Wargaming and the 'cult of prettiness': Some thoughts and questions

The comment made by John Treadaway as an aside to the review of the Fourth Portable Wargame Compendium that was published in the August issue of MINIATURE WARGAMES really got under my skin ... and what follows are some thoughts about what I think of as the cult of prettiness' in wargaming.

First, some personal history …

I bought my first metal wargame figures (20mm Crimean War infantry and cavalry) from Hinton Hunt in 1968. I painted them with the only model paints that were available to me back then ... Humbrol gloss enamel paint! To be honest, they were pretty awful ... but I still have them although they now live in storage.

My next figures were Miniature Figurine Prussian Napoleonic infantry, and these were painted with Humbrol matt enamel paint ... and were far more presentable (I had developed some skill with a paintbrush by then!). In fact, I am still using them although they have now been given a coat of gloss varnish to protect them from damage.

All these figures had bases that were painted green and the Hinton Hunt figures were glued to balsa wood unit bases. My rules were based on those written by Donald Featherstone (WAR GAMES) and Brigadier Peter Young and Colonel James Lawford (CHARGE!) although over time I did buy other rule books … which were almost universally produced in small batches and sold with simple card covers. If they had illustrations, these card-covered rule books had line drawings – possibly including one on the cover – and diagrams.

The first wargame magazine I bought was MINIATURE WARFARE … and after the first few issues, that had some colour printed on the cover but only ever included monochrome photographs.

The cover of the third issue of MINIATURE WARFARE (April 1968).

It was not until the late Duncan MacFarlane edited and published the first issue of MINIATURE WARGAMES in 1983 that colour photographs became the norm in wargame magazines … and from that day onward, I feel that the invidious 'cult of prettiness' began to creep into the hobby.

The cover of the first issue of MINIATURE WARGAMES (March 1983).

Some people in the hobby seemed very keen to get photographs of their figures and terrain – often on display at shows around the country – published in magazines … and I in no way condemn this as I enjoy seeing other people’s wargame stuff in use. However, over time this appeared to have a deleterious effect on some of the wargames one saw at shows, with more and more seemingly becoming dioramas on which figures occasionally moved. Alongside them were other games that were played on simpler terrain and simple rules, and these often attracted participants rather than spectators.

I well remember attending a major wargame show in London twenty years ago (It was SALUTE!) and overhearing members of the ‘best in show’ judging team say – as they passed the participation game I was running – that my game was all right for a club night, but really wasn’t what they wanted to see at such a prestigious wargame show. The game attracted over thirty players during the course of the day; the ‘best in show’ had no participants as it was classed as a demonstration wargame (i.e. members of the club staging the game were the only people allowed to take part)

I therefore pose the following question … which of these two games generated more fun and enjoyment? I leave the answer up to you, the reader of this blog post.

Now, regular blog readers will know that I follow the BUDGET MODEL RAILWAYS channel on YouTube. Its creator is an ex-wargamer who now builds model railways as cheaply as he can, and several times he has said something about railway modelling that is equally applicable to our hobby. He has identified a trend among some railway modellers to collect locomotives, rolling stock, buildings etc., for a grand project that they plan to undertake when they retire … and that they never manage to achieve. He advocates building and using small layouts – some of which are capable of expansion at a later date – rather than waiting until you’ve got time to build your grand project.

Isn’t there a similar phenomenon in wargaming? How many wargamers plan for years to fight some massive battles using beautifully painted figures on sculpted terrain in their dedicated wargame room … and never actually manage it? It’s a wonderful dream … but that dream can easily become a nightmare that absorbs large amounts of time and money. Wouldn’t it be better for them to spend that time and money fighting smaller wargames and having fun?

There are some wargamers who do achieve their ambition to build up large collections of beautifully painted figures that they can use on wonderful terrain in their wargame room … but I wonder if the 'cult of prettiness' has rather given the impression to many wargamers that this is THE ideal they should be aiming for? If so, is that actually putting some of them off the hobby?

Again, I leave the answers up to you, dear blog reader.

When I look at the list of wargame blogs that I follow, I am struck by several thoughts. Firstly, that the hobby is a wide church and has room for a wide spectrum of wargamers, ranging from people who wargame with superb figures on magnificent terrain to those who use homemade cardboard counters or wooden blocks on a hand-drawn terrain map. Secondly, that a fun but scruffy-looking wargame that uses simple rules will always be preferable to a pretty-looking wargame that is tedious and/or boring to take part in. Thirdly, that some wargamers need to be a bit more realistic in their aspirations and fight wargames that they have the time and finances to achieve and not to aim for the unattainable.

