Three Ages of Rome and The Battle of Piranthus

There is considerable potential for complication in Ancient wargaming, resulting from the long time period to be covered, and the resulting plethora of troop types and combat styles. It takes a bit of talent to boil all these down into a workable game, but Philip Garton appears to have achieved this in his 160 page, softback rulebook, Three Ages of Rome, published by Helion. 

I first encountered these rules at the Cirencester Waragmes Club. I was impressed by the way they included all the period character I wanted, in a set that was very playable. I finally bought my own copy at the Colours show at Newbury Racecourse. I needed a solo game to get me back up to speed, and then I invited my old pal Paul up from Bristol to get a proper game in.

As you can see, basic terrain and the most basic scenario possible - line 'em up and have at it. Each side had three 'commands' plus an army general. You can see Paul shuffling the playing cards which we used for the random activation of both side's commands, as per the rules. This works nicely.

I'm not going to give a full description of how the rules function, but as a comparison, I was reminded of Valour and Fortitude when playing these rules, particularly in that they give the game a proper story as commands, and then the whole army, slowly fall apart during the game. There should be no doubt about who won and who lost in most games.

Those willing to go back to older posts in the Ancients section of this blog will see that my previous set of rules was Mantic's Kings of War Historical. These are an interesting and original set, but I quickly found Three Ages of Rome seemed a more natural fit for the ancient period. Most notably, they were written specifically for this peiod, rather than being adapted from a fantasy set, as Kings of War are. One interesting difference is that KoW is a true 'bucket of dice' game, whereas 3oaR needs no more than a couple of dice for most of the game.

I have to admit that a further attraction was that the rules were going for £15 at the Colours show, a very reasonable price indeed. Well done to Paul Meekins for their usual well-stocked and well laid-out stall, and the variety of good deals on offer. Normal price is £20 from Helion & Co. Time for a few more photos.

It was good to get the ancients stuff out again. They haven't seen much action in the last couple of years. For those not familiar, it's no use trying to work out what period the armies shown above have come from. They are from my imaginary nations of Latium and Paphlagonia, invented so that I can collect whatever ancients figures I wish and mash them together in composite armies. The 'Battle of Piranthus' is thus entirely fictional.

No mountain of re-basing was required to swap to these rules. Sensibly, the author specifies basing in multiples of 40mm, easily the most common basing style out there. The rules were apparently written for figure sizes between 6mm and 15mm. The author states that those using 28mm figures will need to increase game distances by 50%, and gives larger base measurements for these bigger figures. 

In fact, I found the rules worked fine with my 28mm troops using the normal measurements. I use 8 infantry figures on an 80mm wide base in two rows of 4, or 4 formed cavalry figures in a single row on the same base width. Playing with 50% bigger measurements would, I think, be an issue as the rules would outgrow a 6' x 4' table, particularly as the moves are quite generous. Plus the 'multiples of 40mm' thing breaks down a bit when using the larger base sizes recommended for 28mm.

Each of those 80mm wide bases forms a 'unit', by the way. A unit of 'massed infantry' (e.g. a hoplite or legionary unit) is supposed to represent 900-1200 men. A unit of 'massed cavalry' (meaning most medium and heavy cavalry) represents 400-600 men. Although technically you can use units individually, forming them into larger base-to-base groupings seems natural, as my photos show and as the photos and examples in the rulebook also demonstrate. It makes no difference to how the rules themselves play, although of course it makes a considerable difference to the tactics one might use. Historical formations would seem to work the best.

I should add that the scenarios section is good, providing details for six small, real battles, each featuring about 10,000 to 15,000 troops in the original actions. Of course, the actual size of the real battles may be somewhat in doubt, but the author does his best. As you can see, these scenarios are quite small, most involving less units than the game I set up with Paul, so they are good for introducing you to the rules but won't accomodate medium or large collections. The separate army lists are commendably simple and easy to understand - a clever piece of work, IMHO, but note they are also configured for small, club-night style actions.

