Post-game thoughts on Arthur's SHAME

Having played out a game using Arthur Harman's SHAME ( 'Simple Horse And Musket Engagements') rules from Miniature Wargames issue 457,  I promised to share my thoughts on the rules. So, here we are. I wouldn't go so far as to call this a review,  it's just some musings, a few points that cropped up during and after the game, which I reported a couple of posts back.  

I also could hardly presume to question Arthur's rules-writing ability, ( 'we're not worthy! ) and he will of course always have The Last Word  - but I can at least report on how I got on with the rules.  

 

Getting stuck in : Cavalry vs Infantry line

I suspect rules-writing is much more difficult than many imagine, especially if you are writing for publication. If you put together some rules just for your own use, or for your local group of gaming friends, then the standard of  writing is less important, becuase if something is misinterpreted you can simply say 'no, I meant this..' and if something is missing, you can add it on the spot, and your authority as creator is probably not challenged.  But if writing for publication, where strangers will be trying to use the rules, and they only have your text to help them, then you'd better write very clearly and you'd better have thought of as many situations that might crop up as possible. But you must also keep it as simple as possible, for fear of producing the dreaded 'WRGese'  ( see section 32 (b) 'a unit may be  be disordered if it is Austrian ( except Hungarians ) and the day of the week dice roll ( see section 29.2.2 ) specified 'Friday' and  the time of day dice roll ( 29.2.3 )  specified a time later than the Central European 'opening time' - see Appendix L, 'miscellaneous Hostelries' )..   

It all reminds me of a reliable favorite feature of  'Systems Analysis for Beginners' type  training courses back in the day ( the late 1980s sort of day, in my case )   -  'write a set of  instructions for making a good cup of tea'... 

'OK, so this is easy, here we go  (1) put the kettle on...'

- 'Excuse me, do I need to put anything in the kettle? You haven't specified..'

and so on.  If you really want to complicate things, introduce the 'Cream Tea scenario', with its hotly-disputed jam first/cream first dilemma.. 

In Suffolk we follow the Cornish protocol: jam first!

Oops, I seem to have digressed. Just a bit of fun.

I did enjoy using the rules - I should say that straight away. Being pretty simple they produced a fairly fast-moving game, and  units could take  damage and get knocked out of action quite quite quickly once they 'got stuck in' to combat, which seemed about right and kept things going on at a good clip. Given  lucky dice rolls, a well-delivered musket volley,  round of canister or  cavalry charge  could shatter an opposing unit in a satisfying way - and if the dice did not oblige, the enemy would shrug off that ragged volley or half-hearted charge. 

The rules are definitely pitched at the  Napoleonic  period - there are skirmishers and Horse Artillery, and  infantry are expected to form square if attacked by cavalry. Wanting to play a Seven Years War period encounter,  I made some changes , the biggest being to abandon the use of square. So if cavalry attacked infantry in line and did not break them, then rather than 'flowing around' a square, I decided the horse would 'bounce back' to reform and perhaps try again - and they would suffer a penalty on their attack dice if charging frontally at all those disciplined volley-firing musketeers.    I simply did not use Horse Artillery or Skirmishers -  the latter are optional, anyway -  though I suppose I could have fielded some light infantry in open order. One query I had was that early on, it's specified that troops should be on 20mm x 20mm bases with 4 infantry per base, but in the section on skirmishers it's stated that they should deploy 'in a line of single figures, one to a square'.. hmmm.  I did like the relatively short musket range - from what I've read, effective musket range was actually frighteningly short. Arthur specifies musket range is  'one square between units' which is  a neat way of explaining it to a child or beginner.  And then artillery canister range is 3 times Musket Range, which I take to be '3 squares between units' (i.e. up to  4 squares, hope I got that right! ) . 

The main thing to master is the combat system, with dice results designated rather like 'Command and Colours' games - the attacking ( fire or close combat ) unit rolls a number of dice based on its quality, and then different dice scores inflict commander hits,  musketry/canister hits, artillery hits,  close combat hits or 'fallen flags' . The 'hits' from fire or close combat reduce the target's 'Combat Value' (CV) in effect its strength or fighting power,  but the 'Fallen Flags' have a separate impact, on the unit's  morale. This can have some interesting effects - the very first piece of firing in the game by the Austrian artillery inflicted two 'flags' on a Prussian cuirassier unit, which brought it to a halt, despite no loss of CV. That seemed entirely feasible - I assumed that  the unit's beloved commander may have stopped a cannon ball, in full view of his men!  The 'Fallen Flags' can be removed by a commander figure joing the unit and rolling a die to rally them,   whereas the CV hits are for ever, and  if the unit loses all its CV, or a number of flags equal to its troop quality, it must withdraw.   I thought this system gave quite interesting results, although it does require you to track two different factors ( CV and Fallen Flags ) for each unit, which some might find a bit fiddly. 