Interestingly, there is one sector of the hobby where I've seen players having lots of fun using small numbers of well-painted figures on excellent terrain ... and in this instance, I'm not referring to those wargamers who are using THE PORTABLE WARGAME, ONE-HOUR WARGAME, or DOMINION OF ... , DE BELLIS ANTIQUITATIS, or  HORDES OF THE THINGS rules!

The wargamers I am thinking about are those who are fighting skirmish-level battles and Fantasy/Science Fiction/Role-Play games. Until recently, I never seriously looked at these sorts of games, but joining a local games club made me reassess my attitude to them ... and I realised that I had – through my ignorance and some degree of historical wargaming snobbery – been misjudging this style of games.

So, has the 'cult of prettiness' gone some way toward creating an ideal within the hobby that is actually counter-productive to its long-term viability ... and is there a significant movement within the hobby that is moderating or ignoring its influence?

Finally, I leave the answer to that question up to my regular blog readers.

Model railways, mini-campaigns ... and the ghost of an idea

Looking at the map of the Fiddletown & Copperopolis Railway ...

... I was struck by the similarity to the sort of maps found in Donald Featherstone's book, WAR GAME CAMPAIGNS. This set me thinking ... and I remembered the 'Long Live The Revolution!' mini-campaign that I included in my book, DEVELOPING THE PORTABLE WARGAME.

The campaign was a linear one and players moved backwards and forwards from one map to another, thus:

Regional Capital

Provincial Capital

Railway Station

Capital City

Now, the last two maps had railways of them, and it would not be that difficult to add some railway track to the others. I could easily build four small, self-contained baseboards (in the style of those featured in the Budget Model Railway Challenge) that I could then use to fight a mini-campaign on, based on the 'Long Live The Revolution!' one ... and I could also connect all four together to create a small model railway.

I don't know if anything will come of this idea ... but it is certainly an interesting mini-campaign to think about!

Going off at a tangent

Until Saturday morning, my wargaming life was bimbling* along quite nicely. I was working – albeit at a leisurely pace – on several projects. These included:

• The working draft of my Portable Belle Époque Wargame project.
• Assembling the figures for a couple more armies for my Belle Époque project.
• Writing an article about the development of warships between 1800 and 1920.
• My ongoing American Civil War campaign.
• My weekly role-playing sessions.

So, what happened on Saturday morning?

I opened a cupboard in my toy/wargame room ... and found something that I thought was in storage.

It was the printed copies of first ten years of my blog posts.

Now, many of my regular blog readers might not be aware that way back in 2018 I decided to have the text of my blog posts printed and bound in hardback format. I did this because I was afraid that if Blogger was ever to close down, I would not have a copy of what I had written. I have not had the last eight years of blog posts printed or bound ... but its something that I really need to think about ... just in case.

So, how did this discovery cause me to go off at a tangent?

I made the mistake of opening the first volume of my printed blog posts ... and immediately began to read it. Back then, my blog posts were about the then recently published reprint of Donald Featherstone's WAR GAMES by the History of Wargaming Project and its impact on my RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES (TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED) rules. In fact, between 20th September 2008 and 21st October 2008 I wrote eight blog posts about the rules and my play-tests as well as four about the Colonial version, which was entitled REDCOATS AND NATIVES (TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED).

Looking at the rules now (and the former are available online and in the History of Wargaming Project's reprint of Donald Featherstone's WARGAMING AIRBORNE OPERATIONS), I am struck by how much fun they were to wargame with. I was also struck by the fact that they could do with a bit of updating and improving because since I wrote them, I've had a lot more experience in writing wargame rules and developing slicker – and hopefully better – game mechanisms.

So, I now have another project to add to my growing list ... and I can see myself having a bit of fun tinkering with these rules and even pushing a few figures and tanks around on a tabletop!

---

Here are some images from the play-tests of my RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES (TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED) ...

... and REDCOATS AND NATIVES (TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED) rules.

I hope that they convey how much fun I had ... and how few figures etc., I needed to enjoy myself! Sometimes, less is more!

---

* For those of you who have never come across this verb before, it is defined as being 'to walk or travel at a leisurely pace.'

The Battle of Scrobbesburh: The rules

In the recent wargame I fought with Richard Watson, I used a set of rules that were heavily based on Donald Featherstone's Ancient rules.

