Advanced War Games - Donald F Featherstone

Now I have talked about Featherstone before when I posted a mini-review of his original tome, War Games, and I quite liked it. The other week, Andy loaned me the follow up, Advanced War Games and opined that I might find it quite interesting. Ok, I thought, I'll give it a once over. And you know what, he was right.

What 42 shillings would have bought you fifty years ago!

Published in 1969 for the princely sum of 42s(!), Advanced War Games takes war gaming from its introduction and attempts to add greater realism and detail to the average war game. By that, I mean it's ok having basic rules but if you actually want to game military history in all of its minutia (incidentally, Minutia Miniatures would be a good name for a figure production company, though that's probably already been done), then you have to add detail though not, necessarily, too much complexity. It is with that in mind that Featherstone and his contributors have crafted this tome that, to this day, can still bring something to the table, despite being fifty years old.

The first four sections of the book cover the usual suspects, movement, firing, morale and melee. Each expands on new ideas to give greater verisimilitude to the hobby. Variations are suggested, opinions given and overall, these "new" rules deserve a bit of consideration, even today. What is commented upon on several occasions is that knowledge of the period you are gaming is paramount to ensure the rules you are playing with are historically accurate. Remember, this is the gaming of military history to ensure that period accuracy is key. Without knowledge of the period, how do you know what was "real" and what is a games mechanism, and that is something I have touched upon in previous blog posts. Today's market is very different from that of fifty years ago - there are certainly more manufacturers, more periods covered and any number of rule sets, but what seems obvious to me is that the pre-packaged rule set/game and the silo'd mentality of games designers has not been a positive thing. I have heard at shows, and read in magazines and on websites, that the only reason some companies produce rule sets is to sell miniatures. That much is plain when you see the likes of Cruel Seas, Flames of War and Team Yankee. The mentality here is that you have to use the models sold by that company and the rules are sacrosanct. True, Games Workshop have had that outlook for decades, but they are mostly in a field of their own. When someone stopped me at a show and in conversation told me that I was wrong to change Team Yankee's rules because they were perfect at portraying their particular period accurately, well, let's just say I disabused the gentleman appropriately.

Anyhoo, back to Featherstone. The remaining three sections cover Automated War Gaming, solo and multi-player gaming and the composition of armies. Each brings a number of different options to the table and I can't say I disagree with any of the solutions proposed without actually trying them. After all, a bit of experimentation in war gaming never hurt anyone. But possibly the most forward looking of the sections is the Automated war gaming one - this brings into use the computer!

Now just a bit of computer background here. In 1969, Intel was one year old, and wasn't to release its first microprocessor until 1971. UNIX was created that year, and the "Internet" (such as it was - nothing like the modern day Internet but it was the start) connected four American universities. So when Featherstone brings up the use of computing to aid war gaming, it's more a card based system, analogous to anything digital you might be thinking. That is not to say it's a bad idea and to be honest, it is very forward thinking and results in what he describes as a "'computer' which is about the size of a cigarette case" (that also dates this book somewhat). There are even workings out to explain what it all means (and no fancy pictures either...)

What would modern day gamers make of this???

Featherstone knew of what he was talking about and this book demonstrates a willingness to take on and accept ideas from others in the hobby. I am not going to get all sentimental about a "Golden Age" of the hobby; even at my age, the spectacles of reminiscence are most certainly tinted, but the approach here is very different from a lot of commercial gaming today and I think that's something that is a bit of a miss. A worthy read for anyone who games military history.

Films update

Sometimes it is rather difficult to keep with new cinematic releases and you end up acquiring them on DVD long after they have left the multiplex. At other times, there are a number of releases on the likes of Netflix and Amazon that get missed. In both of these cases, due to work and other commitments, it takes a conscious effort to catch up with the backlog. And so here are four films my good lady and I have recently caught up with.

