Please take this post as encouragement to submit pictures and a few lines of text of your solo projects for sharing here on the blog.
If it interests you, it will interest other readers of Lone Warrior.
No need to worry about a lengthy post – just two or three sentences telling us what it is.
It can be a long running project or something new. You can tell us why it interests you, the rules you are using or planning to use, any challenges you’ve run into, any tidbits you’ve learned from your efforts so far, etc.
Most importantly, please include pictures! (Edit: If you have the means or feel they are relevant to what you’re working on.)
Yes, blog posts are about text, but visuals attract readers and engagement.
One picture is good, two is better, three or more is great. You don’t need to be a professional photographer – a reasonably lit room and a camera phone will be do the job.
Edit: To clarify, if pictures are not relevant/applicable to your current project, or if you do not have the means to submit a photo, please send a few sentences anyway! If you have a map or drawing that can accompany it, please feel free to include it, but also not necessary. Images are not a requirement for submitting a post to the blog. A few sentences about what you’re working on will undoubtedly be of interest to other readers.
Once received, I’ll give the text some light editing, if needed, and then assemble and post it with your byline. If you have a blog of your own, please include the URL, so I can include it in the post.
Please email blog post submissions to lonewarriorwebsite@gmail.com
Thank you!
— John Y.
This is ia nice idea but I’d differ from you in the emphasis on photos. Like the good use of white space, photos, like a drawing, have a place in illustrating ideas but usually the good ideas come across in the text. I now include a few photos with my articles but they don’t convey how a game is structured. And while I’m developing a game there’s very little to see except pages of notes and the odd sketch.
I’m also concerned that the suggested emphasis on photos may put people off writing. I rarely write for magazines such as Miniature Warfare and Wargames Illustrated because of the need to supply photos, preferably of 28mm figures painted to a high standard. I would like to see LW head that way.
Brian
The last sentence should have been “I WOULDN’T like to see Lone Warrior haed that way.
Brian
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your comment.
I don’t disagree about not wanting Lone Warrior to go the way of other wargaming magazines in terms of requiring photos with submissions. Nor do I disagree that very often the meat of the content even on the blog is in the text.
However, my intention in emphasizing pictures was to lower the barrier to entry for submissions and increase the pool of individuals who submit posts to the blog.
The blog serves multiple purposes – entertaining and informing existing readers , yes, but also attracting new readers, and hopefully, subscribers. That requires content.
An article for the journal is a big commitment for many, but a picture and a sentence on the blog, is, hopefully, less so. I certainly am not intending to suggest people cannot submit text-only content for the blog or that all content submitted to the blog has to have pictures. My hope is by explicitly saying even just a picture and a sentence will do for a post, we can get more readers to share their projects and with any luck, they’ll be encouraged by the responses to submit additional posts or even articles for the journal.
I will edit the post above to clarify that a lack of visual images does not disqualify a post from being shared.
Cheers!
– John
Hi All,
I read JohnY’s original post with interest, and I understood the intent behind it as things have been extremely quiet on the blog site for a while now. I have to admit that I check the blog site on almost a daily basis to see if there is anything new, and apart from Rob Morgan’s valiant efforts there’d be little happening. I assume that the blog goes through cycles of high and low activity, and maybe this is one of the low ebbs. I’ve only been a member for a short time so my experience is limited to say the least. I will add however, that one of the key reasons I joined the SWA was because of all the thoughtful and supportive comments and advice I got when I first pinged the blog with some questions. So again, I get where John is coming from to try and get us posting our projects and musings to share with the wider group so we can all share and learn together.
I also understand Brian’s concern, but as indicated I didn’t interpret John’s original post that way, although I do have some empathy with Brian’s position.
So, with all that said and done, what have I been up to lately?
First off, I’ve managed to write up two submission for the next Journal, the one my dog ate (‘ahem’!!) for the previous Journal and the follow-up article which I had planned for this coming Journal, and yes, plenty of pictures to go with the wall of text.
At this moment, I am painting up an 1866/70 Austrian army (10mm Pendraken) to add to my campaign game. The painting mojo has returned so I’m making the most of it while it lasts. Did I mention that I hate painting!!
I’m looking to build some fortifications to play out a siege game. I currently have a small garrison bottled up in the citadel in Mainz, with two French Corps about to turn up and decide the issue. Unfortunately for the French, they have no siege guns, so I’m not sure how things will play out.
The other thing I’m mulling over is the scouting and intelligence mechanisms I have been keen to develop. The forces in theatre are starting to build up so I’ll need to start looking at that aspect in earnest now.
Finally, I’m looking to find/develop some mechanism to determine post-battle casualties in a campaign context, i.e. how to determine numbers of KIA, WIA and POWs. Keen to hear your thoughts on this!
Unfortunately, no photos with this post. I managed to crush my iPhone in the boot door if my car last week, so am making do with an old phone, which is very clunky by comparison. So the photos will have to wait until I get my phone fixed or replaced.
So what are the rest of you doing?
