His Tumescence The Dark Lord, Gentlemen of the forum, and Techno,
I was recently stung by a comment by a forum member (naming no names, but he lives on the left side of the Atlantic and has an underscore in his handle) which suggested that I might root, support or otherwise show any interest in Mexicans wearing disco gear before the glitter ball was invented. This made me ponder. :- What are the areas of this great hobby that I am not interested in and why? And what does it say about me? So here's my tuppence - in no particular order - of the Pendraken ranges I will be buying last.
Colonial Can't really make this one out. Perhaps it's political? Perhaps it's that I don't see the fun in moving down thousands of spear wielders with a Nordenfelt? Then again, I don't find the Boer Wars of any interest at all either. It's not just British colonial either - the Plains Wars have very little attraction, though I'd quite like a "cowboy" game. The Belgian and French colonies likewise. I've put together a small 1920's French Foreign Legion force, but it takes on Brits in solar topees. No. Can't quite put my finger on it.
Spanish Civil War The Spanish Civil War falls between the 2 great wars. It was a war of political ideology (and one could argue that so many are) and there's nothing so sad as a civil war. For me the interest would be in the early use of weapons used in WWII.
Aztecs Just not interested. Had a quick look and ... nothing stirs. (And this for someone who thinks the Spanish-American War is interesting.) Can't really think much of an empire beaten by 147 Spaniards, 23 horses
and a dog named Eric.
American Revolution against a lawful government Probably put off by the "press". For me, it goes with the French Revolution as being just before an interesting period - the Napoleonic.
League of Ausberg Again, an in-between sort of era, between the colour of the Renaissance and the order of the C18. The War of the Spanish Succession is quite acceptable though. Does that count?
Crusades Little word for a big concept. By "Crusades" we normally mean the Europeans in the Holy Land. Most people will cite Richard I and Saladin. "Crusades" in the wider sense would cover those in Eastern Europe and against "heretical" sects. None of them appeal, though I'm really interested in the Normans in Sicily.
Archaemeniad Persians Too colourful.
Fantasy I went through puberty in 1974.
Falklands Too close historically.
What I have discovered though is that there are a number of common themes:
- I eschew wars with a strong religious or political basis. Most Civil Wars have no interest - expect the American Civil War for some reason.
- My nose goes up for periods close to ones I already play. I like Marlborough, so shy away from the 7YW and LoA
- Irregulars. Can't be a*$ed painting irregulars.
- Ultra modern. The last war I would countenance is the 1973 Arab-Israeli. It doesn't even seem to be a "only wars 25 years ago" thing. It's more like there's a line in my life in front of which I cannot game. I was 21 in 1982. Could that be significant? And it's not just British Wars. The Iran-Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama - not interested.
I recognise inconsistencies in my situation. I will happily contemplate a 1984 Team Yankee scenario. No to fantasy, but bring on the SciFi. Stay away from the Crusades, but quite happily take the Normans to have a bash at the Byzantines. Spanish Civil War - no. Korean War - yes please!
I must point put that for all my disparaging remarks, I bear no real malice towards any period - they're just not for me.
Quote from: fsn on 15 March 2017, 10:31:59 AM
Aztecs Just not interested. Had a quick look and ... nothing stirs. (And this for someone who thinks the Spanish-American War is interesting.) Can't really think much of an empire beaten by 147 Spaniards, 23 horses
and a dog named Eric.
I know there's a slight use of hyperbole here, but it is worth mentioning that although the Spanish sources often claim things like "3 Spaniards fought off 2000 Aztecs and held the gate," when you read further you see things like "casualties: 2 Spaniards, a horse, 15000 Aztecs and about 18000 of our Tlaxcalan allies." Those Spaniards weren't fighting alone.
Quote from: Nick the Lemming on 15 March 2017, 10:43:25 AM
I know there's a slight use of hyperbole here, but it is worth mentioning that although the Spanish sources often claim things like "3 Spaniards fought off 2000 Aztecs and held the gate," when you read further you see things like "casualties: 2 Spaniards, a horse, 15000 Aztecs and about 18000 of our Tlaxcalan allies." Those Spaniards weren't fighting alone.
:-bd
The ones that are unlikely to grab me by the throat:
Very early ancient middle east: Not enough variety, lurking fear that our story doesn't resemble the reality, and a suspicion that most "armies" were a collection of hungry shepherds reduced to banditry by two years of drought.
Late ancients: too one-sided. If you do Romans against Persians, one side has no decent cavalry, the other no infantry worth a thank you. Otherwise, neither of these two, and the Chinese as well, really has a decent opponent.
Dark ages: Byzantines, Tang, and Abbasids excepted - what the blazes is the appeal of endless mobs hitting each other with low-tech gear and no tactics, discipline, or frequently horses? Vikings seem glamourous, until you try to have an interesting game with them. Steppe nomad cavalry armies - I've got Scythians already, thank you, and they have more varied enemies.
Gupta Indians might be another exception, but I doubt I'll live to see them in any scale, let along 10mm.
Late feudal: poor relations of the renaissance.
Sung: poor relations of the Ming.
The League of Augsberg,The American Rebellion, Napoleonics: poor relations of the Third Silesian War.
War of Northern Aggression: not warfare, just slaughter. Similar objections to most combat in 19th century Europe.
WW I: I had a lifetime's overdose of Owen and Sassoon in my schoolyears. Seriously, if I hadn't stumbled across Elizabethan sonnet sequences. I'd have given up poetry before I was seventeen.
Fantasy, including Jedi and Klingons
I in no way oppose the right of others to pursue the above interests.
It's always interesting to consider what one doesn't find worth gaming and why.
The noble FSN's list is quite close to my own, with the exception of the Crusades, which are of course magnificent in their splendour, majesty, scope and inhumane intolerance of mankind. I also generally eschew civil wars as the sides are generally so similar as produce boring wargames although the political issues are often fascinating, the best case in point being the Wars of the Roses, fascinating politics but deadly dull games of archers and infantry (although very pretty).
Like FSN I make no value judgements, they just don't float my boat.
I don't play "periods", i play games.
If the game looks interesting, i'll play it. Sometimes there are periods that don't interest me at all, but a good game set in them can swing this!
Awww, you're no fun any more!
Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 March 2017, 11:37:51 AM
The ones that are unlikely to grab me by the throat:
Very early ancient middle east: Not enough variety, lurking fear that our story doesn't resemble the reality, and a suspicion that most "armies" were a collection of hungry shepherds reduced to banditry by two years of drought.
For goodness sake, we even know things like how many arrows of what weight leaders were ordering. How much info do you need? :)
Bronze Age armies were every bit as sophisticated as their later counter-parts. You're into the 1800s before things like logistics and medical care are better than the Bronze Age versions.
As to variety, I suspect that most armies don't, in practice, have as much actual variation in anything but uniform, as wargames rules writers imagine.
I wondered if I'd be pushing your buttons there. ;D
Periods that don't light my candle include:
Ancients
Dark Ages
Medievals
Renaissance
17th Century
18th Century
In fact anything pre-French Revolution.
Nor I can't usually get excited about:
Naval games
Skirmish games
Fantasy battles
SF battles (I mean Science Fiction, but if you thought I meant Special Forces, see reference to Skirmish above.)
And/or (those who already know my prejudices may stop reading now) I want games that offer me the chance to make many interesting grand tactical decisions, of the kind that face a general rather than a lieutenant, and in a specific historical context that may give me some insight into how and why a given battle took the course it did. I don't want games where the choices are too few or too limited to be interesting, and (for me) that's usually what I find the categories listed above offer.
Now, I can't deny I have had fun playing Dead Man's Hand, Victory at Sea, Muskets & Tomahawks, Saga, To the Strongest.
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/
It's funny how some eras float your boat and others sink it without trace. I'm not particularly interested in wargaming WW1 onwards. I like the miniatures, particularly the vehicles, ships and aircraft ..... but with the longer ranges, need to dig in, concealed positions, off table artillery, air strikes etc., I just don't think it lends itself very well to tabletop wargaming with miniatures. Some WW2 games I've seen look more like 18th Century games with tanks the way the miniatures are lined up. Having said that, Chain of Command looks like a good skirmish level game and, possibly, out there is some higher level game that might grab my attention (Command Decision, Team Yankee?). Instead, I get my 'modern' kick out of computer games (e.g., Combat Mission).
[By the way, it's League of Augsburg] :P
Generally, I have no interest in the period between the introduction of personal firearms (arquebuses, muskets, whatever) and the introduction of the tank... A fairly lengthy interlude!
As someone once pointed out (quite possibly on this forum), it may be that I have no interest in games with no great beasts, be they Elephants or AFVs!
Having said that, I do like a bit of Skirmish gaming in any period...
Great thread! And a target rich environment!
Again I want to thank fsn! There is, they say, no such thing as bad publicity. Keeping Aztecs fully in front of the "Darklord" (or as I call him, "That wise and kindly man") is a very positive thing. I must also fully endorse NicktheL's comment (and FK's second) as to the true nature of the fighting in the conquest of Mexico.
I have a vast interest in aspects of the ECW* but none in the ACW (for reasons too complicated to detail). Both (IMHO) address overarchingly important concepts (which are similar in nature) and both were totally (and quite similarly) romanticized by the late Victorians (except for pikes and armor the illustrations are virtually interchangeable).
A final thought, possibly Norm will agree that in a very simple way, One Hour Wargames rules for the ACW captures the essence of the thing.
* much more properly the British Civil Wars or even better, The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, I add this because of the often Anglocentric view of the thing.
I'm not that bothered about chariot wars, though I'd play them if there was nothing else going on and someone supplied the forces. I like other ancients periods though. I'm not that bothered about Eastern armies (other than maybe Samurai, more Sengoku than other periods) or Pre- / Contact Americas (though I'd like to see more Conquistador type figures that I can use for Late Italian Wars). I play 7YW / Imaginations, but LoA doesn't do much for me, and I'll happily play other 18th C wars as long as I can use my 7YW figures for them. I'm not that bothered by 19th C European stuff, but again I'd play if someone was putting on a game. I'm not that bothered by WW1 (though RCW, SCW, AVBCW and WW2 are all ok, go figure). Not that bothered about Korea or Vietnam, Arab-Israeli or Falklands, or Ultra-Modern (I'm good with 1984 Cold War gone hot though).