The charging/close combat system I also liked, in that when a unit declares a charge, it rolls its 'attack dice' , and the number of flags and/or hits decides the outcome - with a very good attacking score, the defenders may simply break and run for it!  Or they may be shaken, and roll less dice in response, or be resolute, and roll as normal. That seemed quite a  smart approach, cleverly combining morale effect and casualties, and fun too.  I can well imagine a raw defending battalion, charged by a determined-looking  elite attacking unit, who might give a feebly ragged and inaccurate volley and then turn on their heels; or a steady, experienced defender waiting  'til you see the whites of their eyes, lads!', giving a terrifying  volley that mowed down and halted less motivated attackers!  Another nice touch was the cavalry vs. cavalry mechanism, specifying that if neither unit is halted or broken, they pass through each other, turn, and may charge again next turn.  That seems just right, if my memory of  Mr. Duffy's works is correct. 

 Prussian General wasted many turns failing to rally Cuirassiers

 

Commanders/officers I didn't quite 'get'.  I think I made a mistake by choosing only one commander figure per side - as a result, both sides' commanders got stuck trying and failing to rally off 'Fallen Flags' from important units, when perhaps they should have been lending their motivation to attacks.  I think I should have had several officers per side, and indeed Arthur's presumed setup involves several players on each side, each having  their own commander figure.  The rules don't actually say a lot more about commanders and ADCs - the latter can apparently 'deliver messages/orders from one General to another, or orders from a General to a unit or formation..'  but there's nothing else I could see about orders, which raises questions.  Can units move at all without having received orders, and must they follow those orders until new orders are received?   As far as I can see in the rules,  they say nothing more  on the subject  (hmm...'Put the kettle on...?').  In effect I answered my own question by assuming telepathic control of units by players, without the need for specific orders to be delivered to them - very 'old school' on my part, perhaps?

That's probably enough for now, I should conclude by saying that I did enjoy using the rules, and they gave a suitably fast and fun game, as promised, with some interesting and thoughtful features that succeed in providing a flavour of the period. Arthur Harman certainly has nothng to be ashamed of.   A few questions came up, and I suspect I will have to think a bit more about suitable adjustments to reflect Frederician warfare - but that's all part of the fun, isn't it?   I think these will make a nice occasional alternative to Bob Cordery's 'Portable Wargame' rules that I have mainly used up to now. I know Bob and Arthur are old friends and wargaming comrades, so that seems rather appropriate.  I hope you've enjoyed reading about the rules, the game and the post-mortem, as I have enjoyed them all - maybe some of you have given them a go too, or will do so.  

This post was a bit delayed by 'real life' but also by glorious weather over the weekend here - not a time to be sat indoors typing on a computer! But I did get a little painting and relevant reading done in the sunshine, of which more later.  Meanwhile keep safe and well, everyone.

A mini Lobositz, with Arthur's 'For SHAME' rules

Look out boys, here they come..

I thought I'd try a game with Arthur Harman's recent 'For Shame' rules from Miniature Wargames magazine issue 457  ( it's been pointed out that 'SHAME' = Simple Horse And Musket Engagements  - thanks, Martin S !) .  As described in an earlier  post, my 'Soldier King' Seven Years War period campaign has thrown up an interesting battle at Wittingen.  I hope the campaign can act as a common thread to string battles upon, and  is  flexible enough to  allow me to try out different rules and methods of setting up scenarios as each encounter comes along. 

And so, to the battle: I showed the attacking Prussians and the  ( heavily outnumbered ) Austrians before,  now we need  a battlefield. Given the unbalanced forces,  I wanted a setup that made things challenging for the attackers - after all, the defending  Austrians  would have taken up as good a  position as they could.  I had a look through some books of scenarios, and lighted upon  no. 21 from Neil Thomas 'One Hour Wargames',  entitled 'Twin Objectives'.  A larger attacking force must secure both a wooded hill and a  village ( which we will promote to represent the town of Wittingen )  - and rather pleasingly the original inspiration was from a Seven Years War battle, that of Lobositz.  Given the Prussian preponderence of cavalry, it seemed particularly appropriate. Another massed charge, perhaps?

