The Number of Historical Miniature Wargamers
JMeun18203
BJ wrote:
>I think nothing can be done for historical board games. they are being
>displaced by a superior technology (computers) in their particular area
of
>interest.
This isn't the boardgame forum, but I think the assumption here is wrong.
Board games have many aspects (social, physical and visual) that the
computer games don't. I think computer games may indeed draw off board
game sales, but I don't think it is fair to say computer games are a
"superior technology" in the sense that a light bulb is better than a
candle.
Computer chess, to the best of my knowledge, has not killed off human
chess. I imagine computer wargames are not to blame for the decline of
board games.
John Meunier
Owensboro, Ky.
nuk...@worldnet.att.net
rjone...@aol.com wrote:
/snippage/
> My guess has always been about 15,000 (+ or - 5,000) core gamers in the >US; 15,000 in the UK; and 15,000 in the rest of the world. 45,000 >total. I'd love to be proven wrong.
>
> There's only one way to know and that is to do a study and ask-probably doable
> for $10K using HMGS' own lists and a professional research company.
>
> BJ
Important point here is 'core' gamer. Just because one buys a set of
rules or dabbles for a season or a year or two, does not make a 'core'
gamer. I think we have all seen fellows come and go and a few ('We few'
- WS, Henry V) who hang in the hobby.
DAW
LTC Bill Gray
Folks,
The item below was posted to the Newsgroup rec.games.board (note historical
board wargamers don't have their own exclusive Newsgroup) as a result of my
inquiry as to whether a statement by Chris Perello of Command Magazine that
there were only 20,000 counter pushers was accurate. If so, I noted, that
meant that us mini-men actually outnumbered the boardgamers and had claimed
the number two position (computer gamers are probably still on top) in the
hobby. During the course of the discussion they asked me how I came up with
my figure of around 35,000 for miniature players. Below is my answer and is
provided solely for you information and/or discussion.
BTW, some of the folks who responded thought 20,000 for historical board
wargamers too low, some too high, but nearly all agreed that there has been
a HUGE drop from the days when that wing of the hobby numbered 100,000+.
Cheers,
Bill Gray
****************************************************************************
*********************************************************************
Gents,
OK gang, here it is, the methodology I used to come up with a number of
35,000 as regards historical miniature wargamers in North America. I was
asked for the info as a result of my query concerning the reported large
decrease in historical board wargamers, down to some 20,000 if Command
Magazine is correct.
My methodology uses some data I obtained as a result of my Masters thesis
for the DIA Joint Military Intelligence College. The work was called
Playing War: The Applicability of Commercial Conflict Simulations in
Military Intelligence Training and Education (must have been halfway decent
as it got me an A, an MS in Strategic Intelligence and should be available
on IntelLink if you have access). During the course of research for this
project, I had the opportunity to interview gamers from across the nation -
at conventions, via EMail and in face to face visits with clubs and
individuals in the Harrisburg, PA and Northern Virginia areas in
particular. The information I gathered indicated that historical miniature
wargamers, in general, have a distinctive personality in so far as their
wing of the hobby goes, one much different from computer and counter buffs.
Yes, there are exceptions, but in general I found:
- Most mini players belong to some form of formal or semi-formal club, a
fact that makes sense when you realize that miniature games are group
affairs, real tough to play solitaire.
-The overwhelming majority of mini players specialize in one specific
major, historical period (like Napoleonics, and yes, again, I know there
are exceptions), with perhaps a small minor period on the side. Here the
matter is one of resources as miniature gaming is too time and $$$
intensive to play more than one big historical period. Just try fielding
the Russian Army in 1812, much less the French, Austrian, Prussian,
Bavarian, Saxon, Polish, Spanish, British, Neapolitan, Westphalian, Berg,
Wurttemburg, Northern Italian, Danish, Swedish, Nassau, Dutch-Belgian . . .
. .
-In that one big historical period, these same mini-men tend to buy all
rules associated with the era in question, though they likely stick with
one specific set of rules for play. Here most expressed a desire to read
other rules sets in hopes of using them to modify the set they do game
with. Seems everyone was always looking for new ideas and techniques to try
Using the information above, I calculated the number of historical
miniature gamers via two methods. The first I simply took the game sale
figures for the number one seller in each major period played (Napoleonics
for example and AH's Napoleon's Battles which has sold 22,500 copies),
tossed out an arbitrary 25% to account for people leaving the hobby, people
who played other major periods, etc, etc (the 25% number was recommended by
one respected miniatures rules author based on his own personal
experiences), then added the lot together. The resulting number was about
35,000.
I also took a look at various clubs and calculated the ratio of HMGS
members (Historical Miniatures Gaming Society - there are 3200 total in 11
Chapters; I know because I am the National Coordinator for the Society) to
non-members. The numbers on the East coast were about 1 member to 6-7
non-members, but sometimes 1 to 20+ on the West coast, with an average of 1
HMGS member to 10-11 non members. Do the math and you get about 35,000.
Lord knows, I am aware that the methodology used above is far from precise,
with a lot of unaccounted for factors that could skew the results.
Nevertheless, I sincerely think its a pretty fair estimate, with a
relatively decent chance the number of 35,000 could be low (I never placed
those folks who play minor periods exclusively, nor that 25% I tossed
because they played more than one major period).
Anyway, hope you find all this interesting, and your comments are certainly
appreciated. However, I hope the text above doesn't detract from the real
issue, and my big concern, which is how the historical board wargaming
community can reverse this trend of declining numbers. Has anyone thought
about a boardgame counterpart to HMGS? I'd bet money we are at least part
of the reason the mini-men seem to be holding their own, even growing a
bit.
Warmest regards,
"Bill"
Wilbur E. Gray
Secretary, HMGS East
PS: And thanks for all your comments on the number of historical
boardgamers. It was quite enlightening.
rjone...@aol.com
In article <01bca89c$7cbda860$4e6faccf@default>, "LTC says...
However, I hope the text above doesn't detract from the real
>issue, and my big concern, which is how the historical board wargaming
>community can reverse this trend of declining numbers. Has anyone thought
>about a boardgame counterpart to HMGS? I'd bet money we are at least part
>of the reason the mini-men seem to be holding their own, even growing a
>bit.
>
>Warmest regards,
>
>"Bill"
>Wilbur E. Gray
>Secretary, HMGS East
>
I think nothing can be done for historical board games. they are being
displaced by a superior technology (computers) in their particular area of
interest.
Miniature games have an immense potential for growth-if they respond to the
available market. Defining that market is something that HMGS can do with a
meaningful survey-professionally done- of the marketplace.
This would serve all of the vendor- manufacturers, and gamers in general, by
providing a snap-shot of the hobby, its demographics, the dollars involved, and
a hint on what gamers and potential gamers are looking for.
This could do more for the hobby than a hundred 'hobby fairs' at malls, or
thousands of brochures being mailed to the already converted.
This is an area that a national organization like HMGS could take the lead and
truly chart the course for the next 20 years in the hobby.
BJ
GLanni4131
Hi All -
BJ's comment is worthy of consideration by the powers that be at HMGS. The
Board of Directors possesses the names and addresses of literally
thousands of miniature gamers. A survey whose results were
professionally gathered and analyzed and then publicized to any interested
party might serve to focus all of our attentions. As BJ comments
correctly, its results might help set the course for the next twenty years
in the hobby. It seems like a worthwhile project for a not for profit
organization!
Jerry
Lannigan
Hilljhn
Bill,
I think you may have undercounted the miniature wargamers. For example, I
believe the total sold of Napoleon's Battles is about 40,000 not 22,500.
But, maybe AH will come forth with the most recent numbers. Also, based
on sales of Johnny Reb III -- about 3,000 since its release last year -- I
estimate that the miniature gamer field to be much larger than 35,000.
Because, if there are only 35,000 then about 1 in every 11 gamers has a
copy of JR III, and though I have good market penetration -- it ain't that
good by a long shot.
John Hill
Andy O'Neill
In article <01bca89c$7cbda860$4e6faccf@default>, LTC Bill Gray
<ltc...@erols.com> writes
>- Most mini players belong to some form of formal or semi-formal club, a
>fact that makes sense when you realize that miniature games are group
>affairs, real tough to play solitaire.
In the UK, a large proportion of figures players ( possibly even most )
would be Games - Workshop kids.
They often belong to no club, and play at the store and or friends
houses.
I understand that in the USA there are less GW stores, and less kids
play WHFB and WH40K, so mention this for your interest rather than as a
'correction'.
Andy O'Neill
Remove the x for email, similar to below
Wargames site at www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
rjone...@aol.com
In article <19970814212...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, hil...@aol.com
says...
>
>Bill,
>
>I think you may have undercounted the miniature wargamers. For example, I
>believe the total sold of Napoleon's Battles is about 40,000 not 22,500.
>But, maybe AH will come forth with the most recent numbers. Also, based
>on sales of Johnny Reb III -- about 3,000 since its release last year -- I
>estimate that the miniature gamer field to be much larger than 35,000.
John,
I had almost the reverse reaction and thought it an overcount. Many of AH Nap
Battles sales and , I assume, J RebIII, were to distributors and/or wholesalers
and many of them could have gone to non-wargamers(AH) and/or may be remaining
on the shelves. A sale, but not to an individual. The data may not be reliable
as it is an indirect measure-and to some extent hearsay (I can't imagine 40,000
copies of NB being sold-but maybe so!?).
All the more reason for a reasonably factual study of the market-we're all
guessing- ( Though larger firms such as AH, Foundry and Old Glory may have a
better idea through their sales and marketing results) . My guess has always
LTC Bill Gray
Folks,
Just for everyone's info, the 22,500 figure for Napoleon's Battles came
from the designer, Bob Coggins, because those are the numbers his most
recent royalty check is based on. I still think 35,000 for North America is
still pretty close, with things like other than "hard core" gamers at least
partially accounted for with the 25% in each major period I tossed. Also, I
didn't even touch folks who played in minor periods (WW II naval, etc), nor
any individual who played multiple major periods. They were also in the 25%
discarded.
LIkely, we'll never know, but I think 35,000 is close. Course it could be
much lower, or much higher like John Hill says.
Cheers,
Bill Gray
PS: My impression was that the UK had a LOT more mini-men than we did.
nuk...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
<33F3AD...@worldnet.att.net>...
> rjone...@aol.com wrote:
> /snippage/
> > My guess has always been about 15,000 (+ or - 5,000) core gamers in the
>US; 15,000 in the UK; and 15,000 in the rest of the world. 45,000 >total.
I'd love to be proven wrong.
> >
> > There's only one way to know and that is to do a study and ask-probably
doable
> > for $10K using HMGS' own lists and a professional research company.
> >
> > BJ
>
jo...@engcom.uk
In article <5t2u2o$n...@newsops.execpc.com>, gbed...@execpc.com says...
>Bill,
>
>I don't know if this was covered yet but think we also need to take
>into account the number of bootleg copies of rules out there.