Complete rejections: Naval games; Air games (other than Wings of War), Fantasy, Sci-fi. I'm not a big fan of most skirmish games (I played Bolt Action for a while, but found it a bit lacking, and I still like Muskets and Tomahawks. Everyone around me who plays Saga does so in 28mm, which I have no interest in, despite having a sizable Norman 28mm force. It's coloured my perceptions a bit, and I probably wouldn't play Saga again to be honest, even in a decent smaller scale.
I tend to reject rules or scales more than periods, to be honest. I'm not interested in the slightest in any DB* game, or any FoG game, for example, and I'm not a fan of the Hail Caesar / Black Powder games either. I don't game in 28mm at all, preferring 15mm, 10mm, 6mm and 3mm.
I'm starting to wonder if the problem isn't so much the pros or cons of a particular period, conflict or ruleset as it is a limitation on the amount of time we have to invest in what is for most of us a spare time hobby which competes with lots of other things for our attention.
Apart from one period I'm still playing pretty much the same core areas I was thirty years ago, Ancients, WW2, and Medievals, I've pushed the ancients from my original core interest in Romans back to the Bronze Age and forward to Byzantium where collides with the medieval which itself has been extended into the Renaissance. This has given me so much to get my teeth into, reading, visiting sites, creating armies and playing I don't have time for much else.
To pick up a bit on what DanJ has just posted. Is it as enjoyable to game in a period that you know only from a Classics Illustrated or a grade B movie? Even if you go on to much enjoyable research for many years, is it still the first imagines you had of the period that drives you and locks you. I seem to be making a gaming career out of Montrose's first four battles and the first year of the great rebellion (1641-2) in Ireland. I can play them in endless ways with endless rules and never get bored.
Love Sci Fi, enjoy non-gw fantasy, love ancients, love medieval, love renaissance and 18-19-20th centuries, colonials and continentals.
Love navel and naval! Aerial and spaceships
Don't play SS, rarely play German WW2 these days. 30 and 7 years war don't particularly interest me, but if someone else put a game on I would try it.
28mm zombie-cowboy-vampires are a definite no, as is most steampunk stuff, don't know why, just doesn't do it for me.
Where I would differ slightly from Mr Lemmey is that sometimes one feels the need to return to one's roots. I love my French, Italian and Russian WWII armies, but every now and again, I return to "Action on the St James Road" and Brits vs Jerries, 1944.
On the game vs collection point, there is a difference between playing a game and amassing an army. If someone else wants to paint up 4000 Mesoamericans, then I'd probably be quite happy to knock 'em down with 147 Spaniards, 23 horses and a dog named Eric. (Yes, I take Mr Lemming's point, but why spoil a good story with the facts?) I wouldn't want to spend time and money amassing all those little feathery chaps. Started reading about them and got bored very quickly.
I find it incredibly tedious to read about when it's all "they have the wrong kind of God" and "my king was the ..." *yawn*. I suppose it's my butterfly mind. Why wade through a whole family history when you can just get into the "they invaded them" bit? I'm not that interested in the wider history. I'm far more interested in tactics, equipment and organisation.
Maybe that's why I can't be bothered with most civil wars, and why I like the ACW, because the causes were simple as evidenced by this documentary:
Having armies from right across history and beyond, there isn't really much that I won't or haven't played over the years. But there is a big difference between playing and collecting. There are historical periods that I am interested in and have armies for; there are periods that I have armies in but are not really that interested in or knowledgeable about (ACW being a case in point) and there are periods and armies that I have no interest in at all.
My interest but have either not much or nothing for includes the Renaissance in Europe inc. the 30YW; 7YW and others from the Lace Wars era. This classification could also encompass Skirmish gaming, RPG's -I did those in the 80's and soon returned to historical but wouldn't rule it out.
My not interested in collecting at all list includes the AWI -too close to Napoleonics; SCW -too close to WW II.
Anything going on while I have been interested in wargaming and being able to justify my hobby so that starts really at the Falklands and and coming forward from there. In saying that, I have 2 modern armies but the justification for those is as a What If rather than what actually happened kind of attitude.
Not a great interest in European medieval despite all the panoply -I think it's all the armour that puts me off- except when it interacts with the Mongols.
The Crimean War and other Europen conflicts of the 19th century just don't float my boat all -like the AWI too similar to Napoleonics. The only one that has potential is the FPW and this comes under the category of armies that I have but not a great deal of knowledge about.
The Balkan Wars immediately preceding WW I and Korean War likewise -no real interest.
MickS
I tend to shy away from wars that happened while I was alive ... not sure why ... so Korea onwards isn't something I've collected or played. I go straight from WW2 to sci-fi.
I'm happy to play pretty much any other periods but if I have an army for the period I want to use that not someone else's.
Personally I'm all for people playing what they like and ignoring the rest.
Though I hope people avoid the "An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded" mentality. :)
Quote from: Westmarcher on 15 March 2017, 01:19:54 PM
It's funny how some eras float your boat and others sink it without trace. I'm not particularly interested in wargaming WW1 onwards. I like the miniatures, particularly the vehicles, ships and aircraft ..... but with the longer ranges, need to dig in, concealed positions, off table artillery, air strikes etc., I just don't think it lends itself very well to tabletop wargaming with miniatures. Some WW2 games I've seen look more like 18th Century games with tanks the way the miniatures are lined up. Having said that, Chain of Command looks like a good skirmish level game and, possibly, out there is some higher level game that might grab my attention (Command Decision, Team Yankee?). Instead, I get my 'modern' kick out of computer games (e.g., Combat Mission).
[By the way, it's League of Augsburg] :P
Verziehung!
Interesting points. Firstly as you are all probably aware I am a wargames "slapper". I will play any period, any scale, any level of conflict from small skirmish to a mass battle.
I try and avoid playing the French, as I am less than keen on some of our French cousins- although the waitress at the restaurant in St Aubin-Sur-mer in 2013 was alright :d This has backfired on me as the rest of the club will now always allocate me the French in a scenario if they possibly can.
I will try to avoid playing with rules lawyers, people you cannot trust to complete their move while you make the tea / get a beer from fridge, or those who you need to check what dice they have actually thrown.
That said I only collect periods that interest me.
Ancients
I like the chariot wars and have a 15mm Hebrew army, but no opponent. army. I have 10mm Early Imperial Romans, and Dacians
In general I am put off by the sheer numbers of figures you need to paint to get a decent size army
Dark Ages
I have Byzantine, Viking Arab as historic armies but they are normally used as proxies in Lord Of the Rings. The historic period does not do a lot for me
Medieval
I like the colour of these and have a large 10mm force for wars of the roses
Renaissance- Italian Wars
This is really my favourite period due to the mix of weaponry and variety of armies - If only I could find a good set of rules.
The rest of the period does not really float my boat.
WSS
I like this due to the simplicity of the uniforms - but still cannot get the mojo to finish my British. Much to the disgust of Sunjester and last Hussar
Napoleonics
Like the idea of this period. I have two reasonable size 1815 armies to paint (including French) in 15mm. Cannot get the mojo due to the uniforms. They are original Battle Honours and I have had them since 1986
ACW
I like this period and the original Fire and fury ruleset. I have both sides to paint in 10mm
Colonial
Only as a skirmish I have yet to find a set of rules that does mass battles giving both sides a chance. They either favour the natives or the Europeans.
WW1
I have several nicely painted 6mm armies - British, German, Russian and stuff to do Russian civil war. But I cannot decide on what rules to use. An ongoing issue for the last 8 years or so.
WW2
My other favourite period. To stop me collecting everything I restrict what I do
I do early war in 10mm. Blitzkrieg in the west and up to siege of Moscow in the east. There will be at some point a Japanese army to take on the Russian
Western Desert up to El Alamein
In 20mm I do North West Europe
Modern
I play AK47 in 1950/60's Africa.
Nothing else grabs me for this period. I keep thinking I might do a 1980s BOAR and Warsaw Pact in 6mm, but I have too much other stuff on .
As the above will keep me painting until I am 183 with what I already have I doubt I will be expanding into other periods ........ Unless of course there is a new rule set or nice shiny models. :-
For me the two biggies that hold no real interest for me are Ancients and Napoleonics. Not entirely sure why, they just haven't really caught any spark with me. Naps not appealing is quite interesting as many years ago when I first was introduced to gaming by friends (who were brothers) and we played with various WWII stuff and some fantasy stuff. Their Dad was very much in to Napoleonic period - I can't remember if he was a gamer, or just a painter, but he had figures and many many books. And I played a couple of Napoleonic board war games. But as to actual figure based wargaming - its never happened. A couple of my gaming group are trying to get the rest to play some Blucher, but there is general ambivalence from the rest of us.
Also Naval and Air games don't appeal, whatever the era.
I'm with Peter that a good game matters too - I didn't play SciFi for years (despite reading loads of SciFi) but once I was introduced to Epic a couple of years ago, I have managed to accumulate 3 large armies in a very short period.
I do find historical games harder to play - mainly as everyone has a different view of how things worked (or what scale the game represents) which tends to bog things down in lots of 'well that wouldn't of happened' discussions.
Quote from: Orcs on 15 March 2017, 10:27:20 PM
Firstly as you are all probably aware I am a wargames "slapper".
Is the word
wargames needed in that sentence?
Quote from: Orcs on 15 March 2017, 10:27:20 PM
although the waitress at the restaurant in St Aubin-Sur-mer in 2013 was alright
Quote from: Orcs on 15 March 2017, 10:27:20 PM
Interesting points. Firstly as you are all probably aware I am a wargames "slapper".