The scenario demands that the defenders station one unit on the wooded hill in the North East, and the rest of their forces close to the Southern table edge, anchored on the town ( note that  'North' in the scenario is actually South in my campaign, and all directions here follow the campaign alignment - Prussians moving southward ) . The Prussians enter from the North, and crucially they must control both the wooded hill and the town at the end of the fifteenth turn in order to win the game ( of course, being a campaign, simply 'winning the game' is  less important than the condition of the armies at the end..). So  the Austrians placed one brave battalion on the hill, and another,  plus their gun,  in the town  ( no doubt hastily loop-holed and barricaded ), with their third battalion West of the town  and their Light Cavalry to the East, to threaten the attacker's flank. The Prussian horde entered, led by their three much-vaunted Guard Heavy Cavalry units, the victors of Rahden: infantry massed on the left , ready to assault the hill. 

The rules were 'tweaked' but only very slightly - I translated  Arthur's suggested square grid to hexes,  with move distances and ranges the same. Next, Arthur's  rules for cavalry attacking infantry had a very Napoleonic flavour, assuming that the foot would try to go into square - I gave the disciplined linear infantry of the 7YW period a better chance, by subtracting one attack dice from the cavalry if charging frontally - and of course not requiring the foot to form square. Instead of 'flowing around', I reckoned a cavalry unit that did not break their  infantry target would simply 'bounce back' a couple of hexes  towards their starting position; that  seemed plausible.   Given that these were new rules to me, there was a bit of thinking required, and I will give a bit more detail for the first few moves, to show a little of how ( I think ) they work, I hope this doesn't make for too long a post. The later moves may go at more of a canter! 

Cuirassiers shaken, Horse Grenadiers Charge - on Turn 1 !

It was a case of action well and truly from the start - in Arthur's rules the artillery fire at the start of each turn, and the Austrian gun made great practise immediately. Firing at the Prussian 1st Cuirassiers, the gunners' three dice rolled two 'falling flags' - which caused quite a jolt to the target's  morale, requiring them to halt. One might suppose their  senior officer had got in the way of a roundshot! So immediately, the Prussians' imposing Heavy Cavalry was dealt a blow. This perhaps stung the remaining Heavies - their   Horse Grenadiers immediately launched a charge on 1st Battalion Botta d'Adorno infantry, West of the Town. As 'Guard' quality Cavalry ( normally 4 dice ) charging formed infantry frontally ( less one dice ) they rolled three dice, and inflicted one 'fallen flag' but no 'Sabre' , so  no Combat Value ( CV)  reduction. So the infantry were somewhat  shaken, but kept order - fire with only one dice. That took -1 CV from the cavalry.  Having not broken the infantry, I decided the charge had 'bounced off'.

 Meanwhile the Prussians began dealing with the wooded hill, sending their two Jaeger units to advance on  the 2nd Botta infantry frontally, while the two Von Kleist foot units moved around the hill, threatening the defenders' flank and also  screening their comrades from the threat of the  Austrian cavalry. The hill's defenders ( 2nd battalion  Botta )  gave a first volley to 1st battalion Jaeger, their three dice scoring one 'flag' and one CV reduction - not bad shooting, and the 'Flag' means the Jaeger will get one less dice when they respond. 

From the above you can perhaps see how combat effects work in these rules : I think we can imagine that units  in effect suffer casualties ( CV reductions ) and/or shaken morale  ( 'Fallen Flags' ). Casualties wear them down slowly - lose over half their initial CV, and a unit cannot move or fire offensively, and if CV reaches zero, must retire.  'Fallen Flags' reduce morale, weakening fire/combat power , perhaps causing them to halt or be unable to attack, and if the number of Fallen Flags reaches the unit's quality level ( 3 for Trained/Veteran , 4 for Guard/Elite ) then again they must retire.  Commanders can try to 'rally off' Fallen Flags, but that's not easy - need to roll a 6. Neither of my commanders managed that in the whole game! 

In Turn 2,  battle was properly joined on the hill, with 2nd Botta giving another stinging volley to 1st Jaeger  ( 2 more off their CV , now already down to 4 from initial 7 ) , the Jaegers' volley in response being quite ragged ( and the Austrians on the wooded hill were in cover, so one less dice ) - no effect. 2nd Jaegers tried cold steel - charge up the hill! Less one dice due to the cover, but they inflicted one 'Flag' on Botta, reducing the defender's fire dice by one, and in turn receiving just 1 CV reduction.  The Jaegers not being halted or broken, close combat would continue.