>
>Many times I have seen 10 gamers playing a game with 1 or 2 the actual
>published sets of the rules and the other players with a notebook full
>of copied charts, etc.
>
>My point being I think we could drive that historical gamer count a
>little higher than what it is.
But each of those bootleg copies garnered no income for the designer's
intellectual property, the publisher's attention, or the printer's hard work.
In every sense that matters, those gamers don't count! They are, indeed, one of
the very reasons the hobby hasn't grown. With little or no economic incentive,
rules go unpublished and second editions never occur.
They add nothing to the count of historical gamers; they do add to the count of
cheap SOBs.
The Sheriff Of Nottingham
jo...@engcom.uk
Douglas Rockwell
Bob wrote:
...a hint on what gamers and potential gamers are looking for.
This could do more for the hobby than a hundred 'hobby fairs' at malls, or
thousands of brochures being mailed to the already converted.
***
The key question is how to locate the POTENTIAL gamers so they can be
surveyed to find out _how_ to push their buttons & turn them into paying
^H^H^H^H^H^H playing customers
--
Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes
gbed...@execpc.com
"LTC Bill Gray" <ltc...@erols.com> wrote:
>Folks,
>Just for everyone's info, the 22,500 figure for Napoleon's Battles came
>from the designer, Bob Coggins, because those are the numbers his most
>recent royalty check is based on. I still think 35,000 for North America is
>still pretty close, with things like other than "hard core" gamers at least
>partially accounted for with the 25% in each major period I tossed. Also, I
>didn't even touch folks who played in minor periods (WW II naval, etc), nor
>any individual who played multiple major periods. They were also in the 25%
>discarded.
Bill,
I don't know if this was covered yet but think we also need to take
into account the number of bootleg copies of rules out there.
Many times I have seen 10 gamers playing a game with 1 or 2 the actual
published sets of the rules and the other players with a notebook full
of copied charts, etc.
My point being I think we could drive that historical gamer count a
little higher than what it is.
Glenn
gbed...@execpc.com
jo...@engcom.uk wrote:
>>
>>Many times I have seen 10 gamers playing a game with 1 or 2 the actual
>>published sets of the rules and the other players with a notebook full
>>of copied charts, etc.
>>
>>My point being I think we could drive that historical gamer count a
>>little higher than what it is.
>But each of those bootleg copies garnered no income for the designer's
>intellectual property, the publisher's attention, or the printer's hard work.
>In every sense that matters, those gamers don't count! They are, indeed, one of
>the very reasons the hobby hasn't grown. With little or no economic incentive,
>rules go unpublished and second editions never occur.
The question was how many gamers are out there - period. Ther question
of ethics, morality, etc, etc were not part of the process to
determine this number. I think Bill was trying to estimate a head
count.
>They add nothing to the count of historical gamers; they do add to the count of
>cheap SOBs.
I could not agree with you more on them being cheap. However, they do
still game and should be counted as such no matter how cheap they are.
They are still "potential" gamers. BTW, many of them do have figures,
terrain, etc so they are spending a little money somewhere.
Chris Norton
In article <5t5ih2$n...@newsops.execpc.com>, gbed...@execpc.com says...
>
>jo...@engcom.uk wrote:
>
>>But each of those bootleg copies garnered no income for the designer's
>>intellectual property, the publisher's attention, or the printer's hard
>>no economic incentive, rules go unpublished and second editions never
>>occur.
>
>>count of cheap SOBs.
The above argument seems to be arguing that rules are the essence of the
hobby which seems nonsense to me. Rules come, rules go. There are free
rules available on Web sites. With a little study of a period you can make
up your own rules. ( And how many commercial rules are just rehashes of
the same old ideas published in the 60s, after all ?). I always thought
the hobby was about the actual figures, scenery etc first and finding some
way to use them second - but then I was never a board-gamer.
No, I do not use 'pirated' rules but I can understand why kids would
rather spend their money on figures than paper.
Chris Norton
rjone...@aol.com
In article <5t946r$c...@tube.news.pipex.net>, chr...@uk.uu.net says...
>
>In article <5t5ih2$n...@newsops.execpc.com>, gbed...@execpc.com says...
>>
>>jo...@engcom.uk wrote:
>>
>>>But each of those bootleg copies garnered no income for the designer's
>>>intellectual property, the publisher's attention, or the printer's hard
>>>work.In every sense that matters, those gamers don't count! They are,
>>>indeed, one of the very reasons the hobby hasn't grown.
>
> The above argument seems to be arguing that rules are the essence of the
>hobby which seems nonsense to me. Rules come, rules go. There are free
>rules available on Web sites. With a little study of a period you can make
>up your own rules. ( And how many commercial rules are just rehashes of
>the same old ideas published in the 60s, after all ?). I always thought
>the hobby was about the actual figures, scenery etc first and finding some
>way to use them second - but then I was never a board-gamer.
>
> No, I do not use 'pirated' rules but I can understand why kids would
>rather spend their money on figures than paper.
>
>Chris Norton
>
I hardly know where to start on this reply! Let's just ignore the ethics of
using someone's creative entertainment without paying for it- and in fact,
saying it's 'understandable'.
Let's also ignore the fact that, if done extemsively, the source of new rules
and their ideas, would simply dry up for lack of any economic incentive.
Let's also not stress that without 'rules' those little figures are just
inanimate collector's items, and the terrain a rather crude diorama.
But for Mr. Norton to argue that, after all, one could always write his own
rules, and most commercial rules are simply re-hashes, is the height of
sophistry. The fact is, many gamers would be hard put to exercise the
discipline, let alone do the research, and generate the creative concept, that
is required to write a set of rules. In all too many cases, the gamer who says
he's writing a new set of "house rules" rules is doing yet another Fire and Fury
or Warfare In The Age Of Reason rip-off that skates periously close to
plagiarism.
Commercial sets must offer value for the money spent or they simply cease to be
available. Most commercial sets offer many new ideas, and 'tested' rule
systems.
Commercial sets of rules require a fair amount of capital to package, print,
and publicise. To be offered publicly, they must be thoroughly tested, which
requires extensive time from the designer and developers-sometimes years! And
this should be offered free??
No, Mr. Norton, every set of photocopied rules you see at a gaming table is a
person who is being entertained without paying his 'admission' ; a certain mark
of a lapse of ethics, and a body-blow to the creative core of the hobby---ideas!
Bob Jones
Designer & Publisher
Piquet Inc.
Patronius
Bravo! An eloquent reply.
My dream, however, is a wargame (or wargame system) which is like Piquet
in one respect and like chess in another.
This "dream wargame" would be like Piquet in that it realistically
simulates warfare in game form.
But it would be like chess in that no part of it depends for its
survival and success on either commercial or private production. People
wouldn't stop playing chess just because manufacturers stopped making
chess sets. Nor would people stop playing chess if organizations like
FIDE and USCF stopped publishing official rules. Chess players would make
their own sets if necessary; and the rules are in the public domain.
In short, I'd like to see a wargame that's so phenomenally popular
that it takes on a life of its own and survives for generations, no matter
what the publisher/manufacturer does or fails to do.
One reason this "dream wargame" will probably never manifest is that
every time the ice-cream store announces a vast line of 35 flavors, a
certain segment of the population is already bored with that and searching
for the 36th flavor. Me, I've tried enough flavors to know I can be quite
happy with vanilla.
Patrick
Patronius@AOL
Chris Norton
>>I hardly know where to start on this reply! Let's just ignore
>>the ethics of using someone's creative entertainment without
>>paying for it- and in fact, saying it's 'understandable'.
As I pointed out, there are many free sets out there now. I am not
advocating ripping off commercial rules but simply pointing out
one of the reasons that it happens. These people are wargamers
whatever your views on their ethics.
>>Let's also ignore the fact that, if done extensively, the source
>>of new rules and their ideas, would simply dry up for lack of any
>>economic incentive.
The proliferation of free rules on the net would seem to contradict
this assertion. There are enough people out there public-spirited
enough/egotistical enough to publish their own rule systems free,
gratis and for nothing.
>>Let's also not stress that without 'rules' those little figures
>>are just inanimate collector's items, and the terrain a rather
>>crude diorama.
>>But for Mr. Norton to argue that, after all, one could always
>>write his own rules, and most commercial rules are simply
>>re-hashes, is the height of sophistry. The fact is, many gamers
>>would be hard put to exercise the discipline, let alone do the
>>research, and generate the creative concept, that is required to
>>write a set of rules.
This is just plain nonsense. There are hundreds of rule-sets around.
Many of them are pale rip-offs of other rules, using the same old
mis-conceptions. I am old-fashioned enough to expect someone playing
historical wargames to have a passing interest in history.
>>In all too many cases, the gamer who says he's writing a new set of
>>"house rules" rules is doing yet another Fire and Fury or Warfare In
>>The Age Of Reason rip-off that skates periously close to plagiarism.
>>Commercial sets must offer value for the money spent or they simply
>>cease to be available. Most commercial sets offer many new ideas, and
>>'tested' rule systems.
I am quite willing to accept that Piquet is a new direction for the
hobby. ( Using cards to 'script' the game seems a new idea but has been
around in cruder forms for a long time - chance cards etc ).
>>Commercial sets of rules require a fair amount of capital to package,
>>print, and publicise. To be offered publicly, they must be thoroughly
>>tested, which requires extensive time from the designer and
>>developers-sometimes years! And this should be offered free??
Commercial rule producers have their own position to protect, "it's
understandable".
>>No, Mr. Norton, every set of photocopied rules you see at a gaming
>>table is a person who is being entertained without paying his
>>'admission' ; a certain mark of a lapse of ethics, and a body-blow
>>to the creative core of the hobby---ideas!
>>
>>Bob Jones
>>Designer & Publisher
>>Piquet Inc.
Again, I am not trying to defend people ripping off commercial rules.
My argument is that people are being railroaded into thinking that
any given set of rules IS the hobby.
Ideas are not the sole province of a few commercial designers.
Chris Norton
Patronius
> My argument is that people are being railroaded into thinking that any
given set of rules IS the hobby.
>
> Ideas are not the sole province of a few commercial designers.
The first sentence above is questionable; the latter is true. But, as
I've been saying a lot lately, Mr. Norton's attitude is what keeps
wargaming a provincial, eccentric little hobby.
Some people like that. And I can understand the feeling behind it.
I've been an ACW fan for years, but it irks me that it's such a popular
period (and booming these days); I'd rather be into an obscure period
because it'd make me feel unique. Likewise, I think many wargamers revel
in the thought that theirs is an obscure hobby--unlike golf, stamp
collecting, or even model railroading.
But commercial rules sets are the only viable stepping-stone I can
see to what I call "the ultimate wargame." The ultimate wargame would be
one that's so phenomenally popular as to be a household word--like
checkers (or draughts, for those across the pond). It'd be the wargame
that most everybody plays. Individual wargamers might play a variety of
other games as well, but *everybody* would know and love this ultimate
wargame. It'd be the standard by which all other wargames are judged.