First up, we have Solo: A Star Wars Story. Now, this film got absolutely panned by Star Wars fans upon its cinematic release, and to be fair, I can see why. In a nutshell, if this film had been subtitled “A film set in the Star Wars universe” rather than “A Star Wars story”, that would have been far better. As it is, this came across as a film no one wanted or asked for, except the bean counters at Disney. As it stands, it lost a massive amount of money for the House of Mouse. There is only so far you can milk a cash cow and this film defined those limits for the Star Wars franchise. (Budget of around $275-300 million, box office of $392.9 million).

Having said that, it’s not actually a bad film per se. It certainly doesn’t deserve the kicking it received and despite the creative turmoil that was well documented through its production, you can do far worse for a couple of hours. That the original directors were replaced and up to 70% of the film was re-shot definitely didn’t help the budget side of things but the script and action scenes are decent and the acting ranges from good (Donald Glover as a young Lando is brilliant, you even get used to Alden Ehrenreich as "not Harrison Ford", but Emilia Clarke proves once again how little range she has). Overall, better than it has any right to be but that doesn't mean they should have made it in the first place.

Up next is Polar, a Netflix exclusive based on the Dark Horse webcomic series. Polar stars

Mads Mikkelsen as a hit man about to retire on his 50^th birthday upon which he gets his pension payout worth $8 million. However, the company he works for is out of cash and, to be sold off, needs to clear its liabilities. It can do this by ensuring their assassins die before their 50^th, so the pension pot is returned to the company.

The trailer looked good and seemed to have a similar style and vibe to The Losers, another action film based on a comic book property. Thing is, that film had a style all of its own, with a funny script, good action sequences and some good performances as well as a fair dose of panache. Polar, on the other hand, has graphic violence (at times a bit too graphic even for my hardened stomach), obligatory sex scenes and a rather po-faced attitude. Where as The Losers had a good licensed soundtrack, Polar has Deadmau5 and to be honest, their original score is very good. But it is the tone of the film that scuttles this film. It’s too dour, the humour either leaden or veering towards sick. Mikkelsen carries the film well, giving a decent, if heavy, performance. However, the rest of the cast vary between OTT (Matt Lucas and some of the younger assassins) and totally flat (pretty much everyone else – especially Richard Dreyfuss in a very short, phoned in, cameo).

There is a twist ending that is quite well advertised in advance and whilst there is room for a sequel, I am not sure the film warrants it. Still, when it perks up, and that’s usually the action bits, it's quite good. The editing is fast but not overly confusing, so you can follow what’s going on. It’s just a shame that the comic book styling that apes The Losers is spoiled by the nastiness that seems to permeate the core of the piece. Not sure I’d ever watch this again, and a follow up, less so.

Hunter Killer could be described as another generic Gerard Butler action film and as such, another by the numbers entry to his career. The guy can act, and he has the screen personality to carry films with ease, but here, he’s not given much to work with. Part Navy Seals, part Hunt for Red October, part Crimson Tide, part Das Boot, Hunter Killer posits a Russian military coup and the attempt by a US navy Seal team and a supporting nuclear attack submarine to rescue the Russian President and prevent World War 3.

Not a hugely budgeted film, Hunter Killer received a fair amount of technical help from the US Navy and the book the film is based on was written by a former US submariner. The film makers even opted for a gimballed submarine set to add to the realism and to be fair to it, Hunter Killer does get most of the submarine action decently done, with possibly only the slightly iffy underwater miniatures work letting it down. Where practical effects could not be used, CGI takes over and it is of the generic mid-budget quality that you’d expect: does the job, doesn’t look that bad but nowhere near convincing.

Butler is joined by “Academy Award” winner Gary Oldman on the DVD case and much is made of his presence in the advertising materials, except his role is more an extended cameo and, although not a bad one, smells a bit like adding a bigger name to get more funding and people to watch, pretty much as the careers of Nichols Cage and Bruce Willis have followed for the last few years.

The bad guys are the usual types, and as the actors chosen have played unsavoury characters so many times before, you know as soon as you see them on the screen that they will be up to no good. Still, it keeps them in work and it pays the bills.

