"GOD IS ON THE SIDE OF THE BIG BATTALIONS."
by
Andy Copestake of OLD GLORY.

Where Oh , where are the happy times, where are the Golden Days of my youth?. The long hot Summers with beer at two bob a pint? Wargames figures at at ten bob a gross. did they ever even exist except in my rose-tinted imagination? 

Certainly not ,(except the bit about the beer)

However much the hobby has expanded and improved,and Prophets of Doom notwithstanding it has VASTLY improved from my beginnings in the late sixties.On one point only do I maintain that the past was , perhaps ,better on this point I am (almost) immovable. The modern fashion STINKS!..... I HATE PIDDLING LITTLE UNITS. BRING BACK THE BIG BATTALIONS!.

As I look back in "vintage" wargaming books such as Young and Lawford's "Charge" or Charles Grants "The War Game" I see infantry units of around 40-50 figures , cavalry units of 20-30 figures. The wargames unit LOOKS like a body of men intent on military mischief!. Or ,more recently ,look at old issues of this journal and its predecessor Peter Gilders 36 and 48 figure units Size ,I assure you , DOES matter.

Compare the above with a state of affairs all too common today, a proud regiment is reduced to a forlorn huddle of a dozen or fewer figures in a single straggling rank....... Oh dearie dearie me. Or even worse for the pre-gunpowder player DBA , Hastings ,Crecy , Marathon et al all reduced to a game with fewer pieces than a chessboard! It's enough to make you weep! Any one would think that a serious proportion of today's wargamers didn't like toy soldiers, but that's got to be complete rubbish ....hasn't it?.

Despite personally being a 25mm man, this isn't an argument about the relative merit of a given scale (although it does seem that these days the average 15mm unit is smaller than ever). In my view this applies to almost any size of figure from 6mm up. Bigger units look better ,they manouvre more realistically and last longer on the table than your average piddling 12 figure or less unit.

To give an example from one of my favorite periods- the 18th century. That fine ruleset Warfare in the Age of Reason (hereinafter AOR) uses 2 figure ratios, 1 to 50 and 1 to 25 which give standard units of 12 or 24 figures. 12 figure units of infantry are deployed in a single rank which looks plain silly , 24 figures in 2 ranks looks precisely twice as good. Now there is no greater fan of AOR than your gentle author, despite its defects it is still by far the best 18th century set I have played. I've used it for all "sub-periods " from Marlborough to the War of 1812. However ,many of the suggested unit organisations are, in my view, distorted and seem to be tailored to fit the game, rather than as should happen ,the historical prototype of a unit being used as a template for the rule system. To be fair this is not ,strictly speaking, a criticism of the rules since they work perfectly well with almost any "figure-ratio" you care to name, but the smaller the unit the more abstract the game becomes.

To take an example- wheeling units, a small unit of 10 figures or fewer wheel much faster than a unit of say 15-20 figure frontage. What this means in game terms is that small units don't have vulnerable flanks since they are able to wheel or turn to face a flank attack far faster than a unit which has a longer frontage. I remember seeing some few years ago, both at shows and photographed in WI a series of 18th Century games beautifully staged- well painted figures fine terrain, the lot, except that most of the units seemed to be 12 figures in 2 ranks ie a 6 figure frontage. This did not , for all it's fine work LOOK like an 18th century encounter.

Likewise other periods, in terms of visual realism DBA IS A WASTE OF PAPER indeed the whole DBA-DBM-DBR system is a joke as far as historical miniatures gaming is concerned . How can you visualise a Macedonian phalanx or Gallic warband when it is represented by a measley 3 or 4 figures.. I can see it now , Xerses' Immortals blacken the sky with arrows -all eight of them! Attila conquers the Roman Empire with two dozen Huns, yeah right. DBM is simply DBA multiplied, the system suffers from a total lack of unit structure relevant to a given period. This is especially noticeable in DBR since the Renaissance saw the beginning of regimental structure which the element system completely ignores. Once again making history fit the rules, rather than using military history as your template. None of the DB's I have played gave me the least inkling of period -feel ,only the co-incidental appearance of the models on the table told me which period I was playing. While no one can deny that the DB's are able to provide a good GAME that game bears no resemblance to the historical period it purports to depict. The one size fits all school of rules writing doesn't wash.