And the standard by which outsiders judge the wargaming hobby.
If such a game existed, wargaming would be far more cosmopolitan than
it is. "The game" would dominate all conventions and draw the most
publicity by far, and it would constantly attract newcomers to the hobby.
Wargamers from all parts of the world could meet at a convention and get
right into playing "the game" without any preliminary discussion. (Heck,
the rulebook might even be perfected so that it's clear, comprehensive,
and free of any ambiguity. Imagine that!)
But alas, we wargamers are an odd lot. As soon as someone devises a
set of rules for Ancients, someone else just has to modify it for
Medieval/Renaissance games. And every time a great set of rules comes
out, some of us want to push it beyond its envelope and see what more can
be done.
Sometimes I think there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians in
this hobby. Everyone demands his own little fiefdom. Not surprising, I
guess, since we are all playing at being commanders.
Patrick
Patronius@AOL
Brian Lewis
rjone...@aol.com writes:
>I hardly know where to start on this reply! Let's just ignore the ethics of
>using someone's creative entertainment without paying for it- and in fact,
>saying it's 'understandable'.
Hardly a point worth ignoring IMO, but what the heck!
>Let's also ignore the fact that, if done extemsively, the source of new rules
>and their ideas, would simply dry up for lack of any economic incentive.
I've got to wonder about that. I keep hearing how nobody out there gets
rich writing wargame rules, and I can believe it! By time the retailers
and distributors get their cut and printing and advertising is paid for
there is little money left over except, maybe, in the case of the most
wide-selling rules. The small financial reward to writing rules delivers
a pretty poor return on the time invested AFAIK, so rules authors must be
driven by something other than the financial return. Yes, they are indeed
crazy. :)
>Let's also not stress that without 'rules' those little figures are just
>inanimate collector's items, and the terrain a rather crude diorama.
>But for Mr. Norton to argue that, after all, one could always write his own
>rules, and most commercial rules are simply re-hashes, is the height of
>sophistry. The fact is, many gamers would be hard put to exercise the
>discipline, let alone do the research, and generate the creative concept, that
>is required to write a set of rules. In all too many cases, the gamer who says
>he's writing a new set of "house rules" rules is doing yet another Fire and Fury
>or Warfare In The Age Of Reason rip-off that skates periously close to
>plagiarism.
Agreed 100 per cent. Sure, there are plenty of groups use home-brew
rules, but how few of these are actually written down well enough for
anyone to play on their own? All of the home-brew rules I know of require
the author to be there in person to run the game because so much of it is
in their head. As Bob says, most are rip-offs of the ideas found in other
popular rules sets, notably "Johnny Reb", AOR, F&F and WRG 7th or DB*.
Writing rules is _very_ hard work. In my experience, the research and
initial design are time consuming but a lot of fun. The real _work_ come
in the editorial, play-testing and publishing stages, which explains why
the ECW (10 years) and SCW (5 years) rules I've been working on are still
unpublished! Of course, they will both be out _very_ soon. :)
>Commercial sets must offer value for the money spent or they simply cease to be
>available. Most commercial sets offer many new ideas, and 'tested' rule
>systems.
Besides, compared to cost of the figures, paint, time spent painting,
terrain and beer involved, the rules are by far the cheapest component of
any wargame I have every been in, but are the most important component of
enjoying the game.
>Commercial sets of rules require a fair amount of capital to package, print,
>and publicise. To be offered publicly, they must be thoroughly tested, which
>requires extensive time from the designer and developers-sometimes years! And
>this should be offered free??
Apparently so. I'm convinced. ;)
>No, Mr. Norton, every set of photocopied rules you see at a gaming table is a
>person who is being entertained without paying his 'admission' ; a certain mark
>of a lapse of ethics, and a body-blow to the creative core of the hobby---ideas!
Agreed 100 per cent again. I refuse to photocopy rules that are still
available on the market. I encourage every player who joins our group to
buy a set of the rules we play. If they are not committed enough to do
that, well,......
cheers,
Brian
Brian Lewis
lew...@gov.on.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGSCON XVIII Historical Miniature Gaming Convention
August 22 to 24 1997. Hamilton Ontario.
OUR HOMEPAGE HAS MOVED: http://home.interlynx.net/~rsearr
=================================================================
nuk...@worldnet.att.net
Patronius wrote:
/snippage/
> But alas, we wargamers are an odd lot. As soon as someone devises a
> set of rules for Ancients, someone else just has to modify it for
> Medieval/Renaissance games. And every time a great set of rules comes
> out, some of us want to push it beyond its envelope and see what more can
> be done.
> Sometimes I think there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians in
> this hobby. Everyone demands his own little fiefdom. Not surprising, I
> guess, since we are all playing at being commanders.
>
> Patrick
> Patronius@AOL
Well, what edition of MicroBorg Internet Explorer or Netscrape are you
using?
Point is that a lot of materials are subject to quick modification. New
cars every year, newer CPU chips every 18 months, software
updates/upgrades [some almost immediately after the release of the
'latest' editon].
In this world of technology "I'm surprised to discover that there is
gambling going on here" [Casablanca quote]. Of course we modify the
stuff and 'push' the envelope. Its not that we're all chiefs, its more
an ingrained trait to tinker trying to find something better [shades of
Edison].
Some of us have adapted to the chaos of the high technology tempo, other
bemoan the 'good old days' and wish the train would just stop.
Part of the underlying pathology to rules construction is that it still
is a cottage industry. And I use the term industry very lightly. Most
of the rules have and continue to evolve from the fundamentals
established in the '60s. Even though many of us have 'grown up' and
attended many hours of 'advanced education', I don't see significant
application of engineering principles, systems analysis, or real
statistical analysis in rules development. It is still largely 'art'.
And with art, you may have 'schools' but you usually will not have
definitive standards. About the only standards we seem to have is
figures in metric measure (15mm) and range & movement in feet/inches.
Now let's ponder that concept!
DAW
richard_kane
Reference Brian Lewis' posting 16354 of 8/19/97
<snip>
Absolutely true in every respect. I spent far more time and effort
on Flint & Steel than I did on my master's thesis. I really only started
writing them because of dissatisfaction with what was available for AWI.
The rules simply grew and got refined to the point that I figured I might
as well get them published. I was definitely working below minimum wage.
Patronius
>The key question is how to locate the POTENTIAL gamers so they can be
>surveyed to find out _how_ to push their buttons & turn them into paying
>^H^H^H^H^H^H playing customers
> --
>Doug
And I believe the most effective tool for this would be word-of-mouth and
a solid, immensely popular demo game.
Questionnaires are unreliable, and speculation is worse. But show
somebody a wargame they can immediately get their hands on, pump them up
with patter about how it's all the rage, and you may have the beginning of
a phenomenal influx of new gamers.
People start playing chess because they hear about it all the time,
because they know people who play it, and because it's pretty easy to buy
a chess set and get started. I think the same should be true of
wargaming.
Is wargaming too complicated for that? I don't think so. AD&D is
complicated, but it hasn't stopped it from being such a phenomenon during
the past twenty-odd years. I think the same sort of thing could have
happened with the "Chainmail" half of those rules, had they been presented
right.
The formula I recommend is: take a game like DBA, make sure the
rules are clear and comprehensive even to a newcomer, and make the
required figures easy to get; then put that game out on the "front lines"
as *the* example to the general public of what wargaming is. (Or do the
same with a multi-period skirmish game like "Rencounter," which requires
fewer figures and might be more exciting for a newcomer.)
When a newly interested person comes along and asks what wargaming is
all about--and you say, "Well, it's a lot of things. Some people do this,
others do that. It gets crazy and complicated sometimes."--you lose that
person. Maybe you're being honest with him, but you lose him.
O.t.o.h., take him under you wing and teach him to play DBA or
Rencounter or something, and you may awaken a lifelong devotion to the
wargaming hobby.
That's my two cents for this morning (I must be up to a hundred
dollars or so by now, eh?). ;-)
PC, Minneapolis
Patronius@AOL
GLanni4131
Hi All,
Dustin's point about who actually plays with miniatures is probably well
taken although I can only offer some anecdotal proof. Among the gamers in
my Friday night group are a plumber, a newspaper reporter, a university
professor, two accountants, and a probations supervisor. In addition,
there is a printer, a high school science teacher, his occasionally
employed son, and a variety of others all of whom fit into this pattern.
My point is though, to diverge somewhat from Dustin's argument,>at?
Students often have time but rarely have money (I never
>did, one reason I never did much miniatures gaming), and Professionals
>have money but never have time. The intrinsic capital requirements of
>the miniatures hobby guarantees that the numbers will be small--only
>the unusually dedicated Students and Professionals have a chance, as
>well as people who don't quite fit either category.
All of these people collect, paint and play regularly and they travel to
the big conventions and spend money. By the way, sociologists tell us
that kids have the most disposable income for things like toys.And that
leads me to the point that if we have reached a stasis point in the hobby
it is because kids do not want to spend their money on stuff they consider
to be boring - history, etc.
As adults, most of us in this hobby share at least some level of
fascination with history, but how many kids have that same feel? Partially
this is a function of the way they are taught in schools, partially our
society's lack of appeciation for that which is old - people, beliefs,
institutions, etc.It is unreasonable to expect any game company or any
gaming society to overcome this inertia. However, all is not without
hope. If kids can be brought into our games and see that they are fun,
then they will come.Remember, their desire is to be entertained and they
are willing to spend the money to do it.
By the way, those of you who think that there should be just one set of
rules are overlooking one of the great strengths of our hobby - its
creative genius. All the game designers I know are creative and literate.
None of them are planning to make a million by their writing and
publishing - only to share their insights into how people might play games
reflecting some aspect of military history. Seems to me that that sense
of simple enjoyment in the hobby needs to be transmitted by sharing our
experiences with others in a pleasant, non-threatening way.
Perhaps, one small key to all of this is respect - respect for how
players participate in the hobby, respect for the ideas of others, even
respect for those who play with unpainted figures! (Just kidding - as far
as I am concerned, as long as you are participating in the hobby your
ideas are just as valid as mine. The trick here is to realize that,indeed,
there is space enough in this hobby for everyone.)
Hope everyone has a great game this weekend!
JL
Patronius
>The reason miniatures wargaming is not Big Industry . . . is intrinsic to
>the nature of the subject. It requires the intersection of too many
>. . . uncommon interests, and a willingness to expend
>considerable resources in time and money.
The interests required are: an interest in war or militaria; an interest
in game playing; and an interest in socializing and/or modelling. Hardly
uncommon. Maybe it's a little less common that these three interests
would intersect, but for many people (mostly male), it obviously does.
> The 'One Ruleset To Rule
>Them All' wouldn't save the hobby, it would only demonstrate that the
>tiny existing hobby has ceased to think and breathe. You can kill the
>hobby that way, but you can't make it grow.