---

FEATHERSTONE-STYLE VIKING & ANGLO-SAXON WARGAME RULES

1. SCALES AND UNITS

• Ground scale: 1" = 20 yards.
• Time scale: 1 turn = 5 to10 minutes.
• Units:
• Huscarls: 12 to 16 figures.
• Fyrd/Bondi: 16 to 20 figures.
• Archers: 8 to12 figures.
• Skirmishers: 6 to 8 figures.

2. TURN SEQUENCE

1. Movement.
2. Missile Fire.
3. Melee (Both sides take part).
4. Morale.
5. Repeat for other side.

3. MOVEMENT

• Armoured Infantry: 4”.
• Shieldwall Infantry: 3" (Cannot charge).
• Unarmoured Infantry: 6".
• Archers/Skirmishers: 8".
• Cavalry: 10".
• Routing units: 10”.
• Charge: +2” (Must roll 3 or more on a D6).

4. MISSILE FIRE

• 1D6 per 2 firing figures.
• Archery Short Range (6”): Score of 5 or 6 hits.
• Archery Long Range (12”): Score of 6 hits.
• Spear (3”): Score of 6 hits.
• -1 against shieldwall.
• 1 hit removes 1 figure.

5. MELEE

• 1D6 per 3 figures.
• Modifiers:
• +2 Huscarls.
• +1 Shieldwall (in defence).
• +1 Charge.
• +1 Uphill.
• +2 Flank/Rear.
• -1 Disordered.
• Score of 5 or 6 hits.
• Every 2 hits = 1 casualty.
• Loser tests morale.

6. SHIELDWALL RULES

• Movement: 3".
• +1 defence.
• Missile fire against it: -1.
• Breaks if flanked, loses melee, or takes 25% casualties.

7. MORALE

• Test when losing melee, taking losses, or seeing routs.
• Rolls 2D6 + modifiers:
• +2 Huscarls.
• +1 Leader within 6”.
• +1 In shieldwall.
• -1 Fyrd.
• -1 At half strength.
• Results:
• Score is 10+: No effect.
• Score is 7 to 9: Unit cannot move next turn.
• Score is 6 or less: Unit routs and leaves the battlefield at 10” per turn.
• Rallying: Leader must join the unit and rolls 2D6.
• Results:
• Score is 8 or more: Unit rallies but cannot move next turn.
• Score is 7 or less: Unit cannot be rallied and continues to rout.

8. LEADERS

• +1 morale within 6"
• +1 melee if attached.
• Risk if unit loses melee by 3 hits. Rolls a D6:
• Results:
• Score is 1: Slain.
• Score is 2: Wounded and loses all bonuses.
• Score is 3 or more: Unharmed.

9. TERRAIN

• Woods: most troops disordered.
• Rough: -2" movement; no shieldwall can enter.
• Hills: +1 to defenders.

10. OPTIONAL RULES

• Berserkers:
• Move 8".
• +2 melee on first round.
• Rout if they lose melee.
• Fyrd:
• Morale –1.
• Need leader to charge.

---

It is worth noting that the battle was fought on a pair of Chessex Megamat 1" reversible blue-green squares vinyl mats. These measured 34½" x 48" and we set them up side-by-side, giving us a tabletop that was just under 6' x 4'. Using a grid meant that we didn't have to measure any distances during the game, which considerably speeded up play.

Did I get it right seventeen years ago? Or are my Mid-twentieth Century Portable Wargame rules better?

I began blogging on 18th September 2008 ... almost seventeen years ago.

My second blog post on this blog was about the recent republication of Donald Featherstone's WAR GAMES book by John Curry's 'History of Wargaming' Project and it inspired me to incorporate ideas and mechanisms from both Donald Featherstone’s and Lionel Tarr’s rules into my existing World War II rules, RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES. The resulting rules were named RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES – TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED, and John Curry incorporated them into the 'History of Wargaming' Project reprint of Donald Featherstone's WARGAMING AIRBORNE OPERATIONS. (The rules were slighty renamed TARRED AND FEATHERED at Donald Featherstone's request.

During my recent review of the wargaming rules that have influenced my World War II wargaming, I revisited RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES and RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES – TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED ... and then the battle reports I wrote about my playtests.

On reflection, this is the sort of wargame that I envisaged fighting using my Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War collection when I began this blog ... so I suppose that I might have got things right seventeen years ago ... and just 'forgotten' that I had!