Cheers
G
Hi George,
Thank you for your comment!
I appreciate that you picked up on what I was hoping to convey.
It sounds like your wargaming plate is quite full!
Pictures don’t post to blog comments – I’ve emailed you directly to discuss the option of making a post from this comment.
Cheers!
– John
I have stopped checking the SWA regularly because nothing was happening. Over time, I realized that the value of the website is in its archives of useful information. The journal is the main benefit of membership in the SWA. The archives and the journal are important contributions to solo wargaming. Active discussion is a horse of another color. Facebook has several discussion groups about wargaming. Some address solo wargaming. They wax and wane. Expecting the Blog to perform the same function may be unrealistic.
Hi James,
Thank you for commenting.
You touched on an important distinction – the blog is not a discussion board in the way Facebook groups, Lead Adventure Forum, and other similar sites are. I think you are right that expecting the blog to function in the same way as those sites may be unrealistic. That said, the combination of a post and its comments section does function in that way at times and I’m always happy to see a post with conversation continuing in the comments.
Like this post, for example.
The Lone Warrior blog serves a variety of functions – news about the site itself (design changes, new downloads, etc.), news about the Lone Warrior journal, the sharing of content that might be tied to current events, and the sharing of shorter content than the journal usually contains.
This post was focused on that last one.
While there are dedicated solo gaming Facebook groups, a board on The Miniatures Page , and subreddit’s where solo wargaming is discussed, not everyone uses those platforms. There are many voices in solo wargaming – some with their own blogs, many without – and short content posts provide a low barrier to entry to participating in what is probably the most widely known community of solo wargamers.
Not coincidentally, it’s also a way to provide existing community members with something new to read and engage with more often – giving everyone an opportunity for increased participation.
(You would not be wrong if this makes you think I’m something of an idealist!)
Cheers!
– John
G’day Jim,
Great to hear from you! I pretty much agree with what you’ve said, although I don’t think it a hopeless ask for people to share what they’re doing. I agree that there are a lot of fora where we can go to ‘talk’ hobby, but the SWA is a bit of a niche group and entirely focussed on solo gaming in all of its manifestations. I found the SWA because I was specifically searching for solo Wargaming and solo Wargaming campaigns, and bingo, I hit the jackpot! As you said, the archives and sample articles are a treasure trove of ideas, and I have also been extremely impressed by the Journals. I must have fluked something when I first posted my questions because I received a heap of answers along with some great ideas and advice, which I have since implemented in my own campaign. So I know there are a lot of friendly and knowledgeable solo gamers amongst the wider SWA bretheren, or should that be amongst the wider pack of lone wolf gamers!?
Right now, I’m wondering what you’re doing on the gaming front, along with what is Rob Morgan up to, and Brian Cameron and my old friend George Arnold?
For my campaign, I’ve introduced a new A3 sized map to replace the 2’x2’ monster map I was using, and am about to kick off the movement of forces into theatre again.
I’ve been toying with the idea of introducing personalities or characters, along D&D lines for the National leaders and key military leaders, I am using stats already, this is more along the lines of personality and decision making, alliances and enmities etc. New ground for me, but am mulling over a few ideas.
I also had a bit of a hurdle to jump that I balked at a couple of times before I finally made the jump. I’m painting up a Austrian army for my campaign, using 1866 figures. However, the campaign is set in 1870, and the Austrian uniforms had changed by then. My issue was whether to keep the Austrians in their correct 1866 colours, so I could refight the Austrian-Prussian war at a later date, or should I commit to my fictitious campaign and paint them in their 1870 colours, knowing that the Austrians did not fight a major war in that uniform??
As it happens, I quite liked the look of the 1870 uniforms, so that’s the path I’m taking, but it did give me serious pause with my historical gamer OCD kicking in big time! It’s been a big step for me, but am quite happy with the decision and looking forward to where this liberation from historical constraints is going to take me!
I don’t think I would have taken this leap if it hadn’t been for a lot of ideas I got from the articles the SWA crew had put forward. So I can blame you guys for the heresy I have just committed, if the button-counters come to burn me at the stake!
I shall make the most of my mental freedom while it lasts!
My apologies again, no photos, still haven’t got my phone fixed.
Cheers
G
GeorgeB,
You asked what I am working on. It’s the war between Warsaw Pact and NATO in 1975 when USA was reeling from losing the war in Vietnam. Modern weapons did not arrive until the eighties. Soldiers still wore steel pot helmets and carried M16s. The APCs carried them to battle and those same lightly armored vehicles fought with them. This war did not happen but we believed it could happen. The Soviet tanks were headed right for us. How to model vehicular warfare? I can do it at the squad and platoon level by basing infantry with vehicles. But squads had mixed weaponry so unit types are not cleanly separated.
G’day Jim,
Many thanks for sharing!
Out of interest, what scale figures and vehicles are you using?
Are you using commercial rules or a home brew?
I was tempted to get into Cold War era gaming with the new NORTHAG rules using accompanying the sets of 10mm figures, although NORTHAG is probably old news now!