As the proponent of that idea, let me just say "One Ruleset to Rule Them
All" was never my idea. Obviously we don't want to squelch new ideas by
imposing a standard ruleset on people who don't want it. What I've been
saying is that it would be good if one ruleset--particularly a simple,
multi-period ruleset--caught on in such a big way that everyone would be
eager to jump on the bandwagon. Then we'd have a standard (a
naturally-evolved standard) with which to demonstrate what wargaming is to
those who are new to it.
>I also offer an analogy from board wargaming: the soul of that hobby
>was SPI and its cadre under the leadership of Jim Dunnigan, and it has
>*never* recovered from that company's death
I'd say your analogy makes my point. When Avalon Hill was putting out
just a game or two a year, most of us considered those games timeless
standards--like Risk, Stratego, and other games which would never change
or disappear. Then SPI came along and *cheapened* board wargaming by
spewing out a glut of games, all of which were flawed and required
voluminous "errata sheets." When SPI folded, many other little companies
popped up, perpetuating the glut. And finally Avalon Hill had to
diversify in order to survive. The era of the "classic wargame" had
faded.
In 1969, when someone asked me what wargaming is all about, all I had
to do was pull down my copy of "Battle of the Bulge" and teach him to
play. Today, I'd have to say, "Well, it's a little of this, a little of
that; some people play these kinds of games, others play a hundred other
kinds--so it depends." Whereupon the inquirer is utterly lost and
confused, and likely to seek another hobby.
>Miniatures
>gaming, so far as I can tell, is the most expensive kind of wargaming
>to pursue seriously, both in time (painting figures) and money.
True. But some people are looking for a substantial hobby like that.
People do take up woodworking, photography, oil painting, model
railroading, stained glass, and other kinds of hobbies--any of which can
be expensive and time-consuming. And for the enthusiast, the expense and
time-consumption are part of what make the hobby real and interesting.
Me, I've always found it hard to consider wargaming a real hobby,
because I've mainly played board and computer wargames. Miniatures would
add substance to it, bringing the activity I've always enjoyed down to a
tangible, physical level.
(Must cut this short. Gotta run.)
PC, Minneapolis
Patronius@AOL
rjon...@aol.com
In article <5to1uj$52k$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, mser...@halcyon.com says...
>
>rjone...@aol.com wrote:
>:
>: BJ: NOTE: I re-wrote Mark's reply almost word for word but substituted a
>: different commodity (Automobiles) to point out the ethical spuriousness of
>this
>: position.
>: I'm sorry, Mark, no matter haow you cut it-it's stealing- and no amount of
>: sophistry can disguise that fact.
>:
>
> Very witty. But it in no way addresses my point. Which is that
>by insisting people 'Pay to Play' you cut your won throat.
Would you suggest that Russ Dunaway give away figures free? Should gamers
encourage pirate castings? Should Hovels give away free buildings? What
distinction do you make between rules, figures, and terrain except the EASE of
pirating?
As far as a designer giving away rules-100% market penetration for zero dollars
isn't much of a strategy. I'll take 10% at $10 a pop every time! Unless, like
Wargames Foundry, your main product is figures and you use the rules as a
marketing tool.
The idea that a few gamers have that designers, figure manufacturers, and
terrain suppliers "owe" them free entertainment, and the fact that they would
rather spend their money elsewhere, somehow justifies a "free" ride, is a very
arrogant and strange worldview. I also doubt if the issue is "poor" or they
wouldn't have a hobby at all! More likely CHEAP is the operative word.
As a television executive, I can tell you that there's many a producer and a few
companies like Paramount, Disney, and Fox that have a very strong belief that
creative ideas have value and are very much worth protecting from petty thieves.
BJ
>
>--
>Mark Serafin | "Reality must take precedence over public
>I speak only for myself | relations. Nature cannot be fooled."
> | - Richard Feynman
>
Patronius
>: I'm sorry, Mark, no matter haow you cut it-it's stealing- and no amount
of
>: sophistry can disguise that fact.
>:
>
> Very witty. But it in no way addresses my point. Which is that
>by insisting people 'Pay to Play' you cut your won throat.
>
>
And by allowing people to steal his product, he saves his neck?
PC, Minneapolis
Patronius@AOL
David G. Bell
In article <5tnpf1$r...@drn.zippo.com> rjone...@aol.com writes:
> In article <5tnl3b$902$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, mser...@halcyon.com says...
> <<Snip>>
>
> BJ: NOTE: I re-wrote Mark's reply almost word for word but substituted a
> different commodity (Automobiles) to point out the ethical spuriousness of this
> position.
> I'm sorry, Mark, no matter haow you cut it-it's stealing- and no amount of
> sophistry can disguise that fact.
Let me know when you can put an automobile through a photocopier....
That's a significant difference in all this.
From the UK side of the Atlantic things look quite different. Even
after taking into account the extra shipping costs, many of the US sets
of rules still cost around three times as much as British designs.
Photocopying hardly saves enough over buying a copy to be worth the
hassle.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
John Kovalic
In article <5tlqu0$9...@drn.zippo.com>, rjone...@aol.com wrote:
> BJ: Dustin-You are an elegant example of the ethical apologist that is at the
> core of many of the societal problems of the late 20th century. I can only
> presume that you have either never created anything and are not working for a
> living, or you are giving your creative work freely to the world and probably
> starving-otherwise you are also a hypocrite! If you are starving, please post
> your address, I'm sure someone can send you lunch monrey.
>
> Bob Jones
While you may disagree with Dusty's statements, this really diminishes
your arguments in my view. Let's cease the name-calling, and debate the
issues, please.
John Kovalic
--
******************************************************************
"This must be Thursday. I never COULD get the hang of Thursdays"
- Arthur Dent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* "Wild Life": a Web comic -- *
* MUSKRAT CENTRAL: http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/muskrat/ *
******************************************************************
rjone...@aol.com
To go from the theoretical (and ethereal) to the practical; There are no
"Photocopy Police" and anyone practicing this petty theft is not going to be
hunted down and punished (unless he does it in commercial volume). The issue
speaks to an individual's ethics and honor, for not only is the hobby diminished
as Patronius has commented, but the individual that commits a theft, even if
hidden from public view, diminishes himself.
I find it hard to understand that a hobbyist that studies military history and
its practice, can overlook the historical role of honor in that history. To
simulate the violent aspects of warfare and overlook the premium that many
military men have put on honorable actions is to miss a very salient point.
BJ
GLanni4131
Hi Dan!
your point about theft from an absolute view is correct but I would temper
the judgmental piece with a situational argument. Suppose a person picks
up individual pieces from a manufacturers line and throws them into a mold
for the express purpose of ripping them off and selling them. I think we
would both believe that this is a case of outright theft. But what if the
person took the same figures and by modifying the basic figure produced
something representative of an entirely different era? Is it theft? If
so, is it to be judged in the same way as the first example? Let us
suppose that we both agree that the second effort was .in fact, a form of
theft. What if our thief made his modifications and did not sell them? Is
it theft?
I detest being so Jesuitical in my argument but it just seems to me that
not every situation is exactly similar. Next week I plan to run a demo
game of a well known Civil War rules set at my local hobby shop. The
express purpose of this is to encourage kids to get involved in histoical
miniature gaming and to buy the rules set. Is my planned duplication of
the fire charts theft in your opinion? Since the players cannot buy just
the charts and need the rules (which I will not give them) I think that
this ought to be judged with a little more forgiving an eye. Guess this
gets into the differencce between mortal and venial sins.
Finally, it is my understanding that I can copy a book for private use.
Certainly with many books which are OP that might be the only way to
obtain a copy for later use. The same is true with videand tapes that you
purchase. Should you not be able to make a back up copy of a video (which
might stretch) if you buy it?As long as it is for one's own use, not
"shared" with others, I do not see that as theft though I realize that the
original owner - say, Warner Brothers - might say that I should go out and
buy another copy.
I would argue that intent, and degree, go a long way to determine how we
look at this issue of theft.
By, the way, thank you very much for taking the "high ground" and
presenting such a reasonable position.
Jerry
Lannigan
David M
>Bob is pointing to the true issue at stake here: the threat
>that weak
>ethics and hypocrisy pose to the wargaming hobby and society at
>large.
My, aren't our heads inflated! Stealing has been around since
time immemorial, and to be a human is to be a hypocrite. I don't
think there is any threat posed to any hobby or society simply
because someone is performing copyright infringement.
I am willing to admit that copying is stealing, a violation of
the law and even wrong, if all the "industry" people who
contributed to this thread admit that the whole raison d'etre for
this hobby is NOT to line their pockets, but to have a good time.
Dave M.
Patronius
>My, aren't our heads inflated! Stealing has been around since
>time immemorial, and to be a human is to be a hypocrite. I don't
>think there is any threat posed to any hobby or society simply
>because someone is performing copyright infringement.
Unfortunately, yours is rapidly becoming the majority attitude. What that
does to the wargaming hobby is trivial; but what it can do to the U.S. is
eventually turn it into another third-world country. Look around: in
which countries of the world is petty theft, palm-greasing, gang activity,
etc. shrugged off as status quo? Mainly in the poorest and least
developed countries. There, copyright laws are a joke and piracy is
rampant. Where justice fails, corruption becomes the norm. And justice
begins with you and me. If we can't respect and trust ourselves, who can
we respect & trust?
>I am willing to admit that copying is stealing, a violation of
>the law and even wrong, if all the "industry" people who
>contributed to this thread admit that the whole raison d'etre for
>this hobby is NOT to line their pockets, but to have a good time.
I don't think I can count as "industry," but I'll admit the wargaming
hobby is about having a good time.
But even when you're busy having a good time, you can't afford to throw
morals & ethics out the window.
PC, Minneapolis
Patronius@AOL
Dustin Laurence
rjone...@aol.com ripped off this response to me:
>BJ: Unsubstantiated-one very good reason for a study (which started
>this thread)
Of course it is. Is your position weak enough that you need to play
the game of 'your facts must be professionally verified even though I
intend to fire off my own unsubstantiated opinions as usual'? Or
shall we just have a normal discussion?
>>Given this situation, what is likely to happen? The Students are
>>NEVER going to spend much money up front. They mooch.
>BJ: 'Mooch' as in theft of intellectual property?
Obviously not, but I assume that was a rhetorical question whose
answer you well know.
>BJ: Again this is a curious statement-Theft of property, even if intellectual,
>does not make the owner of that property a 'victim'?
I don't terribly enjoy this Sophistry. We are quibbling over what
constitutes 'theft,' not whether it exists. It is obviously a great
game for you if you can shift the grounds of the argument so that you
are correct by definition, but if you are going to insist on this
throughout then you're going to end up talking alone.
>BJ: These same people who cheat to get the rules are very likely the ones that
>cheat while playing the rules. If their ethics are that flexible, I'm not even
>sure one should leave the room and leave them alone with your figures. Do you
>want them in your house?
