Ilipa Again, Again

[Chris]

Interesting observation, Imperial Dave.

The comparison to book reading and or movie watching made me think about the various roles one might take with regard to wargame reports.

If you are reading a book, this strikes me as active and engaged. You are creating images in your mind based on the words read on the page. You are making connections (something taught in schools, especially in Language Arts classes). Watching a movie impresses as a rather more passive role. The burden is on the director and stars and extras. Sight and sound come to the front. Imagination appears to take a back seat.

Reading a book and watching a film, one can become emotionally involved with the story, and with a character or characters. I would be surprised to find that this kind of emotional involvement occurred while reading wargame reports.

I will almost end with a work-in-progress question that may or may not generate further discussion.

Would the hobby be better, worse, or the same if there were no battle reports?


I will end with a remark about the impact the book Wargame Tactics (by the Charles Grant) has had on me.
It contains history and observations along with a number of battle reports. None of these reports include full page pictures of masses of miniatures being moved about on sculpted terrain. (There are a few simple B&W maps though.) Admitting a certain degree of bias here, I should think that any of these reports stands up to and holds its own against anything one might find on a blog or in one of the recent glossy and full-color (sorry, colour) magazines.

[Imperial Dave]

yes, that resonates with me too.

A well written account of a battle engages me and allows me to imagine the cut and thrust. A well illustrated account allows me to admire the position and movements within the battle.

Obviously both elements are important and I would like equally good bits for me personally

[Erpingham]

Interesting thoughts, Chris.  A suggestion, given your interest in digging into old Slingshots.There is a battle report in there somewhere called "How I killed the Saxon King".  Early 80s I think.  It represents a battle report told as a story. This was quite a favourite style in the old days and did fit with a more "character rich" style of gaming, used by Bath, Grant and Featherstone and their admirers. I remember HIKTSK as the last major one of these in Slingshot, but I could be wrong.  Since then we have perhaps moved to a more clinical style, focussing on how the game worked as a simulation, or how the rules work or just how it went as a game.  Now, to be clear, the Old School story style could be dire, as everyone wanted to impersonate their favourite historical authors without the talent to do so.^* But done well, by people like Charles Grant, they entertained well enough.  As I said in another thread on the topic of battle reports, well-written is the key in any style.  Some of the more clinical style are dull, self-indulgent and fail to illustrate or analyse successfully. But well written ones, that entertain, ask and answer questions - yes, always happy to read those.

Readers can judge where my efforts at reporting lie, but I think the the influence of the Featherstone style can still be detected, even if I aim more towards the modern style these days.

^*Was HIKTSK a good one?  Honestly, can't remember - it's been 40 years.  But I do remember it, perhaps for the line drawings as much as anything else.

[Imperial Dave]

I will dig it out and read with interest Anthony

[Chris]

Thanks for the compliment, Anthony. 

Yes, it appears that when not trying to deal with other matters outside of the comparatively insulated and fractious wargaming world, I have, of late, relied upon the electronic stacks of ancient Slingshots for ideas and or inspiration. (I suppose I could refer to that pile of information as a version of my "lead mountain." It's there; it's noticeable, and so forth. Then again, there's no better half to give me grief about it, and additions to its altitude are subject to the vagaries of submissions and the energy of the current editor.)

I will make an effort to look for the Saxon King article. Thanks for the suggestion.

Your analysis of the "clinical" or current style seems spot on. Again, I cannot help but think about Aaron Bell's Taxonomy of Reports and wonder if this excellent work needs to be revised and or expanded.

Interested in the shifting levels of interest in this hobby, I wonder if 10 or 15 years from now, these "clinical" reports might be replaced by something else.

To be certain, this is a visual hobby. Harkening back to the 1970s books by the Charles Grant, aside from the few B&W maps, there were no other visual aids. It was all left to the "partnership" of author and reader to paint (pun unintended) the picture of what the tabletop looked like.

The employment of miniatures (no matter the scale - but some may argue this point) helps with the suspension of disbelief, of course. One feels that they are commanding a horde of Huns if there are tactile, miniature Hunnic warriors "riding" to and fro on flocked bases on a landscaped tabletop. And it's been remarked upon in numerous blog posts as well as previous discussion threads on this larger forum that we often litter our carefully made and costly tabletops with various detritus that some believe detracts from the visual impression we are striving for.

I will end with this tangential note: Thinking about wargame reports and the readers of same and customer service in the business or "real" world. I understand that many more people will vent about poor service than good. I think the ratio may be as high as 10-1. Is there a comparable ratio with blog posts and journal articles, etc.? More often than not, I think readers will simply choose not to say/type anything. Which, in some tangential fashion, goes back to a point or two made my Jon Freitag in his post about the worthiness of battle reports.

Thanks again for the suggestion about the death of that Saxon King.