Gaddzooks!
Some people...
A Sharpe Practise 28mm player of my acquaintance is complaining of how empty Ancient tables are.
Yet he plays with 20-30 figures, how is that supposed to represent a Napoleonic battle, when the average battle was about 20000 a side?
WW2 games routinely have companies of tanks fighting across 2-300m fronts, but these are parts of wider battles. Waterloo and Ligne had front of miles across!
Why have we all started losing our tempers about a game? When did we all become so up our selves?
Time and again we have supplied him with images of ancient battlefield, where ther terrain is scarce to say the least.
With the advent of modern terrain mats, mdf splots for trees to go on, scuplted villages, flexible roads and rivers, tables now look so much better than the 90s, when one person I layer used to chalk on their terrain, but some people...
Waterloo was only 2.5 miles wide so it was fairly small.
Sharp Practice games are not meant to be 'battles', only skirmishes.
But I don't really care.
Going many of the Ancient Wargames I've seen at shows, I can see what your pal is saying. My analogy is that it's not enough to only have trains running around a track on a table. I also want scenery. :)
Quote from: Westmarcher on 02 April 2018, 02:03:19 PM
I also want scenery. :)
Even if it wasn't really there in the first place! ;) ;D Given most pre-industrial battles were variations on "Line 'em up and bash 'em" a lot of engagements took place in relatively open terrain.
Seriously Will, tell him to wind his neck in. The amount of scenery on the table depends on the scale of the game, for skirmish games you need a lot, not so much for bigger battles.
Interesting. I suppose one of the things that we are able to do these days is dabble in a lot of periods and perhaps research and knowledge of the subject gets diluted because of this. Also the 'complete' package is often presented to the gamer, so again cursory knowledge may shape how one plays their game.
Napoleonic cavalry and ACW cavalry were used barely 50 years apart, yet the use and tactics of one in practice differed significantly from the other, yet there are rules and gamers that barely recognise that and certainly in the boardgame world, there are gamers who seem to approach their horse and musket or even ancient games with a mindset of blitzkrieg 1940 manoeuvres.
Perhaps your co-gamer should be given a Greek army, laden with phalanx and then be allowed to set up the terrain on the battlefield as per his fantasy. Then play the game and see whether the penny drops.
having said that, there is a bottom line that spending your 2 - 3 hours just enjoying yourself is in my humble opinion the only real benchmark as to what we do being worthwhile, so if a gamer wants to blitzkrieg a Roman legion through the Ardennes, or paint the Scots Guards pink, then I suppose it matters not, unless the claim is that they have pursued and obtained absolute realism. There are plenty of games that are 'themed' on reality, rather than actually practicing it, so maybe if he wants big trees and broken ground all over the place, that's okay, plus big foliage does look cool on any table, well obviously not in naval games ..... but then again, who am I to...... :-)
I think you might have hit the nail on the head with game mats, Lemmy. Just look at the mess caused by one hedge at both Tewksbury and First Newbury. You could show him the clip of Gaugamela from Alexander. Thousands of troops and barely a bump in sight, but played on an arid game mat it would look the biz.
On Gaugamela ...
"Darius chose a flat, open plain where he could deploy his larger forces, not wanting to be caught in a narrow battlefield as he had been at Issus two years earlier, where he could not deploy his huge army properly. Darius had his soldiers flatten the terrain before the battle, to give his 200 war chariots the best conditions. However, this did not matter. On the ground were a few hills and no bodies of water that Alexander could use for protection, and in the autumn the weather was dry and mild" - Wikipedia (my emphasis)
Already flat open terrain (by wargames standards) specially levelled!
The individual in questions sounds like the sort of person I would go to some lengths to avoid
Enjoy your games Mad Lemmy :)
Sharp Practice is 1:1 figure scale.
OK.... (back to what I thought was the subject .... )
Quote from: mad lemmey on 02 April 2018, 01:06:46 PM
A Sharpe Practise 28mm player of my acquaintance is complaining of how empty Ancient tables are.
Example:-
http://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/dertosa-with-to-strongest.html (http://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/dertosa-with-to-strongest.html)
So, what I was referring too specifically are the featureless tables you sometimes see at war-games shows (see above link).
Ancients is
possibly probably not a period of interest for me because I just like games with some scenery (well, we're all different). Although I don't know much about Ancient Battles (again, it's not my period), I just can't accept that all battles were fought on a featureless desert or barren piece of ground as often depicted in many games. Whilst it was educational to read that Darius brought along his own groundsmen to prepare the pitch before the game, surely there must have been lots of battles with crops, vineyards, orchards or scrub, the odd hut, roundhouse, hamlet or farm, stream or more ... trees, even? Now the Milvian Bridge (I presume there was a river and a bridge?), Teutoburg Forest (please tell me there were trees) and Adrianople (I think there might be scenery in that one, too?) sound like more interesting battles to portray on the tabletop.