Quote from: fred. on 15 March 2017, 10:40:56 PM
Is the word wargames needed in that sentence?
In all honesty probably not :D
Quote from: Orcs on 15 March 2017, 10:27:20 PM
although the waitress at the restaurant in St Aubin-Sur-mer in 2013 was alright :d
I suppose I should have qualified that while I try not to play the French in wargames I have nothing against playing with an attractive French lady.
There's no areas of the hobby I won't play, If someone has taken the time to research, paint and bring their armies to the club the least I can do is take part and do them justice. As others have said collecting is different, and that is just down to not spreading my meagre resources to thinly.
I never thought I would play late 17thC games, but when buying a few of the new LoA figures to use for Vienna 1683 I thought wow, these are great. Inspired me to read up on a new period, changed some of my preconceived ideas - a Dutch invasion no less and collect 1000's of figures!! I now have the largest single group of figures in my collection are also the newest part of my collection.
So for me it is never say never to a period :D
Cheers
Ian
Good point. How do we get into new periods? By playing/researching etc other periods.
Even so, there are some that just won't spark for me, and the reasons why interests me. For example, I have several books on the English Civil War. Every now and again, I look at them and then look at the Pendraken catalogue and say ... "no". Why is this? Part of it is the mix of musketeers and pikemen. To show that adequately, you need really big units. Eight pikemen and 16 musketeers just looks too "bitty" for me. Probably need units of 72ish to look the part, and then there's the cavalry, dragoons etc. Is that it? Are there too many "bits" to the armies of the periods? Not like the Napoleonic period! Simple, just with line, light & guard infantry; lt dragoons (of various types), hussars, lancers, dragoons, cuirassiers; battalion, foot, horse and rocket artillery! Oh! and Guerrillas. And Grenadiers. Carabiniers. Siege guns ... and engineers.
Could say the same about Ancient Persians. Lots of different unit types, and irregular, so I'm not that fussed. Carthaginians now ... lots of different types and irregular ... bring it on! :-
Again, why do I look upon fantasy as something that youfs play, but do like SciFi? Both are imagination driven, yet I can't see me ever buying an Elf army. Is it a hangover from the D&D generation? I did play fantasy RPGs until I went to university. Never touched the stuff since. Why? I'm not beyond reading good fantasy fiction, though IMHO there's a lot of bad fantasy being spewed out nowadays. Having said that, I re-read some Michael Moorcock recently and was very disappointed. :-
There are some common themes emerging. Firstly the clear difference between playing and collecting.
Ithoriel won't play periods in his lifetime, I won't play from the time I went to University. (Ithoriel - would you play Team Yankee?). I can still p lay Korea, and I hadn't been born yet. :-[
Subedai is not interested in collecting periods too close to those he's already playing, which I can identify with.This is though, counter-intuitive to a degree. You can play the SCW with Bf109's, T26s and L3/33's - just as you can early WWII. I recognise it, but don't necessarily understand it. I claim special exemption for the Korean War, because of the Centurion tank.
Fred's post is interesting. He was exposed to Napoleonics and yet the period didn't catch with him. But why? Interesting that the two periods he mentions fantasy and WWII are a whole lot less "formal" than Naps.
I suppose there are a number of reasons, but it's that visceral "no thank you" that interests me.
Greetings
If I had the money and time (and storage!) I would play just about any period.
I think the only thing I have to date been resolute about not doing are Wierd WW2/Napoleonic etc. - mainly this is because there is so much to game in the historical versions.
Of course there are a 'low priority' periods. These are such either because I do not generally find them that engaging (Samurai) and/or building an army would not be time effective I.e. I would be unlikely to use it much (e.g.Colonial - though I do occasionally hanker after the Sudan).
Regards
Edward
I can't do ancients, medieval, Napoleonics (played them when I was young, thin and had hair!) or pretty much anything after WWII. There are other periods that don't interest me, others that do and I have armies bought for, but just lost interest in painting them!
play RCW, 20C Polish - Russian, 20C Baltic - Russian but not WW1, play early WWII but not SCW! got loads of 6mm modern (CWC hint, hint) but only coz there was a huge box for sale at a car boot really, really cheap!
Anything post 1925 - don't know why but it holds absolutely no attraction - probably to do with mechanisation and lack of colour.
WWI trench warfare - and the point is?
Fantasy - nah
Naval - just not into ships.
Air warfare - just not into planes
Napoleonic - don't know why but could be to do with the sheer scale of the enterprise.
AWI - not enough cavalry - SYW so much more fun to game.
Biblical - no interest at all in this.
Science fiction - too busy watching it to play it.
Quote from: Leman on 16 March 2017, 10:01:37 AM
AWI - not enough cavalry - SYW so much more fun to game.
Well said, that man.
My interests include any period that includes a sword or a tank :)
But then I'm a collector not a gamer. But if I was, I'd probably find interest in any period, surely its the game (and scale) not the period :-
Also its interesting to see how forum members opinions change over the years. IIRC the esteemed opening poster once dismissed Korea as being 'too hilly' ;)
It's interesting, while I happily play any sort of fantasy boardgame, I do not play minis games with fantasy armies (unless you could Saga, which is a bit fantasy). I do have the Crooked Dice fantasy rules (7th Seas, is it?), must try them...
Quote from: Matt J on 16 March 2017, 10:16:23 AM
My interests include any period that includes a sword or a tank :)
Ooooh! A challenge! Cavemen. Sub-Saharan African tribal conflicts.
Aztecs.
Quote from: Matt J on 16 March 2017, 10:16:23 AM
Also its interesting to see how forum members opinions change over the years. IIRC the esteemed opening poster once dismissed Korea as being 'too hilly' ;)
Don't think I did, did I? :-[ I may have remarked that it is very hilly, but that's a challenge to be accepted. Besides which - Centurions!
Many swords in the conquest of Mexico. Even Eric the dog has one.
Having though a small bit more about my last post I don't tend to see my wargaming in a vacuum, personally I'm as interested in the art, architecture, politics and literature of the Renaissance, Ancient Rome or Egypt as I am about the battles. The new period I alluded to was WW1, something I'd shied away from for years as I'd been heavily influenced by the 'Heros led by Donkeys' view of the 1960s historians I grew up with. After several years and lots of research I've changed my mind, the slaughter was vast and horrific but the factors which caused it were many, varied and very complex.
Currently I can't see me going for any new periods as I don't have the time to invest.
But I do like a bit of Steam Punk, must be the memories of Jules Verne and HG Wells.
Come to think of it, the factors leading to the existence of donkeys are far from simple.
WWI is one of the periods I go to and then shy away from. I like the thought of early 1914, before the trenches got dug. Also like the thought of the 1918 break out but bit *meh* about the middle.
For the Lions/Donkeys proponents I always ask "you have no tanks, limited artillery, raw troops, no aircraft worth the name. You have no flanks, just a long line of well dug in, well defended enemies. What do you do?"
Mespot though ...
Send a telegram or two suggesting negotiation?
Quote from: Westmarcher on 15 March 2017, 01:19:54 PM
... Some WW2 games I've seen look more like 18th Century games with tanks the way the miniatures are lined up .....
Apologies if taken adversely. No malice intended. Sometimes it's hard to find the correct way to express one's thoughts. Not so much
sneering (coz there was no smile) .... more like ....
genuine bewilderment* and serving to reinforce my impression that there are too many difficulties to replicate this period on the tabletop
satisfactorily enough for me.
I'm no expert on the period myself but have read a good number of books on the subject over the years. As I mentioned, I've being computer gaming this period using Combat Mission and whilst not perfect (thankfully), it just seems to capture the feel of warfare in this era. Nothing happens for ages and I find it very tense probing forward to find out where the enemy is hidden to avoid walking into ambushes - then all hell breaks loose! (I get so engrossed that the little pixellated guys are almost real to me and I so hate it when I lose men!). Then when you do find out where the enemy are, there's the challenge of how to advance without being mowed down - what hidden ground is there? Will my flanking force blunder into another concealed position? How can I support the advance with suppressing fire? How long will it take to organise an artillery strike? What was that firing? Where is it? Wow! I've never seen the variant of that vehicle before. Gee! If you zoom in, you can even see the instructions for use on that panzerfaust that grenadier is wearing! ...... I just can't get this on the tabletop (perhaps Umpire supervised games are the answer?).
Each to their own.
*why would they do that? e.g., is it a lack of background research, the table size, the rules?
Quote from: Westmarcher on 16 March 2017, 10:53:44 AM
Gee! If you zoom in, you can even see the instructions for use on that panzerfaust that grenadier is wearing! ...... I just can't get this on the tabletop
a) "Gee"? Are you channeling a 1950's American child called Tommy? :P
b) I think there are some people who do actually paint to this level of detail. Mentioning no names, but have you looked at some Picts lately? :o
Quote from: fsn on 16 March 2017, 11:17:13 AM
a) "Gee"? Are you channeling a 1950's American child called Tommy? :P
Another less printable version first occurred .... :-[ (btw, who is Tommy?)
Quote from: fsn on 16 March 2017, 11:17:13 AM
b) I think there are some people who do actually paint to this level of detail. Mentioning no names, but have you looked at some Picts lately? :o
There are instructions on how to throw a spear?
Gee! .... er ... I mean ... f :o
You think my Picts are bad, Dougie wrote the launch instructions on his 10mm Falklands Milans and Charle-Gs, kit I could only aspire to paint that well (no way I could match his amazing details, the man is a painting god)!
To me at least (and this has been at alluded to by others already) it is all fantasy. Every single bit of it. Everyone here has experience in the "real" world and what we do fantasizes the real world.
This forum is my principle engagement with other wargamers, I enjoy it immensely. No matter what we do to express it we are all doing the same thing. I may not hold particular interest in many areas of the hobby but find value in all because everything stimulates my imagination. Imagination is, I think, why we are all (painter, collector, gamer, lurker) in this HOBBY in the first place.
It is imagination that keeps us young, or flexible, or whatever!
That's what I think anyway.
d_guy - stater of the trite and obvious.
