Sorry, just not for me.

[Chris Pringle]

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/

[d_Guy]

@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? 

[fsn]

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.   

[Chad]

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.

[cameronian]

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

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Brilliant Cameroonian.
Do I Remember correctly it also caused issues for the Hessian battery at Razonville?

[d_Guy]

@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

I'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. 

[Chris Pringle]

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.

[Chad]

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

[urbancohort]

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

[fsn]

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.

[d_Guy]

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 

[d_Guy]

@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

[petercooman]

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!

[Terry37]

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