It is probably seven or eight years since I have been to Campaign, in Milton Keynes. Much like me in that time, it has changed. What I thought would be just a little regional show that I could pop into while in the area, turned out to be a pleasant surprise of major proportions. I went for 30 minutes, and stayed for several hours. I was enthused, I was won over, I came very close to hitting emotional heights. But before I break into song, let me cover the basics. There was a respectable turnout of traders, though no ‘Big Names’, and some good looking games. The bring & buy was small, easily accessible and fairly priced. Games Workshop turned up, and reprised their LOTR display. The coffee was good, the lighting excellent and apart from the information desk being unmanned for long periods (a curious lapse, given what follows), and a few competition gamers, I have no complaints at all.
Okay, that aside, as a show it was medium sized and entertaining, and the traders reported that the days were long and not all took enough money. But it worked on an entirely different level to most shows; as a recruiting event. And in that respect, I have to say it was the best thing I’ve ever seen. This is because Campaign is now held slap bang in the middle of The MK: Centre, one of the biggest shopping malls in the UK, thronging with thousands of weekend shoppers. Although most were indeed women, confirming the stereotype, many traders regarded this as a plus! With this location, the public literally flow around and into the show. It is also free, open from 9am till 7pm and has no re- enactors. A good description would be open access, open plan gaming. Like the best ideas, it is so simple.
Around the edges of the stands are information boards, which were being read by small groups of shoppers, of all ages. One gentleman, who must have been in his seventies, was discussing fighter sweeps with a friendly gamer. Other reactions were understandably mixed, but I would rather see a confused face (that might ask a question and get hooked) than no face at all. The kids, meanwhile, were a pleasure to watch. The very small ones walked up to figures, little houses and trees and looked on charmed. Inevitably, an arm reached out and a parent pulled it back. It would have therefore been nice to have had a “petting zoo”. And as almost all the decent games were participation, there was a good opportunity to try out the hobby first hand. So the trap was cunningly set, but did it work? I can safely say that it did. While I was there, I personally saw and heard three members of the public walk up to traders, club stewards and gamers and ask how they could get to try a game, and what was it all about. Okay, so they might play, leave and never think about it again, but what an unrivalled opportunity to capture a new recruit.
While other shows run the gamut from the effectively closed club event, through those that make a huge effort to advertise locally, to those demo games that piggyback to good effect at public or crossover events (like SAS, Dave Brown, Stuart Asquith and others at the Napoleonic Fair), I wonder do any really pull in meaningful numbers of interested outsiders? I have been here before in this column and my hunch is that, no, they don’t. On this point I am happy to defer to show organisers, but I suspect hard proof is not easy to obtain. After all, you have got to be at least a little bit intrigued to turn off Grandstand, get off your bottom, travel to a show, pay to get in and park, and then be confronted with a confusing mass of people. In Campaign’s case, you might not even know you were interested in the hobby or that it existed, and then all of a sudden, after leaving Starbucks or John Lewis, it is arrayed in front of you. Convenient. Minimal effort. At the very least, most are going to establish what is going on, just in case there are free shampoo samples on offer, or a chance to win a car. But what if you watch the History Channel avidly (and we all know that is the case for a lot of people) and then all of a sudden you see a recreation of the Charge of the Light Brigade? Or the Battle of Britain? Or a popular movie in figure form? You are probably going to stop and have a look. And that is enough. Outside of the BHGS doom patrol, I would put money on almost any gamer’s enthusiasm and knowledge making the right impression from there on in. I’ll tell you what, I am very impressed. I take my hat off to Milton Keynes Wargames Society and whoever it was on the committee who had this brainwave.
I am sure there are a few traders that turn up at a show and drink coffee, read the paper and have a quiet afternoon selling the odd bag of figures (that chap who sells the magnetic bases seems the type. I may be mistaken). Almost a social outing, really. But then there is Peter Berry of Baccus. Here is a man that works hard for his money, and doubtless goes home hoarse as a result. Not only is he selling a vast range of figures, but also a concept. No, sorry, it is more than that. It is a lifestyle choice, a True Way, and, for very little more money, he’ll throw in a paradigm shift. Because Mr. Berry (henceforth, The Guru) likes those ickle 6mm figures. Well, actually, he loves them and wants you to love them too. Once in range of his honeyed tones, much like a Siren, he will give you the speech and you will waver and perhaps crack. I stood next to him for 10 minutes, and was on the point of shaving my head and selling my Copplestones. Scary*. If Baccus ever palls, he could easily join an ailing minor religion and reverse its fortunes in record time, “Blessed are the mouldmakers”.