There Has To Be A Downside?

Of course there is. Well, a few fairly minor drawbacks. Most notably, the rules writing lacks clarity in a number of sections. For example, the author shows an unnerving desire to call the same thing by different names as a paragraph or section proceeds. The worst example is that the names of the troop types carefully described in the rules differ from the abbreviations given in the army lists. This had to be fixed by a free download on the Helion sales site, providing the appropriate translation. I won't labour this point - the lack of clarity is irritating, but a full and careful reading of the rules makes just about everything clear in the end.

The rules are also rather table-heavy, but the tables are where a lot of the period flavour resides, so this seems to me to be reasonable. 

Something to look out for is that Paul and I did find the play rather indecisive. We managed 7 moves in about 2.5 hours, at which point only a couple of units had routed and none had actually been lost. I played out 3 more moves solo the next day, and losses did start to mount, but the rules for 'command confidence' and 'Army General's Will' had only just started to kick in. 

This was noticed at the Cirencester Club where I first encountered these rules. Changes to the 'reform' rules (i.e. the rally rules) were made pretty quickly, as reforming seemed much too easy. Personally, I also found that flank and rear attacks were not generating enough damage, and I have tweaked the rules for these. We all know how dangerous such attacks were supposed to be, for pike and hoplite formations in particular. I have also imposed the same rule I used in Honours of War, that melees must continue until some sort of decision is reached in the current turn, rather than carrying over into the next turn. I'm hoping this sort of thing will  make my games crack on at a faster pace.

Overall, these rules deserve a wider audience. I found no online support, official or otherwise, which is a shame. Therefore I have just started a Facebook group which you can find here:

Three Ages of Rome - Facebook

And that's about it. 'Til next time!

Cotswold Wargaming Day 2024 - Another Success!

I had a good feeling about the new venue for the CWD, and it turned out I was right. Andy and Derek at Big Battles Ltd in Cirencester had set out the variety of tables needed in advance, and I was able to pop in to check things out and put names on tables the preceding Friday. I left convinced that everything was going to be fine.

I was a little concerned about numbers, as a few gamers had to cancel quite close to the date for a variety of completely understandable reasons. But in the end, the show was buzzing - Andy said he counted 40 people at one point, which would be a record. The venue cost £300 to hire, and I collected £310 from attendees at a tenner each, so I was well content. The extra tenner will go to the 'Many Tears' dog rescue charity, who do wonderful work rescuing mistreated and homeless dogs.

As usual, it is my pleasure to thank those who took the trouble to bring games to the event. The standard was as good as ever, as was the cheerful and friendly spirit in which everyone participated. I think most individual visitors found a game to join in with if they wanted, which was also pleasing. The reduced workload that resulted from using the new venue enabled me to put on a game myself, which was great fun and a first for me after 6 events. Thanks to Chris and Dillon for joining me in my first CWD game.

I reckon it only remains to put out some photos of the day. My thanks to Big Battles and Steve Johnson for permission to share some of their images. Unfortunately, running my own game prevented me from gathering as much information about the various games being played as I would have liked, so apologies if important info is missing here and there.

Overview of the hall. There were 8 games on show.

My own game, Poland 1939 using my own Startline rules.
A quickly-conceived bit of fun involving an encounter game
between elements of 10th Mechanised Brigade and 2nd Panzer Division.

German forces close in on the Poles around the chapel.

Next to me in 'WW2 Corner' were Matt and Paul with their 1/200th
Russian Front game, using BKC II.

Nice close-up of advancing German armour.
(Courtesy Big Battles)

Stuart Surridge and the Wyre Forest Gamers put on an impressive 
Ancients game which was much admired.

All 28mm figures, each individually based. Crikey!
(Courtesy Big Battles)

Steve Johnson (centre) brought another great 'imaginations' game set in the
Horse and Musket period. He came on his own,
but quickly found some eager participants to help him out.

Among whom was Dave Pike, an old wargaming buddy I hadn't seen in years.
Great to catch up Dave!

