tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post3356511959270903949..comments2024-03-27T15:59:11.066+00:00Comments on Prometheus in Aspic: Hooptedoodle #21 - Demons RevisitedMSFoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-46564141724484699412014-11-12T16:44:06.237+00:002014-11-12T16:44:06.237+00:00Amen to that, Jim. Amen to that, Jim. MSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-51390864974703528332014-11-12T15:41:57.531+00:002014-11-12T15:41:57.531+00:00Hi Tony
George had his fans as well as others les...Hi Tony<br /><br />George had his fans as well as others less so. There were many facets to the man and to judge him on only one of them would be a sin. Like I said he was the one who got wargaming going in Edinburgh but I was one of those guys who stopped him from regaining his former position after returning from a few years absence, we had grown a bit wiser by then. I too, didn't always agree with him and paid the penalty but I still got a mention in his first book and I was privileged to be at his funeral.<br /><br />You predate me in your club membership and of the names you quoted only Mario Boni rings a bell. I remember playing a naval wargame on the floor of his ice cream factory.<br /><br />I was speaking with Henry Hyde of Battlegames just the other week about the founding fathers of the hobby. There are of course many names who can wear that title but there are others who will be the uncle, the cousin or just the best friend of the hobby and I think that George will be in there somewhere.<br /><br />Jim<br />http://jim-duncan.blogspot.co.uk/Jim Duncan Wargamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14114076455087495681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-50704224536233577352014-11-12T14:51:53.496+00:002014-11-12T14:51:53.496+00:00Hi Jim - thanks for getting touch - re-reading thi...Hi Jim - thanks for getting touch - re-reading this post, I wish to restate my intention not to be disrespectful to George - at a personal level, I didn't have any problem with him at all except that, to use an old euphemism, "he didn't suffer fools gladly". I was silly enough to query his rules on a couple of occasions, and was well roasted for my trouble! My appearances at SESWG were fairly few - maybe 1970/71? - I knew Bill Mackay (from my local hobby shop) and Mario Boni slightly, and Allan Gallacher, who took me along to a few sessions. I learned a lot - including the fact that clubs weren't really for me!MSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-9654112002649889112014-11-12T14:37:12.789+00:002014-11-12T14:37:12.789+00:00Sorry I am coming late to this thread. I knew Geor...Sorry I am coming late to this thread. I knew George Jeffrey very well, I joined his club in 1972 and was one of those few who took over when George had left. I was at his funeral too.<br /><br />George was indeed an NCO in the Royal Scots, Colour Sergeant in fact and was awarded a service comment of 'exemplary' on his discharge.<br /><br />George, whatever you feel his failings may have been, was instrumental in getting wargaming going in Edinburgh and his club has gone from strength to strength ever since.<br /><br />Jim<br />Jim Duncan Wargamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14114076455087495681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-44688712518013641282011-04-14T11:20:28.172+01:002011-04-14T11:20:28.172+01:00Mekelnborg - my new/old copy of Jeffrey did come f...Mekelnborg - my new/old copy of Jeffrey did come from the USA, but the inside cover is unmarked. If it had been your book I would be getting very nervous indeed - I did check, though.<br /><br />Conrad, and everyone else with realism vs numbers vs playability references - I think there's still some mileage in this - it's a well-worn subject, but it's probably worth another post of its own.<br /><br />Quarrie's calculations about cavalry in the example offered basically demonstrate one of my big quibbles (can you have a big quibble?) about the whole subject - the differences in cost he demonstrates between nations are less, proportionally, than the accumulated degree of error in his assumptions. I love the book dearly (apart from the rules), but he is really saying "all types of cavalry, of whatever nation, cost quite a lot of money to turn out", to which the appropriate answer is "OK, we'll get back to you".<br /><br />TonyMSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-68980176727758781972011-04-14T01:57:26.732+01:002011-04-14T01:57:26.732+01:00Hey, my old copy was slightly battered...have you ...Hey, my old copy was slightly battered...have you checked the inside front cover?mekelnborghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02269195057608159822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-36970272430361981192011-04-14T01:54:18.818+01:002011-04-14T01:54:18.818+01:00I thoroughly enjoyed BP Hughes book and found it v...I thoroughly enjoyed BP Hughes book and found it very interesting, but the fact remains that we have very fragmentary evidence upon which to base a statistical analysis of blackpowder combat. That is not to denigrate his achievement, but merely to state the limitations