Therefore it cannot be a complete
coincidence that today's post returns to what used to be a tradition on this
blog a few years ago - I shall begin with a lengthy digression. I, at least,
will probably enjoy it, and it serves a useful secondary purpose in filtering
out any unfortunate readers who arrived here by accident, and who are beginning
to see what a huge mistake that was.
I always assumed that "a doofer"
was just a saying used in my own family. My grandmother (the one from Preston)
used the phrase to refer to any object whose real name she had forgotten, or
simply didn't know. There was also a faint edge of intolerance in there - in my
grandmother's world, which mostly was built around Dickens, Mozart, cats and Rich Tea biscuits, anything which had
overtones of technology was an overhead - the sort of thing that some (common)
technical person would know about. Thus, though the thing itself might be
useful, the idea of actually understanding it was well beneath contempt. She
had a doofer with which she lit the gas stove, and doofers which secured the
stair carpet. Her life was filled with them.
Stove-lighting Doofer |
Stair-carpet Doofers |
Her brother, Alf, worked for many years in
the tram (later bus) workshops at Edge Lane, Liverpool, and he also spoke of
doofers. Originally, I believe, the term may come from the army - possibly WW1
- to describe something which was improvised, or fixed, or botched, and which
would "do for now". [I checked
my etymological dictionary, since that is the sort of thing for which I now
have more time, and I see that the likely origins of doofer are pretty much as
I thought, though the date is felt to be 1930s. That would surprise me if it
were true, since Great Uncle Alf would never have adopted any phrase which
appeared as late as the 1930s. Yes, this was a digression within a digression -
we have nested digressions].
Gradually this evolved into a general term
for something whose proper name you didn't know, and I am surprised at how
widespread this became. It is bound to be out of fashion now, of course, but I
recall that as my grandmother became older and more dotty there were more and
more doofers around the place. In more recent years, my mother started calling
almost everything "the thing-io"; it is a great comfort to be able to
forget the real names of everyday objects - I can see this.
What were we talking about, again?
Oh yes - doofers. Well, you will be excited
to read that I have taken delivery of a new doofer - it arrived on Saturday. I
have been waiting for this doofer for nearly two years, and to be more accurate
it is a prototype doofer.
Some time ago I commissioned the
manufacture of some rather similar doofers for my medieval/ECW sieges. They
worked well - they were, to be specific about it, firing platforms which could
be stood behind fortress walls, to give standing room for guns or bodies of
musketeers. I got my friend Michael at SLD
to design and laser-cut them from MDF, enhanced a little with masonry-style
engraving, and I made them up and painted and matt-varnished them, and they
were good. They were doofers to help with problems arising from the
eternal Scale Paradox in tabletop wargames (which, for reasons which I shall
attempt to explain, reach their zenith in the arcane world of miniature
sieges). At the time, I was also very surprised at the amount of criticism they
generated.
Doofer to facilitate sieges on Medieval Walls - shades of "2001: Space Odyssey"? |
And in action - a bit crude, but effective |
The problem is, you see, that if you had
attended a real medieval or Renaissance siege with your digital camera handy,
you would not have seen any of my doofers in action. They are not part of the
model-railway-style facsimile of a real siege, and quite a few readers reacted
badly to this. I called them "gun platforms" or sometimes
"buttresses", but really they were just add-on doofers to solve a
problem arising from the Scale Paradox.
Before I get buried even further in this
effort, let me insert a spoiler here, to explain that the new doofer I have
received is a prototype of the same sort of device, but designed to work with
Vauban-period walls. After adding the first-generation doofers to my ECW
sieges, I realised that progress with my 18th-19th Century sieges would require
the Mark II Siege Doofer. The walkways behind the parapets on my model Vauban
walls are only 30mm wide, which is not nearly enough to mount a gun up there,
without some form of extra support. I shall, I promise, come back to this after
I have burbled on about the Scale Paradox for a bit. If you are still with me,
you have my heartfelt admiration and gratitude.