Depends on what they've done, and insofar as the actual point in
question goes this has not been determined. You are welcome to post
your own fantasy debates, but I'm not terribly interested in them.
>BJ: IF the AUTHOR values his property in this fashion or chooses this strategy
>and wishes to charge nothing then that is his choice. Copyright is an essential
>legal doctrine for trade among civilised nations and peoples! Without it, the
>"free desemination of information" that you champion in your epilogue CANNOT
>exist.
If your point is that I didn't sufficiently distinguish between two
separate points, I'll accept that though I thought it was sufficiently
clear. They can and should be discussed separately. However, again
you're postings are pretty much logical hash--it is you, not I, who
introduced the free rules. You are not debating me, you are debating
a straw man of your own devising. I don't doubt that you're getting
the better of him, but I don't find it very interesting somehow.
However, your contention about copyright is so far as I can tell utter
nonsense. Last I knew intellectual property was a legal construct
which society can choose for purely practical reasons, but that is
all. I am painfully aware that there are many who like to portray it
as one of the Human Rights, but I am not one of them. Yes, we choose
to grant it in various ways (and just to be clear, I think we should
continue to do so, though not always in the form we currently do ),
but it is not essential for 'trade among civilized nations and
peoples.' It may well be essential for trade among capitalist
industrial economies (though I heartily question that), but I would
hope that even the most rabid capitalist would not equate industrial
capitalism and civilization.
I'd go further, even though we're rapidly diverging off-topic for this
newsgroup, but since you so far haven't shown much interest in
discussing my points, rather than the straw man's, it seems quite
pointless.
At this point, Bob lets go of his tenuous grasp on the discourse and
takes a quick journey into the back of his head. Just this once, I'll
take the bait, "cuz they ain't never been nobody wronger than this."
Might be fun.
>BJ: Dustin-You are an elegant example
<Blinks, looks down at his ripped T-shirt still damp with water from
washing the car> I'm an *elegant* example? I was trying for
eloquence, but guess I missed. :-)
There is an excellent Robert Sheridan (I think) play called 'The
Rivals' (gee, I don't even know the copyright status of the
thing--did I waste money by *buying* my copy? :-) with a character
named Mrs. Malaprop. You'd get along well with her.
>...of the ethical apologist that is at the
>core of many of the societal problems of the late 20th century.
Wow. *One* guy is at the core of all that social dysfunction? Must
be a busy guy. Why does he call himself 'the ethical apologist,'
though--sounds like a Bunyan character. Not that that's a BAD thing,
mind you....
>...I can only
>presume that you have either never created anything and are not working for a
>living,
I guess computer programming and consulting and doing some work on the
ol' thesis might not count as working. As usual, you're not so much
inaccurate as entirely disconnected from reality.
>...or you are giving your creative work freely to the world and probably
>starving-otherwise you are also a hypocrite!
I guess I ought to take you seriously for a minute. In fact I do give
away some of my work, including my contributions to the only decent
application framework and GUI library for X-windows for under several
thousand dollars (http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jafl/jx). Somehow, it
doesn't lead to my starving. Quite the opposite, in fact, one of my
consulting jobs is a direct result (though that is certainly not why I
choose to give away professionally written code).
But this is way off-topic, and really entirely irrelevant. These
personal attacks are getting pretty boring, even if you can't think of
anything rational to say.
>...If you are starving, please post
>your address, I'm sure someone can send you lunch monrey.
Do you believe that the Pope is Jewish, too?
I finally remembered who you are from the last time I read r.g.m.h.
There was a discussion of Piquet, and I was about convinced to go buy
it (oh, wait, shucks, I'm lying; I was going to go burgularize a local
store, scan a copy in, and send copies of thousands of people across
the net :-) until the designer opened his mouth and convinced me that
I didn't want him to have my money badly enough to go out and find a
copy of the darn thing. Maybe it's just me and you're technique works
great with everyone else--that's your call.
Dustin
--
"I regard you as one of the largest obstacles to
the free dissemination of information to the world
aquarist community that has ever existed."
-- Richard Sexton, <4i406o$o...@gold.interlog.com>
Dustin Laurence
patr...@aol.com (Patronius) responds:
>I wrote:
>The interests required are: an interest in war or militaria; an interest
>in game playing; and an interest in socializing and/or modelling. Hardly
>uncommon. Maybe it's a little less common that these three interests
>would intersect, but for many people (mostly male), it obviously
>does.
I don't think it works that way. It requires a particular type of
interest in those subjects. I suppose it is both scholarly and
competitive, or scholarly and technical. I don't think that's very
common. And it requires more than a passing interest.
>...What I've been
>saying is that it would be good if one ruleset--particularly a simple,
>multi-period ruleset--caught on in such a big way that everyone would be
>eager to jump on the bandwagon.
OK, that isn't quite what I thought you said. I guess it's
reasonable, but I have my doubts. Back when I would have had more
time and opportunity to do miniatures a St. Louis game store tried
that (I think they may be gone now--if so RIP) with 'The Rules
According to Ral' or something like that. They were very simple, but
either because of the rules themselves or the presentation they also
seemed pretty mindless. I went back to board wargaming. (Oh, well,
strictly speaking I also tried to learn WRG 7th from the book, god
help my soul. I still say it could be done with less work than I put
into, say, learning Hamiltonian Mechanics, but the illiteracy of the
writer tended to convince me that it wasn't going to be worth the
effort anyway.)
The point is: is this even possible? That game attempted to be
everything you describe, and instead pretty thoroughly succeeded in
convincing me that the miniatures gaming was about flashy setups and
historical uniforms with brain-dead rules, while board wargaming was
about what happened and why. Ever since I've been pretty skeptical
'easy beginner games,' because I'm not sure they will appeal to people
who will like anything else.
Granted there must be something wrong with this argument, because I
can find counterexamples for non-miniatures games (WS&IM comes to
mind), so I guess your task, should you choose to accept it, is to
prove me wrong by writing the rules that are simple yet I could
imagine using long enough to introduce someone to the hobby.
[[SPI exampl]]
>I'd say your analogy makes my point.
I have to entirely disagree with you about the impact of SPI. I doubt
AH would be in business as a wargames publisher if SPI hadn't
happened, and I doubt there'd be enough wargamers around that I'd have
even heard of wargaming. Far from cheapening the hobby, they gave it
a reason to exist.
Back when SPI existed I was so isolated from the rest of the hobby
that I'd never heard of anyone but AH. I'd have killed to have
discovered SPI then.
> In 1969, when someone asked me what wargaming is all about, all I had
>to do was pull down my copy of "Battle of the Bulge" and teach him to
>play.
Why can't you do that? My wife's first wargame was Panzer Leader, for
that matter. I didn't notice that the age caused any problems.
> Me, I've always found it hard to consider wargaming a real hobby,
>because I've mainly played board and computer wargames. Miniatures would
>add substance to it, bringing the activity I've always enjoyed down to a
>tangible, physical level.
I think that must be a matter of taste. I have little interest in
uniforms and would be almost as happy playing with nekkid lead, and
the grammatical state of most miniatures rules I've seen made it
harder for me to figure out that miniatures wargaming could be a
serious tool for understanding--I wasn't sure the authors could read
in the first place. Ah well, live and learn.
Dustin Laurence
rjone...@aol.com writes:
>In article <5tnl3b$902$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, mser...@halcyon.com says...
><<Snip>>
>BJ: NOTE: I re-wrote Mark's reply almost word for word but substituted a
>different commodity (Automobiles) to point out the ethical spuriousness of this
>position.
>I'm sorry, Mark, no matter haow you cut it-it's stealing- and no amount of
>sophistry can disguise that fact.
But sufficient sophistry will make your position more tenable, one
assumes. What you actually did was a trick that would be slimy if it
weren't transparent--you equated theft of physical property with
duplication at one's own expense. While the latter is often (not
always) also a crime, it is not the same crime. The latter also has
relevance to the discussion, unlike your analogy. That may have
relevance to the fantasy discussion you're having with the straw man,
but not much more.
I would have thought that the duplication situation would leave you
enough room to make your case, which leads me to wonder why you're so
eager to discuss something besides the points you're objecting to. I
would hazard a guess (at least I'm trying to label my constructs as
such) that it is because you're not really comfortable with the
distinction between intellectual theft and fair use and so would
rather switch the subject.
I guess that is the consistent thread in your posts--you don't
acknowledge that in law intellectual property is treated differently
than physical property, as evidenced at least by 'fair use,' and so
try to argue that duplication is identical to grand theft auto rather
than argue that a given case of duplication is or is not 'fair use.'
This might even be the origin of your fairly ludicrous confusion of me
with a moral relativist.
I didn't necessarily agree with the rest of the post, but the point
about used CD's is a good one because it goes to the heart of the
problem with Intellectual property. Being a legal construct, it is
what society decides it is, and big enough guns can change the concept
in a way that would be difficult with, say murder. In software, for
example, the law currently does not work. But as long as we are
discussing intellectual property we have to discuss cases, whether or
not you can't distinguish that from moral relativism, because the law
defines it to be a relative concept of social convenience. Unlike
murder, or grand theft auto.
So there are some pretty clear arrows in the direction of the debate.
Will you take it? Earth calling Bob....
PatriCarro
>> In 1969, when someone asked me what wargaming is all about, all I
had
>>to do was pull down my copy of "Battle of the Bulge" and teach him to
>>play.
>
Well, I can, of course. But when I did it in 1969, I was teaching a game
that, along with a dozen others, comprised the wargaming "canon." A game
that the learner would surely come back to time and again throughout his
life. Teaching "Bulge" was just like teaching "Risk" or chess or
cribbage. The knowledge imparted was almost guaranteed to remain useful
for a lifetime.
Today, teaching "Battle of the Bulge" is like teaching DOS. It's just one
of several operating systems, and it's likely to become obsolete. Some of
what you teach about DOS may happen to be applicable to Unix or whatever;
still, it's hard to get motivated to teach or learn something that may
soon be a useless relic.
Maybe a person with my mindset ought to stick to traditional games like
bridge, go, and backgammon. But I just can't shake the dream that someday
a truly phenomenal wargame may take its place alongside those classics.
It'd have to be a "generic" wargame (i.e., a fictional one that doesn't
represent any particular period of history) or a comprehensive,
multi-period one. And I haven't seen anything come close yet. But maybe.
. . .
PC
Mpls, MN
Ricky Walker
In article <5tnpf1$r...@drn.zippo.com>, rjone...@aol.com writes
>In article <5tnl3b$902$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, mser...@halcyon.com says...
><<Snip>>
>
>BJ: NOTE: I re-wrote Mark's reply almost word for word but substituted a
>different commodity (Automobiles) to point out the ethical spuriousness of this
>position.
>I'm sorry, Mark, no matter haow you cut it-it's stealing- and no amount of
>sophistry can disguise that fact.