Anyway, apropos of nothing, The Guru sent me an email. It was a politely worded email, extolling the virtues of small scale gaming, citing massively increased sales and suggesting that I jolly well sit up and take notice. I paraphrase: many 28mm and 15mm gamers are converting to the Baccus Cult (they give him all their money, he gives them lead and a beatific smile), partly because of price, but also because they work better for battles. 28mm is now deemed a skirmish scale. Often twelve or sixteen 6mms are used where one 28mm would have formerly served. You can get a lot of 6mm on a table. The terrain looks like terrain. They are easy to paint (The Guru does one a minute – can you beat that?). They are relatively inexpensive – you can have an awful lot of figures for £25. For £60 (a square deal in other parts of the industry) you can have two very, very big armies or one massive one. One happy cultist, by extrapolation via Essex 15s, regards Baccus as Foundry quality for their size.
I don’t. But then I think that misses the point entirely. Baccus sculpts are perfectly good enough for their role in life, and they don’t need character faces or pocket piping. That said, they are surprisingly detailed for figures so small and make a passable stab at proportion (unlike many 6mms that remind me of It’s a Knockout giant heads). Where the 6mms win big is by gathering a group of mates, and piling 12 or 24 onto a base, then lining up with other bases and, yes, they start to look like real troops. What I can say without fear of ridicule is I think that a lot (50 to 200) of small scale figures is undoubtedly the best way to represent a unit of 500 real men. It is right up there with 60 man 28mm units, but they are a bit unwieldy. And lots of these 6mm units make for an army that looks like an army. It looks impressive, and with squinty eyes, quite realistic, especially if you get the basing right.
Many of you will have seen The Guru’s 1:1 French line battalion. It is both impressive and instructive – when one sees a real life unit depicted in an Osprey, a movie or a computer game, one is pointedly reminded that we are repeatedly conditioned to accept 30 men instead of 1,000. A perpetuated canard that re-enactors often compound, in a richly ironic way. Even I am going to be first in line to say that for big battles, 6mm (or small scale generally) is ideal. Were I doing Austerlitz or Leipzig, this (or a boardgame) is the way I would go. And for Squad Leader, I am already using 6mm, although in limited numbers.
So I can see The Guru’s arguments, but I know I am not going to convert wholesale to the cause. Why? Because while I concede that 6mm offers a better look for a large unit, and that a battle looks like a battle, for me a 28mm beats 6mm (and 15mm) hands down, one on one. I would go as far as to say a 6mm figure can never have the detail and quality I want, simply because there isn’t enough of it! In the same way that 0 gauge beats 00, and 00 beats N, and a 1/12th AC Cobra model is better than a 1/43rd. Sometimes, bigger is better (or size matters, you choose). And I don’t care about the marginal price, because 28mm is what I want to buy. It is horses for courses, different strokes, nothing more. No snobbery, no derision, just a personal preference. And at this stage in my hobby development, I’d rather have a 28mm single figure completed than a 6mm unit (Is this widespread, and is this a problem for the hobby? Discuss.). Why? again. Simply, because my hobby emphasises painting and collecting, not gaming. And as the years go by, that gap is widening, a theme I shall return to in a later column. I also like uniforms, and while I can see blue jackets in 6mm, and perhaps a facing colour, I don’t see enough of what I want to see (like beautifully shaped tricornes or Montero caps, lace on cuffs, canteens, heraldry and flags). The thrust of The Guru’s argument assumes I want to game as priority one. I don’t. So the argument falters. Others might, in which case good luck to you and why not have a serious look at 6mm?
As for potential, I understand completely those people who want every Waterloo unit in 6mm, and I would too given unlimited time, budget and space. But I don’t have those things, so I have to choose. I choose bigger figures, in singles or representative small units. And that choice is largely based on the fact they look good painted up individually, I enjoy the painting (perversely, I don’t want to spend a minute, I’d rather spend an hour), and for me the aesthetic of the individual figure appeals more than that of the unit or the army. I have also sold my soul to 28mm in terms of figures and terrain bought. If I were gaming twice a week, and an avid army builder (I know such people, they are truly enthusiastic and I envy them) then 6mm, or even 2mm, would start to look very tempting. But small scale is not for everyone, and even The Guru must let a few recruits slip by.
