Wargames Illustrated 374

The latest issue of Wargames Illustrated crossed my path this week and, having had a perusal, I thought it worthy of comment. You see, the December issue has a piece about Warlord Games latest cash grab, Cruel Seas and as I have more than a passing interest in naval warfare, the article piqued my curiosity.

So, Cruel Seas, a new boardgame  wargame that centres on small scale naval actions in World War 2. The starter pack costs £50 and for that princely sum, you get 10 1:300th scale plastic vessels and all the gubbins including the rules to get you going. Think MTB's and E-Boats and there you have it. Needless to say, there are expansions planned but I'll get to those in a moment. As a gift, WI also includes either two MTB's or two E-Boats on sprues, worth about £6 if you go by the flotilla prices on the Warlord Games website. They're not bad, but my better half (who doesn't wargame at all) did comment that they looked like something out of a cereal packet - I can see her point.

Coming to some cornflakes near you soon???

So, onto the article and it sets the scene and describes a game played at Warlord HQ in some detail, reading like a very long infomercial, truth be told. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing as it means I have no interest in buying the game even though the period is of interest. Let me explain.

The play through guides us through the familiar Bolt Action dice system used by Cruel Seas, ship movement and weapons firing. The scenario they use is one of the simpler ones suggested by the rule set and it does seem to play quite quickly, though they don't half like their dice throwing. The torpedo attack described uses a total of 17(!) dice to ascertain one hit and its effect. True, one dice to determine whether the torpedo was a dud or not but 16 for effect. All I can ask is why? I know some rules use buckets of dice (Tactica being one that I have played but I can see why, one dice per figure, you have lots of figures, therefore lots of dice) but it seems to me that the "need" for 16 dice to determine the effect of one hit is plain overkill and extremely gamey. I don't think that you need that many dice and I don't wargame purely for the dice throwing. Never have and never will.

Another observation - the lack of realism, taking this another step away from an historical wargame and more towards a fancy boardgame. Despite being 1:300th scale and a skirmish game, weapons ranges are a lot shorter than reality and the range bands are suitably "unreal". Similarly, the "advanced" rule section contains aircraft that are one shot wonders that have no mechanism for loitering. How advanced to you need to be to understand loitering fighter/bomber cover?

If it feels like I am being too hard on Cruel Seas without even playing it then maybe I am. But there are plenty of other rule sets out there that cover the same type of naval action and to greater detail and historical accuracy. Ok, you don't get pretty models with them but there are plenty of suppliers who will sort out any requirements and scale you need.

That brings me to the add on packs. You can get additional flotilla's for £18 that contains 6 ships. There are also Fleet packs containing 6 to 10 ships (some metal) and one aircraft for £65 (numbers vary depending upon which country you select). Bear in mind that in the US Fleet pack, five of the ten ships supplied are landing craft, so in effect scenery. Finally, there are the Coastal Forces for £95 (discounted from £103). They have between 12 and 16 ships and comprise of a Fleet and Flotilla pack plus a rule set. That might seem a tad pricey but that is a discount instead of buying the separate national forces and the rule set, which alone costs £20 in softback. I do, however, think they are royally taking the piss with the limited edition hardback rule set for £75!!!

The cynical part of me thinks that Cruel Seas will be the Cinderella of the wargames scene for a couple of years before fading away. You can spend a ton of money with Warlord Games or you can do a bit of research and shopping around and get something that'll do the same job for less money. And be more historically accurate. Unless it's just about the game (innit!) in which case the nice packaged boardgame Cruel Seas will do you nicely.

As for the rest of the magazine, well, it was fairly crap, the most enlightening quote being in a profile piece on The Plastic Soldier Company: "... a rule set only exists to sell your miniatures." Whilst I know a few manufacturers who would disagree with that, certainly Warlord are on it like a bonnet!

Start as you mean to go on...

Well, 2016 is well under way and already one Saturday game has been played and a show attended. This, surprisingly, is a good start. The game itself has a good report already on gloriouslittlesoldiers though I shall say now that I think the reporting is a tad unfair. (But then I would say that!)

Sunday was the Vapnartak show in York, and a good day it was too. The show food was of the decent to rather good variety (this is a biggie if you go to lots of shows, you get to sample some... delicacies (if that's the right term)). Compared to the first show at the race course where they served Breakfast pasties, this year's sausage bap was superb. Having said that, it's a pricey venue and when three portions of noodles and three bottles of orange juice reach £24, you know you have to chew your food slowly just to get your monies worth!