Close up of the action on Steve's table.
(Courtesy Big Battles)

Dave Kenyon and friends are another group of regulars.
They brought a Franco-Prussian war game with figures sculpted and cast by Dave himself.
Very impressive, and classic old-school. 

I'm afraid my attempt at a close-up of some Prussian guns
doesn't do the figures justice.

Tim Cull brought along a game based on the 1664 Battle of St Gottard,
between Ottoman and Imperial forces. A typically original choice!
(Courtesy Big Battles)

The game was played through twice. 
(Courtesy Big Battles)

The Cirencester Wargames Club brought along a large number of lovely
Renaissance figures to fight out an imaginary battle using their own 'Risky Renaissance' rules.
(Courtesy Big Battles)

As with Tim's game they managed to play through the battle twice.
In both cases, this was enabled by home-brewed, simple rules.
(Courtesy Big Battles)

Last, but definitely not least, we come to the Ian and Paul's game,
which was an impressive Wild West skirmish set up.
(Courtesy Big Battles)

Finally, a nice extra facility this year was the 'chill-out area', where
fatigued gamers could take a break from the rigours of combat. 

Prizes

There were 3 prizes this year - the Stuart Asquith Trophy for best game, the Chris Gregg prize of an original artwork for Best Presented Game, and the Pendraken prize of a £25 gift voucher. It was very generous of Chris to put in the work to create such a great picture as a prize.

Andy and Derek very kindly agreed to judge and present the Stuart Asquith Trophy. They had no doubt that Ian and Paul's Wild West set-up was the winner, due to the magnificent and dedicated modelling skills shown in the creation of the buildings and terrain, along with the variety of fun scenarios which were played out. Chris also wished to give his own prize to the same game, and so for the second year running a single game received two prizes. I judged the Pendraken prize myself, and awarded it to Dave Kenyon's game as I fell in love with his shiny toy soldiers, and much admired his skill in both sculpting and casting them himself.

Ian and Paul with their well-earned trophy. According to Ian,
the credit was all due to Paul!

Dave receives the Pendraken Prize for 'Keith's Favourite Game'.
(Courstesy Steve Johnson)

And so that just about wraps it up. I have already booked the Big Battles venue for Sunday 19th October 2025. I have a feeling that if things go well, 2025 might be a record year for us. I guess we'll see. I had a lovely day, and was happy to hear from everyone I spoke to that they had also enjoyed themselves. Well done everybody!

'Til next time!

Donald Featherstone & Wargamer's Newsletter

The Don gets mentioned in quite a lot of my blog posts - his was the major influence during my formative years as a wargamer in the late 1960s and early 70s. I also have a bit of a soft spot for old wargaming magazines, so I was very pleased recently to be steered towards a site which has pdf versions of most of the editions of Wargamer's Newsletter, the legendary gaming fanzine produced by Mr Featherstone from 1962 to 1980. 

This online collection is a remarkable record, with only the very early magazines from 1962-64 missing. It is fascinating to see how the magazine developed and improved over the years, from the typed, copied and stapled early productions with their barely discernable illustrations to the really rather professional final editions. I have 4 original copies at home, including one from November 1964 which I managed to get on eBay a while back. The other 3 are from 1979, which I actually bought over the counter at the old Tradition shop just off Picadilly when I worked in London. I hated the job but loved to get out in my lunchbreak to places like Tradition and the Charing Cross Market where there was a great record stall.

Believed to be from the April 1964 edition,
one of those missing from the online collection.

If you're up for a bit of nostalgia, I'd highly recommend visiting the site. Truth be told, apart from nostalgia, the magazines themselves often have little to offer the contemporary gamer. What I'm usually looking for are scenarios, but they are surprisingly few and far between. This is an area where modern magazines score quite highly over the older publications. But there is always the possibility of finding something really interesting. For example, the January 1966 edition features some Napoleonic wargames rules by a certain Philip Barker - which extend to a magnificent two and a bit typewritten pages. What is clear is that the magazine was a genuine attempt to bring gamers together and give them a voice, in a pre-internet world.