I have the British and Soviet starter sets, all still unpainted, and I’ve read through the rules once, that’s it!
I believe the NORTHAG rules are company level with a 1:1 figure/vehicle ratio, although from memory the infantry are based together in teams, rather than individually. I like the use of smaller scale figures and vehicles as it brings the ground scale and firing distances into a more realistic relationship, well to my eye anyway!
Be interested to see how you go with your mixed arms teams and how you differentiate armament and capability.
I was also a child of the 70s and remember the threat of WW3 appeared very real then!
Cheers
G
GeorgeB,
I am using 1/72 scale. Model train buildings match the scale without having to stretch my imagination.
One APC with four figures represents one squad. A tank has no figures with it. Basing a mortar squad with an APC makes it a mortar section. An APC with a gun turret is an antitank unit. Other figures with an APC are a rifle squad.
Rules are One Hour Wargames WWII era with adjustments. Most of the vehicles are three D prints I found on eBay.
The general approach is to have the two sides fight over a particular location. Winner retains the ground. After the battle, each side is resupplied. The loser returns for another try. Three linked small battles are in the series. For the initial set up, terrain is randomly distributed.
Hi Jim,
All sounds very interesting! With your inter-game reinforcement & resupply, do you select from remaining Company assets, or Battalion or Regimental assets?
Is the ground being fought over dictated by map movement?
Do you fight a series of day 1 battles to represent a wider front, say company or battalion frontage, with the ability to have assets from adjoining (flank) units participate or provide fire support at the inter-unit boundary? If you do represent a wider front, how do you account for wins/losses of each of the adjoining small battles and their impact on adjoining battles, particularly if adjoining battles occur a bit later so may have an appreciation of success or reversals on their flank(s) as battle is joined with the enemy to their front?
How big is your playing area, and what does this equate to i the ground scale you are using? Do you also have off table fire support such as Artillery and mortars? Do you have models for air support such a ground attack aircraft or anti-tank helicopters or are they represented as ‘off table’ assets?
Do you represent casualties and Medevac/Casevac operations?
Have you tried airmobile ops and resupply yet?
Any AARs of games you’ve played that show the flow of the game and how solo play aspects?
Apologies in advance for all the questions, but just some of the things that popped to mind after reading your post! How do you find 1/72 for modern war gaming, noting the effective range of weapon systems? Not too dissimilar from WW2 in some respects, but I note a very popular commercial WW2 rule system that would result in parking lots of tanks parked sideskirt-to-sideskirt, along with heavy artillery batteries deployed, on something like a 2’ or 3’ square table, with very little room for manoeuvre! The same system then got used for the Cold War period which I believe further exacerbated the over crowded table problem and highlighted the disconnect between figure scale, ground scale and weapons ranges. Not sure if this is an issue for you or not, but it’s one of the key reasons I’ve seen for people to game modern war (greater than skirmish level) in very small scales like 1:285/6mm scale ‘Micro-Armour’?
Cheers
G
Hi All,
I’ve figured out a way to get some pics posted via JohnY, so you’ll be able to see the state of my workbench shortly.
Also, I have to apologise, as I’ve also deliberately contributed to the dearth of blog content recently. There was a moment a couple of months or more ago when I noticed that all the new posts and all the comments had my name on them! I had a thought that I had somehow turned into ‘that guy’ who just couldn’t or wouldn’t shut up, so I stepped back to give others the opportunity for some air time! However, for whatever reason, things did not pick up.
So again, I would encourage any and all of you to jot down a couple of lines about what you’re doing or otherwise working on and send them through. I’ve found all comments posted to date to be very interesting, even when they are in periods or systems I’m not playing. I’ve found the different perspectives, approaches and solutions to various solo gaming issues that people have come up with to be extremely useful in helping me solve my own problems. Again, one of the great strengths and benefits of this group – or lone wolf pack! How does the saying go, “the strength of the wolf is the pack, the strength of the pack is the wolf”. I see a lot of truth in that for the SWA and helping each other progress in our hobby endeavours.
Hence, I am very much looking forward to hearing what you guys are up to around the world. I’m pretty sure we have both hemispheres and most continents covered, the pack is spread far and wide indeed! So what is the news???
Cheers
G
GeorgeB,
To answer some of your questions.
Only three squads on each side are on the board. Units are selected randomly from a table in the One Hour Wargames book.
Short platoons are facing off with no support from flanks. In these short encounters, there is no air support or off table artillery. A mortar section might be one of the squads, however. Ranges are an interesting question. Shooting is line of sight except for mortars. Riflemen never aimed, they just prayed and sprayed. Therefore, effective range was short.
G’day Jim,
Many thanks for your clarification, I’m obviously over thinking things! I think your approach is on the money for some enjoyable gaming!
Cheers
G
GeorgeB,
Many miniature Wargamers have moved away from detailed game mechanics so that they can just enjoy the game. Different strokes for different folks.