The fight for the wooded hill

West of the town, the Austrian artillery made more excellent practise, finding the Prussian Horse Grenadiers had come within canister range, and promptly peppered them - down 2 CV points for the cavalry. To add insult, 1st Botta stepped forward and used their muskets, and the Horse Grenadiers lost  one  Flag as well! This drew a furious response, with both 2nd Cuirassiers and Horse Grenadiers charging  1st Botta in succession. But the resolute Bottas stood firm, both charges bounced off, and the foot lost just 1 CV, inflicting -1 CV on each of their attackers. Stout lads!    

On Turn 3, things began to go Prussia's way. The Austrian gun spattered the Horse Grenadiers with  more canister ( -1 CV ) , but the Prussian gun had now unlimbered, and opened counter-battery fire, immediately achieving a 'Fallen Flag' on their opposite numbers ( despite their  being in cover in the town - good shooting ), so the Austrian gun would fire with reduced effect.  On the hill, both Jaeger units managed to get to close combat with 2nd Botta, who suffered another 'Flag' down. One more, and they would have to retire..  Meanwhile West of the town, the Horse Grenadiers pulled back from the withering fire,  2nd Cuirassiers charged 1st Botta yet again - and bounced off yet again - but now step forward the Prussian Guard Fusiliers with a crashing volley, and Botta suffered one Flag and 2 CV losses.  In response their own musketry discomfited the Fusiliers - one Fallen Flag.  1st Botta had 'played a blinder' so far, but that Fusilier volley hit them pretty hard, coming after the wear and tear of the cavalry charges. 

Brave Botta vs Guard Cavalry and Fusiliers

 In Turn 4, although the positions of the units changed little, the situation did. The Austrian gun's lucky streak continued as they inflicted another 'Flag' on the Prussian Fusiliers, bringing them to a halt, but Prussian muskets and bayonets proved decisive. On the wooded hill, the Jaegers in close combat inflicted a third Flag down on 2nd Botta, and in the musketry duel to the west,  the Fusiliers did the same to 1st Botta. Both Austrian battalions now had as many 'Fallen Flags' as their troop quality value - so both must retire from the fight. This would leave the hill objective in Prussian hands, and allow them to focus on objective number two, the town - and it left only three Austrian units in play.

Faced with this setback, on Turn 5  the single Austrian  Grenze Hussars  squadron decided for decisive action, with a pell-mell charge into the heart of the Prussian array, targeting their gunners! I like the  charge procedure - the attackers roll their dice, and that determines the defenders' response. The cavalry rolled one 'Flag' and one 'Sabre' - not enough to rout the gunners, but it forced them to fire hastily and then take shelter with the nearby von Kleist foot, leaving the cavalry,  albeit also suffering one Flag,  occupying the gun position ( hmmm.. I don't think there's a rule for 'spiking' the guns? ) .  In return, Prussian 2nd Cuirassiers turned around and charged the  Grenzers from behind - but their dice were very poor, and allowed the Hussars to counter-charge. They too made no impact, and under the rules the combatant units pass through each other and turn about, ready for another charge next move, if willing.  Quite a flurry of action, and it felt 'right' for charge and counter-charge. 

Turn 5 , the whirling cavalry melee: Hussars chase off Gunners but are charged from behind by Cuirassiers ( more Cuirassiers to front are still halted by artillery fire and can take no part, frustratingly for Prussia! ) 

 

 The following turn, the Hussars sensibly  decided to pull back towards the town, while both 1st and 2nd worn-out Botta battalions began to retire, allowing Prussian Jaegers to take possession of the wooded hill.  Their one remaining full-strength Cavalry unit kept the Hussars under threat, and the two Von Kleist battalions began to advance on the final objective - the defended town. 

The Prussian gunners regained their gun and resumed a duel with their opposite numbers, and were getting the better of it despite the Austrian's position in the cover of the town - so on Turn 7, the Austrian Light Horse  tried another desperate 'charge for the guns' ( sadly only a squadron, not a light brigade..) , but to little effect. Poor dice saw them 'bounce' , and they were promptly attacked by Prussian 2nd Cuirassiers. These rolled most effectively, taking 1 CV point and  two Flags from the Hussars, which was decisive - the Austrian Lights had now lost three flags, and they too must retire. Just one battalion and a gun ( also two flags down thanks to counter-battery fire ) remained holding the town. Things looked bad for the Austrians..