So ultimately, I don’t cover 6mm because their best attributes place them firmly at the opposite end of the hobby spectrum, in Ideal for Gaming Land. Not as far out as the barren peninsula that is competition gaming, but way over on the other coast. Back on my side, we like big detailed figures that we can paint (or at least buy and aspire to painting), base up lovingly and group into 12 man units, put them on a shelf to admire, show our mates, and pull them out once a year to play with. And because we are a broad church, with all points in between represented, all approaches are valid. If I were writing a music column, it would cover ska, punk and soul, but I wouldn’t have any problem with the folkies or even easy listening, but don’t expect me to play too much of it because a) it is a minor interest for me and b) it is demonstrably different and c) has its own fans that will do it justice. But Rap I would of course ridicule like it was going out of fashion.
* for the avoidance of doubt, I am joking here. Mr Berry is very enthusiastic, and sure of his product. He is very good at what he does.
More Romans, but Bigger
Another man going micro is Steve Barber, who seems to be experimenting with figure scales in all directions. I doubt we can expect 80mm Landsknechts or 1mm Crimea, but you never know. The latest venture is 10mm ancients, initially Romans and Germans, but with more to follow if huge sales figures put Steve straight back into cashmere underwear. So, yes. 10mm. Odd one this, but I keep an open mind given that many of us might be playing a LOT of this scale in the future – clue: Warmaster meets JRRT. Smaller than 15mm, but still enough detail to paint, and larger than 6mm (boy, my maths teacher would be proud), but properly proportioned figures. There are a number of variants for each side already available, with more coming. And they are rather nice. Unless there is a source I don’t know about, they are the best 10mm sculpts I have seen. Little, jewel-like figures that caught my eye better than the neighbouring 28mms. So, as long as both sides are complete, and Steve has said he will finish the ranges, then I can see many people giving them a run out underWHAB or Vis Bellica. Theoretically, how would I do it? Much as I mentioned above. Large numbers of figures, starting to look like a real unit filmed from the air. No fan of Romans, I would do the Germans first, but painting a few cohorts is actually quite tempting. I have legionaries here on the shelf, being evaluated. Check them out, I think you’ll like them.
The long awaited El Cid is out. Hurrah. As Warhammer Historical moves onto a regular production schedule under Rob Broom, we can expect to see such releases two or three times a year. Not all will be as interesting and well written as El Cid, by noted Reconquista fan and dedicated endurance painter James Morris, but then this is right up my street, subject wise – Almoravids, Almohads, Berbers, Flemish mercenaries (Siggins is an old Flanders family name), early knights, flags, face veils aplenty and rugged terrain; all I missed out on was a couple of pages on Moorish architecture and ceramic tiles! But seriously, there is an awful lot crammed into the 64 pages. The centre colour section is 16 pages of superbly painted and staged figures, largely from the excellent Gripping Beast range, but featuring a wide spread of troops and ‘specials’ from all over. And as they are painted by the likes of Messrs Harding, Morris and Patten, I don’t think you will be needing an ISO certificate of quality. Listening to my moans on Shieldwall, the painting and modelling section in El Cid is much better. There are even tips on how to perform simple conversions with Green Stuff, which I found surprising, but helpful. It reminded me very much of one of the GW modelling manuals, which is no bad thing. Otherwise the content follows the usual WHAB format: potted history interspersed with army lists, special cases and uniform/colour details; evocative pencil drawings; campaign rules; notes on tactics; a chronology and finally a short bibliography. Hard to find fault with this one, and even from someone who rarely plays the system, it comes highly recommended. PS If you move quickly, Amazon have an El Cid character figure for sale.
My main technical failing in the hobby is that I have trouble obtaining the right colours for the effects I wish to create. Sidestepping ‘accurate colour’ (because I think we know how much that varies) and ‘scale colour’ (because there is insufficient space!), I simply see a tank, or a figure, or perhaps a uniform plate, base effect or mud splash, and think, yes, that looks just right. That is what I want to achieve. I am probably not going to get it precisely, but I want to get closer than I am. So how do I do it?
