"And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer" - Hans Gruber, "Die Hard".

Gentlemen.

Whilst I do not wish to compare myself to Alexander I am scanning the horizon for the next big project ... and coming up empty.

For post 1900, I usually do 1:1 at platoon or company level. Pre-1900, I choose armies of 400-1000 figures dependent upon my level of interest. 

• Currently, my OOBs are: Trojan War  , Peloponnesian  , Punic,  Dark Age, Stephen/Matilda, 1314, Roses, WSS, Naps  , ACW, 1898, WWI (Africa), Beau Geste, WWII (... lots), Korea, Zombie/SF.
• Non Pendraken is 1:600 in the air (1917-1973), Triremes, Nap naval, WWII Naval (1:600 and 1:3000) 
  
• Eagerly waiting for Greeks, Samurai, 1973
• I have no interest in: China, Aztecs, Crusades, Renaissance, Legume of Augsburg, Colonial Wars, Indian Mutiny, the C19 generally,  anything post 1980, Spanish Civil War, and fantasy.
• I'd love Pendraken to do chariots and Byzantines
• I could be tempted by ECW, a 'Chocolate Box' C19, Imperial Rome or Indo-China/Viet Nam. Problem is that as a solo gamer I have to create both sides. I quite fancy a Lorica Segmentata legion or two ... but who to fight?

So, Gentlemen, your thoughts? Whither now? There is always the option of expansion, but I constantly crave a bit of novelty.

The poll says I can only choose 2 options....

I voted Flodden 1 and ECW 2. These are what I do - everyone should do them.  Plus Pendraken has bunches of nice figures.
Plus you live there, mate. Plus most of the primary source are in sort-of English.

Late Roman, Sassanid and Early Byzantine - half the units are pretty much interchangeable

My first vote went to ECW - which, more accurately, is BCW or War of the 3 Kingdoms thus giving you expansion options into Scots Royalist and Irish armies (I'm assuming you would paint up a Scots Covenanter Army in addition to English Royalist and Parliamentarian Armies as a matter of course) and the future option of extending into the 30 Years War (with all of it's lovely continental armies). 

For my second vote, isn't Flodden, Renaissance (you said you had no interest in Renaissance)? But Pendraken have some great figures in the Flodden range so, OK, exceptions can be made. Anyhoo, for my second vote, I went for Late Roman - a refreshing change from the all conquering lorica segmenta armies (and their enemies have a more even chance of beating them thus promising more interesting games?). Late Roman armies also have the option of being more interesting (Eastern and Western armies plus guest star appearances from different types of allied foederati) and are nearer in time to Byzantines (which you hope Pendraken will branch into in future).

p.s. top marks for spelling of Augsburg, btw.  

Imperial Rome v (the soon to be released) Dacians

And

Vietnam - Huey's lots of Huey's

When you say Byzantine, is there a particular period you have in mind? There's a over a thousand years to choose from!

The one enemy the Romans fought the most often and consistently throughout their entire history was other Romans... When there wasn't Dacians to conquer!

Wars of the Tetrarchy could be interesting for more of a late Roman civil war.

Slight exaggeration. Romans of the Republic (pre-Marius here) didn't have time to thump each other much yet.

I think a few Trajanic legionaries in loricis segmentatis could be rationalised vs the Persians. As is pointed out so often, gear was expensive, and tended to be worn until past repair, so some luckier legions who had escaped heavy campaigning might well have been using older gear.

Late Roman and Sassanids as this project is self sealed. Clib has provided some amazing figures (especially if you use his Roman catafracts and Clibs rather than the existing Sassnids) if they aren't fighting each other they fight themselves.
Beautiful sculpts, wealth of detail and lots of colour.

French vs Bavarians,
Two colourful forces (Bavarians too) which could expand out in many directions.

I went for Roman vs Sassanid, mostly for the reasons already mentioned, plus it would be a good base to expand to other conflicts. Which is the same reasons I started these armies myself.

I also chose ECW, again for the reasons others have given.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 21 May 2019, 02:20:54 AM
Slight exaggeration. Romans of the Republic (pre-Marius here) didn't have time to thump each other much yet.

Well no, pre Marian they were typically thumping their slaves and their sometime Italian allies if we're being pedantic*   but if you look at a list of all their wars from their history as a whole, then most other enemies didn't last for more than a war or three, so they had to pick on someone who would provide a bit of a challenge every so often, namely themselves.


* As far as internal unrest goes.

Quote from: mmcv on 20 May 2019, 11:31:17 PM
When you say Byzantine, is there a particular period you have in mind? There's a over a thousand years to choose from!