Talking of interesting snippets, I found the following editorial in the August 1964 edition, the oldest in the collection. Rather than quote from it, I'll give you the whole thing. What interested me is the relevance to a post of mine from August regarding the professionalisation and commercialisation of the hobby, and the possible conflict of this process with the hobby's amateur roots. I won't labour the point, but the subject was obviously concerning Donald Featherstone all of sixty years ago. 

Click to expand and read more easily.

So, if you have half an hour to fill, dipping in to this resource is certainly worth it. For gamers of my age it's pure nostalgia, and for younger gamers it's a pretty good insight into our hobby in its early years.

'Til next time!

Airborne Armour - New Edition

 I was pleasantly surprised recently when Helion & Company got in touch with me to say a new edition of Airborne Armour was coming out, and they would be sending me a free author copy.

The first thing to say is that there are no changes to the text - as I said above, I only knew the new edition was coming out when Helion told me! What Helion have produced is a paperback of 224 pages, containing the full book, but using thinner, shiny paper to give something significantly slimmer than the original hardback. The shiny paper improves the quality of reproduction of the photos, and overall the book quality is what you would expect from a reputable publisher like Helion. I am well pleased.

The front and back covers feature new photos which are both interesting. It was slightly frustrating to see that the rear cover photo is of a six-pounder being loaded on to a Horsa glider, which is of little relevance to the 6th AARR, but what the heck. It's still an interesting photo.

My advice is to buy this edition, even if you already have a copy of the book. Tell all your friends (and family) to buy a copy as well. Spread the word on the internet. I need the money to spend on figures and models.

'Til next time!

Amateur or Professional? A response to Richard Clarke

Wargames, Soldiers & Strategy magazine issues 130 and 131 have both been corkers. Every now and then I get to thinking that wargames magazines have had their day, then I get proved wrong, usually by WSS. In both issues there were interesting articles, some useful scenarios, and interesting review sections. Oh yes, and some decent maps as well. 

I know some of you find the 'think piece' articles, where issues around the way the hobby is developing are aired, a bit uninteresting - too much navel-gazing when we should be thinking about painting figures and playing games. For myself, I find them worthwhile. I spend a lot of my average day thinking about and planning my wargaming, plus the time I actually spend gaming, and I like to try and understand what I'm doing and why.

To cut to the chase, WSS130 contained an article by Richard Clarke (of the Too Fat Lardies, of course) called 'Naked Communication'. As you'd expect, it was well worth reading, and largely contained a lot of common sense. Broadly, it was about the kickback some of the bigger commercial wargaming companies occasionally get when they introduce new rules, new supplements and new figures for reasons that seem to have more to do with increasing revenue than looking after their customers. Of course, if you run and/or own a company, increasing revenue is your job. The problem is that miniature wargaming is largely an amateur undertaking, and ordinary wargamers can react adversely to what they see as commercialism.

This is the crux of Richard's article, and it was a couple of his statements concerning the amateur/professional relationship that made me want to write a response. Let's start with the first quote that made me think I disagreed with him.

"...pleased as we must be that the hobby is more accessible and that products are more available, we somehow retain an odd attachment to the amateur roots of the hobby."

'An odd attachment to the amateur roots of the hobby'. What's odd about being attached to the hobby's roots? Let's check out the definition of hobby:

'An activity that someone does for pleasure when they are not working.' (Cambridge Dictionary)

'An activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure'. (Oxford Languages on Google)

So a hobby is by definition an amateur activity. It's not a job. Which makes that phrase 'the amateur roots of the hobby' rather suspect. Our hobby was an amateur one when it started, and it's still mostly amateur today. There are, of course, professional companies attached to the hobby, and their number seems to be growing. They are also quite often run by genuine and inspirational wargamers like Richard, so the lines are blurred. But that doesn't change the nature of the hobby. 