As I have said before, I am also pretty sure this colour selection, combination and application is one of the issues that sets the top painters, and indeed their amazing figures, apart. I for one am willing to do the work and improve if I can. After all, a top notch sculpt will look very odd if coloured poorly, and an average figure can look good if the paintjob is right. I therefore turn to individuals, magazines, books, and to the web, to learn how to achieve these finishes. The question is, do they really want me to know? I am convinced that for some reason, however good (or long) the article, key details are often skipped. I am assuming it is human error, but in some cases, there is a definite pattern of omission. I wouldn’t like to state that this is intentional, perhaps because authors wish to preserve their ‘competitive advantage’, or protect painstakingly developed techniques. But then I wonder why the article is being written? Is it to convey techniques to the reader, or is it to simply show off the figures with minimum disclosure? My suspicions were increased when I started asking direct questions and getting evasive or no answers. From a professional, one can make a watertight case for this caginess, as techniques equate to livelihood, but from a hobbyist? Or an article writer? You tell me. They have presumably been paid to write the piece, usually I have paid to read it. What information should I expect to receive?
I don’t believe there is a hobby-wide conspiracy here, and many authors do provide exhaustive and helpful information. I also appreciate that colours might be mixed ‘on the fly’, different manufacturers’ paints are used, and all this may not be remembered. And I wouldn’t expect every last step to be outlined, for reasons of space alone. Plus, photography and colour printing do not always deliver colour fidelity. But it is a common, and annoying, occurrence to find little or no information on paint colours.So, here is my plea. Can we have more detailed and comprehensive information on paints, especially where mixes are involved – the percentages used help no end. A simple list of manufacturer, colour code and thinner is all that I ask. And if the colours are let down with white or sand or flesh, please tell us. It all matters to the journeyman and our results. I look forward to wealth of data on achieving flesh tones, tawny coats and French blue.
The rest of this column is devoted to an in-depth review of an interesting new rule set. I have three or four more sets still on hand, and hope to feature similar reviews over the coming months. Please let me know what you think – email@example.com
Legends of Araby
Two Hour Wargames, £12.50
Sometimes you pick up on little buzzes of activity in the hobby. Such a buzz has surrounded Ed Teixeira’s Two Hour Wargames for some time, and when this game came along I had to check it out. That is mainly because I buy almost anything on the subject of The Arabian Nights, but I also enjoy innovative systems, and there was a considerable amount of value in just reading this ruleset. The result, while far from perfect, was a positive experience. I enjoyed the systems, the gameplay, the comprehensive support material and, importantly, the spirit and enthusiasm of the designer. But THW could do with an expert graphical makeover, and I didn’t like the fact there are firearms in Araby! At least that is easily solved…
What we have here is a hybrid game. It presents traditional skirmish gaming in a newish light, and combines it with ideas drawn from role playing games. More accurately, it offers personal development, by which your character is initially fleshed out and then gains experience, skills and reputation (both abstract and anecdotal) as he progresses through the game. This latter has been done before, by the Mike Blakes and Howard Whitehouses of this hobby, in GDW’s En Garde, in countless computer games, and boardgames such as Squad Leader and Eric Goldberg’s seminalTales of the Arabian Nights. LoA shares much with these antecedents, but still delivers a fresh overall take with a heavy miniatures slant.
The problem with the hybrid is that it can sometimes inherit the negative characteristics of its parents, as well as the good. This hasn’t happened in LoA, but the union has left some rough corners and small rules holes where RPG and miniatures concepts haven’t quite meshed together. In play, these are aggravated by unusual situations and will need patching and, where they are nebulous, a ruling. The THW approach, nay philosophy, is that you can do whatever you like to resolve such queries as long as you are having fun. In fact, where a rule could work two ways, you are actively encouraged to choose, or even do both! This could be considered a cop out, akin to the catch all rules we often see, but here I can see that it might just work. If you are playing solo, as I did, then you just decide what rule interpretation you prefer and come up with a ruling. If you are on a team, you can discuss it or roll a die. And if you have an umpire, end of problem.
