Part of the Eric Knowles book collection passed over to me by Bill, his son.
Way back in May of this year I was surprised and delighted to receive a number of wargames books from Bill Knowles from the collection of his father, Eric. Aside from cleaning them up a little and glancing through them I must confess that they have sat on the bookshelf patiently waiting for me to do something with them. A couple of weeks ago I moved Grant's The Wargame down from the loft onto the single shelf I am allowed in the lounge for books (Laurel has very minimalistic tastes in decor and does not really like seeing lots of books lying around....) where it sits in pride of place next to Charge! and Battle: Practical Wargaming - a holy trinity if you like.
I should point out that my copy of Charge is not the one you see above but another softback version produced by (I believe) Ken Trotman (I stand to be corrected on this) that features coloured covers rather than black and white. I want to get a hardback version at some point but that is another story.
Anyway, to cut a long story short I decided to revisit The Wargame as although I have had a copy of Charge! in the collection for years (and have frequently 'dipped into' it for light relief, nostalgia and inspiration) The Wargame has always eluded me. It has been nigh on thirty years since I read this and so I figured it was high time I did so once again.
Needless to say I was very pleased that I did.
I had forgotten how logical Grant was in how he drew up his rules. They seem to be in marked contrast to the efforts of Messrs. Young and Lawford and I found myself wondering how they managed to game together so successfully for so long! I have said before that Grant's rules and approach provide a more, dare I say it, scientific game than Young and Lawfords. Both are enormous fun and I have used both on occasion and they complement each other very nicely indeed.
I was quite taken by a comment in the foreword by Brigadier Peter Young in that he says that "They (Charge! and The Wargame) differ also in a more important aspect. The latter are based on Napoleonic warfare while the Grant rules rest on a study of the wars of Frederick the Great. In fact either set will, with slight modification, serve for any period from the Thirty Years war to the American Civil War." I always thought that charge was firmly rooted in the third quarter of the 18th century.
I have fought actions using both Charge! and The Wargame sized units which is again a lot of fun albeit an expensive proposition these days.
It suddenly occurred to me though that there is a mad but viable alternative to huge armies of 28mm figures to game a la Grant/Young/Lawford.
Yup, you've guessed it - 1/600th!
Another chance to look at Scott MacPhee's quite delightful 1/600th scale French Napoleonics.
Now I know on the face of it this would seem slightly north of bonkers but it is not such a mad idea. Taking the infantry formation seen above one could readily deploy an infantry regiment with the command in its proper place on a single base. Movement distances, ranges, measuring devices could be scaled down accordingly and the only real issue would be the removal of casualties - this could be readily handled via a roster sheet. I am sure there are a few other rules wrinkles that would ned to be ironed out but as a concept I think it has some mileage.
I shall give this some further thought and who knows? The Electorate of Kronenbourg and the Grand Duchy of Artois may yet see the light of day....
20 comments:
There is no reason why your idea shouldn't work.
To me, the Wargame seems very academic in approach while Charge! seems to be grounded in experience of war as well as knowledge of history.
Hi Ross,
You have summed up in one sentence what I was struggling to do so in a whole blog post! Seriously though I am thinking the art of Charge! and the science of the Wargame although I suspect the Charles Grant would have sniffed disdainfully at his rules being classed as scientific - in fact he makes the point that warfare is an art rather than an exact science, especially when one allows the humble d6 into the proceedings!
It is an idea of whimsy for sure using 1/600th figures but no worse than using 6mm.
Something to ponder anyways.
All the best,
DC
For some reason I assumed that Eric Knowles would have owned the original 1967 hardback of Charge. Has the cover picture of the paperback faded a lot or did the publisher save money by using a black and white image? On the hardback the tabletop is a slightly lighter green than that on Charge but the two should look pretty much the same.
Hi Mike,
I was surprised he had the paperback version as well. The paperback version you see has only black and white pictures on the cover but I have a full colour cover paperback which is nicer than the one you see.
I still want to get a hardback version though at some point.
All the best,
DC
Opting to go for 1:600 (or even 2mm/1:900) is a good idea for keeping the costs down and getting the project on the table. They also give the look of real formations.
Just remember to go several shades brighter with the colours :)
The black & white soft back version of Charge was published by Terry Wise via his company Athena Books. At that time the original version of Charge had been OoP for at least a decade if not more (this was the 1980s).
I don't know why it came as it did, but I suspect reasons of economy. I doubt he could afford to publish a run of the hardback with full colour, especially given that before the OSW fad, it wasn't that popular.
I bought my copy from Terry and bought his remaining copies for Foundry in around 2004. I'm not sure how many copies were left by then but it was around twenty IIRC.
Neil
Hi Tamsin,
The test batch I painted a while ago (2mm Irregular Miniatures blocks) used normal strength colours and I tried painting too much in the way of detail so they looked a mess. the beusty of the Tumbling Dice figures is that they are separate so you can get at them better with a brush. Looking at he stuff on Magister Militum's website is very tempting indeed and has given me some rather unexpected ideas....