Another actor who appears to be in danger of stereotyping is the rather talented Toby Stephens. After playing a Navy Seal in 13 Hours and a former US Special Forces type in the recent Lost in Space remake, here he is again, even rocking the same look as his Lost in Space character. Hopefully, he gets something different in the near future. One actor who gets little recognition here, or lines, is the late Michael Nyqvist. An excellent Swedish actor, this was one of his last performances before he passed away. If you’ve seen him in other films/TV roles, you’ll understand what a mis-use of his talents this film was.

Story wise, there are thrills and spills, with pretty much every submarine cliche in existence gets an airing. There were more than a few technical errors for the sake of story/entertainment but nothing as daft as say the Battleship film from a few years ago. Where it does fall flat is the seemingly ever reliable military tech. From missiles to gun systems and torpedoes, everything works perfectly, but even a short search on YouTube disproves that portrayal. Oh, and so characters seem to shrug off what would be fairly lethal bullet wounds with some ease.

Having said all that, Hunter Killer is a decent (if mindless) thriller that shouldn't be considered too much a waste of an evening.

Finally, we have Isn't It Romantic, a rom-com. Now whoa, I hear you say, a rom-com??? What the hell is all this about? Well, stay with me on this one. Rom-com's are not my usual staple but having seen the trailer, it looked a bit different from the usual fare. Starring Rebel Wilson, this is a film that only works if you can handle her usual shtick. I can, but not in large doses. She plays a struggling architect who is knocked unconscious and wakes up to find herself is a rom-com about her life. Turning the genre on its head, Isn't It Romantic has fun playing with the stereotypes associated with films of that type and there some genuinely amusing pieces. Ok, it's a simple premise and one that has been tried before, but IIR has some good performances (Liam Hemsworth is good value here) and some rather well choreographed dance sequences.

Naturally, it all turns out well in the end and a foot tapping dance number sends the film off with a sense of style. It's not as clever as it thinks it is and there are a couple of missed opportunities but on the whole, not bad. 

The Asus Eee PC904HD (catchy name, that)

A good ten years ago, the Netbook was a lovely idea. A cheap, simple notebook that allowed you to browse the internet, get some basic productivity tasks done and play a few simple games, the Netbook product category really started with the Asus Eee PC 701, a Linux powered device with a tiny seven inch screen and a suitable keyboard to go with it. It's main selling point, apart from the basic functionality was the price, under £200 in 2008 prices. That model proved quite popular initially with consumers but there were issues with the lack of consumer familiarity with Linux and returns to shops were apparently quite high. Noting this, Asus introduced a larger model, powered by Windows Xp, the Asus Eee PC904HD (catchy name, that), the machine I am typing this post on now.

My personal machine is over 10 years old now and apart from a replacement battery pack, the hardware has held up rather well over the years. Of course, I don't have Win XP on here anymore, but I'll cover that later on.

The Ausu Eee PC904HD (catchy name, that) plus Ubuntu.

Netbooks don't exist as a hardware category anymore due to the rise of the ubiquitous tablet, specifically, the Apple iPad. You see, the netbooks of old started to get bigger, to bring more power and functionality to the type. However, that increase in size negated the very reason for their existence. The prices went up, more powerful laptops became smaller and the tablet market took care of the content consumption market. Over time, the limitations of the type gradually killed them. That and the introduction by Google of the Chromebook. This did the job of the Netbook in a similar sized package, without the Windows operating system tax and without the need for better hardware to run said Windows.

That's not to say the Netbook was a bad idea, just one that was overtaken by technology and marketing. It is but a mere footnote in the history of personal computing though given the prices they still fetch on e-Bay and other sales sites, I am not the only person still using one.

