops, terrain materials, or the miniatures required to represent the three tribes of Belgic Gauls.

With regard to special rules for this scenario or again, experiment, there were just two. First, each Roman cohort had to pass a Control Test in order to reorganize and reform itself. (Studying the chapters of Caesar’s narrative account in addition to the analysis of modern scholars, it seemed reasonable to categorize the Romans as unprepared for action, at least at the start of the historical contest.) Second, all melees would see the Romans benefit from an uphill or upslope advantage. 

The resulting “wargame” was a simple, straightforward, and rather bloody affair. A vast majority of the Roman cohorts were able to reform and prepare for action before the wave of barbarian warriors surged against their segmented line. The initial volleys of pila did not do much damage, but the short swords and shields certainly did. The additional weight of second line cohorts joining the general melee helped the Roman cause while hurting that of the Viromandui. Given the number and depth of the warbands, and given the confines of the “model” battlefield, the Viromandui were not able to gain a flank or use their greater numbers to effect. Like most Tactica II melees between powerful opposing units, the close combat raged for a number of turns and saw lots of six-sided dice being thrown. Eventually, perhaps inevitably, the power of the Viromandui attack was held, cut into smaller pieces, and then thrown back towards the river. Of the 14 warbands present, eight had been destroyed as fighting units and two of the surviving group were disordered. The Romans, as might be expected, had been bloodied. They had lost one cohort from the Eleventh. Four other cohorts, two from each legion, were dangerously close to being broken. Light to moderate casualties were inflicted on several other cohorts. 

Reviewing the findings of this experiment, it seems safe to remark that it was a qualified success. Despite the complete lack of traditional terrain and figures, a historical result was achieved, though not exactly as described by Caesar. The rule adjustments seemed to work quite well, but this is an admittedly subjective assessment. Further experiments and study is needed before a well-supported conclusion can be reached and these findings put into a possible future article or post and shared with the larger wargaming community. 

From the Viromandui right/Roman left, looking across the simple battlefield. Constrained by the hedges, the barbarians are only able to position roughly half of their strength in the fight. Initially, the Roman cohorts are outnumbered, but pila volleys, training, and the arrival of other cohorts helped contain and control the situation. Again, the functional nature of the tabletop or laboratory work surface is very much in evidence, as are the assorted play aids, including the open rulebook in the upper left. 

From just behind and above the approximate Roman center, where two cohorts have formed up just in time to receive the powerful charge of the bodyguard unit of the Viromandui leader. The design and information of the involved units can be easily seen; the additional stands denoting various leader types are evident, and there is an “Impetus” marker visible as well. This melee advantage has not helped all that much as evidenced by the red marks: each cohort has taken a single loss, while the veteran warriors have lost 10 “figures” so far. 

_____________________________

The value and necessity of diversity was mentioned a number of times during the Gatekeepers video blog posted on October 20. I do not disagree with the well known, prolific, and respected gentleman’s viewpoint. In fact, this particular video post has, unexpectedly but also appreciatively, given me quite a few things to think about as I complete the switch-out of seasonal wardrobe, turn back the clocks, and start making lists and checking them twice for the too rapidly approaching season. (I understand that holiday music will be playing on certain radio stations soon. Some may have already started. On an early morning walk, I was not all that surprised but admit to being a little disappointed when I saw that one house in the neighborhood had set up quite a few Christmas decorations. This walk took place on Saturday, 02 November. Anyway.)  

In the course of reading and researching for one of my failed-to-get-anywhere drafts, I noted an observation made by one of the luminaries who had been present at the 2005 Battle Day event. This gentleman reported that he “looked at all the other wargamers as they arrived.” He did not catalog them exactly, but did observe that there were: “Short ones, tall ones, young and old, bald or hairy, one or two unhealthy looking specimens to be sure, but mostly just normal looking blokes. With one exception to prove the rule, we are all male. To outsiders we are all anoraks, but who cares?” Given the passage of time and the accuracy of actuarial tables, it seems logical if a bit cold but also unfortunate to conclude that some of the old ones as well as the unhealthy looking specimens are likely no longer with us. It also seems that this hobby may have more than its fair share of unhealthy specimens, given its essentially sedentary nature: hours of sitting, priming, painting, and basing, or in front of a monitor while fingers “fly” across the keyboard producing the latest blog post or writing an article for this or that publication. 

I was not at Battle Day 2024 (Ilipa, 206 BC), and will not be at Battle Day 2025 (Maldon, 991 AD). I suppose I could dream about attending Battle Day 2026 (as yet to be determined and announced), but that notion seems unrealistic. My guess is that the observation regarding the diversity of the attendees in 2005 could be applied directly to those fortunate enough to have participated in 2024, and to those few, those lucky few, who will be in attendance next April or May. As impromptu reinforcement of this assertion regarding an observation, I took a look at the Partizan pictures included in the July 2023 issue of WARGAMES illustrated^®. To be sure, there were many spectacular photographs of the wide variety of games on display. The six snapshots which showed attendees seemed to offer visual confirmation of the above description. From this year-old publication, I moved on to watch a more recent video report of a refight of Acre (1189 AD) by the popular and prolific lads at Little Wars TV, courtesy of a link provided in a Society of Ancients sub-forum. Striving to be curious as opposed to judgmental - a problem that Gatekeepers do not appear to worry about very often if at all - I wondered or worried about the accuracy or accepted definition of “a broad and diverse collective” when it came to describing the wargaming community. Returning to the internet for more information and possibly some answers, I found several links that may or may not be useful when readers and other interested individuals consider the intertwined issues of Gatekeepers and diversity. Please see: https://wavellroom.com/2021/01/15/wargaming-has-a-diversity-problem/; https://paxsims.wordpress.com/2020/12/29/the-wargamer-diversity-in-wargaming/; https://nerdist.com/article/how-and-why-miniature-wargame-companies-are-choosing-to-embrace-diversity/, and https://25.wargaming.com/come-as-you-are-celebrating-diversity-and-unity-in-the-world-of-wargaming/.

There can be no debate: I am neither as connected nor as dedicated as Big Lee. I did not attend Partizan 2024; I did not read that issue of WSS wherein the op/ed piece about “the cult of negativity” was published, and I do not belong to a club. (Full disclosure: I never have belonged to a wargaming club or group.) I am quite sure that our introduction to and development within the hobby are fairly or significantly different. That much admitted, we can still call ourselves wargamers. We can still call ourselves students of military history. We are, then, members of the same, large community. The comparison of the hobby to a city was well done. The natural division of “tribes” of wargamers with specific or varied but related interests into neighborhoods was also rather neatly explained. However, I confess that I struggled a bit with the surrounding wall and the numerous gates interrupting that figurative and presumably defensive or protective barrier. If the overall goals of this hobby community are invitation, inclusion, growth, and building on or from the natural tension resulting from the “conflict” or competing values of different tribes/neighborhoods, then why have a wall and a fair number of gates in the first place? Walls and gates, or Gatekeepers, seem the direct opposite of invitation and inclusion. (To continue the community as city analogy, I picture the neighborhood where solo wargamers live as being one with a lot of tall but well kept fences enclosing nicely manicured yards. I think their houses would be of moderate size and made mostly of brick. This particular neighborhood would probably be voted the quietest in the city for 20 or 30 years running. Then again, solo wargamers might prefer to be removed of the hustle and bustle of the city, perhaps living on 50-100 acre plots of rural land. In addition to a simple brick ranch style house, there might be a bunker or shelter of some sort, a fresh water well, perhaps a generator, and a perimeter fence - most likely constructed with barbwire.) 

Returning to the current or apparently ongoing issue of Gatekeepers, I wonder, given their self-appointed status, if it would be possible to just ignore them? Also, I wonder if it might be feasible to eliminate the gates - however those are ultimately defined and or accepted. What about forming an army of advisors, coaches, mentors or something similar to “combat” Gatekeepers? These certified or maybe even notarized individuals, hopefully a truly diverse collection of individuals and representative of the larger population, would be responsible for encouraging newcomers instead of controlling their exploration or worse, excluding them because they did not meet “standards” A, B, C, D or however many there are depending on the period, scale, type of Gatekeeper and other variables. 

_____________________________

Hoping to rid myself of a bothersome set-the-clocks-back “hangover,” I went on a brisk early morning walk. (The weather was crisp and fairly clear; the pace of the walk was not what could rightly be called brisk, but was sufficient enough to fall under the category of “moderate cardio.”) Unfortunately, the dull pain and slight pounding in my head had barely been wiped away by the slight autumn breeze before it was replaced by a random collection of ideas, tangents, and partially formed paragraphs having to do with how to draw this post to a close. This cacophony of jumbled thoughts was not helped by the audio coming from the front pocket of my hooded sweatshirt. In the interest of being more transparent, but not at all interested in turning this section into a forum for the debate and discussion of current affairs and politics - especially politics, the readers should know that I was listening to the 30 October episode of Pod Save The World. 

Throughout the rest of the morning and into the afternoon, I continued to struggle with crafting a good or at least acceptable conclusion to this post. My memory came to the rescue again, as it directed me to the blog of the respected and well known New Zealand (formerly of Japan) gentleman-wargamer Aaron Bell. I copied and pasted his entry dated July 4, 2023, thinking that this would be an excellent template, thinking that I might draft my own version of the “state of my wargaming nation.” Attractive as this option was, I decided not to risk sullying his well earned reputation or perhaps unintentionally damaging my own (seems a tad presumptuous on my part . . .) by offering some imitation of his excellent work. After mulling it over for another hour or so, the decision was made to simply recap/review what had been typed so far. In this process, I would try to be careful and limit any additional remarks, as I did not want to start a new line of discussion or thought.

The news items about the or a Stone-Age plague and the possibility of finding a piece of Alexander the Great’s tunic remain safely in their new storage place. The mention of dashing young general has not inspired any ideas for fielding a Macedonian army on my tabletop. The earlier scenarios covering Gaugamela have satisfied this particular appetite. For the foreseeable future, it appears that any further “discovery” of relevant or interesting ancient history material in the pages of The New York Times will also be the product of happenstance. 

Within this opening section, I made a brief mention about being “comparatively quiet” on the various sub-forums of The Society of Ancients. In his July 2023 post, the honorable gentleman admitted to “falling out of love” with this long-standing organization. I confess that I am not quite sure how I would describe the current state of my “relationship” with The Society. Based on my limited level of experience, at least when compared to some of the Silver Shields out there, and based on what I have read on a number of blogs, it seems fairly common for wargamers to go through “peaks and valleys” of engagement with and interest in the hobby. I have not dedicated a lot of resources trying to figure out exactly why my activity and productivity have decreased. (My last post was published on July 28. My last wargaming report post was made earlier in that month.) It may be a product of the complications, the various daily stresses, and the fewer in number small victories of Life, or it may be as simple as the change of seasons. In this part of the world, at this time of year, the fields are bare, the leaves will soon be completely off most trees, temperatures will continue to drop, and an amount of snow will eventually cover the ground. I have not read any accounts describing or reporting on the hibernation habits of historical wargamers, but it does appear that my level of engagement is currently dormant. (Coincidentally, recent check up reported that I had a resting heart rate of 50 beats per minute. However, I have not being eating a lot of salmon lately!)

Acknowledging the previous discussions on TMP, it might be interesting to attempt to find and catalog the instances when wargaming, and the members of its extended family, appeared in movies and on television. These examples would have to be classed as “general public” for lack of a better term, as contrasted to the purposeful instances such as the BBC program or the 2020 film about the hobby. I wonder, has there been a more recent project completed and offered for mass or niche market consumption? I also wonder if any demonstration or participation game has even been staged at a convention or show that featured those wooden soldiers or similar models featured in that short scene from “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.” Given the advances in technology and the presumed reduction in cost, I wonder if, one day, we might see a reconstruction of the Sambre wherein quite large, but flat as well as painted models were used. Perhaps the Roman commander(s) might throw small models of pila, fabricated out of some soft material, so that errant volleys would not result in injury and subsequent litigation. 

Rereading Adrian Goldsworthy’s summary of the battle between the legions of Caesar and the massed warriors of Boduognatus was, as I believe I related above, unintentional.  Given my resulting and passing preoccupation with some kind of Battle Day Anniversary treatment of this engagement, I cannot help but wonder if I would have developed the same opinion for one of the other earlier Battle Day events. As I have recently looked at Gaugamela, this better known contest did not spark any similar impulse or interest. However, as it was the debut Battle Day hosted by The Society, perhaps it should be given due consideration? Then again, it seems that a sufficient chunk of time has passed for other historical battles to be reconsidered and refought. I think it would be interesting and worthwhile to see how the current crop of rulesets and the current generation of ancient wargamers handled Dorylaeum (1097 AD), Cynoscephalae (197 BC), Poitiers (1356 AD), Callinicum (531 AD), and Zama (202 BC). 

Thinking more about what Big Lee said in his video post of October 20, from what I can recall (there’s that memory question again), it seems that I have read more about Gatekeepers than I have had actual experience with these “self-appointed guardians.” Coincidentally, both occasions were the result of interactions with editors of publications catering to the hobby. In the first case, I would have to do more research to get all the details, but it concerned the submission of a wargame report to a well regarded magazine. In a message from the editor, I was told that he had decided to “punt” and publish my article. The problem - depending on one’s viewpoint or to which tribe one belonged - with my report was that it was about wargaming without traditional miniatures. Evidently and not surprisingly, the vast majority of the readership of this publication were traditional historical miniature wargamers. I have not been able to secure a full record of the reception or “fall out” of this editorial decision or more accurately, of my approach to wargaming, but I believe that I have what could be called a supportive comment or reaction somewhere. In this response there was evidence as well as apparent acceptance of the division between at least two tribes of wargamers. In the second case, a different editor informed me that I wrote too much, that I submitted too many articles. He was afraid of or concerned about the possibility that my material could possibly “dominate” the pages of the bimonthly journal under his current stewardship. This struck me as rather odd, as the publication depended on the efforts on unpaid contributors. To be completely honest, this action negatively impacted my relationship with the magazine. This ironic rejection no longer stings (time heals and all that), but it did leave me scratching my head for a while. From the perspective of a number of years, I suppose this run-in with a Gatekeeper could be viewed as a kind of blessing in disguise, as this unexpected development eventually led me to starting a blog, where I could be my own Gatekeeper. Looking back on both of these episodes, it seems reasonable if not necessary to categorize them as “very minor incidents” in the long sweep of the history of wargaming. There is evidence out there, somewhere, of the “punted” article, and the confusing rejection did not adversely impact the viability of the other publication. 

Returning to the start of this paragraph and expanding more on having read about instances of this kind of activity, on various discussion boards and across a wide variety of blogs, I have seen opinions stated and defended, I have seen discussions devolve into debate and then, on occasion, become contests of vituperation. The inability to hear the tone employed and interpret body language often makes it difficult to determine how what is being said is being communicated and so, engage civilly. The most recent example that comes to mind was when someone made a comment about the appearance of an individual sitting at a tabletop. The apparent attempt at humor was not received well by another person who was actually present at that same tabletop, who knew the details of the situation. Sufficed to say, there was an exchange. Things seem to have been  sorted, but one does wonder about the impression or impressions that were made. I relate this event as Big Lee mentioned both the positive and negative impacts of Social Media as well as the importance of the following the “golden rule” when it comes to commenting. Anyway, I continue to mull over whether or not I want to “jump through a certain number of hoops” so that I can read the original article that inspired Big Lee’s post. I should hope that I have gleaned enough information from repeated viewings and from taking more notes or correcting those previously typed that I can offer fairly informed remarks. Anyway, here is an update as of the afternoon of November 03: According to the most recent data, his October 20 video post has been viewed 638 times and has earned 94 thumbs up or likes. Thirty-five comments have been left, some of which were replied to, while others were left alone. The well known and prolific gentleman has posted two new videos since. If the reader is not aware of Big Lee, his site is definitely worth the investment of your valuable time.

What’s next? That was the big question or at least sub-heading which ended my June 13 post. (Please see “Miscellaneous Musings . . .” if interested.) I suppose I could ask the same question here. Perhaps, just to change things up very slightly, I should phrase it as, “Okay, what now?” 

I did not have an answer then, and I feel that I should apologize to the 24 followers (23 really, as one name is listed twice) because I don’t have one now. I certainly don’t have anything that would resemble an agenda of games to play or other projects to get done and posted before the end of the year. Excepting the recent and again, accidental interest in experimenting with and interpreting a section of the Sambre, my wargaming activity and engagement remains fallow instead fertile. If there is any change to this status, those much appreciated and mostly passive followers will be the second, third, fourth, and fifth, etc. to know.