LoA strictly isn’t a role playing game though. It thinks it is, and perhaps has aspirations in that direction, but it isn’t. And my view is that it works precisely because it doesn’t go very far along this route. What it does do is take some elements of the RPG genre – a controlling authority, character background, skills and ‘level’ advancement, task performance and reward, and proto-narrative. These it adds to its own original combat system, throws in reaction tests and challenges to spice, and off you go. In case you are wondering whether this review should really be in The Dragon, LoA has a firm bias towards combat. Specifically with miniatures and terrain. The role playing stuff adds value, but is low key, and can be largely ignored if you want to play stand alone scenarios, or if it just doesn’t appeal. The emphasis here is 1:1 skirmish gaming, with each character having a set of negotiation skills, but fighting (or in some cases, magic) is always a prominent option. Players can control more than one figure (one of the main refutations of the RPG allusion), and I have heard of games with 30 figures a side working well. But if you like the idea of otherwise stand alone games being tied together by characters’ life stories, and a coherent background where wounds, losses and reputations are meaningful, then LoAmay ring your bell. It will also work if you like to be carried along by events. With the right attitude, LoA can lift you from the ‘kill the opponent, stay alive’ mentality to something altogether more chaotic, freeform, fast moving and interesting. And that from what is obviously a first pass design; subsequent enhancements should make for very interesting reading.
The actual systems are largely based on a neat, common mechanic. This covers morale, events, reactions, combat and tasks among others. Two d10s are rolled, and are compared to a skill rating, morale level or similar – effectively a target number. Two ‘passes’ (both dice lower) means a success, one pass gives an indeterminate outcome, and no passes is usually a failure – perhaps death if climbing a tower, or simply failing to pick a lock or reload in time. And because the mechanics are consistent, and the reaction driver is quite elegant, it all moves along quickly and ‘cinematically’. To reinforce that metaphor, Mr Teixeira suggests that the game is played out like a film, with your characters as the stars and presumably you as director, making ad hoc calls to improve the plot. This I understand, and used to run loosely umpired (i.e. stage managed) skirmish games this way, with RPG rules, emphasising a decent storyline.
So far, so good. If any ruleset delivered the above features, I would consider it money well spent. But LoA goes a step further and provides a rudimentary but eminently useable campaign setting, useful for that ‘film’ continuity, and enough scenario themes to provide an awful lot of gaming. You will ultimately need to provide more material, but if you have exhausted that supplied you are probably going to be a convert and keen to design your own stuff. This approach is typical of the RPG format, where one buys rules and a couple of scenarios or a sourcebook might be included to get you going.
So why wouldn’t one just take one of the many existing RPG systems out there, such as D&D, or perhaps GURPS, and use that to play? Indeed, THW flirted with delivering some of their games using the now ubiquitous, open licence ‘d20’ brand (where a twenty sided die is used to resolve most tasks). After all, a few of us probably own one or more of these systems already. One can even buy supplements and modules (the old TSR Al Qadim range, GURPS Arabian Nights and a couple of CCGs) specifically geared to the background, and thus a good source for more ideas. They might take more work if an umpire is used, they would be more expensive and one may have to adapt the core rules or accept a generic feel. Almost certainly, they are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Otherwise, I guess it will come down to personal preference, and what you know. LoA scores because it is all there, it is not rules heavy, and it lets you dip your toe into RPG Lite to see if it works for you.
Where LoA also scores is in coming closer to pulling off the gaming holy grail – a uni-sided or solo game that feels like an umpired game. It does this through some clever smoke and mirrors. It works because of an encounter generation system based on non-player characters (NPCs), with whom, in a very limited fashion, one can interact. Boiled down, the real aim here is to create parameters and, importantly, rationalization for a tabletop scenario – an adventure ‘seed’ in hobby parlance. NPCs can display a number of reactions (largely dice and modifier driven), while number, type and quality of opponents all vary, and so many different outcomes are possible. These in turn may lead to secondary encounters such as a quest, a battle with slavers or monsters, or perhaps a mission to rescue a princess. Thus we get flavour with minimal overhead. The LoA encounters have been made to stand alone, having a title (so you know where to use it), with built in opponents or allies, terrain, events, situations and outcomes. And of course a random element increases the variety such that it should be some while before a situation triggers deja vu.