Another thing to bear in mind is using a lighter shade than normal. i will need to experiment a little although not so much for the 20th century kit which will be a whole easier. I will not be using them for Bolt Action or Chain of Command though....
All the best,
DC
Hi Neil,
Athena books - I remember now! I would love to get a hold of a hardback version but the cost would probably be prohibitive.
All the best,
DC
Amazon UK today has used hardbacks from £223.35 and 1 new from £593.13, so prohibitively expensive hits the mark.
DC, I didn't intend to imply scientific when I said academic, more that it was based on academic research and designed from detail up, time and motion calculations, musketry tests so on, even when dealing human reactions. All in the hope that it will add up to a recreation of a battle. (Like WRG did)
Lawford and Young on the other hand, seem to have designed more for effect with their research and knowledge of history crossed with personal experience of the chaos of battle and the variable nature of the passage of time. When I first read a translation of the original Kriegspiel I was surprised how similar it was to Charge! in terms of combat results and so on though of course the opposite in how it proceeds. Sure enough it is listed in the credits!
I'd offer you my hard cover copy, purchased in '72 but I'm not dead yet!! :)
As the owner of copies of 'Charge!' and 'The War Game' both (bought one in 1975 and the other a year later), I was struck by their essential similarity. Althought 'Charge!' was published first, I infer that Young and Lawford mined Grant's unpublished ideas (they are mentioned in the bibliography) for their rather simpler set.
Although the tone of the publication and battle settings of the Y&L publication are the last quarter of the 18th century, the unit organizations for the Sittangbad action seem more in line with the Napoleonic Imperial period, infantry battalions comprising grenadier, line and light companies.
Both are very readable. In his foreword to grant's book, Brigadier Yound speaks justly of the author's 'engaging style'. Who wrote the text of 'Charge!' is equally enjoyable to read.
Just by imagining into existence the country Teutoberg-Althaufen, Brig Young or Lt-Col Lawford made an indelible contribution to war gaming.
David, I have been enjoying your recent posts but have not yet left a comment. I like the idea of these tiny figures - even though I am currently collecting and painting 40mm scale Napoleonics - the photos of Scott McPhee's incredible work is very inspiring, although I must say that he is one of the best figure painters out there in my humble opinion so we lesser mortals should not be too disappointing if we can't match his standards!
Your book collection is fantastic, I so regret selling my copy of 'The Wargame' ten years ago or so, something about those masses of 30mm Spencer Smiths being moved individually around the large table was really inspiring and they were so well painted. Charles Grant took his research seriously, but one humorous story I recall was of him down on Dover beach with a dustbin lid and a 12' pole going through numerous drill movements to see how viable it would have been for an Alexandrian Phalangite! Great stuff.
I still like the Spencer Smiths, there are some beautifully painted examples by Chris Grice on the SSM website, and I have seen more of his work and his methods, which are actually pretty clever. Very tempting to try some.
Great blog David, I should comment more often as it's a pleasure reading your posts.
Hi Ross,
Yes scientific is a little serious sounding for sure! I think that both approaches have much to commend them and is that sense I think they complement one another very nicely. I must admit that being a fly on the wall when they were fighting a battle would have been an interesting experience!
I shall get a hardback copy of Charge! at some point so thank you for your offer - that is one that I would NOT like to collect on!
All the best,
DC
Hi Mike,
I reckon that will be a lottery win purchase!
All the best,
DC
Hi Archduke,
I think that between the three of them they started the whole imagi-nation 18th century thing which in turn has given enormous pleasure to many. There contribution is immense and we can only stand on the shoulders of such giants.
All the best,
DC
Hi ‘Lee,
Many thanks for your kind comments - I am looking forward to writing a good few more entries so you will have plenty to read! I have enjoyed reading about your Spanish adventure and also those lovely 40mms. I dabbled in some Irregular Miniatures figures in that scale a few years back but it didn’t end well. I am looking to do something with Spencer Smiths in due course with the ACW featuring first. I intend organising my armies using Charge! Or The Wargame with a single regiment of foot, horse and an artillery battery.
The 1/600th kit will be focussing on the 20th century first of all as the painting will be easier but I want to tackle something more colourful in due course. The 18th century would be nice but I reckon the Napoleonic Wars may get the nod first.
Scott MacPhee is a great painter and if I can get to even a fraction as good as his stuff I will be hugely pleased!
All the best,
DC
I keep finding that those "old" books have a lot of mileage left in them! Old words but new eyes
Hi Geordie,
I keep coming back to them and I suppose that the years of experience and research into the periods covered have given me a far better appreciation of what they had written than 'back in the day'. I have the same feelings about GQ1 and 2.
If they were the only wargames rules around (and I include both the GQs and Battle: Practical Wargaming) I would happily use them.
All the best,
DC
No, Dave, step away from the 1/600th
Hi Ant Master,
You will pleased to hear that I have - but only for the 18th century....
All the best,
DC
Post a Comment