My games usually take place on a hex-gridded
table, which I have found helps greatly and keeps things simple. There is still
an implied groundscale - my hexes are 7 inches across the flats, which is near
enough 180mm. My default horizontal scale is (approx) 1mm = 1 yard/metre. This
obviously varies for big battles scaled down, but that default is (approx) 200
paces = 1 hex, which is a useful round number.
I use 20mm or 1/72 scale soldiers, and for
infantry and cavalry I use an age-old ratio of 3 figures = 100 men, so that my
battalions normally have about 2 dozen men. The basing is designed to give
frontages compatible with the 1/1000 groundscale, and it also tries to make the
spacing of the miniature soldiers look about right for the kind of troops and
the kind of warfare they represent. [Though
please try to remember, Claude, that this is not the same as visual "realism"
- a 24-man battalion is not at all realistic, however much the photos out of
Charles Grant and Don Featherstone have come to shape our understanding].
Just to be awkward - another personal
compromise - I have yet another scale on the go at the same time. My buildings
are usually 15mm scale, which is about 1/100 - this is similar to the old TT
model railway scale. The underscale buildings have a few advantages - they are
cheaper, they have a smaller footprint, and they can be grouped into what seem
to me to be more convincing villages. You can also, with time, get used to the
look of the thing - the fact that a soldier would get stuck in the door of the
church is a relatively unimportant matter when you are fighting Leipzig. I work
on the assumption that a smallish village is marked by a representative cluster
of slightly undersized houses - they are usually placed around the edges of a
hex, so that a unit may be placed among them, and the houses themselves can be
shunted about as necessary to make room for what is going on - the individual
model buildings do not represent real individual buildings, and you can't take
roofs off or put people inside. In the games I play, that is not necessary or
useful. The important things about a village are its outline (and in a
hex-based game that is an obvious concept, though non-hex players will still
have a requirement to define the edges of the built-up area) and who is in it.
Anyway, you get the idea. On occasions I
may choose to use 20mm-scale walls and hedges for my soldiers to stand behind,
just for the look of the thing, but by and large this odd mish-mash of scales
is now tried and tested and works well. Let's remind ourselves, that's
* 1/1000 horizontal scale, for ranges,
moves, frontages, table layout.
* 1/72 (visual) vertical scale for the
model soldiers - which is a given.
* 1/100
vertical scale for the buildings - which is simply a convenient compromise.
Now then. When we consider sieges this
suddenly becomes more of a problem. The layout of a fort is not just a matter
of appearance or convention - the lengths of the walls, the positioning and
dimensions of the bastions and so on are set by rules which relate to the
effective range of a musket (or whatever), and a representative model is no
longer going to be fit for purpose unless it has about the right footprint. We
now bump our noses quite firmly against the "look of the thing" problem
- we can use 15mm buildings if we wish, but the big issue here is the Scale
Paradox - our toy soldiers live in a world where a man is about 22mm tall, but
the distances and the ground plan require a world where 1mm is 1 metre (or 2mm
= 1 toise, if you insist). There -
did you feel that bump on your nose? That's because the groundscale is one
tenth of the visual scale. It always was, but it just became a problem.
For reasons which I really don't understand
- I can only assume that the model designers had been through all this same reasoning
before - the old Terrain Warehouse 15mm
Vauban pieces that I use look OK with the soldiers, but the footprint of the
various bits also makes sense in the groundscale I use. So it works in both senses (though
obviously this must be a pretty silly-looking fort from the point of view of
proportions, but it is silly in the same way as the soldiers themselves, so
maybe that's what matters).
I've now reminded myself (again) that I
don't really understand why this works, but it does. Further, it may not actually
work at all - it might just be that I think it does. There you go - full circle
- you set your games up to suit you, and I'll suit myself. That's probably
where we came in. Before I finally put this note out of its misery, here's some
photos of the new doofer. Since I am pleased that it is what I designed, that
it works and is what I wanted, I shall get Michael to make me some more, and I'll
make them up and store them away in the Sieges
boxes.