This is still a great thread BTW.
Quote from: d_Guy on 16 March 2017, 01:04:36 PM
d_guy - stater of the trite and obvious.
This is still a great thread BTW.
Happy to stand alongside you in support of the trite and obvious then d_Guy!
And yes, it's a great thread and I've been fascinated by the thoughts on what floats our collective boats ... or doesn't.
I'm in agreement with several folks who have mentioned they'll play a game that someone has gone to the trouble of organizing/researching. I've discovered some interesting periods and battles at conventions this way.
In regards to my own projects it all fascinates me at first. The periods I end up deciding not to pursue mostly involves indecision after researching the period. An example would be WWII naval, occasionally I think a huge surface battle would be cool with battleships and cruisers in battle-line pounding each other away. And then I start researching it and remember WWII is a carrier war with mostly airplanes vs ships, or subs vs ships and it suddenly loses it's luster to me. Sure, there is always "what if" scenarios, but when I do play historical periods I feel a need to be as accurate to the period as I can. This is partly why I do enjoy Fantasy and Sci-Fi wargaming because there's no need for historical accuracy unless you try to tie it to a literary source. Maybe Fantasy gaming seems childish to some, but I enjoy my youthful 40's and refuse to grow-up until I hit 90... maybe... I'm not going to make a judgement call on that yet. My passion IS historical periods though and I have Naps, Dark Age, WWII, AWI, ACW and Mexican Revolution in my collection of toys.
The only thing I refuse to play is the Gulf War since I was there. I don't mind other people playing it. Just for me to play something when I was there just feels silly to me. I can't see myself as that little figure charging a bunker tossing grenades when it was more like, "How did I get sand in my goggles again? or "What the hell is my gas mask tangled on now?"
Rod
If someone says "I just don't like such-and-such," I would like to know why. Re. fantasy wargaming here are my reasons:
1. I find it childish.
2. I have a large lead mountain which I do not wish to add to.
3. The related rules literature etc. seems to glorify the most horrific spilling of blood and infliction of injuries in a manner which I find appalling, which also encourages me to steer clear of people who love that sort of thing.
4. The whole genre just seems entirely pointless to me.
Now those are the reasons I don't like fantasy. If you do like it, good luck to you as you are certainly well catered for.
Things that "aren't for me". Not much in truth. I'll have a pop at any of the vast variety of periods, genres, scales, rules, etc that populates our frankly weird hobby. :)
Stayng away from the minefield of "rules i like/dislike"...some gaming period i've personally found perhaps less interesting include:
Napoleonics
I know. Wierd right? I mean its the perfect period, from skirmishing to epic battles - heaps of natty uniforms etc. for some reason, after decades of gaming i've only played a bit of the old Napoleonics and it just hasn't gripped me. For me, it sort of feels "impersonal" somehow. I just couldn't get engaged with it.
ECW
This is such an amazingly interesting part of our history, i should be enthralled by it. But somehow, the battles just seem so predicable and formulaic, and i don't know why. So far, this promising period hasn't gripped my gaming interest.
WOTR
I've done quite a bit of this, but I think i might be done now. I've found the battles, like ECW, predictable.
WWI
Hands up, i haven't done any WWI but the reason why may be why its not for me - its the problem of, well, how do you do a battle? Unless you head for the desert (or maybe Africa) the "grand scale" engagments just seem to me to be a tedious grind in game play terms - one side is is static defence, the other on an attack to obliteration. This doesn't seem too interesting to me. I think it does have massive potential at skirmish scale, with trench raiding games, but my interest then wanes as i think of the enormous challenge faced by the required terrain building. How DO you make acceptable looking trenches?! So for me, WWI always seems to have promise, but not enough to overcome what i see as the effort needed.
Steppe Warfare
I've done a lot of ancients and medieval and have a veteran Mongol army, well used in many systems. The problem is, its always underperforming and that's because i've not seen a way that steppe warfare can be properly contained on a wargames table. Ultimately the horse archers hit the edge of the table and are usually then "lost" negating their core battlefield role (shoot and scoot). For me, i've not found a way to do this period justice. If its Ancients, my diadochi army is going to see the table before the Mongols...
Actually i guess my last few there are less "not for me" and more, "i'd love to but can't find a way to make it work that's interesting to me". :-
On that score, i guess...
The Boer War
Actually i'd love to do this, and even assembled the forces using Pendrakens excellent range. But i just couldn't find a way of fighting the battles in a pleasing way. How do you do Colenso for example? You'd never put the Boer figures on the table! Most British soldiers never saw a Boer. So, not for me in the sense that I couldn't convert my enthusiasm into a viable game. Again, perhaps upscaling the figs and downscaling the action to "skirmish" (say the action around Long's Guns at Colenso) would make for a doable game?
In that vein...
Vietnam
I like "toys on the table", and so any game where one of the forces is basically hidden and off the table is something that doesn't attract my interest. I do like assymetric battles though so...(i think thats where, for all its quirks, Force on Force did it right as the toys are usually on the table).
Everything else is on my "yeah! Lets do that!" list.
MAybe we could do a "yeah, that's for me" thread? :D
Quote from: Luddite on 16 March 2017, 02:17:09 PM
Steppe Warfare
I've done a lot of ancients and medieval and have a veteran Mongol army, well used in many systems. The problem is, its always underperforming and that's because i've not seen a way that steppe warfare can be properly contained on a wargames table. Ultimately the horse archers hit the edge of the table and are usually then "lost" negating their core battlefield role (shoot and scoot). For me, i've not found a way to do this period justice. If its Ancients, my diadochi army is going to see the table before the Mongols...
At the risk of derailing the thread ... in the past I've had some fun games with "rolling terrain" involving terrain squares. If the skirmishing cavalry were about to move off table, the opposite edge tiles were removed and a new row added. Mainly done for a Crusades campaign I was involved in.
Worth a thought.
While I'm not into the whole fantasy battles thing anymore (when I was I did wash though ;)), I still play fantasy board games, mostly Blood bowl and my God it's good fun. My brother (my opponent) has dubious personal traits but i blame that on his years as pro player of Magic (he of the lightning helix fame - won him $16,000 dollars that move!)
My interest starts with the TYW and ends with FPW. Haven't done anything before or after this time scale as there is loads for me to do in that time. Have started to look at slightly modern but in the fantasy form of VBCW, so I guess that would cover them as well! :) Interesting thread and good to see how others take on different periods of wargaming. :-bd
@Luddite
QuoteECW
This is such an amazingly interesting part of our history, i should be enthralled by it. But somehow, the battles just seem so predicable and formulaic, and i don't know why. So far, this promising period hasn't gripped my gaming interest.
I have very similar feelings about the ACW and am surrounded by the area in which a large part of it was fought. I would like to be more interested and prehapes the day will come.
My well-know passion is the BCW on the Celtic Fringe. I tend to agree about the formulaic nature of many of the best know battles of the main event (Horse on the wings, Foot in the center, Guns forward in the gaps, and Dragoons lining the hedges). Out here on the fringe there is much more scope.
To be fair I have heard it said that nothing of value can be gained from Montrose's campaign (for example) - no cavalry - no artillary - quick battles followed by Medieval ieval slaughter!
Still I extend a joyous and hopeful invitation to "come to the Fringe" :)
To add some more 'positive negatives'.
Having said I'm not interested in ancients or fantasy or SF - actually that's not true. I just think their strengths lie elsewhere than at the tabletop wargame grand tactical level.
I think the really interesting action for ancients / medievals is not the conventional battlefield stuff, it is either the unique strategems and ruses that give some of these battles their distinctive character, or the campaign level - diplomacy between despots, assassinations, building pyramids of skulls etc etc. I'm currently running my third ancient/fantasy campaign. The first two each lasted four years with a dozen-plus players, and this one will do too. It's a very different kind of fun from the tabletop wargame but it's definitely fun.
And then at the other end of the scale:
Quote from: DFlynSqrl on 16 March 2017, 01:59:54 PM
I can't see myself as that little figure charging a bunker tossing grenades when it was more like, "How did I get sand in my goggles again? or "What the hell is my gas mask tangled on now?"
I think that's partly why I'm not really into skirmish games: most of them are set at that personal level but don't have that personal feel. That's where fantasy or SF come into their own for me, in the form of RPGs. I know many of you will respond the same way as the late great Iain M. Banks did when I mentioned them to him - "to me, RPG means rocket-propelled grenade" - but I am not averse to skipping a shower*, donning my anorak*, saying something crass to demonstrate my poor social skills* and enjoying some fantasy role-playing (RuneQuest II being my preferred flavor). A great mix of high drama and low comedy as characters swing on chandeliers only to land in cesspits, etc etc etc.
Roll on puberty*.
*For the avoidance of doubt: all this meant self-deprecatingly/ironically, not insulting anyone else.
Right then, I've done some editing/deleting of posts here to clean up any potentially insulting/derogatory comments, so can we keep things polite going forward please? If you don't like a genre/period then explain why you don't play those games, rather than why you don't like those gamers. 'I don't like tricorns' or 'I like more colour on the table' or 'The tactics of the period were too limited' or 'I've never found a set of rules that really works for me'. That kind of thing please.
Thank you Leon. Sorry.
May I pick up on what Luddite wrote? ECW battles seem "predicable and formulaic". Made me think about another period that I want to like and yet can't get excited about and that's the Franco-Prussian War. Granted I've not done a lot of reading about it, but it seems to me to be a Germanic canter towards Paris. I know, the war lasted many months, but there is an inevitability to German victory that puts me off. To quote Wikipedia "the German forces were superior in numbers, had better training and leadership and made more effective use of modern technology, particularly railroads and artillery." Contrast that to 1940, when the French should have done better, and with better tactics *ahem* :-[ do.
Possibly this one-sidedness is why I don't game 1945. Children with Panzerfausts against T34's isn't for me. Possibly also why I can't get excited about the Romans/Gauls and many of the Colonial Wars. Yes, I know about Isandlwana and Teutoburg Forest, but there's a certain inevitability about it all.