On the other hand, the battles I fought using my mid-twentieth-century version of the PORTABLE WARGAME were also great fun, and perhaps the rules are better designed. I’m not sure … but I hope to have fun thinking about (and possibly experimenting with) which of these two to choose for my future Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War wargaming.

What wargame rules have influenced my World War II wargaming?

Whilst I was waiting for my wargaming mojo to return, I spent some time looking at the World War II wargame books on my shelves and thinking about how much they have influenced my World War II wargaming.

The first was Donald Featherstone's WAR GAMES ... and it was both his basic rules and Lionel Tarr's rules that I started using first.

My much battered copy of Donald Featherstone's WAR GAME. I do have a copy in much better condition and a copy of John Curry's reprint, but this volume has very fond memories for me.

In particular, the images of Lionel Tarr's Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War battle around Stalingrad ingrained themselves in my wargaming psyche and I still hanker to fight similar battles in my dotage!

The next was Charles Grant's BATTLE: PRACTICAL WARGAMING.

Once again, the battered cover of this book shows just how much usage it got in the years after I bought it.

The main text of this book had originally appeared as a series of articles in the long-defunct MECCANO MAGAZINE, and its influence on me was mainly the way in which Charles Grant organised his troops into units and sub-units and in his use of ROCO Minitanks. It is thanks to him that I have loads of T-34/85s and sWs half-tracks in my collection although most of them remain unpainted!

When it comes to showing how it was possible to model a whole variety of different military vehicles from the limited resources available at the time, John Sandar's AN INTRODUCTION TO WARGAMING stands head and shoulders above his contemporaries ... and his rules were bl**dy good as well!

Thanks to his influence, I have - over the years - converted all sorts of ROCO and Airfix military vehicles into something that I could not buy off-the-shelf ... as the recent photographs of my Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War collections show.

Some examples of John Sandar's vehicles, as featured in a book edited by Peter Young and entitled THE WAR GAME. The book was illustrated with photographs taken by Philip O Stearns.

I know that my old friend Chris Kemp (the designer of NQM or NOT QUITE MECHANISED) was also inspired by John Sandar's book, and his rules had a profound influence on my World War II wargaming. The original draft of the rules (which were originally titled PANZERBLITZ OR NOT QUITE MECHANISED) were quite literally drawn many years ago and I have followed their evolution and development ever since.

The cover of the very first edition of NQM. My copy was the first of only twenty!

The cover of the recently published edition of NQM.

NQM led indirectly to the development of Tim Gow's MEGABLITZ!, a set of rules that I had a small part in helping to develop.

I took part in many wargames using these excellent rules, and putting together armies for them led directly to the creation of my Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War collection.

A Megablitz battle that I staged at a wargame club in Norwich.

Finally, Frank Chadwick's COMMAND DECISION ...

... (and particularly his bathtub campaign book BARBAROSSA 25) ...

...made me realise that I could stage a large-scale Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War campaign if I felt so inclined.

---

Other books that deserve an honourable mentions include LIONEL TARR'S MODERN WARGAMING RULES 1939-1945 (as recently published by John Curry as part of his 'History of Wargaming' Project ...

... and Gavin Lyall's OPERATION WARBOARD.

---

WAR GAMES was written by Donald Featherstone and published in 1962 by Stanley Paul (ISBN 0 09 064901 X). It was republished in a revised edition in 2014 by the History of Wargaming Project (ISBN 978 1 2918 5142 7).

BATTLE: PRACTICAL WARGAMING was written by Charles Grant and published in 1970 by Model & Allied Publications Ltd/Argus Press Ltd.

AN INTRODUCTION TO WARGAMING was written by John Sandars and published in 1975 by Pelham Books Ltd. (ISBN 0 7207 0681 3).

NOT QUITE MECHANISED was written by Chris Kemp and published in 2024 by Lulu Inc. (ISBN 978 1 4452 7312 9).

MEGABLITZ! was written by Tim Gow and published in 2002 by Stratagem Publications.

COMMAND DECISION and BARBAROSSA 25 were written by Frank Chadwick and published in 1986 and 1988 respectively by Game Designers Workshop.

LIONEL TARR'S MODERN WARGAMING RULES 1939-1945 was compiled by John Curry and published in 2017 by The History of Wargaming Project (ISBN 978 1 3269 1498 1).