Richard goes on to mention the influence of the internet, which he correctly identifies as massively positive, and the emergence of 3D printing, which he seems less certain about. He states that "it is a direct threat to the large figure and model making companies". In that he is obviously correct, but from the point of view of an amateur wargamer, the picture looks rather different. For me, 3D printing has enabled me to get miniatures I couldn't get from any established manufacturer, or miniatures I could get from an established manufacturer but of better quality for the same price or less. As soon as I became aware of the potential of 3D printing, I realised it would change what I called the 'balance of power' between the main commercial companies and ordinary wargamers. The cottage industry was back (just like the 60s, 70s and 80s), and individual gamers could even print their own high quality figures and models. 

Now this is, of course, wonderful news, especially because it speaks directly to the 'amateur roots of the hobby'. To some extent, ordinary, amateur wargamers are taking back control. This is a feature of the influence of the internet as well, of course, although I reckon the commercial side of the hobby has benefited at least as much from the world wide web as us amateurs.

Richard saves the worst for last. He forsees "bigger companies asking, even insisting, that at their events you use their models when using their rules". Flames of War gathered some bad publicity a few years back when they tried this. I guess if a company is actually running a competition and footing the costs, then fair enough. But not something I would like to see becoming widespread. Such are the dangers of 'official' and 'commercial' wargaming. 

And then this:

"If we want the hobby to survive, grow and prosper, we need to recognise that the amateur hobby is not one we want to return to."

I intend to recognise no such thing. We've already established that wargaming with miniatures is an amateur undertaking. So we're not really returning to anything, as we never really departed from it. Richard identifies a "vibrant and exciting hobby industry" as vital to the future of the hobby. Well, it's nice to have you guys around, and we all wish you the best, but if you're experiencing a bit of competition, welcome to the world of capitalism. 3D printing is the best thing to happen to this hobby for many years. It promises to set ordinary wargamers free from the commercial pressures suffered by full-time professionals. We can have what we want, when we want it, rather than when it suits the priorities of various wargaming companies. The 'hobby industry' will have to learn how to catch up. I hope they do. 

Gamers will continue to protest from time to time about being told we have to do it differently now, because there's a new rulebook out, or a new range of figures. They can, of course, choose to just walk away, which some do. Well done guys. Do it the way it was before. Do it your way. 

I should end by thanking Richard for a polite and thought-provoking piece which helped me clarify what the hobby is about and what it means to me. I think I should also say that the Too Fat Lardies have added a lot to the hobby and given a great deal of pleasure to a lot of gamers, including me. Sincere best wishes for the future, gentlemen. But I for one welcome any move back towards the hobby's roots. We can do this move in a modern way, with excellent 3D products tailored to our needs, and home-brewed, self-published rules with professional-level presentation. This is our hobby, where we all choose our own way of enjoying the pastime. This is what we must not lose, and this is what is vital to our gaming future. An amateur hobby is the natural state of things. Long may it continue. 

"Testing, Testing..."

In early May, just before my wife and I set off for our 8 week Scandinavian adventure in our motorhome, I was working on two ideas that I thought might enhance Startline. The first was a new, alternate move sequence (rather than the current IGO-UGO), and a new morale system. Both offered interesting and quite fundamental changes to the game, so on my return I was keen to try them out.

Packing up the motorhome can be time consuming.

Do IGO or do UGO?

Startline currently uses a pretty traditional IGO-UGO system - I move and fire all my stuff, then you do the same with yours. Most of you will know the various arguments as to why this can be a problem - the most common being that one player stands there doing nothing (or not much), whilst the other player has all the fun. This has never really been a problem for me, as I am a gamer who enjoys watching the battle unfold, and I am very content to watch my opponent do his (or her) thing. Some banter can always be applied to liven things up - a loud sucking of the teeth combined with a doubtful shake of the head can often tempt your opponent to change their move. If part of a multi-player side, you can also indulge in behind-the-hand whispers about what your opponent is up to, which may cause additional alarm and despondency. 

