possible ECW project using Baroque

[d_Guy]

How important in the rules is the extra base depth?

Paul, off the top of my head the extra base depth has negligible affect (only the front is standardized). There is a slightly greater chance of interpenetration when maneuvering and, if pushed back, a greater chance of contacting and disrupting a friendly unit. Basically just takes up more physical space. To the plus (I think) a massed RE can pivot to flank (or rear) in place. It may even have all around defensive fire but I don't remember for sure.

Other thread comment cause me to reflect on this question,
Which is the better work for quotes, "Holy Grail" or "Life of Brian"?

[Zippee]

So how many figures do you paint for a non-peripheral period

Hmm I think Ancients https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/collections/72157681592395440/ is non periphery as is Napoleonic https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/collections/72157681351715401/ although to be fair my 10mm collection is just an addendum to the 6mm (must get round to the photo record at some point).

Actually I just like collecting stuff - that's my why my WWII RN collection started with some capitals, cruisers and a handful of destroyers and ended with well, err the RN 40-43 basically, although I did cut things like Flower class corvettes down to samples of 16 or so. 

I never said I was sane  :-

[Zippee]

Paul, off the top of my head the extra base depth has negligible affect (only the front is standardized). There is a slightly greater chance of interpenetration when maneuvering and, if pushed back, a greater chance of contacting and disrupting a friendly unit. Basically just takes up more physical space. To the plus (I think) a massed RE can pivot to flank (or rear) in place. It may even have all around defensive fire but I don't remember for sure.

Agreed, base depth is of little impact and in many cases flexible and optional. So long as you can clearly tell a RE(M) from a RE on the table somehow, then I wouldn't lose sleep about it

Other thread comment cause me to reflect on this question,
Which is the better work for quotes, "Holy Grail" or "Life of Brian"?

Neither: Princess Bride for the win obviously!

[toxicpixie]

Hmm I think Ancients https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/collections/72157681592395440/ is non periphery as is Napoleonic https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/collections/72157681351715401/ although to be fair my 10mm collection is just an addendum to the 6mm (must get round to the photo record at some point).

Actually I just like collecting stuff - that's my why my WWII RN collection started with some capitals, cruisers and a handful of destroyers and ended with well, err the RN 40-43 basically, although I did cut things like Flower class corvettes down to samples of 16 or so. 

I never said I was sane  :-

Or solvent?! Sounds like you're single handedly keeping the lead business afloat

[Zippee]

Richard the Third the last true King of England?  There has to be a reason why he couldn't defend 'his' crown against the most laughably implausible pretender to the throne for a thousand years! Oh, yes, it was because he had no claim himself, and no-one, not even his oldest and best friends, were safe against his, entirely justified, paranoia! Anyone has to be better than that intelligent, ruthless, capable, but totally untrustworthy and, ultimately, undeserving, fraud.
Anyone plausibly descended from Boudicca? 

Mollinary

Ah good, someone's being taking the Tudor propaganda pills I see 

[toxicpixie]

Everything after the "oh yes" is referring to Henry isn't it?

[mollinary]

A bit slow rising to the bait, chaps!      That said, Henry might have done all those things, but Tricky Dickie beat him to it!   By the way, if you think the stuff is all Tudor propaganda, have a look at Dominic Mancini.

Mollinary

[fsn]

I find the Tudors a bit boring.




*retires behind specially prepared sanger

[mollinary]

I find the Tudors a bit boring.

*retires behind specially prepared sanger

d

Funnily enough, so do I!

[toxicpixie]

I did four years worth of Tudor era history. Not sure I disagree with that assessment

For my money, whilst no one comes out well, Richard gets a very bad press for nothing more than propaganda purposes. It was Henry wot likely done the blag!

[Fenton]

I find the Tudors a bit boring.




*retires behind specially prepared sanger

The crisps they made were nice

[mollinary]

I did four years worth of Tudor era history. Not sure I disagree with that assessment
Richard gets a very bad press for nothing more than propaganda purposes. It was Henry wot likely done the blag!

You cannot be serious!  People were saying he had murdered the princes before the end of 1483, when no-one had even heard of Henry Tudor. Any space behind that Sanger, fsn?

[toxicpixie]

If you're going to pin the blame on someone, pin it early!

[d_Guy]

...and say it over and over again.

[mollinary]

If you're going to pin the blame on someone, pin it early!

Well, given they disappeared, I think we have to try and pin it on  someone. I  prefer the first suspect with both the motive and opportunity myself!

[paulr]

Thanks Zippee & d_Guy

[GrumpyOldMan]

Which is the better work for quotes, "Holy Grail" or "Life of Brian"?

"You don't need to follow anyone! You're all individuals."

I'm not.

[fsn]

Any space behind that Sanger, fsn?

Sorry, did I say sanger? I meant sangria. Sure. Pull up a glass and settle in.

[Zippee]

Or solvent?! Sounds like you're single handedly keeping the lead business afloat

Sadly my lead boats keep sinking - lead's not good at floating it seems 

[Zippee]

I did four years worth of Tudor era history. Not sure I disagree with that assessment

For my money, whilst no one comes out well, Richard gets a very bad press for nothing more than propaganda purposes. It was Henry wot likely done the blag!

Yeah I did the same period at UNI - I was particularly impressed how the second year special subject title changed from "Richard III and the succession crisis" when I signed up for it to "Richard III and his Usurpation of the Crown" by the time term started. That caused a few heated debates but the bigot of a lecturer was well and truly pinned to the Tudor's as saviour's of the Realm nonsense.  

No one comes out well by modern ethical standards but the murder of the princes was far from the most heinous act under the Plantagenets and there is precedence for similar actions all the way back to Alfred. Richard just gets a special mention in the Big Black Tudor Book of Plantagenet Crime. If Henry hadn't been so desperate to cement some kind of legitimacy to his usurpation then the matter would probably be all but lost from the historical record instead of some bleak highlight of infamous treachery.

But the Tudor dynasty is a string of disasters - just happens to be fronted by possibly the most famous king we have (famous for being a duplicitous philanderer - these days we'd call him Boris and send him to the FO) and even the success of Elizabeth (mostly due to advisors like Cecil and others in reality) failed in the production of an heir and overall the position of England as a political power in Europe slipped backwards - salvaged only by nibbling away at Spain's success in the New World, something that would only really start to bring real wealth under the Stuarts. Tudors, my vote for the least successful dynasty we've ever had - but the one best served by its propaganda machine.