OPERATION WARBOARD was written by Gavin Lyall and published in 1976 by A&C Black (ISBN 0 7138 1646 6). It was republished in 2013 by the History of Wargaming Project (ISBN 978 1 2913 2352 8)

My first ever wargame article

I happened to be looking through my file of clippings when I came across a copy of the first ever wargame article that I wrote. It was published in issue No. 175 of the WARGAMER'S NEWSLETTER in October 1976, and was entitled BATTLE REPORT: THE BATTLE OF TAIPING ... and was a battle report about solo wargame set during the Sino-Japanese War.

I have reproduced this article below.

---

BATTLE REPORT

The Battle of Taiping

Preamble: This battle came about as a result of reading several books about the Sino-Japanese War. I possess a small Japanese Army based upon the Fujmi Japanese Infantry set and a First World War British Army suitable for use as Chinese Army units, and therefore set up the following battle. It was fought solo using my own rules which are based upon ideas by Featherstone, Sandars, Wise, and Grant. I also tried out a new idea of my own regarding major tactical decisions to remove bias in my decisions. When a major tactical decision had to be made, I wrote down 6 alternatives courses of action. I then threw a die and the number on the die was the course of action chosen.

Scenario: Several small Japanese units have been fired upon, and the local Japanese commander has decided to take punitive action against Chinese units in and around the village of Hanlow. In order to do this he has sent the following forces to Taiping, just north of Hanlow -

• 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Infantry Coys.
• A Mortar section.
• A Machine gun section.
• 3 Infantry guns.

The Chinese forces in and around Hanlow are as follows -

• A, B, C, D, E and F Infantry Coys camped in the village.
• An artillery battery (3 18pdrs) by the line of trees to the east of the village.
• Sentries are at the railway bridge over the river and at the railway crossing.

Terrain: The terrain is a flat plain split be a railway embankment, which has paddy-fields to the north and south of it. A river (the River Tai) runs from north-east to south-west across the north-west corner of the plain.

The Battle: During the night, the 1st Japanese Company advance along the east bank of the river, whilst the 2nd and 3rd Companies, with the M.G. and Mortar sections moved towards the railway embankment along the Hanlow-Taiping road. The Chinese sentries were more alert than expected and were able to give a warning before being killed. The Japanese forces at the railway embankment now spead out along it, with the M.G. and Mortar sections sited to cover the road from Hanlow. The 1st Company continued its advance along the river bank after leaving a small force to cover the railway bridge.

The Chinese commander, on hearing the sentries' warnings, immediately alerted his men and dispatched A and B Companies towards the railway embankment, along the road. The Japanese held their fire until the Chinese were almost upon them, and then opened fire with all available weapons (rifles, light and heavy machine guns, 'knee' mortars, and 81mm mortars). The Chinese, who were becoming more and more visible in the growing light of dawn, now retreated to the paddy-fields after suffering heavy casualties.

In the meantime the 1st Company advanced further along the river bank and began to move into the southernmost paddy-fields. The Chinese C, D, E and F Companies now deployed towards those same paddy-fields, although unaware of the Japanese presence there. The Chinese battery opened fire on the embankment from their gun line near the trees, but only caused a few casualties on the well spread out Japanese forces there. They did, however, alert the Japanese commander to their presence, and he moved his infantry guns forward and formed a gun line to the rear of the embankment.

Using the paddy-fields as cover, A and B Companies had begun firing upon the embankment to cover the other companies as they advanced on the bridge. However, these four companies blundered into the Japanese 1st Company as it was deploying in the next field. The Japanese company commander did not hesitate in his actions and charged the Chinese, who, although superior in numbers, were shocked by the sudden appearance of the enemy on their flank. In the ensuing melee both sides suffered casualties but the ferocity of the Japanese attack had its desired effect, and the Chinese retreated towards Hanlow. The Japanese company commander, realising that the Chinese were only temporarily demoralised, and that he was considerably outnumbered, withdrew towards the river in order to make good an escape back to his own lines.

The Japanese infantry guns had, by now, moved into position and begun firing upon the Chinese gun line, who were still trying (in vain) to dislodge the Japanese on the embankment. The Japanese guns were, however, very effective, and within short time, had caused several casualties amongst the Chinese gunners. The Chinese now switched their attention to counter-battery fire, but without any observation their fire remained ineffective and wide of the target.