This looks attractive to me ...
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=457971 (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=457971)
This doesn't .... (although it at least has a tent) ....
http://blundersonthedanube.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/ad-fortissima-to-strongest-rome-vs.html (http://blundersonthedanube.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/ad-fortissima-to-strongest-rome-vs.html)
.. and that's all I thought Lemmey's friend meant ..... just seemed a bit extreme to ostracise the guy because what he likes is different from everybody else .....
Signed - Sticker Upper for The Underdog. :P
[probably regret this - the guy might be a real pain in the ar** .......] ;D
Very few ancient battlefields seem to have had much by way of terrain beyond patches of higher ground where forces inferior in numbers, training, equipment or morale could attempt to even the odds and the occasional wood or ravine within which smart commanders with well trained troops could could conceal forces for successful ambushes and others could position troops who either took no further part in the battle or sprang the trap too early and got massacred.
Milvian Bridge is a case in point, Maxentius crossed the Tiber, most likely by pontoon bridge since the Milvian had been demolished to stop Constatine crossing it and entering the city, but positioned his army with the Tiber close to his rear. Maxentius lost the battle and much of his army was trapped by the river and were either killed by Constatine's troops, drowned or were captured, Maxentius himself drowned.
In wargaming terms that pretty much "Any unit leaving the table on the edge on which Maxentius' army deploys is counted as destroyed." No need for an actual river or bridge.
Perhaps Ancient generals were the original creators of "the empty battlefield." :D
Oh goodie, time for another HOTT plug! In HOTT the terrain requirements are dictated byt the rules, unless you are doing a specific historical scenario. So we never have an issue. Well, that is unless you have no bad going troops or are stuck with Flyers and your being the attacker the other guy sets the terrain and you find yourself staring at a bunch of woods!!! Yeps, woods are a real problem for Knights, and Flyers. But I like ot ave some of both in my armies if possible because they can cause real damage.
Terry
I agree most ancient battlefields can look a bit 'drab' and players should make some effort, having the Tiber running along a back edge would help for Milvian Bridge, but it is a lot of river if you don't use it much...
Quote from: Westmarcher on 02 April 2018, 09:51:49 PM
..... just seemed a bit extreme to ostracise the guy because what he likes is different from everybody else .....
[probably regret this - the guy might be a real pain in the ar** .......] ;D
You may be right Westmarcher, but these
Quote from: mad lemmey on 02 April 2018, 01:06:46 PM
...complaining of how empty Ancient tables are...
Time and again we have supplied him with images of ancient battlefield, where ther terrain is scarce to say the least.
make me think your second comment is probably more correct, hard to know without having met the guy ;)
I've been doing some Punic War reading, and quite a few of Hannibal's victories depended upon parts of his army being in concealment - in folds of the ground, in woods, behind a hill ... which would seem to pont to some tactical use of topography.
I'm sorry I find that hard to believe.
You, reading... ?
Also the use of Welsh for the importance of a bridge in some ancients games is an interesting diversion!
Terrain matters, even a plain field can be made to look good, some boards are so awful I just walk away muttering ... 'very nice, really nice', such a bloody hypocrite. Same on TMP, somebody, no names, insists on putting up photos of his (her ?) crap table and we all chip in ... 'very nice, really nice'.
A decent mat/base cloth/terrain board, with some non-game impact scatter terrain can up the look of a flat battlefield immeasurably, even for a "featureless desert" or "unbroken steppe".
Is he confusing skirmish level "must have every tree stump modelled so I can hide behind them" with large scale "only needs the significant bits modelled and the rest just needs to look good" terrain :D
QuoteA Sharpe Practise 28mm player of my acquaintance is complaining of how empty Ancient tables are.
At the risk of seeming harsh, he has two basic choices, go away and stop complaining, leaving people to enjoy their games, or doing better himself.
Quote from: DanJ on 06 April 2018, 12:51:07 PM
At the risk of seeming harsh, he has two basic choices, go away and stop complaining, leaving people to enjoy their games, or doing better himself.
That's three choices ... just saying.
Making a game look good is very different to having a good game (to play).
Photos make the look of a game much more important and I have spent time and money trying to improve the look of my table. A modern printed games mat definitely helps, and I have been making bases for terrain using the same techniques as I use for figure basing to replace coloured foam. I think the buildings and trees I use look ok.
But he reality is that once the game starts this all becomes less important. You then get involved in the game. And the overall look is much less important as you are thinking about the game.