There is, of course, the very basic argument that IGO-UGO is just plain old-fashioned.

For me, a much more telling critique of IGO-UGO is that it is too predictable and is a poor representation of battlefield events. To put it simply, the actions we are trying to represent are rather more interactive and less orderly than IGO-UGO implies. Thus, some form of alternate activation has become fashionable - one of my units goes, then one of yours, etc., until everyone has 'gone'. A further step in this process is random activation, where which player goes next is decided on a die roll, or picking a counter, or turning a card. Bolt Action is the most well-known WW2 game using this mechanic, where tokens are drawn from a bag. 

I recently came across this video on YouTube which covers this subject, amongst others. The whole video is interesting but the IGO-UGO discussion commences at 6.50.

One of the commenters on the video made a point which chimed in with my own thoughts - that random activation can get just a bit too random. The feeling of creating and executing a plan disappears and one ends up just reacting. Now some may argue this is quite a good representation of WW2 combat at section/platoon/company level. But my own view is that too much random can spoil a game. Hence my aversion to the recent resurgence of the 'special event card' mechanic - for example, the Fate Cards in Valour & Fortitude. The dice make our games quite random enough, IMHO.

So, I went for alternate activation, where Side A picks a unit and fires and moves with it, then Side B, then Side A again, etc. Indirect fire and air strikes are done by both sides in an opening phase of the turn, and after activation is finished both sides check morale.

Run Away!

The morale section in Startline is also currently pretty old school. A die roll, a set of modifiers (perhaps a few too many for modern tastes), and then check the total against a results table. Here, the inspiration for something different came from an online contact with a gamer in the U.S., Tom Dye. He had been thinking about what might be wrong with morale rules in miniature wargaming, and I took away two ideas from his thoughts - first, that more than just 3 morale categories (in my rules, hesitant, regular or determined) might be preferable, and that morale during the course of an action would go up and down, in particular as a result of the leadership qualities and interventions of the unit command, and this should be tracked in a game on a turn-by-turn basis. 

Now, hardly ground breaking you might think, but these ideas helped me see the way to a different morale system. Basically, each unit would start the game with a number between 6 and 12, which would be its Morale Value. Events through the game (mainly casualties) would reduce this, but the Morale Value can also be recovered through a rally rule. There is a still a results table that tells what the Morale Value of a unit means in terms of behaviour in the game - basically either OK, no advance, fall back, or run away. The upsides here were a system that looked a bit more original, and a significant reduction in the number of modifiers during morale tests.

Test Game 1

So, I embarked on a couple of test games to check out if the new rules were viable. I went for just a 4' x 4' table which would enable a quick set up. The terrain was adapted from the 'Cristot' scenario in the Dave Brown 'O'Group rule book. The first game was an attack-defence scenario with a German recce group attempting to seize and hold a Polish village during the 1939 campaign. Forces were of the same points, according to my points system:

German - Force HQ + 2cm AA on half track

Heavy Armoured Car platoon - 3 x Sdkfz231 

Light Armoured Car platoon - 2 x Sdkfz221, 2 x Sdkfz222

Motorcycle Infantry platoon

Truck-mounted Infantry platoon

75mm IG75 section - 2 guns

Polish - Force HQ

Infantry platoon x 2 (each with 37mm Bofors anti-tank gun attached)

TKS platoon - 3 x TKS mg, 1 x TKS 20mm

Tank platoon - 3 x Vickers 47mm, 2 x Vickers mg

Mortar section - 2 x 8cm mortars off-table with MFO on-table

A few photos just to give you an idea:

Set-up. Germans attacking from left.
Half the Polish force started off-table in reserve.

German armoured cars and motorcyle infantry making good progress...

...until the Vickers tanks arrive and things get messy.

The German heavy armoured cars managed to penetrate into the rear of the village.
You can see that their Morale Value is 8.