The system fan in me immediately spotted a modular system that could be adapted and expanded by both the designer and players. You only need to hear about the projects THW and fans have underway to see how this ‘cookie cutter’ approach might work – the structure remains essentially static, while settings, ratings, weapons and NPCs change. So we can look forward to 1920’s daredevils, high (or low) fantasy, science fiction, adventure and perhaps even carefully chosen historical topics. One can see these settings being produced as fast as Mr Teixeira can write them, and that turns out to be quite quickly (he says, on his third draft of the review). In theory, these encounters can be grouped together in a themed adventure or campaign, providing a consistent stream of gaming, while many will be reusable elsewhere. Some of them might be applied in both campaign and tactical timescales, and you will doubtless think of other uses. I also wonder if the concept could be scalable, so that encounter modules (or at least the idea) could be adapted for battles, or even army level campaign games. It may well be that THW’s other games have already covered this.
The main drawbacks are twofold; firstly as varied as the system appears to be, this is largely illusory, and ultimately it may become repetitive. This is because a) the encounter structure/terminology is of necessity fixed, and b) in the manner of a Liz Hurley dress, there is actually little holding the encounters together apart from the common characters (you), the milieu and your imagination. True, we have some triggers into secondary encounters, and the quest sub-game is quite strong, but there is usually no true thematic linkage between the scenarios – so things happen, but they don’t always happen in logical order, or for reasons relating to ‘the plot’. If LoAwere a movie, it would be Mulholland Drive. Indeed, a cohesive plot doesn’t exist beyond what you build in your mind, mentally filling in the gaps between unrelated encounters. But then I had a lot of fun doing that, and there were few anomalies, so the result is acceptable. And it undoubtedly shows potential. After all, this is not a scripted computer game, and the rulebook is 70 pages long, not 700; we are looking at a realistic compromise.
In time, despite the random factor, you will get to know what type of encounters you can expect, which core situations are used repeatedly, who appears, and what happens when you chat up the princess – a similar outcome to playing a paragraph game book several times. And compounding this, the words used in the gambits, reactions and encounters are limited, and will therefore become over familiar. Arguably though, by that stage you will have had more than your money’s worth. This is essentially what sets it apart from an umpired role playing game, where actions are theoretically unrestricted and the gamemaster should ensure that the plot is consistent, that the pace and interest are maintained, and that repetition is rare. In turn, player responses in LoA are limited as well. However many options one may seem to have, the answer is often really combat. Much of the game’s long term appeal will be down to how much of that you can take, and whether you relate to the combat system. I liked it, but you can have too much of a good thing.
Secondly, the system itself is rather chart and dice heavy, sometimes a sure sign that a computer game has emerged on paper. This is a price for the increased narrative depth the game attempts. Again, this could be offset by a human umpire, which would actually be very interesting to try. Another driver in the game is the reaction check, which gives characters and units some of their ‘independent’ feel, and some required twists to the storyline. Again, showing its design roots, there are quite a lot of these. Granted, with more figures per side, you can abstract them up a level (so the whole unit tests rather than individuals), or perhaps even sometimes ignore them on a considered basis, which should speed the game up.
Overall then, LoA packs an awful lot into one booklet. It works as an unusual, ‘crossover’ rule set, with bolt-on elegant ‘role play’ ideas to offer a semblance of a continuous saga. It gives you ready made scenarios and wide scope for many more, with free expansion and variant support on the web. It also provides a sound rules structure to exploit, interpret, tweak or add to as you see fit. And if either the miniatures or the RPG aspect appeals or annoys, you can balance to suit. I don’t think for a minute this hybrid mixture, or even the subject matter, will appeal to everyone, but for those who value innovation, narrative and atmosphere, and some meaning to those otherwise groundless scenarios, it is worth making the effort.
So, unlike so many designers, Ed Teixeira delivers most of what he has promised. And unlike many games Legends of Araby reads well, breaks rules, and has plenty of interest – I found it a useful spark for ideas. It also requires you to do quite a bit of work in the imagination department, partly to help smooth out those grey areas. Perhaps for this reason alone its fantasy setting is apposite; we shall see if the historical settings work as well. Personally, I am looking forward to reading and trying the other games in the series, and seeing the planned iterations of the LoA approach. As these are being developed at a formidable rate of knots, it should be quite a ride. Recommended.
The Legends of Araby rules were designed to complement Amazon Miniatureseponymous figure range. Amazon can supply this and the other titles in the THW series, and kindly supplied the review sample. Two Hour Wargames’ website is at http://www.twohourwargames.com