So no SS or Japanese, but quite happy with slavery supporting Confederates, Guillotine happy French revolutionaries and the atrocities of the Thirty Years War. I prefer not to do WWII because it is still in living memory, as is SCW (my best mate is half-Basque - as a boy his father was hurriedly sent out of the country to Britain in 1936. He ended up in the British 8th Army), Korea, Vietnam, Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

I would argue that there is a fantasy element in all wargames even historical ones.  Most of the time we are fighting "what if" scenarios that while they contain correct historical forces  are the product of someone's imagination.

If you look at the historical ancients games you see all sorts of un-historical opponents.  Surely Hoplite v New Kingdom Egyptian or similar is fantasy gaming?

Quote from: Orcs on 20 March 2017, 11:09:13 AM
I would argue that there is a fantasy element in all wargames even historical ones.  Most of the time we are fighting "what if" scenarios that while they contain correct historical forces  are the product of someone's imagination.

If you look at the historical ancients games you see all sorts of un-historical opponents.  Surely Hoplite v New Kingdom Egyptian or similar is fantasy gaming?

Certainly. A reason why I won't touch games like that.

Ditto.

Quote from: Orcs on 20 March 2017, 11:09:13 AM
I would argue that there is a fantasy element in all wargames even historical ones.  Most of the time we are fighting "what if" scenarios that while they contain correct historical forces  are the product of someone's imagination.

Who's this "we", paleface? 

Most of the time I am fighting historical scenarios that contain as rigorously as possible historical forces and historical terrain for a given historical battle, with no "imagination" involved in the scenario design. Yes, in a sense it becomes a "what-if" as soon as the first player (or his dice) makes a decision that deviates from the historical course of events. But the players are at least sitting in the chair of their historical counterparts, facing a real historical tactical problem, and trying to solve it while dealing with the real historical factors. It's "learning by doing", and there's something historical and non-fantastical there to learn about.

So the fantasy element is tiny. Yes, there is more of it in the nominally historical ancients tournament games you refer to, but I don't even recognize them as being the same hobby. Usual caveats apply, no offence intended, each to their own, just not my thing etc. The tournament players at OWS are good people, and without them there wouldn't be a club - but please don't bracket their tournament games with mine.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/

Quote from: d_Guy on 17 March 2017, 08:32:24 PM
@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

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

Quote from: fsn on 19 March 2017, 01:13:28 PM
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

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?   

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. 

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.

Quote from: d_Guy on 20 March 2017, 08:35:21 PM
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!   

Apricots! Ack-phooey! 

Quote from: fsn on 20 March 2017, 08:56:08 PM
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.

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