>
I liked the substitution of cars for rules, it helped illustrate a point
very well. So if I could just continue the, erm, analogy, I guess you'd
call it:
Joe Bloggs walks into the car dealer:
Joe: Hi, I'm interested in buying your new model XYZ Mazerati.
Salesman: Certainly, sir, here you are, that'll be 50,000 pounds.
Joe: Erm, I'm just wondering, how can I be sure that it is the right car
for me? Can I try it out first?
Salesman: Well, sorry, but as you can see, the product does come
shrinkwrapped, although if you want to know what it is like, there is a
description on the back of the box. It got some excellent reviews.
Joe: But how do I know it will give me what I want out of a car? Can't I
just try it out?
Salesman: Well, usually, customers should read the reviews in
"Cardrivers Illustrated", they sometimes have a paragraph or two about
different cars.
See what I am getting at? When buying a new car, you DO get to try-
before-you-buy, so to equate Wargame rules-sets with cars, really, you
should be able to "take them for a test-drive" as it were, before
deciding whether to invest your hard-earned cash. With rules sets
tending towards coming in shrink-wrapped packaging, you can't even get a
quick read of the rules before you decide to buy them nowadays. (Yes, I
know that some stores will have a "display copy" sometimes, but this is
not universal practice - at least not at the shops and conventions I've
been to). Now, it takes me around 2 to 4 hours to read and understand a
typical set of rules, and to begin to get "feel" for them, and even
that is no substitute for actually playing a game or two with the rules.
On another note, with rules being "intellectual property", like software
- software often has "demo" versions available, or 30-day trial
versions.
So, what I am getting at is - if someone photocopies a set of rules
PURELY to try them out as part of their decision whether to buy them or
not, surely that can be regarded as the equivalent of a "test-drive" or
"trial-version". After all, would you buy a car without trying it out
first?
--
Ricky Walker
Dustin Laurence
patri...@aol.com (PatriCarro) writes:
> An Avalon Hill classic was like Risk or Stratego--a game that would
>remain largely unchanged, stand the test of time, and provide enjoyment to
>generations of wargamers.
Fine. I agree, but I think it means the opposite of what you think it
means. I already owned Risk and Stratego, and I didn't care for more.
I'll happily stipulate that SPI didn't publish good family games. And
frankly, the AH classics would not have kept me in the hobby. I'd
have bought a few and probably that would have been it. There are
advantages to the situation you describe, but you have to acknowledge
the severe disadvantages.
> An SPI game, in contrast, was something to tear out of the magazine,
>play once if you had enough interest in the topic, and then put on a shelf
>forevermore.
SPI published non-magazine games, you know. In any case, you must be
the only wargamer on the planet to think that SPI only, or even
predominantly, published cheap one-play games; you are certainly the
only one I've ever met who feels the way you do about their impact on
the hobby.
> SPI turned something potentially stable and permanent into something
>cheap and ephemeral.
I don't think I could possibly disagree more. SPI singlehandedly
invented the modern hobby. Without them, every wargame would probably
be a the same game, same rules, with a bit of extra chrome, and
something I wouldn't take very seriously. Which I find interesting,
since you say you find board games hard to take seriously and yet
yearn for the simplest and least-justified games. I'd say it would be
like there being no miniatures games except for Kriegspiel, except I'm
pretty sure Kriegspiel would be more satisfying than nothing but a few
AH 'classics'.
You pine for a different hobby, one I'm not terribly interested in.
>...Just when I was hoping Avalon Hill wargames would
>evolve in physical quality (i.e., maybe acquire wooden or plastic playing
>pieces like most board games), SPI came along with the unmounted mapsheet.
> A metaphor for everything SPI stood for.
Yes, but again in the opposite of the way you imply. To support the
kinds of economics that could produce games like that, the games would
have to evolve further in the direction of family games. Form over
content. Basically, SPI and the third-world publishers chose content
over form. If you actually prefer the former, you're welcome to it,
but I'm not going to spend much money in that direction. It is indeed
a metaphor.
The fact is, at least at present the maps are the most expensive part
of a wargame even unmounted (I got that from one of the current
third-world publishers, BTW), so the premium on mounting them must be
quite high. Finally, I hate to tell you this but I now *prefer*
unmounted mapboards, because I have a much better system that doesn't
work as well with mounted ones. I lay a sheet of 1/8" acrylic over
the mapboard--this fixes the principal disadvantage of unmounted
boards, the pieces sliding down the 'hills' caused by the creases. It
also protects the map from spills, lets you temporarily mark up the
map with china markers, the boards aren't so easy to flip over by
accident, and best of all the paper-acrylic coefficient of friction is
much higher than for paper-paper. The counters stay put like they
were glued down. I can also do this with mounted boards, and to a
lesser extent it does help to flatten out warped ones as it does with
paper, but they retain their greatest disadvantage--the seams are
huge, ugly, and often mismatched. It works so well I'm thinking of
ordering unmounted mapboards for my old AH games.
AH's better production values worked best when AH cherry-picked
other's games, upgraded the presentation (unless they ruined it by
tampering), and used their stronger distribution channels to sell a
good game to more people. Frankly, after starting the hobby that is
AH's principal contribution. Lest you think I'm a natural SPI snob, I
should point out that all my biases are in the opposite direction. I
started with AH, only knew AH, and in my early teens practically
worshipped the company. But I eventually grew up and learned better.
I have lots of fond feelings for AH, but after the first few years
(long before my time) they were imitators.
>...A wargame might
>show what the battlefield looked like and where the contending armies
>started out--and it might give some rough indication of how far the units
>could have moved within a given period of time--but that's about it. All
>the rest is based as much on conjecture as research, and the overall
>presentation is almost always ludicrous.
I disagree (big surprise). Regular historians conjecture, too, they
just aren't as obvious because they don't have to put their ideas in
as concrete and testable a form as a wargame. The quality of the
conjecture is dependent on the talent and knowledge of the designer,
not on some magical property of wargames. Extra compromises are
certainly made in putting it into a game format, but that format also
lends itself to more thorough evaluation.
And as I recall the OOB of the Thirty Years War Quad has been cited by
professional historians and has been refered to as the most accurate
OOB in English. I can't say if the latter is true, but I believe I
know where to find a historian citing the TYW Quad.
> To me, a wargame is a device for having fun playing at war.
^^^^^
This is the operative phrase, here, methinks.
>...When you
>look to it as a "serious tool," you need to scrutinize it to the point
>where you're no longer having fun with it.
If you are unable to have fun under these conditions, I can understand
your dislike of SPI, but many of us can.
>...And unless you work for the
>military, you ought to ask yourself why you'd want to do that.
Surely you have experienced the joy of learning? Some of us, at
least, consider that to be at least as enjoyable as anything else.
I've heard this argument before, and pardon me for saying it makes no
more sense than the first time I heard it. I could say the same thing
about the military history you say you enjoy: "To me reading militaria
is about having fun reading about war. That's why I only read
military adventure novels; when you read actual history you need to
scrutinize it to the point where you're no longer having fun reading
it. And unless you work for the military, you ought to ask yourself
why you'd want to do that.
Or, if you prefer, you could say the same thing about studying
physics. Which I'm getting a PhD in because it is so enjoyable. Or
mathematics. Or music, which done seriously is tremendous work. Or
professional sports, which according to your argument can't be enjoyed
by the athletes given how 'serious' they train. This list is pretty
much unbounded, so I'll quit now, but as far as I can see neither of
your propositions hold water.
Saying you don't enjoy it is perfectly fine, I happen to be completely
uninterested in spectator sports and wouldn't be sorry if they all
vanished tomorrow. But to say that I should examine my motives (the
usual meaning in this context being something like 'seek professional
help') is silly. I would want to do that because (1) it is fun, like
it or not, (2) learning is intrinsically fun, even when the process is
hard work (as it so often is), and (3) games by their nature invite a
different, profitable kind of thinking about the subject than prose.
I'd even guess, though only you could really know, that in
'unlearning' what you learned from wargames, you probably got more out
of your historical reading *because* you had a very different,
process-oriented presentation to critique.
What you are arguing on all these different points seems consistent
with a single theme, so would it be fair to re-state your desire for a
'lingua franca' set of miniatures rules (I think that's a more
accurate statement than 'One Set To Rule Them All) is that you would
like a miniatures equivalent to, say Afrika Korps?
If so, I'd really like to know why, if for miniatures you only want a
'lingua franca' set *in addition* to all the other sets out there,
then why do you bemoan the very existence company which paved the way
for the board equivalent of all the other sets, wishing that we'd been
left with *only* the lingua franca set (in miniatures terms, all the
old AH 'classics' are a single set of rules with different terrain and
some scenario-specific rules)? Why can't you be as generous to board
gaming and be happy that you can still buy Afrika Korps while I can
still go buy SPQR, an excellent game which I'm extremely confident
could never have existed without SPI and would never have been
invented by AH alone (yes I think I can back that statement up quite
well)?
Dustin
PS: I've re-subjected this thread and directed followups to
rec.games.board, since it seems to have mutated into something more
within their charter (I'm guessing the SPI thread will attract more
followups than the lingua franca stuff). Really the 'lingua franca'
rules aspect should stay in r.g.m.h, but since you seem to have
consistent preferences and opinions that cover both sub-topics (that
is a compliment, by the way) it seems a bit of a same to split them
up.
John Kovalic
I suppose one reason photocopying rules hasn't gotten my ire up in this
thread is that my group just doesn't do it. In fact, the last time I ever
saw somebody photocopy rules was 17 years ago, in high school.
I mean, I tend to buy rules my group is using, even though it means I end
up with a dozen sets that I may well never read again (even though Empire
*does* look nice on the shelf (grin)). But -- in our group -- one player
tend to have ALL the figs for a certain period, and he'll have the rules
as well. Everyone else just comes to play.
Do other people see a lot of photocopied rules?
PatriCarro
>I suppose one reason photocopying rules hasn't gotten my ire up in this
>thread is that my group just doesn't do it.
If photocopying rules was the real issue here, it wouldn't be worth
discussing even if it were being done by a lot of folks. It's like
discussing jaywalking or speeding--there are laws against these things, but
people routinely break those laws and everybody knows it, and life goes on
just fine.
The real issue is twofold: (1) personal honor, and (2) attitude
toward the wargaming community or hobby as a whole.
The question of personal honor & integrity is--well, personal. Most
of us think it's something to be valued, but this probably isn't the best
forum for discussing ethics, morals, or religion.
The attitude toward the wargaming community & hobby, however, seems
like a suitable topic. And what attitude is being demonstrated when
someone just photocopies a set of rules (or downloads a free set, or
sketches out rules of his own)? That wargaming is just a set of
expedients. You arrange your figures on the tabletop, and then you need
some way to regulate movement and combat, so you just make stuff up, or
copy it, or download it, or whatever.