The new prototype Mk II Siege Doofer - assembled, painted and varnished |
In position on the Terrain Warehouse 15mm scale Vauban wall |
And here demonstrating how some big French guns may be deployed |
I find now, that I have so many applications, both related to work and wargaming, that can be described as 'doofers'...
ReplyDeleteI know of people whose work role is actually 'doofer' - i.e. 'troubleshooter' as opposed to 'duffer'.
This is amazing stuff.
I may start a consultancy firm 'Doofer Consulting- helping you find solutions to the apparently '.
..unsolvable...'
I think you have also giving me cause to consider my 20mm buildings, and start looking at 15mm as a viable, if not better, alternative.
Excellent - in these uncertain times, that looks like a very exciting venture. You could provide online chat services as well. Someone might write in, "Hope you can help me, I think my doofer isn't working", etc. Puts a whole new dimension into technical discussion.
DeleteDoofers in house are called Thingy's, pronounced with an F instead of Th.
ReplyDeleteThis is good practice, Ray - all very correct. In Scotland they tend to call them thingmies, but of course there are also wassnames, hoozits, thingummyjigs, howsyourfathers, whatchamacallits, thing-y-bobs and many others - it's a coded language. The most common application is for the remote device with which one changes the TV channel. I guess if someone couldn't remember the general term they might use another one instead.
DeleteOn a separate tack, my cousin and I had a theory that his mother never listened to the end of what anyone said to her, so we had general alternative words to end a sentence with - it made no odds, since she would already have answered by the time you got that far - for a while the word of the day was "lamppost' - you might say, "have you seen my lamppost?", and she would already have replied "no, where did you put it?" half-way through your question.
I, for one, love these rambling discussions and digressions. Keep 'em up! That will do for (doofer) now.
ReplyDeleteBest Regards,
Stokes
Stokes, you are a treasure - I need little encouragement, as you know, but thank you.
DeleteA splendid thingummybob... as my mum used to say... she also used whodyoucomeflumpit as she got older...
ReplyDeleteThe TV changer was always ‘The Zapper’
I met Michael when I was up I Edinburgh... he is a very nice fellow.
All the thingimyflip. Aly
Thank you Aly! I KNEW I wasn’t the only one. My daughter insists we’re an odd family because we call the Zapper a Zapper, and blame me for it because their mother called it something else growing up, not being British).
DeleteI shall brandish your message with an exuberant and flamboyant “hah! I told you so.”
Foy dear chap you are providing a valuable public service in these dark times. Carry on!
Oh and doofers definitely existed in Grimsby by the 1940s at the latest. My friend’s dad who was born in the late 30s, a decorator and probably a skilled user of doofers, often used the term. I can’t recall my father or grandparents using the term so I can’t push the usage back further I’m afraid.
Aly - Zapper is good - it is a bit tech-savvy, in a way, so my Nan would have rejected that one, but I like it. I also faintly recall "oojah" and ooji-mi-flip. The mi-flip type names seem to parody complicated "scientific" terminology - a touch of British satire in there, methinks. Michael - very nice fellow, but busy, man - busy.
DeleteChris - I would have expected that, given the current Social Media overkill, terminology would be more standardised now, and it would change every 18.6 seconds. Also, terms like thingimyflip would have to be shortened to a txt version, such as thmfp. Anyone who uses words they learned from their grandmother must be in line for a Euthanex pill. Oh well - better than being a bed-blocker. btw, is Jeremy Hunt a knob or what?
DeleteWell we all know what ‘hunt’ rhymes with... :-0
DeleteIn truth, that may be his only lasting legacy.
DeleteText speak (or txtspk as dodahs would render it) is very much passé what with decent predictive text. It’s a thingy of a technological whatjamacallit. The best practitioners are in their 40s having been teenagers in the 90s.