of the approach. <br /><br />I find gamers are very keen to seize upon numbers in their search for "realism". The problem with the approach is that the numbers are often suspect and can only take you so far. They are not good at dealing with imponderables like morale, obscuring effect of gunsmoke, starvation, sleep deprivation and the like. <br />Which is not to say that numbers couldn't be found that have a bearing on this, but they weren't collected at the time. <br /><br />I've always felt that this approach is about trying to control a chaotic environment, as if by gaining a mastery of the numbers - a complete understanding of the situation could be achieved. <br /><br />I was watching a game of Little Wars a few years ago with a friend of mine who did not rate it as a game because of the non-random melee resolution system. He was bewildered when he saw the game in operation, because players with complete and perfect knowledge of the situation (how far men could move, how many men a given side could bring to bear) could still make self-defeating decisions. <br /><br />People are a magnificent random outcome generator.Conrad Kinchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15683395740934527502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-87983418807870788322011-04-13T13:28:33.394+01:002011-04-13T13:28:33.394+01:00This has some danger of turning into a distraction...This has some danger of turning into a distraction, but I am intrigued by the philosophical problems presented by varying the bound length. I've just been glancing through the Horizon Movement section in Piquet's "Les Grognards" supplement (one of many sets of rules which I own, find interesting, but have no immediate intention of playing). I haven't looked in Empire yet (another such) - I have the 3rd edition, I think.<br /><br />The Piquet mechanism is, I'm sure, well worked out, since Piquet things usually are, but it seems to be generically similar to other approaches to the same problem. The idea is that units will make a big, multiple (if you like) move, which ends when they they are interrupted by a significant piece of terrain, or by a scheduled order, or by some enemy action or contact. I'm sure there's other stuff that can interrupt them, but that sets the idea. So whose interruption is going to apply to everyone? - well, I guess it's the first one to happen. OK so far - needs a bit of second guessing, but OK.<br /><br />So what happens when General B says, "Ah - if I'd known you were coming through that area, I'd have fired my artillery about 2/3 of the way through that big move"?. So, since there's a possibility this artillery fire might have discouraged the advance, we might agree to unwind the multiple move back to this point, and do some dice throwing. In fact, the easiest way to do this might be to split the big move down into little ones and work forwards, which puts us back where we started, except more confused. This is exactly the problem I have with VLB!<br /><br />TonyMSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-9391997981353024632011-04-13T11:37:45.992+01:002011-04-13T11:37:45.992+01:00I knew I was in trouble as soon as I saw the word ...I knew I was in trouble as soon as I saw the word "simplify" in that quote. I've never read the Quarrie book but I spent many an hour with the Jeffreys book being unsettled. Picked it up not that long after I got Charge! and Grant's Napoleonic book, no wonder that I've been confused ever since. Took me 25 years to get back to playing Charge! <br /><br />At times I can sorta see the idea behind VLB, troops don't march in bounds or turns, they march to a location unless interrupted etc. I don't know who was first proposed it but von Reiswich used the idea in 1824 in his Kriegspiel.<br /><br />As a game mechanic it seems to require either an umpire who adjudicates things or else discussing your plans with your opponent, and then watching him trying to justify how he knew just what you were about and was already planning to order his counter measures. I've also never quite figured out how to work it when there are 5 different things going on at different rates. <br /><br />Never actually played Jeffery's game but I did eventually rip out the tables of unit frontages pages before throwing the rest away during a purge. Something I normally reserve for magazines.<br /><br />-RossRoss Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-68743486667356707192011-04-13T09:23:59.003+01:002011-04-13T09:23:59.003+01:00Excellent post - like Stokes I too lean towards th...Excellent post - like Stokes I too lean towards the simpler end of the rule spectrum for the very reasons you describe... tried hyper-realism, finally came to the conclusion they were emperors new clothes, went back to where I started... :o)Steve-the-Wargamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07077311120172727690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-85947588955008590612011-04-12T22:47:00.832+01:002011-04-12T22:47:00.832+01:00Forgot to mention - variable time - doesn't Pi...Forgot to mention - variable time - doesn't Piquet do that as an option?