I'm also interested in the concept of the "level" of game. I game WWII on a 1:1 level ("Grand skirmish"?) up to company strength, but I couldn't see me doing the same sort of thing for say, Napoleonics or Ancients. Similarly, I'm not attracted to WWII at the division level, but that's the "right" level for Napoleonics. I've done Medieval and Dark Age at skirmish and bigger levels, both very enjoyably.
Tend to agree with a lot fsn's last post, except perhaps for the ECW, for which I have a soft spot.
Colonial and Early Romans are too one-sided for me although I do have a large Trajanic force in 15mm to battle the Dacians, who seem to be the only "barbarians" who have much of a chance of doing any damage to the legions unless you look at Parthians and Sassanids. The problem here is that, as someone has mentioned, the armies are unbalanced with masses of horse against foot.
ACW and late 19th century also don't do it for me, not quite sure why, although I think a lack of colour plays a part and that also goes for WWI. although I have a small force of Germans and Russians for the Tannenberg campaign.
It seems that in common with others on this board my likes and dislikes are a tad schizophrenic ;D
You make and important point, fsn - my "level" of interest varies from time to time and place to place. FPW works best for me at brigade/division level, "ECW" at battalion/company/swarm level, and Sci-Fi/Fantasy at 1:1 or small unit level.
Of course now I have to rabbit on:
What you say about FPW seems very true but the French had a better, longer ranged rifle and working "machine guns" (which they, evidently couldn't figure out how to deploy) so the gaming possibilities for competitive contests abound, particularly if the Prussian Artillery is a bit off. I got hooked on the FPW by reading Zola again.
I offer to you the same invite that I did to Luddite regarding the "ECW" - come out to the Celtic Fringe! :)
I thought I would like Pikemen's Lament (yes, I know :) ) but didn't although theoretically it should do exactly what I want to do in the period.
I Like Ganesha Games rules family much better. Point is even if you like the level the rules seem equally important.
Oops! Posted over top of you, Malbork - Yup same softness for ECW :)
Quote from: d_Guy on 17 March 2017, 04:17:34 PM
"ECW" at battalion/company/swarm level
What? How does that work? Tell me more!
Just to point our, that was Luddite's comment on the ECW. My beef with the whole pike and shotte era is the number of different unit types you have to field. Then again I've never considered it at such a low level. I am intrigued.
Sorry - I though you were agreeing with the concept "predictable and formulaic" as it applied to ECW (which I tend to agree with, as well - particularly for the large set-piece battles - Edgehill, Marston Moor, Naseby, etc - Although I like them too).
With a few exceptions the battles fought in Ireland and Scotland were much smaller affairs (often with company sized units playing significant roles). I like stuff out on the "fringe" because often as not the armies are ad hoc with hugely variable troop and weapon quality/variety. Pike and shotte is still the core component and everybody tried to use the "set-piece" formations, it's just that often it couldn't be executed properly or the forces available simply didn't fit!
I very much like Baroque for the larger actions (about 5,000 up to 12,000 total combatants) because I enjoy the way it plays and I think it is very scalable (others might disagree).
For smaller actions (and they are myriad - real and imaged - less then 1,500 combatants maybe) - I use a homebrewed system based on Ganesha's "Flashing Steel". These can be raids, sieges, assaults on everthing from stronghold walls to street barricades to a tavern.
Much of this deals with militia and civilians. The story telling possibilities are endless.
Finally, I know you enjoy AFV's (an understatement I think) so I assume you have artillary, air, and infantry support. A much more complicated mixed force structure than ECW (I think anyway).
Quote from: d_Guy on 17 March 2017, 04:17:34 PM
What you say about FPW seems very true but the French had a better, longer ranged rifle and working "machine guns" (which they, evidently couldn't figure out how to deploy)
The mitrailleuse? Aye, although it was more of a volley gun than a machine wasn't it? I've always thought of it more an a sort of massive shotgun, Hehe...
You're right about them misusing it though. Apparently is was deployed in the rear with the artillery...err... =O
As to the viability of FPW, although the war itself appears to have been a bit of a walkover, wasn't that more to do with the Prussian officer class actually being trained? I'm fairly sure if i'm commanding them, the Prussians are on a sticky wicket from the off...
I'm certainly intrigued to give it a go. I have the Prussians done - just The France to finish painting.
I think if you set the victory conditions around "how long can the French hold on for", it could make for some very viable battles. Puts the pressure on the Prussians to have to take ground against the wall of superior French musketry.
Is it true to characterise it as "the Chassepot vs. the Krupp steel artillery"?
Quote from: fsn on 17 March 2017, 02:46:24 PM
the Franco-Prussian War [...] seems to me to be a Germanic canter towards Paris. [...] there is an inevitability to German victory that puts me off. [...]
Possibly this one-sidedness is why I don't game 1945. Children with Panzerfausts against T34's isn't for me. Possibly also why I can't get excited about the Romans/Gauls and many of the Colonial Wars. Yes, I know about Isandlwana and Teutoburg Forest, but there's a certain inevitability about it all.
Interesting that one-sidedness puts you off. There are other gamers who positively revel in commanding hopeless armies, and/or armies in hopeless situations. Poles in 1939, Italians in the desert in 1941, French republican rabble in 1871, Danes in 1864, Napoleonic Neapolitans ... There are plenty of entertaining tactical challenges to be had from doomed armies, you just need decent scenario design. But I take it that's not the problem, so much as that at a profound emotional level such uneven contests seem pointless to you?
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/
@Luddite
The mitrailluese, I think, also had a one round, rapid fire mode, but large shotgun seems right too. That's why a put machine gun in quotes, wasn't sure how to classify it. :). And yes it was certainly assigned to the artillary (being heavy and having wheels)
We actually have many experts here on FPW and I'm not one of them. Clearly the French were vastly over-confident and their mobilization plan was nothing short of disaster and nobody could figure out, apparently, who was actually in charge. The Prussian had excellent planning and command structure (an interesting read is General Phil Sheridan as a war correspondent with the Prussians).
Lots of new technology and in that regard Chassepot vs Krupp is a major axis of that.
If pressed I say "French elan vs Prussian organization"
BTW Are you going to come out to the Celtic Fringe? ;)
Good point, Mr Pringle. Part of my starting this thread was trying to figure out what attracts and what doesn't, and I am quite aware of my inconsistencies.
I have 1939 Poles, 1940 Italians and used to have Napoleonic Neopolitans. :- One of my favourite solo scenarios is a bridge defence. One has a platoon of for example, German infantry 1944. They have to defend a bridge. Random stuff approaches the bridge. It could be a German horse-drawn artillery piece or a bunch of civilians or a nasty Gestapo man trying to escape in a staff car ... or an American Sherman. The point of the scenario is to keep the bridge open, to get stuff over the bridge until the defending force is basically annihilated.
I have fought several Arnhem scenarios. It's not the tactical situation that I find offputting - as that can happen in any period.
Is it then the inequality in the overall campaign that puts me off? I think this does explain the FPW and colonial campaigns. Although I'll quite happily play ACW, the Plains Wars don't appeal. Something about the inevitability of the overwhelming of the Native Americans.
Don't know. But that's made me think.
@D_Guy I think the Celtic fringe of the ECW falls into the "too political/religious" for me, but you're right. My WWII company has infantry, MGs, mortars, AT, AA, Recce, Engineers, Tanks (various sorts), artillery, air support and other stuff I've probably forgotten. Napoleonics have lots of unit types. I've never claimed to be consistent.
I am currently working on the French Revolution. Its interest to me is that it reflects the period immediately prior to what is known as Napoleonic. It has as bigger range of actions as Napoleonics. As large a range of nationalities and colourful Uniforms as its successor period. It deals with the development of the French army that a certain Mr Bonaparte inherited. I also find the 1805-1807 period more interesting than the later Napoleonics.
As to what is not for me. Probably very little. In the last 40 odd years I have gamed practically everything from Alexander the Great to WW2 Eastern Front and have enjoyed most of them. Doing the research on different periods and using different rules is always of interest. I think trying different periods can be refreshing and you really cannot say it's not for you until you have at least tried them once or twice.
Actually I think a well handled Imperial 1870 army, in a good defensive position and enjoying the support of local formations could give a very good account of itself. If Failly had marched to the guns at Worth it could have been interesting, ditto Bazaine's corps at Spichern. Gravelotte was a battle lost as was Rezonville.
Two good links to the Mitrailleuse below, the animation is more helpful in understanding how it worked. At 1000m the cone of death was around 20m wide and 100 deep, if you caught a dense formation at this range, better in flank, the results would be interesting. Its greatest moment was probably at Borny, see below. Commonly deployed with the divisional artillery (bad) but not always, Frossard at Gravelotte dug his in in a relatively forward position.
Borny 14 August 1870
As the French corps begin their retreat toward Metz a meeting engagement takes place at Borny-Colombey, where nine batteries of Mitrailleuses are engaged. Particularly notable is the action of the 5th battery, 11th regiment, 2nd Corps, where the fire of Capitaines Mignot and Bernadac (4th regiment, 3rd corps) does heavy damage in the Colombey ravine and the farm of Sebastopol. Firing successively from 1800 to 2200 metres, the action of the Mitrailleuses is praised by General Metman, commander of the 3rd corps, as 'formidable.' Bernadac's battery, sited on the heights overlooking the roads to Sarrelouis and Sarrebourg, is especially deadly, hacking to pieces a Prussian column that was imprudent enough to 'skyline' itself at a range of 1900 metres. The Prussian regiment of Major Hoffbauer is dispersed at a range of 1500 metres. But the ammunition consumption of the battery is of equal magnitude: 244 boxes. The 12th battery of Capitaine Bottard (15th regiment) also shares in the slaughter: "The spectacle is terrifying; entire ranks were falling, the squads, one after another were literally mowed down. The distance could have been around 600 to 700 metres." Another witness, Joseph Edouard Marin, presents a similarly positive view of the Mitrailleuses at Borny: "The Mitrailleuses were marvelous; when the enemy showed himself, entire colums were knocked down; when their artillery wanted to put themselves in battery it was impossible for them to go into position, for as soon as they showed themselves, they were completely destroyed."[3] A soldier from the 2nd regiment provides further detail: "The Prussian armies arrived in dense masses and placed themselves on the heights in front of us, their artillery ravaged our ranks, but our batteries of Mitrailleuses were beginning to play a big role, causing terrible carnage in the ranks of the Prussians, for eight times they were forced to renew their battle lines while for us it was still the first line that was decimating their batallion flanks." [4] In this action the Mitrailleuses seem to have employed ideally, with batteries of 4-pounders deployed at their sides to counteract any enemy artillery seeking to take the machine-guns in the flank.