Still, the show itself was extremely well attended, for the first four hours at least, and unlike most Sunday shows, actually made it to 2 o'clock without dying a death. I have always liked the York show and the only real downside, apart from the lack of a visible bar (possibly a good thing as two years ago, three cans of beer topped £12!) was the lack of lighting on the first floor. There was very much a hint of Kelham Hall's stygian gloom. I have seen a comment on TMP regarding the show and traders packing up at 3.30pm when the official closing time was 5.00. In one respect, it's a fair point of view. However, Sunday shows are infamous for dying early and there comes a point that staying is a fruitless exercise. All told, 3.30pm seemed about right.

Anyhoo, onto other things. Big Andy posted an item on his blog with a question as to where does wargaming stop and gaming begin. It was his round up of the current crop of magazines aimed at the wargaming market that started me thinking. And after such pondering, I have a question: Is there any longer a point to the printed magazine?

Whoa, whoa whoa!!! Surely, you may think, he has lost his mind. Well, bear with me. I have two hobbies that I have, in the past and to this day, purchased the occasional magazine for: Wargaming and Videogames. Back in the day, magazines were pretty much the only source of general information, product reviews, how to guides and the like. I remember fondly the days of flicking through Computer and Video Games, ACE, The One (later The One Amiga) and Mean Machines, finding out about the latest Japanese imports, the best and worst of the new software releases and the shiniest new tech on the horizon. Monthly mags were brim full, as all news was complied into these neatly wrapped, and usually well written, four week packages. As a result, it could take up to a couple of hours to make your way through everything. Information was savoured.

Compare that to the current market where the internet (I know, hardly a new invention), has changed that. News is now a daily stream, sometimes accurate, sometimes not. But as such, it is a momentary flash before being replaced by the next item. It also means that anything a magazine publishes can be several weeks out of date or just not considered newsworthy anymore. This is more prevalent to videogaming, though the upside is that whereas once you had to stand in front of a shop window and hope the demo machine was playing, you can now see any game you are interest in Full HD via publisher websites, youtube etc. It is, however, also coming to wargaming/gaming in general. Witness the recent release of Team Yankee where the manufacturers have released a number of "how-to" videos. From a consumer point of view, this can be a good thing. From a magazine publisher's viewpoint, how do you cope with that? In the case of the latest issue of Wargames Illustrated, how can they counter a video with several pages of photographs? (Roll two D6 and hope for the best???)

Reviews are a staple of many websites and magazines, and how the editorial bias of the publication sways can have a significant bearing on the style and content of featured reviews. WI has (a somewhat historically deserved) reputation for being a corporate vehicle, though it's style is approaching that of some of videogaming magazines aimed at the teenage demographic. Miniature Wargames less so, but I am picking on the most recent issue of this mag because it has a prefect example of dual standards. They have reviews of two Ospreys, a US Battleship tome and one for Soviet-era self-propelled anti-aircraft guns. The former is a well written review, detailing both good and bad and offers an opinion as to if it is worth purchasing. In other words, a review. The latter is a filler piece, little more than "Here is a book on this, wouldn't it be good to play with the rulesets to make then more funky". There was no mention as to if the book was well written, informative, whether it contained any previously unheard of historical details, or if it was any good at all. That comparison, more than anything I have read in recent issues of magazines, highlights the question Big Andy put: where does wargaming end and gaming begin.

There is one more publication that deserves mention: Tabletop Gaming. A new entrant last year, it's a glossy, well printed and quite hefty mag. It does what is says on the tin, it's a magazine about gaming. And that's where, after giving it two issues, I stepped away. Whilst gaming is part of the hobby I enjoy, it's not my primary focus, as noted in previous posts.

What I should have said at the beginning of the post is that I do not subscribe to any magazine of any kind at the moment, and base my purchases on the contents page during a perusal at the local WH Smiths. Sometimes I spend my money, other times I do not. The decider for me, and this is where magazines currently have an advantage over web-based outlets, is the nature and quality of the articles. Those pieces written by paid for contributors who may offer a new point of view on an established topic, or introduce a new period, point of view or genre to a wider audience. I know this sounds a little harsh on magazine editors (and those who have issues with publishers even more so, as it may be a case of trying to square a circle), but the quality of these articles is directly linked to whether I hand over the requisite £4-5. And when I say harsh, there is very much a feeling in both war and videogaming publications that there is a trend of dumbing down. Or, at the very least, mistaking accessibility for over-simplicity. And that is before you get to any involvement from the big advertising spenders.

So where does this leave me? Well, as far as videogaming magazines go, I am about done with them. Reviews are pretty much the only thing I read these days, and even then, the number of games I purchase each year is dropping, so I don't look for too many reviews anyway. As for the wargaming titles, I agree with Andy, you pays your money, you takes your choice. I shall keep checking out each new issue of all three (MW, WI and WSS - who haven't had a mention so far as I haven't read the last couple of issues) and take it from there. Magazines still have their place, but whether they are in for the long haul is a different matter. Content is king. I just hope the editors/publishers remember that, and please don't infantilize the readers. We are not all 12.