Prussian foot assault the town - defenders hold firm

 

The Prussians could now throw two battalions of Von Kleist and one of Jaegers at the lone Botta battalion barricaded in the built-up-area, and their general hoped to 'rally off ' a Flag and get his Guard Fusiliers moving again too, while the guns continued their artillery duel.  BUT he ( that's me, of course) made the mistake of throwing in the three battalions piecemeal as they came up, rather than a simultaneous mass assault.  Given the powerful advantage of defending a 'BUA' in both musketry duels ( reduce fire by TWO dice ) and bayonet charges, on succeeding turns  the Austrian foot saw off 1st von Kleist  ( reduced to CV of 3, may not attack further ) ,   2nd von Kleist  ( also down to CV of 3 ) and 2nd Jaegers ( reduced to CV 4, perilously close to retiring ).  The 1st Jaeger had taken a battering in attacking the hill earlier, so were left to occupy it, in safety.  All attempts to get the Fusiliers moving again had failed, and cavalry may not attack a built-up-area,  so by the end of Turn 10, the attack on the town had effectively stalled.

How it Ended - Bottas hold on, just!

 Finally, at the start of Turn 11 the Prussian gunners saved their commander's wounded pride, by winning the artillery duel. They inflicted  a third 'Fallen Flag' on the Austrian guns  - which must now retire from the field.  This left the 3rd Botta d'Adorno battalion as the sole remaining Austrian unit. The Prussian foot were not going to be able to dislodge them;  the guns might eventually batter them into submission,  but for now they had halted the Prussian attack.  In 'scenario' terms, this looked like an Austrian victory would result if playing on to Turn 15. In 'campaign' terms, the Austrians had four-fifths of their units out of the battle, and the remaining battalion well advised to wait for darkness and slip away, leaving the depleted Prussians in possession of the town. 

"It was the Guns wot won it.."

I'm sure I have overstayed my welcome now, so we can leave it there. I hope I've given a decent impression of how I got on with Arthur's rules,  which I liked, on the whole - it felt like a sort of mix of 'Portable Wargame' and 'Command and Colours'.  Action was fast and furious, as promised, and I hope I understood the mechanisms right, more or less. A few questions arose, and a bit of tinkering might be in order to make them more attuned to pre-Napoleonic combat.  I think those can be the subject of my next post. 

Meanwhile,  I hope you've enjoyed this account, as I did the game;  keep safe and well, everyone. 

Arthur Harman rules - OK?

I recently picked up a copy of the current issue ( no. 457 ) of 'Miniature Wargames' magazine, and was pleased to see an article by that most  'old reliable' of authors, Arthur Harman. 

don't judge a mag by..

 

Entitled 'Fighting Toy Soldier Battles: For Shame - Simple Horse and Musket Engagements',    I'm not sure where the 'For Shame' bit has come from - an editor's gag ?   [ no, it was just too clever for me - see comments below, where  Martin S has enlightened me! ]  It describes "a simple toy soldier battlegame, that you may be able to persuade your families to play to relieve the tedium of being 'confined to barracks' during the Coronavirus crisis, while you are unable to visit your club or regular opponents".  It is  presented as a very simple child-friendly game, but  having read through it, I think there is slightly more than that going on 'under the bonnet'  ( or shako? ) , so to speak.

The game uses a square gridded battlefield ,  'the sides of the squares should be equal to the frontage of a battalion/ musketry range'  - a nice feature,  as you can fit your grid to whatever size of unit you fancy,  or fit your units to your grid (  I think my units will fit a four-inch grid quite nicely ).  The units have two important attributes :  Troop Quality  (basically Elite, Regular or Raw ) and Combat Value,  which is a sort of  combination of strength, quality and morale. When the CV is reduced to zero, the unit has to start to retire from the battle - another neat touch, perhaps, as they will not simply be swept off the table, but slowly retreat from the action (and may subsequently be forced into ignominious rout ) .  

don't try to read this - buy the mag !

 

In combat,  units roll a number of 'tactical dice'  based on their Troop Quality ( with possible modifiers adding or subtracting dice ). The dice are ordinary D6s ,  but they are treated rather like 'Commands and Colours' dice, with each number signifying a particular type of 'hit' such as officer casualty, artillery  or close combat.  Most interesting of these is the 'Falling Flag' hit   -  the number of those rolled  is compared to the 'Troop Quality' score of the target unit, with variable effects on morale. The dice also contribute to the effect of charges - the attacker rolls first, and the number of  'Sabres' and 'Flags' rolled has an effect on the steadiness of the defender, another clever idea. I also like the mechanism for cavalry vs. cavalry charges - if neither side breaks,  two units charging each other may pass through, turn around and  'have at it' again, which seems to capture quite an authentic detail in a nice simple way.