But there is obviously a value to a nice looking game, as why would be spend so much time and money on producing a good looking a game rather than just playing a board game?
The more I do this the more I'm beginning to realise that I am not really a wargamer, but more interested in assembling and painting model armies, then watching them manoeuvre around on decent terrain. Not in the least interested in games that look as though they are played on something assembled from the off-cuts of a jumble sale. this is probably why I am becoming more interested in solo gaming - then it no longer matters if I forget there is a rule that only left-handed infantry can pass through the mule train on a Tuesday.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Go for it, Andy !
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Leman on 06 April 2018, 04:30:38 PM
- then it no longer matters if I forget there is a rule that only left-handed infantry can pass through the mule train on a Tuesday.
Heritic! You are obviously using 31.462 Edition when everyone knows that the later 32.765 Edition was amended to "only left-handed infantry can pass through the mule train on a Tuesday, if whistling at the same time."
You might be left aghast at some of my tables with the printed battlemat! Using them is excellent from a game POV as the terrain, elevations, BUAs etc are all exceptionally well marked and easy to use, but it sure ain't Bruce Weigle style of loveliness! I rather like it as I gives me the feel of a "real" general seeing things from the staff maps, as it were but it's not a patch on "proper" terrain for looks.
Quote from: sunjester on 06 April 2018, 05:04:13 PM
Heritic! You are obviously using 31.462 Edition when everyone knows that the later 32.765 Edition was amended to "only left-handed infantry can pass through the mule train on a Tuesday, if whistling at the same time."
Mule trains can whistle? I must include a house rule to allow for this.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 06 April 2018, 05:29:52 PM
You might be left aghast at some of my tables with the printed battlemat! Using them is excellent from a game POV as the terrain, elevations, BUAs etc are all exceptionally well marked and easy to use, but it sure ain't Bruce Weigle style of loveliness! I rather like it as I gives me the feel of a "real" general seeing things from the staff maps, as it were but it's not a patch on "proper" terrain for looks.
I've seen photos of this style of game and they look good. It's a very stylised representation but it definitely works - as you say gives a map type view of the battle.
Seconded
Quote from: Leman on 06 April 2018, 04:30:38 PM
The more I do this the more I'm beginning to realise that I am not really a wargamer, but more interested in assembling and painting model armies, then watching them manoeuvre around on decent terrain. Not in the least interested in games that look as though they are played on something assembled from the off-cuts of a jumble sale. this is probably why I am becoming more interested in solo gaming - then it no longer matters if I forget there is a rule that only left-handed infantry can pass through the mule train on a Tuesday.
+1
Quote from: FierceKitty on 06 April 2018, 06:12:20 PM
Mule trains can whistle? I must include a house rule to allow for this.
Yours Can't ! :-/ Sj's confederate mules whistle "Yellow Rose of Texas", the Union ones "battle Hymn of the Republic.
Quote from: sunjester on 06 April 2018, 05:04:13 PM
Heritic! You are obviously using 31.462 Edition when everyone knows that the later 32.765 Edition was amended to "only left-handed infantry can pass through the mule train on a Tuesday, if whistling at the same time."
I was led to believe that 32.765 was only an errata and new FAQ, not a complete edition - I have been diddled
I can honestly say, that i don't have the best looking setup. If i game at home, i have to put it up, play, and break it down in one evening.
As said a couple of posts above:
Quote from: cameronian on 04 April 2018, 02:48:11 PM
Terrain matters, even a plain field can be made to look good, some boards are so awful I just walk away muttering ... 'very nice, really nice', such a bloody hypocrite. Same on TMP, somebody, no names, insists on putting up photos of his (her ?) crap table and we all chip in ... 'very nice, really nice'.
Maybe you would walk away from my table then. At least i'm having fun and doing the hobby i like, within my own restrictions.
Not everyone has a dedicated game room with a dedicated table, or space to store specially made terrain boards. Sometimes, what you would call a crap table, is the best someone can have with the means at hand.
Don't be so hard, we all started somewhere far from where we are now. I bet a lot of us can still remember playing their first games on a kitchen table like i did, saving some pocket money for a sheet of chipboard to place over the table. Then saving again to buy the paint to make the board green...
I was 11-12 when i started, and painted those boards myself (i got 2 pieces) , plotting entry and exit points for roads and rivers, to match them up, mixing sand from the garden in the paint, because i didn't have flock. I had some memorable games on them.
We don't start this hobby with a perfect setup in our back pocket. Getting one takes time and effort OR a lot of money to buy one ready made.
Calling someone's table crap because it doesn't conform to what you are used to now, is a bit short sighted, no?
PS: not picking a fight, just wanted to approach that thought from a different side.
Yellow Rose of Texas notwithstanding, my wife always wants to play the dam' Yankees.