You can do this and have fun doing it. But this ad hoc approach to
wargaming is (imho) what keeps wargaming from being a solid hobby. Does a
woodworker just start sawing and hammering when he sets out to make a
cabinet? No, he starts out with a clear plan, a detailed drawing--and
probably a plan that he found in a published book of plans. Does a serious
stamp collector just randomly tear off stamps and put them in a scrapbook?
No, he stays abreast of what's available by studying publications, and then
he collects specific sets of stamps to fill out his particular interests;
and he mounts those stamps in accordance with procedures that will make a
nice display and preserve his collection.
To me, the problem with photocopying is just that it indicates the
attitude: "Oh, I don't care what the rules look like or who published
them, or if anybody else plays by these rules, or if they stay in print or
whatever. I just wanna get my toy soldiers onto the tabletop and do
something fun with them." And because of this attitude, the rules are not
widely used, don't stay in print, and are eventually tossed onto the
growing pile of ad hoc, home-brewed, occasionally referenced paperwork--the
chaotic mass of stuff collectively known as the wargaming hobby.
And out of this great compost heap of wargaming material, creative
wargamers are always pulling up "new" ideas and producing their own rules
sets--oblivious to the fact that in most cases they're just reinventing
what someone else had already published long before.
I think a good alternative to this approach would be to give each
published ruleset some serious consideration, help keep the best ones in
print, and support the best published rules by using them as they're
written and encouraging others to use them as well. And by sending
suggestions to the publisher on how the rules might be revised to make them
even better.
Just imagine how impressed a newcomer to ACW miniatures gaming would
be if his mentor could truthfully say, "Fire & Fury has been accepted as
*the* set of ACW rules for twenty years now. There are others, but this is
the standard, and it looks like it will be the standard for a long time to
come." That makes the wargaming hobby sound pretty solid and stable. The
newcomer will feel he's getting into something that may bring him a
lifetime of enjoyment.
Contrast that with "Well, I've got these photocopied pages from 'Fire
& Fury,' but I've changed some of the rules and added elements from some
other rulesets too. And that's what my friends and I use, so if you wanna
join our group, you'll hafta use these rules too." Here the newcomer feels
he's about to learn something he'll only be able to use as long as he
continues to associate with this small group of wargamers. Furthermore, if
most groups do this sort of thing, "Fire & Fury" eventually goes out of
print for lack of interest.
In short, showing respect for the worthwhile material that has been
published helps support the wargaming community and hobby as a whole.
David Holmes
In article <19970828145...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patri...@aol.com (PatriCarro) wrote:
Preliminaries snipped
> The attitude toward the wargaming community & hobby, however, seems
>like a suitable topic. And what attitude is being demonstrated when
>someone just photocopies a set of rules (or downloads a free set, or
>sketches out rules of his own)? That wargaming is just a set of
>expedients. You arrange your figures on the tabletop, and then you need
>some way to regulate movement and combat, so you just make stuff up, or
>copy it, or download it, or whatever.
Heaven forbid that someone should find a set of rules that they like with a
few flaws they'd like to correct. And no one should ever dream of coming up
with rules on their own. Wait a minute, isn't that what a rules designer
does? They should all be shot for ruining the hobby.
> You can do this and have fun doing it. But this ad hoc approach to
>wargaming is (imho) what keeps wargaming from being a solid hobby. Does a
>woodworker just start sawing and hammering when he sets out to make a
>cabinet? No, he starts out with a clear plan, a detailed drawing--and
>probably a plan that he found in a published book of plans. Does a serious
>stamp collector just randomly tear off stamps and put them in a scrapbook?
>No, he stays abreast of what's available by studying publications, and then
>he collects specific sets of stamps to fill out his particular interests;
>and he mounts those stamps in accordance with procedures that will make a
>nice display and preserve his collection.
So what you're saying is that woodworkers do not design their own cabinets.
They only reproduce those plans which have been handed down from some arcane
tome from generation to generation.
> To me, the problem with photocopying is just that it indicates the
>attitude: "Oh, I don't care what the rules look like or who published
>them, or if anybody else plays by these rules, or if they stay in print or
>whatever. I just wanna get my toy soldiers onto the tabletop and do
>something fun with them." And because of this attitude, the rules are not
>widely used, don't stay in print, and are eventually tossed onto the
>growing pile of ad hoc, home-brewed, occasionally referenced paperwork--the
>chaotic mass of stuff collectively known as the wargaming hobby.
No, the problem with photocopying is that it is unlawful reporoduction of
copyrighted material.
> And out of this great compost heap of wargaming material, creative
>wargamers are always pulling up "new" ideas and producing their own rules
>sets--oblivious to the fact that in most cases they're just reinventing
>what someone else had already published long before.
I think we should never let creative people into the hobby. They'll just muck
around and come up with improvements or better rule sets and foul up our nice
white-bread lives.
> I think a good alternative to this approach would be to give each
>published ruleset some serious consideration, help keep the best ones in
>print, and support the best published rules by using them as they're
>written and encouraging others to use them as well. And by sending
>suggestions to the publisher on how the rules might be revised to make them
>even better.
And who would decide which rule set gets to be the standard. I kind of
figured that was done when a majority of players determined that they liked
one set of rules better than the others and were able to convince a
considerable number of other players that they were right.
> Just imagine how impressed a newcomer to ACW miniatures gaming would
>be if his mentor could truthfully say, "Fire & Fury has been accepted as
>*the* set of ACW rules for twenty years now. There are others, but this is
>the standard, and it looks like it will be the standard for a long time to
>come." That makes the wargaming hobby sound pretty solid and stable. The
>newcomer will feel he's getting into something that may bring him a
>lifetime of enjoyment.
And what if I think F&F has some rough spots. Too bad for me, I guess.
> Contrast that with "Well, I've got these photocopied pages from 'Fire
>& Fury,' but I've changed some of the rules and added elements from some
>other rulesets too. And that's what my friends and I use, so if you wanna
>join our group, you'll hafta use these rules too." Here the newcomer feels
>he's about to learn something he'll only be able to use as long as he
>continues to associate with this small group of wargamers. Furthermore, if
>most groups do this sort of thing, "Fire & Fury" eventually goes out of
>print for lack of interest.
Hey, I've got an idea. We should require all gamers to buy some drab gray
coveralls from a common supplier. Then, whenever we had a convention,
everyone would be wearing the same clothes so as not to confuse the newcomers.
> In short, showing respect for the worthwhile material that has been
>published helps support the wargaming community and hobby as a whole.
>
Sorry, I don't buy it.
David Holmes
rjone...@aol.com
This thread has certainly been a rich one! And the obvious strength of
conviction behind each opinion is very apparent.
The last two notes from Patronius(AKA Pat Carroll) and David Holmes struck
another chord with me; How this hobby is made up of people who expect different
"pay-offs" from the hobby.
Some seek standardization of rules and playing conditions; some want unfettered
individualism and choice; some want very detailed rule constructs that deal with
arcane factoids of drill, minute differences in armor plate, and to limit game
outcomes strictly to historical precedents; Others are more interested in
entertainment values, are willing to abstract to a greater degree, and are quite
comfortable with outcomes that fall within defined parameters for a period, but
are not restricted to exact historical precedents.
Great arguments rage between those that think figure scale dictates ground
scale, and those for whom that is a non-issue. 6mm or 54mm, which is superior?
We all know that answer!
Advocates for one history or another will trumpet that Nosworthy puts the bosh
to Oman; Keegan supercedes Chandler, and Foote is truth-McPherson false-or is it
the other way around?
There are those that just want to roll a six; and those who feel that reality
lies in consulting seven tables and rolling four dice three diffrent times for
musket fire resolution.
The only truth is that all of these gamers are absolutely correct in their
opinion. But, they are like the seven blind men each of whom touches a part of
an elephant-one, holding the tail, declares an elephant resembles a snake;
another touches a leg an opines the animal is more like a tree, etc. All seven
are right, and all seven are wrong-because they are 'blind' to the other parts
of the elephant.
There is much to be gained by strong spokespersons extolling one set of rules
versus another; one figure line versus another; and one period versus another.
By listening to the strongest advocates argue their opinions we can come to a
better understanding of where our individual beliefs may lie.
But absolute truth? Better to seek the Seven Cities of Cibola or Shangri-La.
The central mirage of one more historical fact, one more re-draft of the rules,
trying one more new figure line, being the route to a wargamer's "heaven" is one
that will keep many of us moving slowly across Desert of Dissatisfaction, but we
are fools to expect the "pay-off" we desire-We forget that it is the JOURNEY of
new knowledge, fun games, and great friendships-not the destination of the
ultimate figure line, rules set, or history book that is important. Don't
forget to smell the tiny 2mm flowers- and to remember we argue opinions, but we
share a hobby.
O.K. ring the bell-and come out swinging! And damned be he that challenges MY
opinions!
BJ
Douglas Rockwell
Rickey brought up the concept of "trying before you buy" for autos...
Which brings to my mind a new point -- at what price must a manufacturer
expect that consumers will require some sort of 'test drive' or 'money
back' or 'lease option' before they are willing to risk their money?
Used to be that published rules themselves were just photocopies with a
thick cover and cost under $10. Nowadays, they cost an average of $20 and
I guess Piquet leads the pack at, what, over $60 if you don't happen to
play the period included in the base set.
-- Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes
Raz...@aol.com
In article <muskrat-2708...@shetland.msn.fullfeed.com>,
mus...@msn.fullfeed.com (John Kovalic) wrote:
> I mean, I tend to buy rules my group is using, even though it means I end
> up with a dozen sets that I may well never read again (even though Empire
> *does* look nice on the shelf (grin)). But -- in our group -- one player
> tend to have ALL the figs for a certain period, and he'll have the rules
> as well. Everyone else just comes to play.
>
> Do other people see a lot of photocopied rules?
>
> John Kovalic
Now days most I play with can afford the rules and associated tables. At
times we will copy a set to try them out. Usually we will then buy a
copy if we intend to play the game for any length of time. This we have
done with DBA and DBR and dirtside II. I am currently trying to purchase
a set for DBA/DBR and have a purchased copy of Dirtside. I like to check
out a game system before I invest - then if interested I get a real copy.
I have noticed many others doing the same. In this case the act of
photocopy increases sales!
My own rule system for Napoleonics is free to all who can handle it.
Since marketing rules to miniatures is at best a break even event,
selling is not in my designs. Especially since the game system is not
all that complete and the program has a few bugs (like printers may not
like my special codes!!).
The market for miniatures rules is very small and highly competative -
this makes it very difficult to make much on developing or selling rules.
I do not appreciate those who photocopy all rules because it does
further degrade the market. This results in fewer and lesser quality
rule sets developed.
DBA/DBR for example are good and playable rule sets - yet they are
limited as to their realizm ad attention to historical detail. They are
fun to play and do give the flavor of the periods represented. Yet I
wonder if they could (or would) be better if the profit margin could be
improved. If the act of photocopying reduces quality I'm opposed to it.
