Donald Featherstone's Lost Tales (2009) - Articles
Appendix 2 Battle Reports By Don Featherstone
Originally published in the Wargamer's Newsletter (1965) under the title 'Who Says Battle Reports'? supplied by Robert Piepenbrink, United States
In my folder of possible articles for the Newsletter, I am holding six articles from ardent wargamers, each of which describes in lurid language some battle that he has recently fought on the table-top. Each month I turn them over and reluctantly (because there is a lot of work and genuine enthusiasm in them) I leave them where they are.
I report this because recently I received another lengthy letter from Pat Condray which was largely a report on a battle between some mythical countries of a Ruritanian nature. In the first place, I felt that it was a bit lengthy for these pages; in the second place I felt that it dropped into the same categories as those reports mentioned above. By that I mean that, although freshly written and highly enthusiastic, it did not make any sort of contribution to wargaming in that it reported that such-and-such a regiment of fusiliers advanced 400 yards over shot-swept country, losing 325 men in the process until they were charged by the glistening sabers of the 7th Marine Dragoons, who slashed and cut them down to a man.
Now, that sort of report tells nothing of the way in which all this took place-the rules that covered such things-how far on the table 400 yards actually was etc, etc. In other words, no one learned anything from it that they could use in their own games. Furthermore, to write wargame reports as though writing of real battles is, to my way of thinking, an intensely irritating practice. Perhaps because I earn part of my living as a professional writer of books, I loathe to read wargames reports that are trying to be literary masterpieces. The libraries are full of books on real-life battles written by experts that fully cover such things. But the libraries are NOT full of books telling how a wargame was fought in such a way that the reader can picture in his mind what really occurred on the table-top one evening between two friends manipulating hosts of well-painted models.
A recent correspondent said that reading wargames reports was like hearing the story of someone else's holiday. Personally, I liken the experience to hearing about someone else's operation! On the other hand, Malcolm Dove of London writes "I have one complaint to make about the Newsletter and that is that there are not enough battle reports. This may be because I am a purist and very rarely use models; I adore paper people and can create an army of 1,000 men in half an hour. I can understand the great interest in models but at the moment it takes up a large section of the Newsletter." Pat Condray writes "I was rather disappointed with the July edition of the Newsletter for its almost complete lack of solid articles on military tactics, wargame armies and wargames proper." Pat says in another letter "You are long overdue a crunching argument about your editorial policy, the views of cavalry action. You seem to champion the decline of the Newsletter, the value of battle reports etc."
To my mind, the almost ideal wargames report was that long and fascinating description of the Battle of Fontenoy by Charles Grant is the 1964 Wargamers Yearbook. There was one by Jack Scruby in the last edition of Table Top Talk what just about qualified by my rules!
Now, for those who want to see battle reports in this Newsletter, let me lay down what I consider to the essential rules covering such items. First, there must be some sort of description of the table top battlefield, its size, how the hills ets were made and some general hints on the terrain set-up. Secondly, the nature of the opposing armies should be given-what make and scale of figures are then, what number of men represents a battalion and what scale are the casualties in relation to real life. Oh, it is necessary to have some idea of ground scale. Third, whenever any salient point in the game is described, those rules that cover it should be mentioned briefly. Thus, if a unit breaks and flees they do it because under our rules any unit that takes fire and, in one game-move, loses a third or more of its strength, have to throw a dice to see the state of their morale and whether they stand or flee in panic or retire in good order.
Lurid terms are not required. Don't say "the shattered remnants of the 1st Light Infantry looked wildly around them and then decided that things were too hot for them, so, dropping their rifles, they fled from the field." Write what really happened-"the 1st Light Infantry lost 8 men in a firefight with the opposing enemy unit and, under the rules, threw for their morale. It turned out to be bad and not being able to be rallied by a nearby staff officer (needing a 5 or 6 on the dice) they withdrew 6 inches in good order."
Wargame reports are highly personalized things; no one enjoys a wargame as much as the people who actually took part in it. Therefore that recount must contain items that will be of value to other and possibly less experienced wargamers. Only by reading such reports and taking part in battles with more hardened players will they ever improve or learn anything of the exclusive tactics that one uses on the table-top. I write the letter with my tongue in my cheek and don't believe that anything happens on a wargames table that bears more than a coincidental resemblance to what really occurs on an actual battlefield! When one thinks about it, Avalon Hill games are really more accurate representations of a real battle than are our games (and I stress the word games) on the table-top with about a couple of hundred soldiers representing an army of about 50,000!!