DeleteOh and the answer to the Jeremy Hunt question is a synonym of an alliteration of toise.
DeleteLet us not get into politics - Mr Hunt is almost outside politics now anyway, but it seems odd that he should suddenly attack his PM for not panicking early enough. A rather more shrill outburst from Mr Stewart also - surely these gentlemen do not see a possibility of a party fallout over Corona, and possible re-runs for party leadership? Couldn't be.
DeleteAnyway, I am reassured by the speed of response of HM Govt - only a day or so after using scientific guidance to refuse to be panicked, they used the same source of evidence to start panicking. I'm sure they're right, but I'm glad there isn't a war on. I shall almost certainly be locked in a darkened room by the end of next week - probably not before time - and my only companionship will be the occasional distant glimpse of men in white plastic suits leaving bags of pains au chocolat at the gate, on the other side of the disinfectant bath. No jokes about living in cardboard boxes, if you don't mind.
"Doohickeys" was the corresponding term in my home. No marks left behind, as far as i could ever tell.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely having some of the scaling issues with my own fortress in 28 mm!
The fortress thing is tricky - if you sit with your Vauban text book open, you will see that the points of adjacent doohickeys have to be 180 toises apart, to leave room for the whatsits.
DeleteI think the Mk 2 Siege Doofer looks absolutely fine - but perhaps M. Vauban would have come up with a rather elegant French term for it? Google translate gave me 'se contenter', which I like. I'd also like to nominate the 'Fnurban' when needing to change TV channels.
ReplyDeleteThank you David. If Vauban had had access to MDF, who knows what he might have achieved? Also UPVC - I believe his conservatory quotes were ridiculous.
DeleteFnurban!! - is this a real one, or did you make this up? I'm not sure making them up is allowed, though they must all have started somewhere.
well it might be 'funurban' or 'fanurban' but no, not made up by me - I heard it from friends c. 1980 and it always seemed a good alternative to thingummy, etc. Also makes me think of Finbar Saunders from Viz - 'fnar,fnar..'
DeleteNow, where's that fnurban gone..?
Good stuff, though I suspect I may be your grandmother...
ReplyDeletea piece of kit of unidentified use and probably pointless purpose - TV remote control, coffee maker, doorbell, is usually called 'gubbins' in this house.
Gubbins is also excellent - it's important that the context (or a pointing finger) makes it clear exactly which gubbins is required, or you will have a struggle changing the channel, so there is a need for some skill and precision here which maybe cancels out some of the convenience.
DeleteI stayed with you all the way and was glad that I did. A real hoot, complete with thoughtful insights. Your writing is a joy.
ReplyDeleteIt is amusing that some people get so hung-up about realistic scales when the vertical scale (figures) is all up the spout. As you note, as long as it looks reasonable and works with whatever rules you are using to produce the 'right' sort of distances and time for things to happen, it has to be good enough for a wargame, doesn't it? Add practicality to that, as with your siege doofers, and it is the proverbial match made in heaven. The eye is easily tricked too, isn't it? We happily mix 20 mm figures, true 25 mm figures and smaller 28 mm figures with 1/72nd figures and don't notice in the heat of battle-nor in the photos. Put an individual figure of each side by side and you'd swear that it could not happen.
p.s. Here in the antipodes it is 'doovalacky'.
Doovalacky is added to my list. You are far too polite about my typing practice, James - I only do it to amuse myself, so it is consciously stupid and self-indulgent. Thank you anyway.