I would never call someone else's table crap. Perhaps because I was taught "if you cant say something nice, don't say anything at all."
Personally I am Like Leman, I like a nice well presented table to move my figures over. I am fortunate that I have a the funds to buy good terrain and the space to store it. Mrs Orcs is also very accommodating. I recently took over the dining room for 6 weeks leaving the table set up between games with no complaints.
I have had many excellent games over the years on very basic tables. It is the game and the company that makes it enjoyable. Nice terrain is the icing on the cake
I recently put on a Chain of command game at home, and got several comments on how nice the terrain was, both from those playing and Mrs Orcs. However the models and terrain probably cost over £500 and would have only just fitted into the boot of a family car.
This is all very nice for those of us who have :-
1) The time and money to obtain such terrain (often over many years)
2) Somewhere to store it all
Going to a show and seeing most if not all the tables there set up in a similar fashion must be very daunting to a new teenager to the hobby thinking that is the standard he has to achieve to be able to play an enjoyable war-game.
I think we should ensure that shows have a reasonable number of games set up using far more basic terrain, to show newbies what can be achieved in the kitchen table with a basic felt cloth, a couple of buildings, some lichen and a few trees. Giving them the feel good "fix of wargaming" so they are hooked . Once hooked they will hopefully go on to put on fun games on pretty tables that we can be involved in.
I appreciate a well set battlefield, but for my rules, some use just pieces of cut felt, and others go to great lengths to create awesome terrain pieces. I have the bits to make nice terrain, but so far have just gone the felt route since so many of the other players have such an abundance of terrain we seldom ever use any of mine. I did pick up some nice hills at last years Nashcon, and have picked up a great piece of greenish suede-felt like fabric to cover my board with, but am still seeking a good glue to use to adhere fabric to board and to be able to spread it evenly and allow the fabric to lay smoothly. Then I want to see if I can also use some of the fabric to cover the hills with. For HOTT the hills don't need to be high so usually run only about maybe a quarter of an inch high, and they are limited in their size by the rules.
I really like and support the idea of including some beginner/basic table set ups so newbies don't feel overwhelmed. We truly need the younger generations to follow our footsteps if the hobby is to continue.
Terry
Cheers on the "map board" comments :)
Orcs hits a good point - some games at shows are stunning, but are prohibitive for most especially "new starters". Whilst inspiring they can be off putting. Whilst the "Silver Legions on book hills on bare table" isn't something I'd recommend in public, there's definitely a place for the "Blue Peter, made at home with a small aubergine" look with achievable numbers of acceptable figures. I tend to feel my own efforts look like that - see recent piccies from WMMS :D
The aim there is to get people playing, get them to have fun, and think "I could do that" and then go home and have a bash. As opposed to "I CANT do that, no way can I find space for 8ft by 6ft and a thousand lovingly exact 28mm figures per side with hand crafted down to every last bush terrain", and get discouraged.
I think Tin pants and Pointy Stick warfare suffers from the completion scene - very rigid terrain rules which encourage exact cut outs of specific size & shape that have to go across three dozen tables and be much more utilitarian than nice. That's not always the case, eg Tim of Maxman game with his recent lovely Samurai terrain BUT the bulk of "competition terrain" I've seen tends to be stark, as it were.
Agree about competition games - saw some really poor efforts in Manchester a couple of years back. They may as well have invested in a decent boardgame. Not so sure about the 6x8 table and thousands of figures. In my club we have put together a Ronin game to go on tour on a 4x4 with about 15 figures per side. There is a Tiny Wargames mat and some buildings and trees. It looks attractive without being over the top railway modeller standard. It is the type of participation which should inspire the youngsters (and the not so young) to get into something historical. Talking of 8x6s though, I went to York a couple of years back, was drawn to a large demo game (I think it was WWI, but not too sure) around which were a good half dozen players, all of whom assiduously avoided eye contact, and some of whom made damn sure they kept their backs to me. I think that's more likely to put off potential wargamers far more than attractively modelled scenery.
Incidentally, we have taken to travelling with a spare player who can talk to interested parties while the others run the game.
I agree completely on the small foot print game - some bemoan the disappearance of the grand sweep and the rise of the kitchen table game but it's acheivable for many who don't have space or opportunity dor the grand manner (which are often more like a static demo!). And it gives good practise for building up from there or joining in with friends and club mates etc if/when there's space and time for a big game.
I tend to be a bit hoarse by the time we finish a demo - I spend more time talking than dice rolling ;) Its why I've encouraged clubmates to "go participation"recently instead of "going large" with a single all day game; what's the point if everyone's hunched down avoiding talking to possible new recruits or re-firing the imagination of the jaded grognard?