Description: 25 barrels of 13mm caliber, bullet weight: 50 grammes, powder weight 12 grammes, muzzle velocity: an extraordinary (for the time!) 530 metres/second (the result of a high propellant/projectile ratio of nearly 1:4; higher than the Chassepot's of 1:5 or of the Dreyse's of 1:6), rate of fire 75 to 125 rpm or 200 rpm max; one battery of six guns carried 9 chests loaded with a total of 43,200 bullets. This ammunition supply allows 7200 rounds (or 1440 25-round 'clips') for each Mitrailleuse, enough ammunition to theoretically permit one and a half hours of continuous fire.
Power: this, along with its high rate of fire, is a key characteristic of the Mitrailleuse. The combination of a very high velocity and heavy bullet create a very powerful projectile with fearsome penetrative and striking force (indeed, a similar level of power would not be achieved until the advent of smokeless powder in the 1880s). As a point of comparison, the ballistic analysis of the Chassepot, Dreyse, and Mitrailleuse yields the following figures:
Penetration Momentum Energy
Dreyse 125 .95 141
Chassepot 237 1.07 225
Mitrailleuse 540 2.71 718
These numbers, extrapolated from bullet weight and muzzle velocity, indicate that the Mitrailleuse's striking power was four to five times superior to that of the Dreyse. At longer ranges, the greater inertia of its heavier bullet would only accentuate its advantage relative to small arms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO3haWrRtrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wApeDr6-Bdo
Brilliant Cameroonian.
Do I Remember correctly it also caused issues for the Hessian battery at Razonville?
@Cameronian
Thanks for all the info on the Mitrailleuse! The first video is excellent in showing how it works (and the single shot sequential rapid fire.) I couldn't find the reference but didn't an early version have the volley (simultaneous fire) capability?
The range data was amazing - knew it had high MV but its range is impressive.
@fsn
QuoteI've never claimed to be consistent
Me neither! :)
I've said before that consistency is not always a virtue.
As to the Celtic Fringe - can't disagree about the heavy presence of both the religious and political components.
Oh well - we shall miss your wit and sagacity out here. :)
Quote from: cameronian on 17 March 2017, 07:05:52 PM
Actually I think a well handled Imperial 1870 army, in a good defensive position and enjoying the support of local formations could give a very good account of itself.
Too bad they weren't well handled!
One interesting element of the FPW is that it is such a 'game of two halves'. Initially the Germans are facing some excellent well-armed Imperial troops, direly commanded; then in the Republican phase, they are facing huge numbers of poorly trained, ill-equipped levies but with some rather decent generals.
Chris
Interesting comment. If you reverse the sequence of the quality of the French troops you effectively have the situation during the French Revolution, which is why I find the latter so interesting.
Chad
Great debate and interesting. So, to be honest I have not actually played a wargame in 32 years, although I have often bought figures. It is the same with my other main modelling hobby, railways. I start and get so dissatisfied with my lack of skills I abandon it for months/years. Also * stand-by, controversial comment ahead * I find painting a chore. I like the end resilt when well done but find it redious. The fact the Mrs likes low lighting also limits time with my eyesight! I am too much of a perfectionist to do just colours, too.
Fantasy - no reason why, just not interested. No reflection on those who are. I'm just not. Good luck to you.
Napoleonics - again started as a kid with Airfix's Battle of Waterloo and loved it. But over years interest has waned. Too much painting, probably, too much coverage.
WW2 ditto Napoleonics but sometimes fancy 'Blitzkreig in the West' stuff.
Wargaming for me is all fantasy. The political or ethical implications are for a different forum. It is like a game of chess but more interesting! That said, no-one wargames the massacre at My Lai, do they? Or Glencoe? Thus at the risk of sounding glib/puerile the dates and politics aren't generally of concern to me even though in real-life they would be. After all in REAL life soldiers get maimed and killed but no on our tables in reality.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Painting being a chore is not, I would suggest, controversial. I think many of us feel that way. Painting irregulars is one of the reasons I don't really "do" several armies - e.g, Archaemeniad Persians, and I've never managed to capture a proper Samurai look.
Interesting what you say about politics/ethics. One of the things I have discovered is that they do matter to me. No-one wargames Mai Lai, nor Malmedy, yet we will game Viet Nam and WWII. Leaving aside particular atrocities (and there will be some in many wars) there are some areas that make me uncomfortable. For example, I wouldn't game anything in Ireland right back to the Normans. The peculiarly named "Troubles" were big news in my childhood, and the ripples flow both back and forward in history. Too close for comfort? Possibly.
Where I would disagree slightly is that historical wargaming and SF/Fantasy are different. I don't want to open any old wounds here, but the things that attract to one are not the things that attract to the other. Fantasy/SF are free from constraints in that if you tell me an Orc is 2.3 times stronger than a human, I can't disagree. If you tell me a Panther has armour 2.3 times thicker than a Crusader, well, we can look that up. You can paint your Space Hussars white, red, blue, green or sky-blue pink with yellow spots, and no-one can whip out a definitive guide to disprove your choice, but what colour is Bavarian Cornflower Blue? Now there's a debate. What I'm saying is that SF/Fantasy is more determined by the gamer's imagination and creativity, whereas for most historical gamers, there is a lot of research that has to be done before a paint pot is opened. Even in my imagination campaigns, I try and stick to authentic colours for the period. Is one better than the other? Inherently "no". It's like asking which is better, art or literature? It's a bit like saying football (soccer) and rubgy (gridiron played without armour) are the same because they're both ball games. On one level all types of wargaming are fantasy, but they do have very different roots and drivers.
Hope that's not too controversial or at all insulting.
Again, I very interesting thread!
@urbancourt. Always intended to do model railroading but - like you would get frustrated by my attempts. I finally decided that what really intereted me was operations. So I made an industrial switching yard, no scenery, no industries (just labels), only track and switches.
It completely satisfied my urges! Must dig it out again some time. :)
I don't much like painting either and achieve rather pedestrian results we I do paint. I have said elsewhere that all wargaming is fantasy so quite agree with you. And this is not said to diminish the amount of skill, detailed research, or plain hard work that goes into it.
Incidently, given my obsession I MAY do Glenco at some point as a 1:1 skirmish game :)
@fsn
Agree that Historic and SFF wargaming are different, yet at the meta-level they are the same. They simulate or game a situation ( real or imagined) that interests us. The ballgame analogy (and I appreciate the "Americanized" parentheticals ;) ) is true BUT at the meta-level they ARE both games. Games allow anyone to make them as simple or as complex as they choose. And folks this in no way makes fun of or casts dispersions at any who like a different level then myself. I find it all fascinating.
A chunk of SFF is totally free-form but I would argue that for many types (LOTR for example) a canon exists that is referred to and argued over in discussing what a certain troop type wore down to the color of the piping on their tunics. To be honest, right now, somewhere in the world, gamers are probably arguing (with references and applied mathematics) about the relative power of a Mordor vs. Orthanc Orc. :)
This is in no way to pick a verbal fight. I admire anyone who has passion for what they do in our hobby.
Very Respectfully
d_guy
I think LOTR is a fine example of a fantasy setting that was thought to be inspired by the war Tolkien was in, and the industrial revulotion (this is said to be represented by how isengard started to rely on industry for making their warmachines/weapons, without thinking about what it would do to it's environment)
So in some way you could say that it is no more or less fiction than for example, the sharpe books. Might be a far fetched comparison, but they are also stories that are inspired by history, putting the main chatracters in the most known battles in that particular era.
Seeing that the latter even has a historical ruleset named after it, there is no way you can deny that fiction/fantasy and historical gaming are pretty close relatives!
I just saw this and was so interested in what others had to say that I ended up reading it "cover to cover" before posting my feelings on the subject. I have to say right at the start that is one of the most interesting threads I've read, because I often wonder why others can't see the appeal of things I find so fascinating – but then also remind myself that's why we have chocolate and vanilla to borrow an age old cliché.
The first thing to point out before getting into the subject of myself is that I play only three sets of rules, and all are a spinoff from DBA. I play HOTT mostly, then DBN for Napoleonics, and finally DBA-HX for other historicals. I was a big DBA gamer, but the furor created by the release of the new version, DBA 3.0, completely destroyed my interest in continuing to play them.
After understanding that, then it is a simple process for me. I am drawn by the uniforms/costumes and other neat modeling opportunities. So, I guess I am open to any period or theme if the painting and creation of the army is appealing. Of course armies for me are small, usually about 50 figures or less.
However, there are a few things that I refuse to portray in my armies/figures. And this is where I can say – "Sorry, just not for me". I will never do any WW2 SS figures, nor do I find WW2 Japanese figures of any appeal – both, by the nature of their inhumanity to mankind (although I accept that for the latter their military code did not see such as inhumane). I just do not want to represent them or glorify them in any way. Yet, I absolutely love Japanese WW2 aircraft camouflage and have painted up some planes in schemes I could not resist.
Additional things not for me are depictions of torture, suffering or murder. True, war is Hell, but I don't need to reflect that in my figures, as I play the games as a challenge of strategy, a chance to be creative in making my armies and an extension of my study of military uniforms.