DeleteWhen the ECW-period Mark I Siege Doofer appeared on this blog, a number of people said it looked daft, and I should have produced special slim-line bases of troops to sit on a 20mm ledge. From the point of view of elegance, they were certainly on to something, but no-one came up with how I could arrange for a foreshortened cannon. The walkways on my medieval walls are especially narrow - we may discuss the history of why this would be so. The other argument in favour of the Mk I Doofer was that it enabled me to have a proper go at siege games, while most of my critics could not. This background theme of disapproval of anything which Peter Young did not do has been fairly constant through the years, and it's fair game, and often a useful sanity check, but it brings to mind the Old Foy's Tenth Law, which may be found here, if you have not seen it:
https://prometheusinaspic.blogspot.com/2011/06/foys-tenth-law-principle-of-enforced.html
The other thing which I find a little odd is that there is still an observable (and understandable) dislike of my unrealistic hexagonal hills, yet if one of my hills were a vintage copy of Tradition magazine I would be applauded to the rafters. Oh well - it's all banter. Even this blog is just banter, really.
I had not seen your Tenth Law post Tony, what a ripper! Conrad Cinch's comment in reply sums it up: "Stop, stop, you're enjoying it wrong."
DeleteIt seems that people forget that it is a hobby, a game and, most importantly to be enjoyed in a range of ways. *That* is the true gem of our hobby. I can be someone who muses over the effect of folds in the ground on the marching rate and ability to keep formation, or someone who is happy to roll a brazilan dice and have a bit of fun, or the many options between those. Not all of those individuals will be happy to be placed around the same table, but that does not matter either, methinks. Of course, those of the competition bent need to agree on a set of rules and so forth, but that's the nature of the beast. Compromise is a fact of life. Otherwise, he who sets the game sets the rules!
Gosh, that's enough pseudo-pontificating from me. This is *your* blog and *your* platform to pontificate, rant, and generally amuse we dear readers!!
James - I think Foy's Laws currently go up to No.13 - some of them are less droll than others, admittedly. I think the most powerful is the "Three Excuses Rule", which may be No.7 - can't remember.
DeleteI think you left a comment elsewhere from which I inferred you couldn't find them all - they're all here, plus a pile of other nonsense thrown in:
https://prometheusinaspic.blogspot.com/search/label/Foy%27s%20Laws
Your thoughts on the hobby being whatever anyone wishes are spot on - agree wholeheartedly!
I believe the doofer is closely related to the Doo-Dah, with the Doo-Dah having the greater flexibility in that it can be applied to anything that you have momentarily forgotten the real name of - even people!!!
ReplyDeleteDownsizing a scale for terrain is surprisingly easy on the eye - except for WWII tactical, which seems to need a more exact relationship been a figure and say a doorway or other similar doo-dah!
Doo-Dah! Yes, this is brilliant - being able to have a generic coded name for people as well is a step further.
DeleteMy Uncle Harold (Gawd bless him) could never quite remember which of his nieces and sisters-in-law was which, so he used to insert a strange list of all the names he could remember. He'd say, "That's right, Carol-Laura-Jo-Brenda-Jill-er-Lorna..." and the list would trail off, presumably in the hope that he'd got to the right one. If he had had access to Doo-Dah, we'd all have saved a lot of time, and I doubt if there would have been any more confusion. I wasn't there, but Harold's speech of thanks at his Golden Wedding "do" is still remembered in the family as a classic of its type. People who were thanked for presents included a couple of relatives who were dead, for a start.
I'm not sure which is more interesting, the large number of synonynms for doofer (dooflicky etc) or the ease with which we seem to instinctively understand them.
ReplyDeleteI won't discuss the increasing need for such terms but was on the point of addressing its misuse in reference to useless people when I remembered that that may have been doofus. I wonder if there is a common ancestry to the words? Is "doof" an old AngloSaxon term perhaps? Or gaelic? Hmm
Anyway, my solution to the figure/ground scale/time scale issue was to go shiny 54mm on a small table so as to remove any possible confusion on the matter.
Very sound approach - I hadn't thought of this before, but do some skirmish type games do everything in constant scale, so that 54mm figures have to cross a realistic width street and so on? Interesting.
DeleteI was thinking more of these 50 guys are an army and musket range is 3 times their height....
DeleteI like the idea of a distinction between indoor and outdoor - that's an interesting new dimension!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts on the derivation - that's pretty much what I said just below the picture of the stair carpet!