Of course the key words here are "realism" and "period-feel" neither of which have much real meaning in any set of rules. Both of these terms can only have meaning in the players heads and will therefore mean different things to different people.It all comes down to what type of wargamer you are. If you are primarily a "games player" then you have probably already stopped reading this, perhaps even tossing your copy of this august journal into the trash with snorts of disgust! If, however ,unlike some gamers I encounter, you actually LIKE the appearance of the toy soldiers then maybe you can see my point. After all there are many easier ways to game or simulate battle than the use of toy soldiers. Consequently if we CHOOSE to use models to represent the historical prototype then we should do the best job we can, showing the models, of whatever size or scale to their best advantage.

Ah-ha! I hear you chorus, but you own a toy soldier company with all the lead you can eat. Well yes and no, my own collection is considered pretty modest by many ,having as it does about 3000 painted figures , all 25mm baring a few 20mm WW1 and moderns. Obviously most are OLD GLORY but others manufacturers represented include Front Rank and some of the older Foundry ranges. All of my "armies " tend to contain a few large units rather than a lot of small ones. Thus my 18th century British has 6 battalions of foot at either 28 or 32 figures ,7 cavalry squadrons in 2 and a bit regiments (8 figure squadrons) with artillery and command units as appropriate. German allies are in similar sized or slightly larger units. The only 18th century rule set I use is AOR.

Leaving aside competition gaming, which is a world of its own, with its own way of doing things. I am slowly coming round to the view that one of the main problems with modern historical wargaming is the inherent dichotomy between rule writer and figure producers. Many rule writers seem to regard the toy soldiers as a distraction from their smart little mechanisms and , from the number of rule sets around which use tiny units I wonder how many rule writers actually LIKE the models at all. It seems to me that the Holy Grail of these chaps is a rule set that allows the re-fighting of Waterloo in 15 minutes on a budget of a tenner (excluding the cost of the rules naturally!!) Of course I overstate the case, since by this analogy my Holy Grail (as a figure producer ) would be a game requiring 20,000 figures !-Now there's a thought!!!! 

Of course it all depends on what you are trying to achieve but the more abstract the game the less the requirement for toy soldiers. The DB's are quite playable with bits of card with the appropriate jargon written upon and not a soldier in sight. The" games - player" school of thought with the often decidedly dubious attitude to military history in my view negates the "historical" part of "historical wargaming". However ,since in recent months ,I've heard our hobby called ( I write here only the pre- watershed repeatables) "Historically inspired gaming" and even worse "Non-Fantasy Gaming" I wonder where it all will end . What price "Non War wargaming". Sorry I digress-There is no doubt that the DB's play well as games but they don't look or feel right. Of course if "the games the thing" fine, but to me ignoring the history is similar to only sipping the froth off your pint and leaving the rest. Surely there is much more to this fascinating hobby than scoring cheap victories off your mates.

While I am not actually averse to cheap victories, as I write this I wonder how the eponymous Joe Wargamer gets into a new period, some of the remarks I hear at various shows go through my mind, "Got my figures , got my Osprey, got my Army List . I'm ready to go" or "Can't buy these they won't fit the bases"(??) or best of all "Are your Maccabean Jewish Cavalry Knights?" (I'm still trying to work that one out). What I'm trying to illustrate here of course is the apparent lack of basic military history amongst some of our gaming bretheren, in recent months I' ve encountered Napoleonic players who don't know how a French infantry battalion was organised, Medieval players who quite happily put 13th century and 15th century figures in the same army "cos they're all medievals" and Ancient players whose sole period knowledge is the appropriate DBA/M army list. Some of this lot don't even know how to sip the froth off!!! The idea of THE RULES AS HOLY WRIT is back with a vengence.

My own way of getting into a period is vastly different to the above and not for everyone. To paraphrase Jim the Painter (He's the one with the pony tail on the OG stand) : -

" First buy the Library, then get some soldiers which I'll end up painting (Steady on Jim lad I still paint SOME of my own) then decide which rule set to butcher so you get the type of game you want." 

