Sorry, just not for me.

[cameronian]

@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

[Terry37]

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

[O Dinas Powys]

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.

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 

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... 

Cheers!

Meirion

[grahambeyrout]

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?   

[d_Guy]

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. 

[fsn]

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.

[fsn]

As a solo gamer I almost always find my opponent congenial, accommodating, and usually quite adaptable. 

Really? My solo opponent is a bad tempered son of a thousand fathers, and I suspect he cheats!   

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Apricots! Ack-phooey! 

[d_Guy]

Really? My solo opponent is a bad tempered son of a thousand fathers, and I suspect he cheats!   

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.

[Westmarcher]

I'm slightly perturbed by the suspicion that when I umpire my solo games, I tend to show biase to one of the players. 

[mollinary]

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

[lowlylowlycook]

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.

[Westmarcher]

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?

[d_Guy]

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. 

[Chad]

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.

[fsn]

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?

[petercooman]

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'!

[Westmarcher]

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

[petercooman]

Those look very nice indeed!

[Chad]

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.