The Chinese commander now reviewed his situation. His artillery was not being very successful (especially in view of mounting casualties to the gunners) and although A and B Companies were in contact with the enemy, C, D, E and F Companies wee shaken after the skirmish in the paddy-fields He was also aware of a Japanese force on his flank (although unaware that this force was, in fact, retreating). He therefore decided that withdrawal was the best course he could take, and issued orders to the artillery to cease fire and move southwards with C, D, E and F Companies. He also ordered A and B Companies to slowly withdraw southward to cover the retreat. The Japanese 2nd and 3rd Companies , seeing this retreat, began to advance down the Hanlow-Taiping road, but were checked by A and B Companies long enough for the main Chinese force to withdraw, although the infantry guns were able to inflict some casualties upon the retreating force. When the Chinese finally withdrew off the battlefield the Japanese advanced and occupied Hanlow.

Conclusions and observations: The Japanese attack was not as successful as it should have been. The main advance down the Hanlow-Taiping road stalled as soon as the sentries alerted the main Chinese force. The flank attack also failed in its main purpose because of the size of the attacking force.

The Chinese counter-attack failed for two main reasons. Firstly the artillery support was bad as lack of observation made it impossible to adjust ranges, etc. Secondly the lack of reconnaissance by C, D, E and F Companies when advancing towards the railway bridge across the paddy-fields.

The battle was very enjoyable, and the new idea I tried out with regard to major tactical decisions worked quite well. An example of how well it did work is in the reaction of the main Japanese force when the Chinese sentries managed to give the alarm. I gave the commander the following 6 alternatives and then threw the die -

1. Withdraw to Taiping.
2. Leave a company to guard the crossing and send the rest of the troops towards the river.
3. Leave a company to guard the crossing and advance wit the remainder.
4. Stay put and defend the embankment.
5. Continue the advance.
6. Using the embankment as cover move the entire force toward the river.

The die score was 4 and this was the course of action which was followed.

By using such a system it is possible to have forces reacting to situations without bias on the part of the solo player, as long as he keeps the alternative options reasonable. I am going to use this system again in solo games as I found that it made this one more enjoyable than my usual games have been. If you are a solo player you might like to try it. Please do - you might find that it works as well for you as it did for me!

---

This was the first of several articles that I submitted to the WARGAMER'S NEWSLETTER and when the latter ceased publication, it directly led to an invitation from the late Dr Paddy Griffith to attend the famous Moor Park 'New Directions in Wargaming' Conference (the first ever Conference of Wargamers or COW). By the end of that conference I had suggested the name of the new organisation we created (WARGAME DEVELOPMENTS) and become the Treasurer and Memberships Secretary ... a role that I still perform some forty-five years later!

The Empire of Scandinavia vs. The Empire of the Baltic: An ironclad naval battle

Donald Featherstone’s NAVAL WAR GAMES: FIGHTING SEA BATTLES WITH MODEL SHIPS was published in 1965 and I bought my copy in the late 1960s.

One battle that stood out at the time was the one described in the chapter devoted to fighting naval wargames set during the later nineteenth century. It was fought using rules written by Walter Gurney Green and saw the fictional Empire of Scandinavia take on the Empire of the Baltic … and win (just!) after a flurry of ships ramming each other.

The ships involved were as follows:

The Empire of Scandinavia

• Battleship Denmark: 4 x 12.5-inch Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 20-inch armour; 12 knots
• Battleship Sweden: 4 x 12.5-inch Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 20-inch armour; 12 knots
• Battleship Hotspur: 1 x 10-inch Rifled Muzzle-loading gun; 3 x 64-pounder Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 10-inch armour; 12 knots*
• Battleship Huascar: 2 x 10-inch Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 3 x 64-pounder Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 10-inch armour; 12 knots*

The Empire of the Baltic

• Battleship Latvia: 2 x 12.5-inch Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 2 x 64-pounder Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 18-inch armour; 10 knots
• Battleship Lithuania: 2 x 12.5-inch Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 2 x 64-pounder Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 18-inch armour; 10 knots
• Battleship Devastation: 4 x 10-inch Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 14-inch armour; 14 knots*
• Battleship Dreadnought: 4 x 10-inch Rifled Muzzle-loading guns; 14-inch armour; 14 knots*
• Screw-sloop Crown Prince: 28 x 11-inch Smoothbore Muzzle-loading guns; No armour; 10 knots

Some of the ships were based on real warships (indicated above by *) and the others were imaginary designs. I’ve long hankered after recreating this battle … and it might be a nice little project for me to undertake in the near future.