 

There's a simple Move/Fire/Close Combat turn sequence, 'first player' decided by dice, and there are rules for  Generals and ADCs, foot and horse artillery, and skirmishers. With an eye on involving children in the lockdown household, it's suggested that the general's portraits be drawn,  (an optional bonus combat dice for the best portrait..), and marked with any wounds incurred!  The whole thing occupies just  six pages of the magazine - really only four pages of text - but there are lots of interesting ideas in there. I hope I can  give them a try sometime soon -  subject perhaps to some small tweaks for the Seven Years War - and I think they may well be both fun and maybe rather intriguing.

The article is illustrated with pictures by editor John Treadaway, which are nice,  but clearly not of Arthur's  actual game - they are of a Vienna 1683 game from the Bovingdon show in 2018 - I guess in lockdown, John has to raid his archives.  In fact Arthur suggests you could use the figures from  a 'Risk' set, if you are keeping it simple and don't already have 'horse and musket' armies ( Maudlin Jack Tar, I'm looking at you.. ).  His pieces are always worth a look, and I do like his 'keep it simple' ethos - I remember an article in 'MW' a few years ago in which he encouraged us to field Napoleonic armies in as  'basic' a paint job as possible, shall we say - posh painters went a bit ballistic, but I was with him all the way.     And Arthur has of course been doing this a long time - the oldest article I have by him is from Issue 9 of Miniature Wargames, published around Xmas 1983. That was a 'Bird's Eye View of the Wars of the 19th Century' - in which players emulate the crew of an observation balloon over the battlefield, while the actual commanders sit well back from the table,  and rely on written messages from the aeronauts. Splendid, if eccentric stuff !  Here it is : notice how magazine styles have changed.. (and Duncan MacFarlane was noted for lavish illustration!), and also something of a classic article by Mr Callan on the next page..

Those were the days

 

Which brings us to the subject of the current incarnation of 'MW'  - and actually, I think this issue isn't bad at all.  It felt a bit thin, on picking it up, and the Fantasy-theme cover picture is not my cup of tea, but there's a decent selection of articles. Conrad Kinch is still in there, with an interesting interview with 'Dave Walker of MS Paints', who is painting and gaming despite Multiple Sclerosis and is clearly a top man ( and we think we are suffering in  a little lockdown? )  and example to us all.  Dave Tuck has a Battle of the Boyne scenario which gives a nod to Grant and Asquith's 'Scenarios for all Ages' ,   suggests simple ammunition supply and weather rules and admits to using positvely old-school large units and figure removal for casualties.   Jon Sutherland's 'Command Decision'  features Narbonne, 436AD , Romans vs Visigoths and refreshingly does not prescribe a particular rule set , and there are lots of book reviews - ooh, Chris Duffy 'Instrument of War', very temptmg... ( and reviewed by Arthur Harman, as it goes!) .  A couple of large fantasy/sci-fi articles I'm afraid I skipped, but I found that from 52 pages of editorial , there were 37 that I will most likely read. They seem to have ditched the 'Darker Skies' middle-pages insert that appeared after Henry Hyde departed, so we are back to a more straightforward fomat, I think, and that's all to the good.   BUT the price - was £5.99.  Six quid for 52  pages of reading, hmm...     

It's intersting to compare with the other leading magazines - my most recent copy of 'Wargames Illustrated' ( issue 399 ) was £5.25 for 106 pages.  ( 19 of which were advertising ), and Wargames Soldiers and Strategy' ( no 113 ) was £4.95 for 82 pages ( 17 advertising ).    By my calculation that's 11.5p per page of editorial in 'MW',  7.6p per page in 'WSS' , and 6.0p per page in 'WI'.  Quite a difference, and I wonder if  a large part of the reason for that is the larger amount of advertising ( and therefore income ) in the other  two mags,  which perhaps allows them to keep both the price down and the number of pages up.  But you pays yer money and takes your choice, and on this occasion I've bought a set of Horse and Musket rules from a veteran and interesting  'game designer' (sorry, Arthur!) for £6 - if they work out well,  that's not too bad a price?

Now I need to find  myself a simple square-grid game mat or board, and give these rules a go! In the meantime, keep safe, and well, everyone.