The Asus Eee PC904HD (catchy name, that) was released to the public in 2008 and not only added Win XP to the type but also an 8.9 inch 1024x600 screen, a bit too grainy for truly comfortable viewing but good enough to do the job. An Intel Celeron processor running at 900MHz, 1GB of RAM and an 80GB hard disk make up the rest of the main spec. Not exactly a powerhouse at the time but enough to get you a decent, if basic Windows experience. No optical drive was included (the chassis is too small), but you could easily add one via one of the three USB ports, nestled alongside the Ethernet and VGA ports as well as an SD card slot. An optical drive would have missed the point of the Netbook anyway – it was designed for connected use at all times and the thought process around that was carried on with Google's Chromebooks.

A workable screen, nothing more.

Priced at about £250 at the time, I bought mine as part of a 3G broadband dongle package on the Orange mobile phone network. The price per month wasn't extortionate, certainly not by the current monthly packages being advertised for modern day mobile phones, and I don't think it was bad value considering the hardware itself is still running.

Now the device itself is quite chunky, a sign of its age and the change in fashion in laptop computers. The bulk, however, is reassuring in that whilst the shell is plastic, it still feels quite sturdy and has, over the years, survived may journeys in rucksacks. It also has quite a decent sized battery that in Win XP territory, gives about 3 to 3.5 hours. Under the current OS (and the replacement battery), that's about 2.5 hours which is... OK. Compared to modern day devices, that's less than half of anything outside of a gaming laptop but it suffices for use for me. Even though the Asus is over an inch thick and chunky to boot, it has a certain charm that current hardware lacks, at least in my view.

The keyboard is reasonably sized and takes up the full width available. Much better than most hunt and peck keyboards, the keys have a decent amount of travel and feedback and there is a soft click upon each key press - nothing overly obtrusive at all. Overall, it is far superior to most Chromebook/tablet keyboards I have used through the years and even gives the Alphasmart a run for its money – though that one is a tad bigger but clackier and a bit more loose with the key tops. The trackpad is a bit too small and for those with largish hands, I'd recommend a USB mouse wherever possible. It must also be noted that the wrist rest gets a little bit warm on the right hand side but nothing too bad.

It's decent...

and not too much smaller than the Alphasmart.

After about 2014, I got a little bit bored with the chugging of XP and decided to replace it with Ubuntu 11.10, the then most suitable stable release for the spec of the machine. Performance wise, it was a breath of fresh air and the user interface is very easy to follow even if Windows was the only OS you had used up to that point. Some of you might think it is a bit reckless still running such an old version of Ubuntu, but this machine is kept off networks and the only file transfer occurs via USB or SD card and whenever that happens, full scans are undertaken.

So why still use it?

Well, the hardware still works, and I have never been rich enough (or reckless enough) to replace hardware on a willy-nilly basis. I still like the format of the device, the keyboard is good, the additional screen area over the Alphasmart comes in handy sometimes plus it feels rather rugged. The Alphasmart's unprotected screen and keyboard do give rise to some cause for concern, even with the rucksack I use. Ok, the Asus is thicker and a bit heavier but not by much and the footprint of the Asus whilst closed is smaller. Even with the additional bulk of the charger, it doesn't take up that much more room.

The modern day market has no room for the Netbook. The Chromebook has taken over the budget (and not so budget) basic laptop niche, especially if you want a bit more of flowing user experience, the lower priced Windows laptops (sometimes marketed as Cloudbooks) simply don't have the oomph to run Windows 10 smoothly under anything other than basic use. Tablets are now the go to consumption device and given the number of add-on “pencils” and keyboards, seem to be making a grab at content creation too. Saying that, no device I have tried in either category gives me a keyboard I like and typing is the main use for such a device for me. Indeed, the seemingly ever present need to make laptops thinner means, for the foreseeable future, shallow travel keyboards will keep me from any kind of new hardware – especially, but not uniquely, Apple laptops. For me, despite it's shortcomings, the Asus Eee PC904HD (still a catchy name, that), continues to fill in a gap that modern hardware doesn't. Combined with the Alphasmart (and NC100), this hardware combination gives me multiple choices for what I need.