---

The ‘real’ ships that took part

• HMS Hotspur

• Huascar

• HMS Devastation

• HMS Dreadnought

---

The fleets in action

The Empire of Scandinavia's fleet (the light grey ships) under attack by ships of the Empire of the Baltic's fleet (the dark grey ships).

Both sides engage each other at short range.  The Hotspur was heavily damaged but managed to torpedo and sink the Latvia and Lithuania. She was then sunk by a torpedo fired by the Crown Prince.

Looking back in order to go forward

COW2023 gave me the opportunity to take part in two World War 2 wargames: Tim Gow's LITTLE WORLD WARS and Chris Kemp's NQM: NOT QUITE MECHANISED. As a result, I've been thinking about the rules I want to use for my much-planned Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War project.

Coincidentally, during the conference I spoken to a wargamer who had play-tested the earlier version RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES ... and that set me thinking about the World War 2 rules that I wrote before I began work on what became the PORTABLE WARGAME, RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES: TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED. These were published as an appendix to John Curry's 2009 reprint of Donald Featherstone's WARGAMING AIRBORNE OPERATIONS. I still have the MS Word file containing the rules somewhere on my computer, and I hope to print off a copy in due course to see if there is some way that I can meld elements of it with elements of the PORTABLE WARGAME.

The following are some photographs of one of the play-test battles I fought using RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES: TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED back in 2008.

Fletcher Pratt Naval War Game

This morning I am off to central London to take part in a naval battle that is being put on by members of the Jockey's Fields Irregulars. The rules that are going to be used are a version of Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame rules, and my role will be to act as the admiral commanding one of the opposing fleets. I have even bought a suitable hat for the occasion!

When I was younger and fitter, I used to enjoy being one of the active participants in a Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame, but age and infirmity (mainly arthritis) mean that although I can get down without any problems, getting back up is somewhat difficult ... and I cannot spend the entire day crawling about on the floor!

I was first read about Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame in Donald Featherstone's book NAVAL WAR GAMES but never used the rules until I took part in Eric Knowles's Madasahatta Campaign. During one of the battles we fought during that campaign, I commanded the Imperial Japanese battleship Fuso ... with deadly results for the combined German/Turkish squadron opposing me!

Paddy Griffith's Wargaming Operation Sealion

Back in 1974, Paddy Griffith was a fairly new member of the staff of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, when he conceived the idea to run a serious historical wargame that examined what might have happened had the Germans attempted to carry out Operation Sealion. It was one of the first wargame of its sort and is credited by Peter Perla as showing that a wargame could be a serious academic tool when use was made of proper historical analysis, statistical modelling, and applied human experience.

The DAILY TELEGRAPH sponsored the event, and it was staged at the Army Staff College. The list of participants is very interesting, and included:

• General Adolf Galland: Holder of the Kight's Cross of the Iron Cross, with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds, he was a fighter ace who had flown in combat from the Spanish Civil War until the end of the Second World War.
• Major Rudolf Rothenfelder: An ex-Luftwaffe pilot who became President of the German Fighter Pilots Association.
• Admiral Freidrich Ruge: Holder of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, he commanded naval forces in the North Sea, Italy, and the Channel during the Second World War. He became the first commander of the Federal German Navy.
• Admiral Prof Dr Jurgen Rohwer: German naval historian who served aboard several destroyers and minesweepers during the Second World War.
• Admiral Dr Schunemann: German naval attaché in 1974,
  
