Sorry, just not for me.

[fsn]

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.
 


 

[Nick the Lemming]

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.

[FierceKitty]

 

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.

[FierceKitty]

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.

[DanJ]

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.

[petercooman]

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!

[FierceKitty]

Awww, you're no fun any more!

[Ithoriel]

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.

[FierceKitty]

I wondered if I'd be pushing your buttons there. 

[Chris Pringle]

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/

[Westmarcher]

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] 

[Wulf]

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...

[d_Guy]

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.

[Nick the Lemming]

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.

[DanJ]

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.