A little harsh, perhaps , but basically a fair assessment. For instance, I'm getting back into the ECW after a layoff of about 15 years. My original ECW armies had regiments of 18-24 figures (6 pikes 12 muskets or 8-16 etc.) but they simply didn't look right laid out in two ranks. They gave no impression of a 17th century unit , either an original (from one of De Gommes plans ) or a reconstruction (from my photo album as a one time ECW re-enactor). Consequently my first task was to look at original unit strengths and decide what looked good on the table, at this early stage I'm not even thinking about rules.

The Lord General's Regiment

 
However the appearance of Warhammer ECW made life a bit easier since I'll be able to use the rules as as basis, for me ,the major selling point is that they don't impose a unit structure on you and since I will completely ignore the points system, I can have the unit sizes that suit the look of the period. So far the completed units for the Royalist army of 1642-3 comprise three foot regiments each of around 20 pikes and 24 shot and several troops of horse of eight figures each, more units are ,of course ,on the way The Parliamentarians have a 10 figure troop of Cuirassiers, a 24 figure regiment of horse (3troops) and , "The Lord Generals Regiment of Foot" 96 figures strong, a photo of part of this unit appeared in an OG ad in WI a few months back so those interested can see what I mean. Parliamentary foot units will average 75+ figures.

Once again I repeat, if we CHOOSE to use toy soldiers, and do not purport to be fantasy gamers, then our games should bear as near a resemblence as we can get to the historical prototype. I would argue that the DB's especially, and other "tiny-unit" rulesets such as Armati, Shako and perhaps POW up to a point simply do not do this, however good the gameplay.

While some form of abstraction is inevitable, and of course it is up to each player how much of this he is prepared to tolerate, the current fashion for games which use as few figures as possible can only have been conceived by people who don't like toy soldiers. Every so often you hear from people who say figures are too expensive- b******s!, in real terms they are actually cheaper now than in 1975 and while the silent majority know and understand this, otherwise I wouldn't be so busy and more importantly wouldn't have the finance to continually bring out more new stuff than our next TWO nearest rivals combined , a vociferous minority, however seem to want the destruction of our industry or at least a return to some mythical "golden age" as postulated in my opening lines . Let's get real here ,despite the doom mongers we now have more companies producing more stuff of greater quality and variety than ever before, so why do a section of our bretheren seem to want games with fewer figures that are less historical than ever?

Frankly I can't answer that nor do I understand the necessity for it . My own way of "getting back to my roots" and getting more history into my "historical miniatures gaming" has been more or less outlined above. Just in case you think I'm some kind of lone bearded(!) heretic there are a few others who have gone down the "big units equals better battles route". Jim the Painter has a fine 15mm collection for the AWI his units are 48-60 strong and they look superb on the table. Proper linear tactics are a must, the small legion type units you get can actually have a worthwhile presence on the table instead of being reduced to a couple of stragglers . Another chap I know "Rob" Hoami is, along with some others in his gaming group, doing the 30 Years War in 25mm. His basic Swedish infantry regiment is 36 figures strong, certainly enough to look good and operate in a fairly historical manner, especially for the size of game they are planning. 

At shows check out the games put on by the "Like a Stonewall" group-big games with lots of soldiers, likewise the Coltisall Cowards from Norfolk have also done some cracking games with lots of nice toys (although their most recent effort , a 54mmVietnam game didn't use hoardes of soldiers but was still excellent and much taller than usual, but wait till you see their next effort!).. All of the above have one thing in common, they have taken a good look at the history before plunging in.

My final point (at last I hear you cry!!), the resurgence of the rules as holy writ has ,I feel , stifled debate, I am now just as likely to hear "I play DBM and I don't care about the history" as "I'm an Ancients player" and while that is a personal choice I cannot understand this apparent wish to remain ignorant of what is behind our games. Further, while not knowing something is no crime belittling , from your position of ignorance, those who have taken the trouble to acquire knowledge (especially by liking them to a style free outer garment ) most definitely is. In order to continue to flourish historical wargaming must continue to be a broad church for , despite my waspishness towards the DB's etc., they still have their place. Ultimately my call to all wargamers is to open your minds, don't be restricted by your rule sets. More history means better more enjoyable games. Bigger battalions equals better battles. Oh and just in case you think I'm some kind of religious nut (as distinct from an ordinary nut) the title quote is one of Napoleons!

Please remember to mention Wargames Forum when contacting traders!

Return to Wargames Forum  Return to What's New  Return to Random Shots