As there are quite a few Horse and Musket ranges now, would it be possible to have a sub-board for them, possible 1600 - 1850?
Cheers, Rob
seconded ;)
Thirded, if circumstance permits.
I am in the midst of preparing a TYW purchasing order (Imperials, Spanish, Swedes, French, the works) and a separate board for related issues and questions would be welcome.
Cheers,
Aart
Works for me.
Most of us would call TYW and the era Pike and Shot, not Horse and Musket, surely?
What about splitting the 'Historical' board somewhere around 1700-ish? Everything earlier goes into one board, everything later into another. Not sure where we'd put the LoA discussions though... maybe make the cut-off 1688? :D
Quote from: FierceKitty on 13 October 2011, 02:52:25 AM
Most of us would call TYW and the era Pike and Shot, not Horse and Musket, surely?
Sure, sure, and 1500-1700 might be a better cut-off. After all 1492 marked the start of Spanish domination, 1525 the start of the European wars of religion, etcetera. Any old date would do as long as I can park me pikes and gendarmes there.
Cheers,
Aart
given that LOA is one of Pendrakens showpiece ranges i think its important to include it clearly in one board or the other. Personally i feel it has more in common with WSS and other post 1700 wars than classical pike and shot - so perhaps we say 1680ish onwards ?
Personally I'd like to see the other end of the period extended to 1900. After all, european-style warfare still relied on feet and horses right up until the internal combustion engine reared its ugly head. And there seem to be an awful lot of us late nineteenth century buffs.
So we make the cutoff 1680 we'd have one board for Ancients through to ECW, and the other for LoA through to the Colonials?
Quote from: Leon on 13 October 2011, 07:09:52 PM
So we make the cutoff 1680 we'd have one board for Ancients through to ECW, and the other for LoA through to the Colonials?
Sounds fine - that is, if it's not too much of a hassle to open a new subforum for just seven members, eh? :-\
Cheers,
Aart
Wouldn't it make more sense to align the Forums with the Catalogue breakdown?
Chad
Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 14 October 2011, 07:51:30 AM
Sounds fine - that is, if it's not too much of a hassle to open a new subforum for just seven members, eh? :-\
It's easy enough to do, so it's not a problem. I'll get to it after the weekend, as I'll have to go through all the threads and send them to their new home.
Quote from: Chad on 14 October 2011, 11:48:27 AM
Wouldn't it make more sense to align the Forums with the Catalogue breakdown?
That was the plan when we first launched the Forum, but the worry was that certain area's wouldn't attract enough traffic, and become dead space.
Quote from: Leon on 14 October 2011, 05:47:19 PM
That was the plan when we first launched the Forum, but the worry was that certain area's wouldn't attract enough traffic, and become dead space.
From recent observation the areas that attract most attention are those which sport the latest and best figures - witness the current furore about the, admittedly superb, LoA figures. On the "what goes around, comes around" princlple each period would eventually attract notice as it was upgraded or renewed. However, by running several periods together in one board you can smooth out the peaks and troughs that would inevitably ensue with more specialised boards. The sixty-four thousand dollar question is, of course, where the break points should be. Does, for example, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 belong with the horse and musket era, or in the modern era? I'm sure the membership can come up with other examples of grey areas. :-\
Quote from: Chad on 14 October 2011, 11:48:27 AM
Wouldn't it make more sense to align the Forums with the Catalogue breakdown?
Chad
Yep. ;)
I'm sure the membership can come up with other examples of grey areas. :-\
[/quote]
For me the uncomfortable one has always been the War of the Grand Alliance. I know they were still using a few pikes, but it doesn't feel like a P. and S. combat once they're wearing tricornes and using lots of bayonettes.
Come to think of it, if you did the destruction of Ayyuthaya by the Burmese in the 1760s, you'd certainly use P. and S. rules.
We'll split it in two for now, and see how it goes. It's easy enough to add more boards where we want in future though.
So, does anyone have any cool titles for them? Anything more interesting than "1680-1900 - For discussing anything between 1680-1900."
Smoky choky battefields?
Quote from: FierceKitty on 17 October 2011, 03:02:46 PM
Smoky choky battefields?
With lots of Horse Excrement
IanS
Quote from: ianrs54 on 17 October 2011, 04:09:27 PM
With lots of Horse Excrement
IanS
Isn't there a risk that that will sound like Warhammer?
Would suspect that was more bovine in origin....
IanS
Can't cap that one; your point, sir. ;D
at the risk of being radical..... Horse and Musket (1680 -1900) ?
or 'Things that go bang'. This allows you to set up 20thC/Modern as 'Things that go Kaboom' and ancients as 'Things that are pointy'
Quote from: goat major on 18 October 2011, 11:24:04 AM
at the risk of being radical..... Horse and Musket (1680 -1900) ?
or 'Things that go bang'. This allows you to set up 20thC/Modern as 'Things that go Kaboom' and ancients as 'Things that are pointy'
I see. And anything between 950 (first Chinese use of gunpowder) and 1680 could be the Age of 'Poof!' :-\
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 18 October 2011, 01:41:15 PM
I see. And anything between 950 (first Chinese use of gunpowder) and 1680 could be the Age of 'Poof!' :-\
Cheers,
Aart
You'll be in trouble when gay lib. reads that!
Quote from: FierceKitty on 18 October 2011, 01:47:40 PM
You'll be in trouble when gay lib. reads that!
How many divisions does Gay Lib have? 8)
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: goat major on 18 October 2011, 11:24:04 AM
at the risk of being radical..... Horse and Musket (1680 -1900) ?
Fair enough, what about the other one? Ancients through to ECW?
Quote from: Leon on 18 October 2011, 02:29:53 PM
Fair enough, what about the other one? Ancients through to ECW?
Most of History?
'Ancients to Renaissance (3000 BC - 1680)' - well that's assuming we're putting dinosaurs into fantasy ?
I think we should just keep it simple - GWP have already done the clever names for periods thing
Dinosuars are God's joke - we all KNOW the world is only 7500 yrs old - the Bible says so.
IanS :d
Quote from: Leon on 17 October 2011, 02:48:43 PM
We'll split it in two for now, and see how it goes. It's easy enough to add more boards where we want in future though.
So, does anyone have any cool titles for them? Anything more interesting than "1680-1900 - For discussing anything between 1680-1900."
"From Firelocks to Maxims 1680 - 1900" :)
Quote from: Rob on 18 October 2011, 08:28:29 PM
"From Firelocks to Maxims 1680 - 1900" :)
Knock the "from" off to make it snappier, and that's probably the one. :-bd
This is all done now!
Quote from: Leon on 14 November 2011, 02:46:11 AM
This is all done now!
Excellent job. 8) All thats needed now is to allign the requests boards. ;D ;D
Cheers :D
Quote from: Rob on 17 November 2011, 11:59:12 PM
Excellent job. 8) All thats needed now is to allign the requests boards. ;D ;D
Cheers :D
The Requests are already split up to an extent, I had to do that a while ago, as there were so many! I might add in another sub-board for 18th/early 19th requests if we need it soon.
Quote from: Leon on 18 November 2011, 12:07:24 AM
The Requests are already split up to an extent, I had to do that a while ago, as there were so many! I might add in another sub-board for 18th/early 19th requests if we need it soon.
Top man! :)