This first game was a bit confusing as I got used to the new ideas. To be honest, I wasn't convinced things were going to work out with the new rules. For the record, the Germans lost despite their bold advance, as they didn't manage to claim the required 2 objectives in 8 turns.

Test Game 2

For this game I decided that simpler forces and a simpler set up would enable me to concentrate on how the new rules were functioning. So I tweaked the terrain slightly and went for a tank-heavy encounter engagement:

Germans - Force HQ

Medium Tank platoon x 2 - each 5 x Pz38t

Light Tank platoon - 5 x PzIIc

Motorcycle platoon 

Polish - Force HQ

Light Tank platoon x 2 - each 5 x 7tp

Medium Tank platoon - 4 x Renault R-35

Truck-mounted Infantry platoon

Points values between the 2 forces were once again just about equal. Some more photos:

Set-up. Germans to the left once more.

Half-way point. Tanks casualties high on both sides.

Polish infantry retreating from the crossroads area.

In this game the Germans won by claimng one objective, whilst the Poles could claim none. A much more positive game where I could see the wood for the trees, or to put it another way, I could see the new rules working rather better.

So, overall, I'll be sticking with the new rules for future games - but there is a way to go yet. I might end up dumping either or both of them, or more likely adopting them in an amended form. We'll see. Should be a fun process!

To check out the new rules, visit the Startline io group, and look in the Files section. If you're not a member, it takes a couple of minutes to join. Free rules - what's not to like?

'Til next time!

The Stockholm Rendezvous

No, I've not started writing spy thrillers. My wife and I have been on holiday in Scandinavia since early May, and just recently we were having a couple of days in Stockholm when I lost my phone. Some nice person handed it in at the Nobel Prize Museum (as it was found nearby). 

So what has that to do with this blog? Well, a member of staff at the museum made it his personal quest to contact the owner of the phone and return it to him. By searching for my name online he found I had this blog, and left a comment which was flagged up to me by a regular reader, my old friend Steve Johnson. Being on holiday, I hadn't checked this blog in weeks, so thank goodness for helpful and quick thinking buddies!

Everything came together yesterday whilst Jane and I were travelling on the Stockholm metro. We managed to contact Jakob (the museum employee), and being about to finish work he was kind enough to meet us at a mutually convenient Metro station. And so I had my phone back.

Ah, Mr Bond, I've been expecting you...

So, this post is to thank Jakob formally for being such a terrific person. If he had just done nothing, or forwarded the phone to the police, I would never have seen it again. What a great guy - thank you!

The Second Best Thing

The second best thing about this experience is something Jakob said to me regarding Googling my name. Of course, most of the hits referred to the guy (now sadly deceased) who used to front up The Prodigy. But apparently, if you are determined and search cleverly, mine is the next most common hit. So it seems I'm the second best known Keith Flint on the internet. Maybe. I guess it's about time I decided to be an Influencer, or something like that. Hmmm - maybe not.

Some Military Stuff

We have visited a number of lovely castles, and a couple of actual military museums, on our travels, so below are few photos that might be of interest to my usual readers. 

The Front Museum, near Hanko, Finland. I'd forgotten what a big gun the Pak40 is.
Manhandling this beast must have been a real bugger.

As a comparison, the Russian 45mm anti-tank gun seems much more manageable.

Outside the museum is another 45mm, mounted in a replica bunker.

The enemy's view of the same weapon.
Properly camouflaged, this position would have been hard to identify.

Captured Soviet T-26 at the same museum.

Gripsholm Castle, Sweden. These two magnificant Russian cannons came to the castle from Russia as war trophies in 1623. They were cast in the late 16th century. One was captured at Narva in 1581, the other at Ivangorod in 1612. Extraordinary weapons with wolf's heads cast into the muzzles. Whether the carriages are original I don't know.

Forgive my grim countenance in the Finnish photos - the details of Finland's experiences in WW2 are not likely to engender happy feelings. Anyway, that'll do for now. I'm back in a couple of weeks and hope to resume some wargaming. With luck, battle reports will follow. 'Til then!