I will NEVER do any spiders, and probably no other bugs either. I detest spiders because they are so creepy and their movement is disturbing to me. The local guys know it and kindly keep any such figures they have out of sight if I'm there.
I have dozens of armies, because mine are so small, and some of them are:
HOTT – Halloween, Ninja, Ghost Riders, Aslan's army of the Kings and Queens of Narnia, Jadis – Queen of all Narnia, Dracula, Glinda of Oz, British Home Defense Force (to fight the Martian invasion), around 10 different Weird World War armies, ECW armies, The Three Musketeers, the army of Queen Anne, John Carter Green Men of Mars, 50's Hollywood Sci-Fi army , Judge Dread, Dr. Syn, Weirdstone (both sides), League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (based on the movie not the graphic novel), Earps and Clantons of Tombstone, Wagner's Ring army, Greek myth, Indian myth , 1940 and 1960 Things to Come armies, King Arthur Britons, Picts, Saxons all of from the King Arthur movie, Vikings of the Prince Valiant movie. .
DBA-HX – ECW (Royalist, Scots and Roundheads), ACW (both sides), Italian Wars Milanese, Italian Condotterie, TYW French and Imperial (a real favorite as there is something very appealing to me of guys in full or ¾ armor riding around shooting wheelocks), French and Prussians of the Republic period of the F-P War, Conquistadors and their Indian allies for New Spain, Queen Bess, French, Prussian and the British/German armies of the SYW, both sides of the F&IW, French and British with their allies of the WSS, British and American for the AWI, Ivan the Terrible Russians, Early Russians, East and West 4th century Romans.
DBN – French 1800, French 1814, Spanish 1808, French Peninsula, British and allies in the Peninsula, Russian of Tsar Paul I, French Revolutionary, Austrian of the French Revolutionary period, Austrian 1801, Wallmoden's Korps.
I know there are some more, but this will give you an idea. In other words, due to the small number of figures needed to play the rules I use, and the rules providing for very satisfactory games, except for a few moral or creeped out bits I am open to just about anything. And no, not all are painted as I am a very slow modeler. But I plan to finish as many as I can in my time.
Terry
So no SS or Japanese, but quite happy with slavery supporting Confederates, Guillotine happy French revolutionaries and the atrocities of the Thirty Years War. I prefer not to do WWII because it is still in living memory, as is SCW (my best mate is half-Basque - as a boy his father was hurriedly sent out of the country to Britain in 1936. He ended up in the British 8th Army), Korea, Vietnam, Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
I would argue that there is a fantasy element in all wargames even historical ones. Most of the time we are fighting "what if" scenarios that while they contain correct historical forces are the product of someone's imagination.
If you look at the historical ancients games you see all sorts of un-historical opponents. Surely Hoplite v New Kingdom Egyptian or similar is fantasy gaming?
Quote from: Orcs on 20 March 2017, 11:09:13 AM
I would argue that there is a fantasy element in all wargames even historical ones. Most of the time we are fighting "what if" scenarios that while they contain correct historical forces are the product of someone's imagination.
If you look at the historical ancients games you see all sorts of un-historical opponents. Surely Hoplite v New Kingdom Egyptian or similar is fantasy gaming?
Certainly. A reason why I won't touch games like that.
Ditto.
Quote from: Orcs on 20 March 2017, 11:09:13 AM
I would argue that there is a fantasy element in all wargames even historical ones. Most of the time we are fighting "what if" scenarios that while they contain correct historical forces are the product of someone's imagination.
Who's this "we", paleface? ;)
Most of the time I am fighting historical scenarios that contain as rigorously as possible historical forces and historical terrain for a given historical battle, with no "imagination" involved in the scenario design. Yes, in a sense it becomes a "what-if" as soon as the first player (or his dice) makes a decision that deviates from the historical course of events. But the players are at least sitting in the chair of their historical counterparts, facing a real historical tactical problem, and trying to solve it while dealing with the real historical factors. It's "learning by doing", and there's something historical and non-fantastical there to learn about.
So the fantasy element is tiny. Yes, there is more of it in the nominally historical ancients tournament games you refer to, but I don't even recognize them as being the same hobby. Usual caveats apply, no offence intended, each to their own, just not my thing etc. The tournament players at OWS are good people, and without them there wouldn't be a club - but please don't bracket their tournament games with mine.
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/
Quote from: d_Guy on 17 March 2017, 08:32:24 PM
@Cameronian
Thanks for all the info on the Mitrailleuse! The first video is excellent in showing how it works (and the single shot sequential rapid fire.) I couldn't find the reference but didn't an early version have the volley (simultaneous fire) capability?
The range data was amazing - knew it had high MV but its range is impressive.
@fsn Me neither! :)
I've said before that consistency is not always a virtue.
As to the Celtic Fringe - can't disagree about the heavy presence of both the religious and political components.
Oh well - we shall miss your wit and sagacity out here. :)
No, never simultaneous fire, (one of) the earlier version(s) was the 37 barrel Montigny, never put into production though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=497Htfzz1nc
Leman, I was expecting push back on my post, but better to be honest than not. The thread asked what is "not for me" and I told you.
Your points are well put. However, the difference for me is more simple. The SS and the Japanese Bushido code were not a normal part of life at the time - thus I will not do them. I would present more on this but I do not think a wargaming forum for fun is the site for getting into political, moral and ethical issues. I would be happy to discuss it off forum if you desire.
I also understand your not wanting to do a period because you are connected to it. I don't do Vietnam for that reason - it was my war. I lost good friends to it. I also have friends who lost family to the SS, another reason for my position about them.
Terry
Quote from: fsn on 19 March 2017, 01:13:28 PM
Where I would disagree slightly is that historical wargaming and SF/Fantasy are different. I don't want to open any old wounds here, but the things that attract to one are not the things that attract to the other. Fantasy/SF are free from constraints in that if you tell me an Orc is 2.3 times stronger than a human, I can't disagree. If you tell me a Panther has armour 2.3 times thicker than a Crusader, well, we can look that up. You can paint your Space Hussars white, red, blue, green or sky-blue pink with yellow spots, and no-one can whip out a definitive guide to disprove your choice, but what colour is Bavarian Cornflower Blue? Now there's a debate. What I'm saying is that SF/Fantasy is more determined by the gamer's imagination and creativity, whereas for most historical gamers, there is a lot of research that has to be done before a paint pot is opened. Even in my imagination campaigns, I try and stick to authentic colours for the period. Is one better than the other? Inherently "no". It's like asking which is better, art or literature? It's a bit like saying football (soccer) and rubgy (gridiron played without armour) are the same because they're both ball games. On one level all types of wargaming are fantasy, but they do have very different roots and drivers.
Hope that's not too controversial or at all insulting.
=D>
Not controversial and not at all insulting as far as I'm concerned :)
It's fine to have a gut reaction of not like something and expressing it succinctly. It's when it gets expressed in generalised, derogatory and denigrator terms that I have a problem. A well-reasoned exposition for not liking something is even better :D
I think most of history is 'not for me' at the moment. It's not that I'm not interested, the two real reasons are time and I'm a perfectionist! If I was to do a historical period I'd want to get it right in exactly the sense you describe above and I just don't have the time at the moment. This is why I went for 2mm for my one dabble into historical gaming (Dux Bellorum): you can't argue about the type of armour, shield facings and colour of tunic at that scale ;)
At the moment painting is my relaxing, artistic outlet so I like to go where my whim takes me. In the future, who knows? Maybe one day somewhere, somewhen will take my fancy... 8->
Cheers!
Meirion
I have no problem with Vikings fighting New Kingdom Egyptians. If I get upset about that, I might get uptight about Napoleonic French fighting Austerlitz in late war uniforms. Terrible isn't it. Currently I am solo play testing rules for my fledgling French Naps, and so it was that a bloke in a grey coat on a white horse watched his blue coated battalions storm the ridge held by a thin line of redcoats. Dare I say that due to extreme shortage of figures, the French were aided by several battalions of Union Infantry, the commander looked a lot more like General Lee than Napoleon, and the Redcoats on the ridge must have wondered where all the Zulus had got to. There is a serious point however here, however. Where do you draw the line if anywhere?. In my time I have seen players refuse to play when confronted by an unpainted but otherwise correctly formed army, and I have seen a person object when, lacking a Byzantine heavy cavalry unit, a player substituted Late Medieval knights and said just pretend, the basing is the same. There must be a line somewhere but I where?
I am enjoying all the opinions from first to last - many different takes, explaination and so on.
As a solo gamer I almost always find my opponent congenial, accommodating, and usually quite adaptable. :D
Well, as a wise old man - very old, very very old - says - I mean really old. He dandled Methusala on his knee old. - you could replace the figures with counters and take very little away from the game. We're veering away from the original question a bit, but there's a good point here to tease out. Unless you have almost infinite miniatures, you have to compromise. Yes, you may fight Waterloo in stovepipe shakos, or you may have US troops face Tigers on more than 3 occasions.
This breaks the issue into two. 1) The army you put together and b) who you fight with it. I think one would have more sidelong glances directed one's way if one turned up to refight the Blitzkrieg with Panthers than if one put one's Carthaginians up against a club-mate's Assyrians.
Mr Rout thus offers us a new dimension on the question, and I thank him for it.
I must confess I won't play my Vikings as Carolingians, but I have played my Napoleonic Austrians as Italians. I don't have enough armies to pit two armies against each other unrealistically, but should Pendraken ever produce chariot armies, they may get an outing against Greeks. If I'm that interested in a force I will shell out for them. Where, for me, swapping can be a let down is because of the composition of armies. You could't play your Romans as Huns because one as foot, one was horse and I do like to tailor my forces to be "representative" (whatever that means) of a particular, historic force. My 1944 Brits are a slice of the Guards Armoured Division. They may trundle off to pretend to be the 7th Armoured at some time, but that's fine. My British Naps will be a division of the British Army at Vittoria. The Prussians will be from the Leipzig campaign, but they may well end up on the same table somewhere near Brussels.