Note also that profit is one aspect. I have also noted that most
miniature players are not all that interested in extreme detail in the
game system. DBR/DBA fit that scope. For me it limits one aspect of this
hobby - that of historical accuracy. The games are short and very
enjoyable - serving a good purpose - relaxation and recreation. However
I'd like to see more exacting simulation designs that allow one to better
understand the historical details of a period. Trouble is we have so
little time to sit and play a game, the needs of accuracy are in direct
conflict with this limit on time. Oh well....
Rich Raspenti
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
RJones7228
Tgrock wrote,
>I guess Piquet leads the pack at, what, over $60 if you >don't happen to
>play the period included in the base set.
Piquet is available for $39.95 for the Ancient, Napoleonic, ACW, and WWII
periods (all the major ones); each contains a set of six dice, a plastic
movement caliper, impetus clock, 3 decks of cards exceeding 200 cards
total, two bags of metal markers, 2-4 player aid cards, a 40 page core rule
set, and a 12-30 page supplement-all boxed. All supplements contain 2
decks of cards (130-160 total cards) 2-4 player aid cards, and a 12-30 page
supplement -all boxed for $19.95. Supplements are available for Colonial,
and the 18th century, plus all of the above periods.
For comparison purposes, DBM with all the necessary books is about $50.
Quite apart from its very original approach, I feel the Piquet rules are a
real value for the money.
Two nights at a feature film, plus popcorn is $40; Two seats at a Bronco
Football game are $76-beer, etc, extra;
Two bags of25mm Old Glory Figures are $40. The first two are over in
one sitting, the last is worthless without additional paints, time, and a
good set of rules. A good set of rules can give years of entertainment;
even at current prices all rulesets are the true bargains of the hobby.
BJ
Douglas Rockwell
Bob noticed:
Some seek standardization of rules and playing conditions; some want
unfettered
individualism and choice; some want very detailed rule constructs that
deal with
arcane factoids of drill, minute differences in armor plate, and to limit
game
outcomes strictly to historical precedents; Others are more interested in
entertainment values, are willing to abstract to a greater degree, and are
>
Actually I want ALL of these things. Fortunately, so far I don't want
contradictory ones at the same time. When that happens I'll either got
the rubber room or achieve Kreigspeil Enlightenment!
*)
PatriCarro
>If you exclude legal and ethical issues, then of course the answer is
>"No, photocopying the rules dosn't adversly affect the hobby."
Then there's nothing to my belief that a good-looking rulebook adds a
certain something to the hobby?
Years ago, I sent away for a set of FPW rules, and what I got back
was a few stapled mimeographed pages. At the time, I was glad to have the
rules anyway, because they were the only FPW rules in existence as far as I
knew. But a part of me was disappointed that the rules were physically so
cheap & informal.
More recently, I've bought rulebooks like "Fire & Fury" and "Fields
of Honor." In these cases, one glance at the cover made me say to myself,
"Wow! This is impressive." And as I thumbed through the rulebooks, I was
further impressed, to the point where I finally felt, "This is solid! This
is not just another flash in the pan; it's something that will be around
for a long, long time. It's well worth the time and effort it'll take to
get into it." I don't think I'd have felt that way if someone had handed
me a few photocopied pages and said, "Here's all the important stuff; the
rest of the rulebook is just glitter."
Photocopying may not *substantially* affect the hobby in an adverse way.
But I think it does *psychologically* affect it.
But then again, I'm always more impressed with computer games which have
spawned strategy guides too--even though some of the strategy guides aren't
of much practical value. The very fact that there is a strategy guide
available for "Panzer General" makes that seem like a more solid game than
"Age of Rifles" (which does not have a strategy guide but is probably a
more solid game, in fact, than PG).
Ray
Yeccch! Who wants the same old rules for miniatures.
Each rules set brings the author's unique view of the world through his or her
eyes. Each rules set helps us to view history from a differnt angle.
Why campaign for a single set of core miniatures rules? The hobby is much
richer without one.
Tony Barr
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 06:34:36 -0700, nuk...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> 15mm infantry - 1 per stand of 1" by .75" as Class A
> 15mm infantry - 4 per stand of 1" by 1.5" as Class B
> etc.
This is all well and good, but most of the world uses the metric
system. If HMGS can sort that pot of worms out I will be most
impressed :)
Tony
1.74m tall in my stocking feet.
--
Tony Barr
Secretary, Humberside Wargames Society, Hull, England.
Web page at: http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/1thewoodlands/HWS.html
DBM page at: http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/1thewoodlands/DBx.html
Chipco page: http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/1thewoodlands/Chipco.html
Bill Lee
In article <19970904192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jmeun...@aol.com (JMeun18203) wrote:
> >This is all well and good, but most of the world uses the metric
> >system. If HMGS can sort that pot of worms out I will be most
> >impressed :)
>
> Why don't we just junk the metric system? Sounds like an All-American
> solution to me.
> John
What you don't know John, is that your All-American inch is *defined* by
the metric system: 1 inch = 25.4 mm. Without the metric system, you
would have to go back to defining your inch with a standard measure, like
a number of "standard" grains laid end to end.
Bill Lee
--
Unless specifically noted, the contents of this message are not endorsed by my employer.
P. R. Lund
Bill Lee <bil...@asia.apple.com> wrote in article
<billlee-0609...@17.82.147.87>...
>
> In article <19970904192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> jmeun...@aol.com (JMeun18203) wrote:
>
> > >This is all well and good, but most of the world uses the metric
> > >system. If HMGS can sort that pot of worms out I will be most
> > >impressed :)
> >
> > Why don't we just junk the metric system? Sounds like an All-American
> > solution to me.
> > John
>
> What you don't know John, is that your All-American inch is *defined* by
> the metric system: 1 inch = 25.4 mm. Without the metric system, you
> would have to go back to defining your inch with a standard measure, like
> a number of "standard" grains laid end to end.
>
> Bill Lee
>
And how is the metric system defined? Is it also not based on a standard
measure?
David G. Bell
In article <01bcbbb5$eaf91b80$11358acd@default>
Length and time are derived from measurements of wavelength and
frequency of light generated by specified transitions between atomic
energy-states, which can in turn be replicated in any suitably-equipped
laboratory.
I'm not sure of the definition of mass. Last I heard, that still traced
back to a block of metal in Paris, but things may have changed.
Some of the older metric systems did define mass in terms of the mass of
a known volume of pure water at a specified temperature, again a
definition replicable in a well-equipped laboratory but dependent on too
many variables for comfort.
Michael Childers
In article <01bcb926$f526fc80$2621accf@default>, "LTC Bill Gray"
<ltc...@erols.com> wrote:
> Concur, but I wish somehow we could come up whith a common basing scheme
> for each historical period.
The difficulty here is that ground/figure scales vary between games.
Therefore to get reasonably representative unit frontages you have to have
different basing. To make matters worse Scotty picked a bit of an odd
ground/figure (to good effect) scale for Empire. BTW Stars n' Bars doesn't
have the same ground/figure scale as Empire (sigh).
> I know a lot of rules say it doesn't matter how
> your troops are based, but my own experience can't support that claim.
Unfortunately, I think that you're correct, but you have to say that to at
least get people to try a new set of rules. If they think that they have
to rebase to try the rules, there is a real low probability that they'll
even buy the rules much less try them.
>
> Strangely enough, I kinda like the two rank infantry basing in NB - think
> it looks neat!
>
It does doen't it. I'm using 3 15mm fig on a 3/4in by 3/4in stand in 2
rows. That looks real good too. Good tight lines with some visual depth.
P. R. Lund
> > > What you don't know John, is that your All-American inch is *defined*
by
> > > the metric system: 1 inch = 25.4 mm. Without the metric system, you
> > > would have to go back to defining your inch with a standard measure,
like
> > > a number of "standard" grains laid end to end.
> > >
> > > Bill Lee
> > >
> > And how is the metric system defined? Is it also not based on a
standard
> > measure?
>
> Length and time are derived from measurements of wavelength and
> frequency of light generated by specified transitions between atomic
> energy-states, which can in turn be replicated in any suitably-equipped
> laboratory.
>
> I'm not sure of the definition of mass. Last I heard, that still traced
> back to a block of metal in Paris, but things may have changed.
>
> Some of the older metric systems did define mass in terms of the mass of
> a known volume of pure water at a specified temperature, again a
> definition replicable in a well-equipped laboratory but dependent on too
> many variables for comfort.
>
> --
Agree. My point to Mr. Lee is basically that any measurement, whether it
be the 'All-American Inch' or millimeter is relative to some 'standard'.
Measurement systems have come and gone over the centuries, but all have
been based on a some sort of known and accepted standard whether it was the
length of a man's forearm to the wavelength of light.
It is all relative....
Alan E & Carmel J Brain
Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
>
> The inch, being a much older unit of measurement, was not originally
> defined quite as scientifically:
>
> "Inch: An Imperial unit of Length, originally defined as three "average
> size" Barleycorns laid end-to-end."
..and now 2.540268 cm exactly, if memory serves.
And as for feet:
English Foot = 12.000 inches
Paris Foot = 12.788
Rhineland Foot = 12.362
Scots Foot = 12.065
Amsterdam Foot = 11.172
Danzig Foot = 11.297
Danish Foot = 12.463
Swedish Foot = 11.692
Brussels Foot = 10.828
Lyons Foot = 13.458
Bononian Foot = 14.938
Milan Foot = 15.631
etc etc ( Source: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1st edition)
Which is a marvellous source of information for the 18th century
generally, including ship-rigging, exterior ballistics, military science
and so on.
--
aeb...@dynamite.com.au <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
abr...@cs.adfa.oz.au o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo
By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
Phillip S. Myers
In article <michaelc-070...@hsh15-36.flash.net>,
>The difficulty here is that ground/figure scales vary between games.
>Therefore to get reasonably representative unit frontages you have
to have
>different basing. To make matters worse Scotty picked a bit of an
odd
>ground/figure (to good effect) scale for Empire. BTW Stars n' Bars
doesn't
>have the same ground/figure scale as Empire (sigh).
Actually they do have the same ground scale, and the figure scale is
2/3 of empire so that 3 figs=120 men=1" is just like the Empire brits
2 figs=120 men=1", the 4 and 5 fig stands are a bit weird tho,
especially when a 9 fig unit (3 per stand)is half again as wide as a
10 fig unit (5 per stand) I think the stand size was probably to
make it compatable with 1st ed Johnny reb, which was a good idea,
adopted by fire and fury as well
Phil
Mark Crowder
P. R. Lund asked:
> And how is the metric system defined? Is it also not based on a standard
> measure?
My understanding is that the metric unit of length was originally
supposed a fraction of the distance from North Pole to the Equator
on the Paris meridian. It was then defined as a distance on a metal
bar. The most recent definition is that it is the distance travelled by
light in a vacuum in certain fraction of a second, which in turn is
based upon some fixed period in atomic physics (transition states of
an electron?)
Hope this helps
Mark Crowder