<br /><br />TonyMSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-17112409702905713582011-04-12T22:44:07.550+01:002011-04-12T22:44:07.550+01:00I'm determined that I'm not going to be ne...I'm determined that I'm not going to be negative about GWJ - he was (or had been) a serving soldier - I seem to recall that he was an NCO in the Royal Scots, but that may be nonsense. Whatever, it's very apparent that he was very interested in controlling low-level behaviour - manoeuvring his miniature battalions in exact accordance with Dedon or Meunier, identifying the individual casualties (the men under the "bounce stick") - even (I hesitate to add) pretty much controlling the activities of his colleagues at the wargames club - you will not do that, you will do this. No doubt we all fight miniature battles for a reason - I've mentioned before that I really don't want to understand too much about my own reasons.<br /><br />TonyMSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-40341524497984625992011-04-12T22:42:03.412+01:002011-04-12T22:42:03.412+01:00An interesting post! I too own and love the Quarr...An interesting post! I too own and love the Quarrie book. . . Own but don't care for the Jeffrey title though. Finally worked out in the early 2000s that my own quest for "realism" was a wild goose chase and that there was a lot to those old rules from the 60s and early 70s by Featherstone, grant, and Young & Lawford. If nothing else, those actully get you playing without worrying too much about precise unit depths, frontages, etc.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />StokesWSTKS-FM Worldwidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14173042438761572040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111053985478999734.post-26734838974851968332011-04-12T22:20:43.486+01:002011-04-12T22:20:43.486+01:00No shame here about that Quarrie stuff, as I have ...No shame here about that Quarrie stuff, as I have several chapters within arm's reach at this moment and have spent plenty of time calculating currency fluctuations to convert his system to the 18th Century prices and currencies. <br /><br />I had to copy several chapters in '04 to have them easier to carry around, as the library keeps making me give the book back, and that is what is one arm's reach away here in April 2011.<br /><br />It is the basis for my house rules in most areas and especially the visibility part with my 2mm big battle system as the table is far too large an area to identify troops until fighting distances are reached.<br /><br />To me the funniest part was to find that in the end it was all based on dividing the populations by three, as if they were all equally productive. After all that math, that just seemed way too simplified, but maybe he meant it that way all along, so as to say, it IS simplified! Not complicated at all. ;)<br /><br />That part could not be quite right when converting it to either Frederick's Prussia, or even Piedmont-Savoy. Certain populations would have to be more or less productive due to factors that he omitted, in order to maintain the forces they did. Tax rates not everywhere the same, and what about the debased silver coinage, the 'Ephraims?'<br /><br />To me it's just right, although it would take all day to explain it to someone else, who just wants to get on with the game.<br /><br />I had that Jeffrey book in the Eighties but it was a casualty of my exe-esposa. Since it has been gone so long, I have it mixed up in my memory with Paddy Griffiths' Napoleonic Wargaming For Fun. Only now from your explanation do I realize that is the same GWJ from the infamous VLB, and it makes me wish I could see it again.<br /><br />I have read many articles both from him in The Courier, and about the VLB from others elsewhere, and never realized that book was from the same guy, or if I briefly did, I forgot.<br /><br />My conclusion was that Empire should not have tried to 'copyright' the Telescoping Time Concept, when it was lifted from a Christopher Duffy book about the forts which had a wargame appendix about those games at Sandhurst using the telesoping of time, previously to Empire mixing the word telescoping with time, even using Duffy's own word, and then to assert that they have copyrighted it?!<br /><br />But that other than the arrogance and hypocrisy of doing that, the way Empire broke up time was a good way to address the problem of making the VLB actually work practically. There could be other ways.<br /><br />The printed magazine boardgamers also had a few designs which tried to use systems like the Empire one, but maybe more efficient--that is to say, 'elegant,' in having less unit command levels with their counters.<br /><br />All of these are exactly food for my hobby, which is more trying to sort all this out than to actually use it on the table on my opponent, who moved away years ago anyway, but I still like to figure how we would do it, when we can.<br /><br />Excellent post, and so many things to think about there's barely room to confirm I also share an obsession with Mr Jeffrey for pie, in my case blueberry, which I need to avoid thinking about too often.mekelnborghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02269195057608159822noreply@blogger.com