Sorry, should have been clearer. I'm thinking of something to face down the Normans in Southern Italy. C11. Possibly with some Lombards.

Quote from: Westmarcher on 20 May 2019, 10:16:04 PM
(I'm assuming you would paint up a Scots Covenanter Army in addition to English Royalist and Parliamentarian Armies as a matter of course)

My thinking was more Covenanter, then someone for them to have a go at.

Quote from: Westmarcher on 20 May 2019, 10:16:04 PM
For my second vote, isn't Flodden, Renaissance (you said you had no interest in Renaissance)?

Yeah but ... have you seen the figures? It's them Swiss and Landy-necks I'm agin'.

Quote from: Westmarcher on 20 May 2019, 10:16:04 PM
p.s. top marks for spelling of Augsburg, btw.  

Which just goes to show that randomisation works- sometimes.  

Quote from: mmcv on 20 May 2019, 11:31:17 PM
Wars of the Tetrarchy could be interesting for more of a late Roman civil war.

Now there's a thought!  

Quote from: d_Guy on 20 May 2019, 09:49:14 PM
I voted Flodden 1 and ECW 2. These are what I do - everyone should do them.  Plus Pendraken has bunches of nice figures.

I shall be perfectly honest and say that I would more tempted to do Flodden if we'd won. These two are the furthest from anything I've done before, so are tempting. I've always shied away from ECW because I think you need really big units to show off the pike/musket mix.  

Quote from: Matt J on 20 May 2019, 10:54:24 PM
Vietnam - Huey's lots of Huey's

Best soundtrack of any of the periods as well. If I did Viet Nam, I'd probably go Australians ... but then I'd have to do US Marines as well. I'd probably need to invest in quite a bit of terrain for this.  

Thank you gentlemen for your comments thus far. So far an Imperial Roman Civil War sounds fun, and Flodden is the period and campaign I know least about ... but the Covenanter grey is appealing and ... I haven't got any T34's and ....

I may have to lie down in a darkened room.  

"And when Lord Oik saw the breadth of his choices, he lay down in a dark room and sobbed gently, for he could not do them all."

Quote from: fsn on 21 May 2019, 06:42:02 AM

I may have to lie down in a darkened room. 

who let him out !!!

I voted Flodden as it is a fascinating period and you can do the whole thing using Pendraken, and even expand it into Henry's invasion of France.
I also voted for France v Bavaria 1914 as this is a complete contrast to the Flodden  period, featuring modern weapons, but with both sides still using cavalry and the French still mostly in their 1871 uniforms.

Quote from: Leman on 21 May 2019, 07:38:56 AM
I also voted for France v Bavaria 1914 ... with both sides still using cavalry and the French still mostly in their 1871 uniforms.

This is what attracts me. It's like the end of the C19 ... and somehow poignant when you think of what is to come.

But I'd have to do Belgians as well.   

I voted 1944 Soves, based on my thesis that the most interesting games are when the Holy Trinity of firepower-protection-mobility is in balance, i.e., when firepower and mobility are sufficiently potent to give some depth to the battlefield, but without firepower dominating; which for me limits it to Napoleonics, 19th century, and WWII.

Seems odd to me to go for French v Bavarians 1914 on the grounds of pretty uniforms and the presence of cavalry, when French v Bavarians 1870 is the same only prettier and the cavalry is more use then. And the 1870 games would be better.

Chris

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

Quote from: Chris Pringle on 21 May 2019, 09:02:08 AM
I voted 1944 Soves, based on my thesis that the most interesting games are when the Holy Trinity of firepower-protection-mobility is in balance, ....

Seems odd to me to go for French v Bavarians 1914 on the grounds of pretty uniforms and the presence of cavalry, when French v Bavarians 1870 is the same only prettier and the cavalry is more use then. And the 1870 games would be better.

Oooh! You make good points. The 1944 Soviets are I think, the one major force I haven't yet explored (though I do have 1941). I quite like the idea of a couple of Stalin's Organs on the table, maybe with some of the later heavies.

As for 1870 vs 1914 they are, to me, different games. 1914 would be company sized forces where one figure equals one man. Also has the attraction of adding in Belgians and British. 1870 is division sized at 1:20-ish. I will admit 1870 Bavarians are far prettier than 1914, though the French are little different. 

There is a school of thought that implies the Bavarians marched off to war in 1914 still wearing their cornflower blue trousers. I game 1870-71, but also game 1914 in 10mm for division sized games (i.e. Square Bashing) and 15mm for company sized games, and, yes, the Belgians feature in both.

"I shall be perfectly honest and say that I would more tempted to do Flodden if we'd won."

The majesty of wargaming is that the Scots are NOT required to lose.