Many years ago I remember reading a wargames book by Charles Grant on gaming Eastern Europe (WW2) in 20mm Airfix plastic.  He stated he would refrain from using flamethowers as "they were nasty weapons".

This struck a cord as WW2 vets I talked to claimed that flame thrower troops got short shift if captured.  So it seems that shooting, mortering and killing/maiming  by bomb, bullet and blade was ok, yet the flamethrower was "beyond the pale" .  Snipers when captured were also subject to a justice that was outside the Geneva convention.

Do any of you decline weapons which although correct for the period, BKC rules etc, just don't seem cricket?

Sunray

I don't use any muskets in my Inca army, though I'm aware that towards the end they were being produced, too little too late. Likewise mounted. They just don't feel right.

This ties in very nicely with the "but I won't do that ..." thread.

I certainly do refrain from man portable flamethrowers (but may be seduced by a Pendraken Churchill Crocodile to go with my Centurions when they become available). I'm a bit sniffy about poison gas, and don't burn to use napalm, but I'm inconsistent.

I would shy away from dog mines, but will rely upon pigeon post. I'd use Puckle Gun (.... just checking the Pendraken catalogue ... well maybe next month) with round or square bullets, but I don't think suicide bombers have a place on the table.  

Personally I dont have an issue with things like this - I think the issue arises when you talk about a 'game' including such things and then that shifts the level of consciousness/emotion towards or away from the issue.

When you add 'War' in front of 'Game' you get wargame.

There's nothing nice about war full stop. But I still choose to do it. Is that because I'm glorifying war as a game? Not for me personally, but I have met people who make some sweeping assumptions that that is what my favourite past-time is all about.

Oddly enough the same people seem to think I go to my club nights wearing camouflage uniforms and a steel helmet. Oddly enough I do have an issue with people in the hobby who do that as I think it does the hobby no favours. 

Maybe the hobby needs a name change to 'military manouvres table top simulations'

I use what ever weapons are suitable for the conflict I'm gaming. Be it sword,gas or flame. The weird ones were rarely game winners for those using them amyway. Some may not be used just for game mechanics or lack of a 'fair game' problem. I have no issue using them though.

I've got flamethrowers for my dastardly BUF troops 

@Nosher, how about 'non-standard chess'?

Flame throwers, napalm, H bomb...,,,,...it wouldn't make a difference I would still roll a double six and blunder Stop laughing Steve J!

Quote from: Nosher on 02 May 2013, 12:36:34 PM
(...)
Maybe the hobby needs a name change to 'military manouvres table top simulations'

In France, some say "history games" ( with miniatures or not) as the word WAR-game sound bad.

I don't have any problem using historical weapons.
By the way, I also use casualties markers. When some one ask, I answer : "Here we're just gaming. They died in a true war."  May be I'm naive.

I use whatever could be found on the battlefield in that period. I can understand some who have problems with thus though.

I always think of  flamethrowers and napalm and the like as a necessary evil. I know this sounds wrong but think of it like this:

A bunker carrying two heavy machine guns overlooking omaha beach. cutting down men every second that passes. You can either go in and clear it out with manpower or you can torch it. Either way would have the same result. Bunker cleared and defenders out of action. Only difference is that by going in and securing it by close quarter combat would only mount up casualties even more. (in the bunker, and if it takes longer, wich i think would be the case,on the beach too as the hmg's stay operational a bit longer)

Of course the flamethrower option could mean more pain and suffering for the occupants, but this is not sure. I suppose that when you get hit 3 to 4 times and lay incapacitated, you would still be suffering immensly...

ties in wonderfully indeed and receives same answer as what I posted over there.

But tbh I have no issues about weapons IF usage is accurate and feels right. The issue was flamethrowers and as far as I know they were not that widely used in the European Theatre during WW2, at least not on foot.

Hi

I do not mean to hi-jack the thread (but will anyway), but this got me thinking about the people in the news last week protesting against the use of 'drones' in Afghanistan being 'piloted' by RAF personnel in the UK and the awful news yesterday regarding the 3 squaddies being killed by an IED. As far as I am concerned any weapon that can 'take out' people trying to kill our people or help to protect our troops are OK with me. War is not nice what ever weapons are used.

On a lighter note, I'm not sure how you would use a drone on the wargames table!

Paul

"War is cruelty and you cannot refine it"

I don't have a moral issue with games featuring any sort weapons. I might exclude them for game balance reasons though - I guess there's not a lot of fun in playing a game where one side sets up off board and deploys a fuel-air explosive....

Someone (who is pretty knowledgeable about such stuff) recently told me that in WW1 the Germans lodged a formal complaint about the Americans using shotguns in trench fighting

I would use whatever is appropriate for the period being gamed.

Quote from: goat major on 02 May 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Someone (who is pretty knowledgeable about such stuff) recently told me that in WW1 the Germans lodged a formal complaint about the Americans using shotguns in trench fighting

True, still banned by the Geneva convention... Unlike mustard gas!

Since when is mustard gas legalised?

Nothing's off limits.

I wargame, and therefore want the frictions, qualities, and challenges faced by the commanders of whichever historical period or battle i'm gaming.