Quote from: d_Guy on 20 March 2017, 08:35:21 PM
As a solo gamer I almost always find my opponent congenial, accommodating, and usually quite adaptable. :D
Really? My solo opponent is a bad tempered son of a thousand fathers, and I suspect he cheats! >:(
Apricots! Ack-phooey! :-&
Quote from: fsn on 20 March 2017, 08:56:08 PM
Really? My solo opponent is a bad tempered son of a thousand fathers, and I suspect he cheats! >:(
;D yes - but in my case I know he cheats but to this point I don't believe he has caught on to my occasional slights of hand with which I more than level the playing field.
I'm slightly perturbed by the suspicion that when I umpire my solo games, I tend to show biase to one of the players.
In my solo games, I have yet to understand how it is I always lose. It is ias if my opponent can read my mind! :- :- :-
Mollinary
This is more on the modeling side of things but I think I'd be pretty reluctant to start up an army that required camo patterns.
In my mind camouflage and the techniques used to make minis stand out are directly opposed and I'm not at a point where I think I could really combine them.
Quote from: mollinary on 20 March 2017, 10:30:21 PM
In my solo games, I have yet to understand how it is I always lose. It is ias if my opponent can read my mind! :- :- :-
You think that's a problem? Have you ever tried a solo multi-player game?
Quote from: Westmarcher on 20 March 2017, 10:46:09 PM
You think that's a problem? Have you ever tried a solo multi-player game?
Easy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
@LLC I feel the same way about tartan, but we do what we must do. :)
I am happy to use 'odd' figures occasionally but only when I want to try a new set of rules. It avoids investing in figures if I find I just don't like the rules. If I recall the only argument in favour of games such as vikings vs assyrians was that weaponry had not changed significantly to make a difference. That sort of game used to appear a lot in competitions using WRG rules. Definitely not for me.
Quote from: lowlylowlycook on 20 March 2017, 10:38:34 PM
In my mind camouflage and the techniques used to make minis stand out are directly opposed and I'm not at a point where I think I could really combine them.
Interesting point - along with d_Guy's note about tartan. I must confess as a good Scotsman, I feel the same. My Napoleonic British Army is probably not going to have Highlanders unless a) I really, really have to to preserve what passes in my mind as valid historical representation or b) I learn to paint, which after 50 years or so isn't likely.
If I may, I'm going to categorise these with my dislike of irregulars under the "don't fancy painting that" catgeory.
Also interested in Chad's take about rules. If I may paraphrase (and possibly misrepresent) your interest is partially driven by the rule set?
I bought my highlanders from Mr Harwood, and he had painted the tartan on in an 'impressionistic' way.
Looks sketchy when you look at it per model, but surprisingly well when seen from a distance on the table.
Maybe we all want to paint stuff too much 'lifelike', and we should look more for 'what works'!
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff441/petercooman123/WP_20160713_21_26_31_Pro%201024x508_zpszxccuxzo.jpg) (http://s1236.photobucket.com/user/petercooman123/media/WP_20160713_21_26_31_Pro%201024x508_zpszxccuxzo.jpg.html)
Quote from: petercooman on 21 March 2017, 08:13:28 AM
Looks sketchy when you look at it per model, but surprisingly well when seen from a distance on the table.
Maybe we all want to paint stuff too much 'lifelike', and we should look more for 'what works'!
Agree. For example, I wish I could paint like Brent Oman, author of Field of Battle. He uses a slightly impressionistic style which I kind of railed against when I first saw it, but which I now admire for its artistry and effect (see link below).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3NvpeaAy7YI/TvPnKsPf8uI/AAAAAAAAAt0/TGKk3rGZ78A/s1600/DSCN2976.JPG (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3NvpeaAy7YI/TvPnKsPf8uI/AAAAAAAAAt0/TGKk3rGZ78A/s1600/DSCN2976.JPG)
Those look very nice indeed!
FSN
I would not say driven by the rule set, more a precautionary stage. I am presently working on the French Revolution and before starting looked at various sets of rules whose authors claimed they would do the job. In the game scale I wanted to do, none were suitable. So I am adapting a set for the period. Also am looking at Mexican-American War. Again I have rules that are designed specifically for the period and others that have templates for variations to the basic rule set. I may or may not run a few games with 'odd' figures to see how they work.
Chad
PS Game scale also impacts investment and painting time. At my age that is also a factor I have to consider.
Without 'suitable' rules for a period and region you will tend to be a collector rather than a gamer :-\
What I was pondering was did a particularly good ruleset drive one to buy figures, or would the lack of a good ruleset preclude one from buying figures.
Paul
I am not sure how you reach that conclusion. Investing in figures before trying rules is like putting the cart before the horse.
This is why I will use whatever figures I have available to try rules and once I feel happy that those rules give me a good game, I will invest my pension in figures. There are no rules to game the French Revolution at the scale I want regardless of what several authors told me before I purchased them. Only option do my own.
Quote from: fsn on 21 March 2017, 07:01:14 PM
What I was pondering was did a particularly good ruleset drive one to buy figures, or would the lack of a good ruleset preclude one from buying figures.
Interesting point. My philosophy has always been figures first then I will find or adapt a set of rules. I go for the period and the look of the thing rather than the minutiae of different base sizes. If the rules say base sizes are immaterial then I will give them a go, if not I will move on.
MickS
Quote from: Chad on 21 March 2017, 07:04:38 PM
Paul
I am not sure how you reach that conclusion. Investing in figures before trying rules is like putting the cart before the horse.
This is why I will use whatever figures I have available to try rules and once I feel happy that those rules give me a good game, I will invest my pension in figures. There are no rules to game the French Revolution at the scale I want regardless of what several authors told me before I purchased them. Only option do my own.
What I was trying to say, humorously, was that without suitable rules figures can tend to sit unused while we search for suitable rules, modify rules or write our own. As you say putting the cart before the horse
How dare you?! I've got a fine set of wild west figures and buildings, and any month now I'll get around to writing the rules and actually use them. Why, it might be before the end of the year!
I'm guessing you don't mean before the end of this Thai year ;D ;D ;D
More like a traditional Hindu great year (I think they're about 40, 000 solar years).
This thing about rules interests me in the same way as watching people watch football (soccer) interests me. I cannot understand the enthusiasm but am intrigued by it.
I should lay my cards on the table - as a solo gamer of many years good standing, my rules are my rules. They have been "developed" from War Games by Donald Featherstone, with accretions from other sets I've read and liked. They're not comprehensive, because as player 1, player 2 and umpire I can make an arbitrary decision without having to consult table 14 on page 162.
For more social gamers the rules are obviously far more important. If you collect, paint and base a couple of armies for a particular ruleset and then nobody in the club likes it ... ouch! Not so much cart and horse as chicken and egg?
I like this thread. It makes me think. I wonder if there's a psychological paper in it?
I'm pretty much in the same situation, fsn.
I really don't want to do any more rules (but want and need are two different thing)
I have reacently taken up HOTT - mainly because I like what your can do with it). Other then doing some scenario design with it - I will play "as written" and stick with the 2.1 version. This is the only rules set that I am starting to use that there is a remote chance I might play with other humans - so no mods.
All my bigger M&P battles are done in Baroque - excellent play mechanisms (have added some modifications).
Very much like One Hour Wargames ( have picked up mods from Norm and added a few of my own). The Pike and Shot rules (modified to the Celtic Fringe) are great for doing campaign elements to my larger battles.
I continue with my own rules for skirmishes and other small actions within the context of my Celtic Fringe obsession. These are heavily based on Flashing Steel (Ganesha Games).
When I add a sail component I have decided to use Galleons&Galleons (because I know the Ganesha mechanisms).
I will keep buying and looking at rules BUT no more switching! Just won't do it it.
Will steal mechanisms I like, however. For example, Regiment of Foote (2) has a terrain mechanism I REALLY like.
I hope to be doing FPW in 2020 - I will use BBB - because I like all the BatReps and pics I've seen - and Chris frequents this board! :D
Oh! fsn - regarding your small note at the end - you could consider joining the "Standing Broom" research group.
Quote from: fsn on 21 March 2017, 07:01:14 PM
What I was pondering was did a particularly good ruleset drive one to buy figures, or would the lack of a good ruleset preclude one from buying figures.
For me, both of the above.
Quote from: d_Guy on 22 March 2017, 02:05:36 PM
I hope to be doing FPW in 2020 - I will use BBB - because I like all the BatReps and pics I've seen - and Chris frequents this board! :D
... frequently enough to merit a captaincy, apparently!
FPW is what BBB was first created for, so I'd like to think it does a reasonable job. I hope you'll enjoy it!
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/
Returning to the original thread for a while, in a non-judgemental or critical fashion:
Not interested at all;
Fantasy/D&D/Sci-fi and VBCW. Personally don't see the appeal when you have so many real historical periods with arcane and bizarre units and strange happenings such as arrow 'machine' guns and Pyrhagorus defences of Syracuse, or the pagan Saxon Wars where a king once attacked monks as wizards who invoked the gods against him couldn't claim non-combatant rights! VBCW - probably just uncomfortable qith it as my parents teenagers before WW2 and know what civil wars do (I don't have any consistency, I know!)
Probably not interested in;
WW2 but could take interest in 'fall of France' period. Odd really, as a kid Airfix WW2 was my main figure collection
Napoleonic ditto above, poss could be interested in Waterloo as stand alone
Non-European involvement; samurai; meso American;
Medieval from 900-1600
Not commenting at all on these negatively. They just don't float my boat.
LOVE:
Ancient - Romans all eras; Biblicals; sub-Roman Europe/ Byzantium
Dark Ages - Sort of interested in Anglo Saxon kingdoms.
Renaissance - ECW, TYW, LoA
18th Century - AWI
19th Century - Crimea; ACW, FPW and defo colonial
20th - WW1; Falklands; Arab Israeli; Vietnam; modern and looking forwards to Korea. Civil/military interface, riots and insurgency.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk