Wargame Blogs - What's that all about then?

It's really nice to see the start of something new and in this case have the opportunity to welcome Greg and his brand spanking new blog 'Delta Coy'  to the world of wargame blogging.

I myself have been doing this now for a few years, here and on the Devon Wargames Group club blog, and it's easy to forget what it felt like getting into this interesting aspect of the hobby and taking a bit of time to just reflect on why, for some of us, it becomes a big part of what we do in the hobby, just as much as playing the games, painting the miniatures, attending shows (Ah, those were the days!), reading the books and exploring historical sites and places; in fact if anything, for me, it acts as a hub to all of that activity and yet for others they seem to enter the space, say what they want to say for a while, and then step off the stage seemingly having said all they wanted or needed to, which is just as it should be.

The inspiration for this post came about after a series of email exchanges with Greg based down in the larger part of the Antipodes, via JJ's Wargames, that ended up on the subject of blogging in general followed later by the launch of Delta Coy, which I think had been brewing in the background for a lot longer than our email exchange, but either way, I think it is a great time to be blogging in the hobby and great to see a new voice step on to the stage.  

It has struck me in recent times that perhaps blogging was not as fashionable as perhaps it was a few years ago with the rise of other platforms on the web, such as Facebook and others, that has seemed to draw in manufacturers and followers of one particular rule set or era, to set up a particular page and gather around. This trend even seemed to be affecting the traffic seen on other established wargame forums where a lot of that activity and discussion had been based but seemingly not so much any more.

Now that's a nice looking table and purpose built room.

It is interesting to note that the wargaming hobby, so traditional in many ways, has been at the forefront of adopting social networking platforms to engage with others about its various activities, and I suppose it should not be surprising that those platforms will change and come in and out of fashion over time.

That said I think I have detected another swing in those trends as the current world lockdown has forced most of us to rethink how we carry on with our hobby, which in the main is a very social one, certainly here in the UK, and with more time being spent at home, we have seen the rise of solo-gaming reports springing up all over the place, not to mention the painting and reading that is getting done with less other distractions, like work, to contend with.

In addition to those changes of exchanges on whatever forums, I seem to detect an increase in traffic here and on the Devon Group blog, where perhaps the varied diet of wargaming content, not just focused on one particular era or aspect of the hobby, mixed with an opportunity to get into a particular topic in a more detailed and perhaps engaging way, than simply an exchange of ideas in a group or forum, provides a more interesting reading and communication experience when people have a bit more time to sit down and discuss content.

Likewise, a lot of content on other forums still relies on those personal blogs that underpin a message referring back to a post on them, on which the detail of the subject is often found. 

If you then add to that aspect the amount of different things going on in the hobby with new rules, figures, books, the latest popular era or scale of game to do it in alongside that personal way of doing a lot of the hobby around those various topics, blogging still has a lot to say and offer as a way of exchanging ideas, that perhaps in past times was the prerogative of mainstream hobby magazines and we all know that that business is not what it was, with fewer of us willing to subscribe, preferring to buy on sight if the content in that month appeals.

Greg has a very nice collection of Seven Years War and AWI. Future plans look set to be focused on WWII 15mm,
one to one on that rather large table!

Alongside those aspects, the other key things that I feel blogging has to offer, is as an interesting way to keep a personal journal of anyone's time in the hobby that can be fun to look back over as the years and posts build up and can offer a fascinating insight into the way our personal hobby journey takes different twists and turns from one era to another from one modeling project to another and the challenges that are overcome or not which is all part of the fun.

I have done a lot of things and met a lot of people who I might not have done because of JJ's Wargames and it has allowed me an opportunity to put something back into a hobby that, as the banner at the top boldly states is a 'Passion' and thus merits a contribution from me for all the fun I have had, and the people, whose company I have enjoyed, deserve.

So, if you are thinking of having a go, there has never been a better time to start blogging. Just work out what you want to say, how often and in what form you intend to say it and make it a point to share, share and keep on sharing to get more folks who read your blog involved in our hobby.

JJ

Realism vs Playability in Wargaming on 'The Veteran Wargamer'

http://theveteranwargamer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/episode-11-get-real.html

I listened with much interest to a new podcast to my listening library, namely Jay Arnold's "The Veteran Wargamer", a category of Wargamer I probably tick all the boxes for. 

I had started following the podcast after the dual presentation between Jay and the chaps on the Meeples show and I'm really enjoying the very thoughtful and considered presenting style together with some really interesting topics. In fact I am starting to think of this podcast very much as the thinking wargamers listen.

The latest episode, see the link above, featured an interview with Henry Hyde who always has interesting contributions to make and also brings a veteran's perspective on the hobby, discussing realism and playability in wargaming.

If you like engaging with these kind of academic discussions that underpin a lot of what the hobby is all about then I would simply point you in the direction of this show.

I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what was discussed, principally around the ideas of rule-sets getting clarity around the command level they seek to portray or the level they are putting the player in.

As an example, the Battleground series of rules were mentioned, a rule set I have played and reviewed here.

http://jjwargames.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Battlegroup%20Overlord

The rules position the player at the company/battalion commander level and yet seek to include detail such as ammunition count and appropriate rounds loaded, issues that are mission critical but probably to the individual weapons commander rather than the player's level.

Perhaps we wargamers only confuse the rule writers paradigm by insisting on the level of detail that allows the player to flit between these little bits of chrome whilst playing our higher level battles. That made me think about my Napoleonic playing and the level of game I am trying to model.

Vimeiro - Over the Hills style at January's DWG club meet "battalions, squadrons and batteries"

With Carnage & Glory and more recently Over the Hills I am playing games with brigades, divisions and corps, with the lowest level of commanded unit being the battalion, squadron or half battery. The games are modelled to allow players to command at Marshal or General commanding levels down to a Brigadier General with three or four battalions. The players are able to set up their combat formations as they desire, certainly at the start of the game, with the computer having a slight advantage in adding the extra granularity if you choose of including the lower level considerations of ammunition supply, without burdening the player with any record keeping.

On consideration, I thought, yes I do like that granularity, but not if it interferes with the key decisions I would be making as a general officer commanding a brigade, division, corps or army, which both rule sets do very well.

Another good point that got me thinking was Jay's interesting conclusions about the dread 'R' word 'realism' and the point that no matter how good a simulation our game offers, we cannot hope to capture the impacts that affected real life commanders often operating with the effects of lack of sleep, food and with the threat of impending death for them and those they command. In fact the clue is in the description of what we do 'game'.  I don't want to experience real war, nobody in their right mind would, and what we are about is having fun playing with our toys, simulating aspects of command and trying to model there likely consequences. 

I like to think that wargaming is all about asset management, with a limited supply of assets and trying to get the best return with what we have, working within the rules set by the game we play. The best games for me are where I get to test my skill at decision making and the results generated from those decisions in the face of things going wrong or not as I expected.

I liked the proposition that actually 'realism' is a poor word to describe what we are trying to achieve especially when throwing in the aspects of ground, figure and time scaling that very often require huge compromises, particularly when the depth of any given formation of troops is considered; that perhaps 'plausibility' would be a better gauge word to assess our rule sets by, namely do the decisions players are posed with making and the results generated look plausible, with all the subjectivity that description implies.

Great aesthetics, great fun and a plausible simulation - Dux Brit at the DWG Xmas game

At the end of the day one man's plausible is another man's incredulity based on our own reading, experiences and personal bias, and that is why one set of rules will never rule them all - a bit Tolkien, but you get my drift. 

The other key aspect, for me that came up in discussion was the theme of our time, namely 'friction' and the way that various rules have sort to impede the players will during play to simulate the effects of Clausewitzien theory about how the simplest of activities become hugely complex and difficult during combat and very difficult to predict as to how and when any given activity will be completed.

I find it amazing that some of my fellow hobbyist still baulk at this idea and insist on being able to do what they want when they want in the traditional 'igougo' way we played back in the day. I found myself in agreement with the proposition that if it doesn't have friction, then it's a game, not a wargame.

Of course the measure of friction and how it is built into a given set of rules is what the art of rule writing is all about. As the term implies, too much friction and all activity stops in a grinding slog or halt. Conversely, with cards being the common device of choice, the need to make sure that the balance is maintained to allow players to have some possibility to impact the game with their command choices and not simply rely on them getting the right hand for any given game.

Other rule sets unable to surrender the Games Workshop methodology of 'igougo, everything gets a go' have turned to ideas of blunders and continual activations with great die rolls, leaving a frustrated opponent unable to move or react in response and simply suck it up as they are forced to watch their command get dissected. My eldest son was put off a set of rules when this happened vowing never to go near them again.

Thus with most things about our curious hobby we come back to subjectivity, compromise and balance in just about everything we rely on to generate the games we do.

I still fall back on my fun/simulation measure to assess the rules I like to play with that balance of getting both aspects in equal measure, but I have also added another consideration, namely the aesthetics, or how does the game look that these rules generate.

I want my Napoleonic infantry in two ranks minimum with battalions, squadrons and batteries that give an impression of those aquatint pictures from the early 19th century shrouded in smoke and with generals, sword in hand leading from the front as they charge into the maelstrom.

I want my small Roman two rank cohorts in triplex/duplex acies, chequerboard style in front of big scary hoards of yelling charging barbarians with groups of cavalry hovering about on the flanks of the battle line.

I don't want to take my toys off the table in a daft attempt to model casualties, being much happier spreading a few dead and dying models to capture the areas of heavy combat.

The Provincial de Badajoz, heroes of the hour, step up and turn the game in our unforgettable play through of the 'Attack on the Pajar Vergara' scenario - "a story from history" 

http://jjwargames.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/talavera-attack-on-pajar-de-vergara.html

Most of all, is I want my rules to be able to allow me to get the important part of 'history', the 'story' of the game with those moments when a plan came off or when disaster struck or the heroes of the day performing the deeds recorded in the greatest of battle histories and the tales that live long in the memory when you are sat in the pub reminiscing with other veteran wargamers who can barely tell you what day it is, that alone who is the prime-minister. 

If you haven't yet checked out Jay Arnold's 'The Veteran Wargamer' then I would recommend doing so. A two hour drive to Bristol simply flew by whilst listening to the discussion - recommended. 

iTunes Link - The Veteran Wargamer

Time Commanders, BBC Four - "It's Wargames Jim, but not as we know it!"

This week Tom and I had some "boy time" with the television as Carolyn was out late one evening and so we decided to watch the second episode, the Battle of Waterloo, of the three part series of last year's Time Commanders shown here in the UK on BBC 4 with the first episode aired on the 12th December.

We had already seen the first programme looking at the Battle of Zama as featured in the preview publicity shot in the header and the third episode is focused on the Battle of Chalons and the Hun invasion of the western Roman empire.

This series follows on from the two previous runs in 2003 and 2005 with obvious improvements in the game engine from a modified version of Total War which both Tom and Will are familiar with. For those unfamiliar with the series I have attached a link to give an overview of the programme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Commanders

This third series has prompted comment from not only my wargaming circle but also friends who know my interests but are not wargamers themselves, interested in the series and my thoughts about it.

It was these latter conversations that caused me to think about writing this post and trying to draw out some principles that come to mind when considering TV shows like this.

My first experience of TV attempting to bring wargaming to the wider public was "Battlegound" produced by Tyne Tees television in 1978 presented by dear old Edward Woodward and Peter Gilder, featuring Peter's terrain and 28mm figures.

I had the pleasure of watching this series at Peter's home in Pickering and playing on the same terrain and with those figures in the early days of his wargame holiday centre.

Edward Woodward sets the scene in "Battleground"

The series can still be viewed on YouTube and remains for me a favourite for many reasons including a huge dollop of nostalgia.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdAPAly2sNIUdymRCXrz3gImY388My00J

This programme really combined the best aspects of our hobby, namely its presentation of the games and the tactics of the given period with a look at the interplay between the different arms combined with the aesthetics of the figures and terrain designed to capture the look of the period under discussion.

The gamers took time to explain their planned moves as they made them with the thinking that underpinned what they were doing and what they hoped would happen, all designed to keep the observer informed about the key question - why did you do that?

Peter Gilder in action on "Battleground"

With Battleground the casual viewer would generally come away with an understanding of why the battle was fought and what the respective armies looked like and an idea of why it was fought in the manner it was.

Battleground clearly shows its age and vintage with little attention to the issues of command and control and the inclusion of dry ice and cigar smoke battle effects, but I love it still.

Then we had the attempt at bringing "Kriegspiel" to our televisions with the "Game of War" series hosted by Angela Rippon, accompanied by Iain Dickie, Artur Harman and Dr Paddy Griffith.

http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/Game_of_War

The interesting aspect about this show was that the guest commanders were serving or former British military commanders who would have certainly had and displayed an understanding of the military concepts of the period they were gaming. It was really revealing to see their natural instincts in attack and defence displayed during the command phases prior to the contacts being adjudicated on the table top by the "wargame experts".

Not only that, but they brought their awareness of the likely issues their subordinates would be facing in the close up and personal battle on the maps and revealed their ideas for coping with those factors, which gave great insight into the world of the senior military commander from what ever period.

Game of War on Channel 4

However television is an audio-visual medium and I felt the series fell down in the rather serious dry approach taken by the presenters and the total lack of aesthetics that Kriegspiel is with two dimensional maps and boring looking meeples and counters - blah! 

I found the show both disappointing and fascinating at the same time but it wasn't a success running just one series of three programmes in the 1990's. I have some old video copies of the show in my loft but am not keen on revisiting them.

Thus we find ourselves in the twenty-first century with all that modern technology can bring to our TV screens to show us war as a game which gives us "Time Commanders".

So where have we arrived at with this show? I am afraid on balance, not in a good place from my perspective.

The structure of the show is to bring opposing teams together to command the respective forces in a major battle from history. These teams of three people have one thing in common in that they share a hobby or interest and perversely have no interest or commitment to understanding military history. So for example the Waterloo programme featured a team of aquarium workers versus a team of competitive archers. This should tell you a lot about where this 'show' is coming from.

They then go through a crash-course in basic military tactics centred around the weaponry of the chosen period in some sort of attempt to give them an idea on how to use the various military formations within their command.

Whilst getting their heads around all this new information about a particular weapon and its use they then get to practice their team work and leadership skills by having one of their number oversee the commands issued by their two subordinates to the game controllers sat at their computer consoles busily controlling the computer graphics presented to 'Joe Public'.

During this process we are treated to a form of 'cod-history' from two historical experts who must be embarrassed at what they are doing but with fingers tightly crossed and understanding that this is show business. This historical commentary is accompanied by a more interesting display of examples of the recreated weaponry of the period and how it was used, together with its likely effects on the enemy - perhaps the most interesting aspect of the show.

Like some wargame rules in our hobby, I get what Time Commanders is and what it isn't. It is a game, it is a show. It is not a study of the battle it purports to portray and it tells the casual viewer nothing of substance about it, that they wouldn't get from a half descent book. What it is is a great example of moving pretty pictures of battle scenes interspersed with a game show where the contestants struggle to cooperate as a team playing the game under a modicum of guidance.

My frustration is that like some wargame rules, this show is masked with this veneer of historical reference so, it seems, to give it an unwarranted quasi-educational merit that it quite clearly doesn't have.

What do I mean? 

For example, the show takes time to pick a certain warrior type and the weapon they carried and demonstrate with the help of the re-enactors how it would have been used and its effects. This as I said is very interesting, and to my mind the best part of the show, but these warriors and their weapons did not operate in isolation and were required to cooperate with other arms to support their activities and were better used against certain enemy troop types than others or in more favourable terrain than others. Without a thorough examination of these aspects it is little wonder that our naive commanders have absolutely no clue as the best use of these troops, much to the glee of the experts who happily point out to the TV audience what they should have done.

The Napoleonic period and the troop types of cavalry, infantry and artillery are the classic rock, scissor and paper comparison between the different arms. The period is marked by the fact that the French under Napoleon's guidance really mastered this concept of all arms co-operation to multiply their effects on the battlefield. 

In the period of Zama through to Waterloo, army size multiplied beyond recognition from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands requiring a command structure to be able to cope with these massive armies lumbering onto the battlefield.

So did Time Commanders build any of these concepts into its recreation of Waterloo? Was there any guidance on all arms cooperation? Was there any discussion about how realistic it was for our game commanders to issue commands one to the other, as they watched their battle unfold on the screen, compared to how it was actually done by Wellington, Blucher and Napoleon. No of course not. Was there any consideration of command groupings, brigades, divisions, corps, reserves? No and again no. So the commanders can be forgiven for just throwing forward any formation they fancied without any consideration of how they were commanded and what formations would support another in any given attack or defence.

In summary the casual observer would have learnt nothing about Waterloo or the way the armies operated in that period from this display of computer gaming.

Like I say, I do get that this is entertainment, and not education, but I find myself objecting to the way it is wrapped up in this pseudo-educational history format.

The so called Waterloo game ended up with all three armies just massing in one final rugby scrum in a hollow somewhere on the allied left flank with the commanders throwing in their senior generals in some bizarre desperate bid to win. Close run it certainly was, any relation to the Battle of Waterloo it wasn't. 

Then to add final insult to injury the so called historical explanation of what actually happened included a description of "just like in our game, there was a desperate race to occupy the key farmhouses on the front of the allied line". Really! Really!! Colonel MacDonald, his brave Guardsmen and the men of the Kings German Legion who spent the night occupying both Hougomont and La Haye Sainte must have been heaving a huge heavenly sigh of despair and lamenting the lack of historical rigour displayed, not giving them of their commanders the credit for recognising the importance of the terrain features and their preparedness for their defence - even though the KGL burnt the barn doors for fire wood overnight and the Guards left their back gate open.

If you pick up a level of frustration in my comment it centres around the fact that a friend of mine who has a very good knowledge of military history and affairs being an ex Captain in the Royal Marines, but has difficulty understanding what I and others get out of historical wargaming asked me about this Waterloo programme.

Like me he spotted the historical inaccuracies and implausibilities and asked me if that was what historical wargaming was about. At the time I hadn't seen this episode and was only basing my comments on the Zama episode that had less glaring faults but many of them similar to the Waterloo show.

That's more like it - Waterloo as it should be

In my view historical wargaming, done well, really helps shed insight into warfare and the great battles of history that other media struggle to portray in quite the same way. The hobby has a great potential to help educate the casual and not so casual enquirer into military history as well as all the other aesthetics covered on this blog. The games I and many others play bear no relation to Time Commanders other than they are based on history.

Surely it is not beyond the whit of TV producers in this age of amazing technological advances that we can't do better than what has gone before and produce an exciting, informative and entertaining explanation and recreation of the great battles of history that gives insights as never before and would encourage future generations to get involved in this fantastic hobby.

Well, I am glad I have got that off my chest. It's been bubbling away in my mind since Wednesday night.

Your comments welcome. I can't be the only one who finds this stuff slightly aggravating, or perhaps you take another view and see the positives of more historical wargaming on mainstream TV attracting people into military history. You see even I can see that aspect, even though the one outlined above outweighs it for me.

It's Official - Points Systems Don't Work!

As you know I occasionally like to get controversial and raise a bit of debate and discussion. Straying into the great debates about competition and scenario based gaming is always an area angels fear to tread where fools rush in but I couldn't help but smile listening to the latest offering on the Meeples Podcast.

I have like others have been looking forward to the expected publication of 'Tabletop Wargames' by Rick Priestley and John Lambshead and published by Pen & Sword. I have a deep respect for all rule writers and game designers as, over the years of dabbling and messing about with other peoples rules, I have come to recognise the skill required to produce great rules.

However after reading some of the initial reader reviews about this book I decided to await more comment.

Thus it was with some disappointment that I listened to the Meeples show on Monday to hear my initial thoughts confirmed after they had reviewed their copy for the show.

It was somewhat amusing to hear the description of the chapter covering points based wargaming systems broken down into 'key points' and with the first one stating 'points systems don't work'.

If you think you can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the distance that is probably the sound of tournament organisers and suppliers of Mr Priestley's rule sets, and the many spin off systems that have evolved from the core design, all over the western world crying in their beer at this seemingly blasphemous statement. Only kidding but you have to see the funny side of this. Gerald Ratner and his jewellery business immediately sprung to mind.

There was some amusing stuff covering the 'rule of six' or something like it laying out the principles behind weapon ranges and movement rates (infantry move six inches) that create a holy trinity that allows everything to fit neatly into a six foot by four foot table without any concerns about time and ground scale.

On a more serious point though. I am old enough to have played wargame rules with points systems long before RP and Warhammer were doing their stuff, such as WRG for example. I guess the key thing for me was that in a casual game they were useful as a guide to comparability between forces and that was it, a guide only and these were the days before codex points systems designed to drive sales of miniature figures.

Not only that but I have played about using points to support campaign systems to create ratios of forces that meet on the map needing to be transferred to the table and then, with the result of battle achieved on the table, carried back to the forces on the map. Although I suppose in this case you could skip the points and use numbers of men instead.

So I guess my thoughts would be points systems can work, it just depends what you do with them.

Aesthetics in Wargames - Another Aunt Sally?

JJ's Roman's - terrorise not only the Dacian's but some wargamers from getting involved in the hobby- really?

Every now and then "JJ's Wargames" likes to go off on one and start a debate rolling on a theme that is common to most of us in the hobby. Recent examples included the loss and retention of the painting mojo, which seemed to strike a chord with many.

http://jjwargames.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-perennial-problem-how-to-avoid.html

Painting and modelling is an important aspect of our hobby, otherwise we would likely be solely board gamers, and JJ's has always been a blog keen to support other like minds that enjoy that aspect.

Therefore I felt the need to respond to an article by Arthur Harman in June's, Miniature Wargames magazine entitled 'The look of the thing, Artistic licence in wargaming'

Firstly I think I should explain the expression of making the subject of debate an "Aunt Sally" which may not be a term familiar to all, certainly outside the UK. The definition of the expression is as follows.

Definition of Aunt Sally:
a game played in some parts of Britain in which players throw sticks or balls at a wooden dummy.
• a dummy used in the game of Aunt Sally. plural noun: Aunt Sallies
• a person or thing set up as an easy target for criticism. "today's landowner is everyone's Aunt Sally"

I was really surprised to read the article by Arthur Harman in Miniature Wargames magazine, that posed the question;
"whether aesthetics should be allowed to dominate  our enjoyment of a wargame, or deter us from getting stuck in. Is our terror of the roving photographer or blogger to blame?"

I have heard and seen the odd comment that there is a body of opinion that supports this proposition and had always thought it to be a very outlandish idea, and not likely to be taken seriously in the mainstream of the hobby, perhaps I was wrong. If that is the case then I think this idea needs challenging.

As you can see the question has two parts to its proposition:

• firstly it rather presupposes that the reader agrees that aesthetics already dominates our enjoyment of the hobby.
• and secondly suggests that we are terrorised by the "wargames fashionistas" who will come and make us feel bad about ourselves because we can't live up to the "Aunt Sally" of aesthetic perfection that it suggests we are all in pursuit of.

Really? The thought that anyone could allow themselves and their approach to their hobby to be directed by what others deemed to be a requirement to take part, I find quite bizarre. I personally wouldn't give anyone the right to make me feel that way and I don't know anyone in the circle of gamers I play with who would. Perhaps this thinking is a symptom of the modern fashion of games systems requiring everyone to use the same rules and figures in the same way, waiting for pronouncements on high as to what the "same way" is.

After reading the question and giving it some consideration my curiosity was fired and I pressed on into the article, which went on to quote Neil Shuck;
"Miniature Wargaming ..... is actually quite a complex hobby..... it's not just about the wargame rules and game, but about collecting, assembling and painting model soldiers...." and that "it could be weeks (or indeed months or even years) before an army is painted and ready to put into the field of battle. This is a huge hurdle, and has surely put off untold numbers of would-be wargamers due to large commitment of time, resources and skills required..."

The author then agrees with Neil Shuck's quote stating that he could think of many campaigns or periods not embarked upon for this reason.

So again let's think about the implications covered in the quote;

• Miniature Wargaming is quite a complex hobby
• It can be time/finance consuming, building a collection of figures
• The skills required and the commitment to complete a given project could put players off from getting involved in the first place.

If we replaced the words "Miniature Wargaming", with "Radio Controlled Model Aircraft building" or "Piano playing" or "Horse Riding" or "Deep Sea Fishing" or dare I say "Model Railway Collecting", those criticisms could be levelled at lots of hobbies some a lot more complex, time/finance consuming and skill set requiring than ours.

Come on chaps, if we are as passionate, as I know from the comments received on this blog that many of us wargamers are, about our hobby, we don't care about the little list of "asks" that wargaming might demand of us to build the collection and run the games we want to play, because we can't help ourselves, we love it and we will move hell and high water to do what we want to do; even if that means learning the modelling skills, rule sets, finding the resources and time and building friendships with like-minded folk who want to play the games we do, and by our example bringing others into this great hobby.

An early 19thC aquatint that is recommended as the inspiration for our games

The web and magazines are full of articles and information out there to help us in our pursuit of wargaming nirvana, something older generations (I include myself) really appreciate as no such quantity of resource existed when we started in the hobby. From my experience there are lots of people out there happy to share their skills and encouragement to help bring new people into it and there has never been a better time to get involved, with the figure ranges, terrain options and great painting/modelling resources available. 

This blog like many others is dedicated to encouraging others to get involved in wargaming at whatever level they choose to, but not afraid to also encourage the pursuit of aesthetics in it as well; and I felt impelled to answer the criticism implied in the article and to offer a much more positive slant than the diagnosis and prescription that followed of rejecting the production of great looking games and collections in favour of the alternative and returning to bare based figures, functional terrain with contour stepped hills and figures all in the same pose. 

Hey, if the latter approach does it for you, you will not hear or read any criticism from this blog, each to their own as I have already stated, but conversely don't expect any support for the idea that great aesthetics in wargames puts people off from getting involved, if anything I believe the reverse is more true. 

I would not have been attracted into wargaming if all the books on the subject in the mid seventies had been in the style of Don Featherstone (God bless him) and Tony Bath with the functional looking games they produced. It was Peter Gilder and his fantastic looking games, that I had no hope of recreating at the time, that fired my enthusiasm and set the goal to emulate. I have memories of the frustration of not being able to get my games to look that good, but also the desire to get better and add to my skills.

That said I carried several Don Featherstone tomes around with me for months re-reading the text rather than admiring the pictures, which I rejected as being what the game should look like for me. Note these statements are personal, and I don't expect others to feel the same way, but likewise I don't think we should allow others to determine how we feel about our hobby and the way we want to do it.

A JJ's version of an early 19thC aquatint

I think the picture of the hobby that is presented to the wider world is important to attracting more people into it and I think the best aesthetically looking collections and games go a huge way to doing that, but also the need to present what wargaming has always been, namely a welcoming, encouraging, supportive community of hobbyists producing great variation on the theme.

I don't think we should buy into the negative way of thinking that says excellence puts undue pressure on individuals to live up to - rubbish! We only put pressure on ourselves if we decide to think that way and a more positive way to think is that I will play the games I want to in my way with people who also enjoy a similar approach and I will decide what I consider excellent and what I want to emulate/copy into my own games.

In addition I don't want to buy in to the mantra of "I can't".

I can't paint, I can't find the time, I can't not help feeling pressurised by others. If you think like that then you are right, you can't. But the good news is that you don't have to think that way.

I regularly hear people on pod-casts saying they can't paint and some even being proud that they can't and don't paint despite being their to promote a hobby that would suggest a modicum of painting being required. 

We don't play board games we play tabletop games with figures and terrain, most of us for the aesthetics of picturing our warrior units in action and performing the heroic deeds we have read about. I say most of us, because Arthur Harman states that he finds the use of figures more as an aid memoir as to what the unit is, although I am not totally convinced when he states that he wouldn't use counters from board games because the counters do not allow him to get "emotionally involved". 

The use of the phrase"emotionally involved" is revealing and suggests that the figures in the wargame are more than just fancy game markers as suggested and I don't really buy the idea of producing armies that model the stylised early nineteenth century engravings of William Heath as the justification for ignoring the painting ideas of greats such as Kevin Dallimore.

Kevin Dallimore's step wise approach to painting illustrated in his books, enable and allow wargamers to produce, good, very good or collector standard units of figures depending on what they want to achieve and the level of input they are prepared to make.

Kevin Dallimore has done a lot to help and
encourage great painting to all standards

If I were to make one suggestion that might chime with this "can't paint, won't paint" agenda it would be the rise of the painting competition. Like it's near neighbour the wargame competition, the mere thought leaves me cold and its development in the hobby might explain why some of our fellow hobbyists feel under pressure to perform.

I spend my professional life in competition and the last thing I am looking for in my hobby is more competition; again whatever floats your boat is fine by me, this is just my opinion. I have no interest in competing in wargaming or wargame painting and in the latter I go out of my way in not making judgements about others styles and techniques, with the exception of commenting on professional painting examples in commercial products such as books being sold to wargamers, where I feel it is open to comment in review.

Competition is seeping into many so called hobbies and pastimes. We have TV shows with baking competitions, cookery competitions, singing competitions, activities that many of us considered as worthy of merit purely for the doing rather than being better at than others based on someone else's opinion. This, I think, has probably encouraged a generation of self appointed judges, ready to raise up or put down the efforts of others whether they had decided to be in a competition or not.

In my local club, we have many and different standards of painted collections. The only club rule is that figures brought to it have to be painted and ready to play, ie no "silver surfers". As a club, we enjoy sharing modelling and painting ideas and the games we produce have, I think, got better over the years as we all have improved our skills by sharing and supporting each other. There is no competition, only a desire to produce nice looking games and collections and have fun with our great hobby away from the requirements of our professional lives. Club participants are encouraged to get involved in all aspects of the hobby and we can boast some fine collections within the group which has a well defined spirit of independent thought typical of this part of the UK since the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549 and before. 

The point is none of us feel controlled by the hobby and are able to make space for all types and levels of games from the simple to the excellent and that approach has, like a rising tide, raised all boats by enabling us as a club to produce more and more aesthetically pleasing games.

So in summary, ignore the "can't paint, won't paint" agenda and embrace all aspects of the hobby in a spirit of getting the most out of it for you as an individual and don't feel you have to go about it according to the "wargame fashionistas" and what they think, say or are able to do.

Importantly, don't surrender to an apathy of I can never produce the games I would like to, so I'm going to tell everyone I don't care. The fact is if someone has already done something then you can to and it then comes down to what you really want and what you are prepared to commit to achieve it, and there are loads of people and resources out there to help.

Happy Wargaming

The Perennial Problem - How to avoid Painters Block or Lost Mojo

I was inspired to post some thoughts after reading Henry Hyde's post this week discussing the perennial problem of "lost mojo" or as I would describe it "painters block".

http://henrys-wargaming.co.uk/?p=2334

Just like in any artistic pursuit, writing, composing or painting we are all susceptible to self doubt, disillusion and a total lack of enthusiasm about something that many of us would consider a passion. I don't use the word passion lightly, I even include it in the title of my blog; and it is probably worth considering what that word describes

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=passion+definition

Most definitions talk about a strong and barely controllable emotion, or an intense desire or enthusiasm, and if the mountain of lead most of us have stashed together with all those new and shiny models that we just had to have is any indication, intense desire pretty well defines a big part of our hobby, or as my wife would say "little boys and their toys". Still, I like to nurture the little boy and reward his playful nature now and then, but am conscious that he lacks discipline and self control that the adult me has to apply now and then when I feel his pester power at work and his gnat like powers of concentration.

I think there lies the issue when it comes to applying ourselves to a commitment to work at something that can take time and very often frustrate the hell out of that little boy, or little girl, in all of us. Let's not forget that our hobby is about having fun. We all of us spend a lot of time, often at work, often doing what we need to do to put food on the table, but our hobby is different and it is there to meet the other needs in our life and I would suggest if fun is not part of that equation then we need to find something else to do with that precious time.

Regular followers of the blog will know that I am a keen advocate of the painting aspect of our hobby in the full and respectful knowledge that not everyone is. However given that our hobby requires painted miniatures in one form or another, otherwise we would just go and play board games, it rather seems to me that we have to engage with this aspect of the hobby in one form or another. Of course we could just pay someone else to paint our figures and if the funds are available, why not? However I guess, like many of us, funds are finite and money spent on paying for painting can't be spent on building the collection; and like Henry, I and many others are of that school that thrills in the painting and bringing to the table a collection of figures that carries our signature of turning them from exquisite fishing weights into painted metal warriors. In addition, if we want to play big games with lots of figures, and Napoleonics definitely falls into that category, we will probably need to get painting.

If we don't get control of this strong emotion, the frustration at lack of progress can at best see months slip by with little momentum and having to relearn lost skills and knowledge when we finally get back to it or at worst leaving the hobby and trying to distract oneself with a substitute only to never completely lose the bug and wind up coming back to our first love many years later often doomed to make the same mistakes as before. We all know friends who have had that experience.

The recently completed 54e Ligne three battalions of a twenty four battalion project and no time for block!

I was interested to see that given the time constraints Henry faced with all his other "plates to spin" activities he had come to the conclusion that binge painting was not the answer to overcoming the reluctance to sit down and paint and to get a project done in a few days of full on commitment. His diagnosis of "a little and often" chimes well with my own thoughts, in that given, as stated in my preamble, we are dealing with a very powerful emotive desire, the pursuit of our hobby and its goals requires discipline and good habit forming, not seemingly quick fixes.

I would totally endorse the practice of getting into the habit of putting in an amount of time we can commit to on a regular basis to paint. That could be half an hour three times a week or an hour and a half every evening, time permitting, whatever fits our schedule. The key is to keep doing it until it becomes a habit, and the manual suggests that it takes about a month of repeat behaviour to form a new habit. Bad habits as we know are very difficult to get rid off, so why not reverse the psychology and use that built in unconscious self discipline to develop a habit that will reward us over time.

Oh and the other reward for doing this is, like anything, the more we do the better we get at it and if we can bolt on the odd extra skill set now and then our work will get better and we will develop more satisfaction with it. That word "satisfaction" is important because there in lies another mental reinforcement to keep up the habit.

There are plenty of books and stuff on the internet to help learn better painting, with short-cuts using washes and dips to turn out good looking units in half the time.

My son Tom's recently completed Roman Auxiliaries took a bit of time but progressed continuously throughout his degree year. The new casualty figures inspired Tom to press on and get these done

I too go through ups and downs in my desire to paint but over the years have developed strategies to manage the emotional roller-coaster and one of them is to develop and reinforce this habit, even if I only do half an hour instead of my hour and a half, I can mentally reward myself for having put in some time. Other strategies include painting specific jobs so that when I sit down again I get the mental buzz of knowing that I have already done a particular task and can now add to that and progress the project.

I too keep a painting note book and copious PDFs stored on the IPad of other peoples work to remind me what I should be doing or to inspire me to try out something new, and there lies another mental strategy to encourage the work. The inclusion of a new figure or two into a unit that varies the work from that done previously can really excite the need to come back and work on the project further.

Don't forget our hobby is multifaceted in that we have the history to refer to, with all the reading and battlefield/museum touring that that implies and the inspiration to get back to the painting desk to bring form to the imagination those activities can engender.

So in summary my thoughts are that we are working with a strong emotion that needs to be managed with discipline to channel the passion into a productive habit of a little and often to avoid the frustration and disillusionment with something most of us can't walk away from anyway. We just have to find the fun in what we are doing. The last thing to try is to start a blog and record the progress and use it to help commit to the work and feed off of the enthusiasm of others. I really enjoy talking to fellow wargamers on this blog and others and it inspires me to produce new work and more stuff to talk about.

Keep at it Henry, feed the passion and find the fun.