• General Heinz Trettner: Holder of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, he served as Chief of Operations of 7th Flieger Division in 1940, before taking part in the invasion of Crete. He later commanded 4th Fallschirmjager Division, and after the war he became commander of the Federal German Army.
• Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris GCB, DSO, OBE, FRSA: He served as a fighter pilot during the Battle of Britain. After the Second World War he served as Assustant Chief of the Defence Staff, commander of RAF Germany, and the 2nd Tactical Air Force.
• Rear Admiral Edward Findlay "Teddy" Geuritz CB, OBE, DSC & Bar: He was the third most senior member of the beachmaster party on Sword Beach on D-Day. After the war he served as Deputy Director of the Royal Naval Staff College before a stint on the Naval Staff at the Admiralty. He then moved to become Captain of the Fleet for the Far East Fleet, then Director of Defence Plans (Navy), Director of the Joint Warfare Staff, and President of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. His last appointment was as Commandant of the Joint Warfare Establishment.
• Major General Glyn Charles Anglim Gilbert CB MC: He came ashore at Normandy in command of a company of 2nd Lincolns, and he fought with them throughout the subsequent campaign to liberate France. He took part in the Rhine crossing, and was still leading his company when they captured Bremen in 1945. After the war he transferred to the Parachute Regiment, and commanded of the Territorial Army's 44th Parachute Brigade before becoming the Commandant of the School of Infantry, Warminster. His final posting was as General Officer Commanding 3rd Division.
• John Davis: One of the wargaming pioneers, his figures were used in the episode of CALLAN that featured a wargame,
• Andy Callan: One of the founding fathers of Wargame Developments and still one of the most innovative wargame designers around.
• Brigadier Page: He was the Assistant Commandant of the RMA Sandhurst at the time of the wargame.
• Dr Antony Brett-James: After service with the Royal Corps of Signals during the Second World War, he served for a time as Head of the War Studies Department at Sandhurst.
• Professor Michael Orr: He lectured in War Studies at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, from 1969 to 1984. He later worked at  the Conflict Studies Research Centre, and amongst other things he is currently a Honorary Research Fellow in War Studies at the University of Birmingham, editor of the Records of the Douglas Haig Fellowship, and Secretary General of the British Commission for Military History.
• Nigel de Lee: He taught war studies at Sandhurst, before moving on to teach history at the US Naval Academy, Annapolis, and Operations and Tactics at the Krigsskolen in Oslo.
• Dr David Chandler: After serving as a Captain in the British Army, he lectured at Sandhurst and held held three visiting professorships at Ohio State University, the Virginia Military Institute, and the Marine Corps University. He specialised in the study of the Napoleonic Wars, and was an acknowledged expert on Napoleon's military career.
• 'Lieutenant' Featherstone: THE Donald Featherstone, who was 'temporarily' (and unofficially) promoted from his wartime rank of sergeant and allocated to the team from 44th Parachute Brigade who assisted in the running of the wargame.

A report on the wargame was featured in the DAILY TELEGRAPH, and Richard Cox used it as the 'plot' for his 'what if' novel about Operation Sealion.

A very poor-quality photograph of those taking part in the 1974 Operation Sealion wargame at the British Army Staff College. The map over which the battle was fought can be seen in the centre of the photograph.

This book contains a wealth of information and was put together by John Curry from Paddy Griffith's notes and records. It not only includes the background information and player briefings, but also the rules used and the data required to run the wargame.

In addition, there is a scale-down version of the wargame that was devised by John Curry for use by a smaller group or wargame club. This was used at the Wargame Developments Conference of Wargamers in 2008, and I contributed my research into the naval forces that would have been involved had Operation Sealion taken place.

I think that this will be one of those books that serious wargamers will want to have on their shelves. IT shows that wargaming is not only a fun hobby but can also be a very useful historical research tool if used correctly. I leave the final words to Peter Perla:

'Finally, to me, one of the more interesting and cogent contributions contained herein is the short section on Griffith's Reflections on wargaming in general and Sealion in particular. Those alone are worth the price of admission.'

---

PADDY GRIFFITH'S WARGAMING OPERATION SEALION: THE GAME THAT LAUNCHED ACADEMIC WARGAMING was edited by John Curry from the writings of the late Dr Paddy Griffith. It was published in 2021 by The 'History of Wargaming' Project (ISBN 979 8 5106 7146 9).

The Miles Rounders

Further to some of the comments made to yesterday's blog entry, I've looked at my copy of Donald Featherstone's ADVANCED WAR GAMES and the following are images of the devices devised by Ron Miles that were known as 'Miles Rounders'.

Miles Rounder for discovering the results of gunfire (World War II)

This was devised specifically to work with Lionel Tarr's modern wargame rules (as published in WAR GAMES).

Miles Rounder for ascertaining the morale state of a formation after a melee or after taking fire

Miles Rounder for the effects of fire by muskets and artillery on infantry and cavalry (Horse and Musket era)

I have reproduced the above as best I can, but better copies are available in ADVANCED WAR GAMES.

---

ADVANCED WAR GAMES was written by Donald Featherstone and originally published in 1969 by Stanley Paul. It is now available from the 'History of Wargaming' Project (ISBN 978 1 409 26138 4).

WAR GAMES was written by Donald Featherstone and originally published in 1962 by Stanley Paul. It is now available from the 'History of Wargaming' Project (ISBN 978 1 291 85142 7).

Lionel Tarr's modern wargame rules are available from the 'History of Wargaming' Project (ISBN 978 1 326 91498 1).