Best period to wargame
Stephen Patten
I enjoy most periods of history, though currently I'm heavily involved in
the early medieval period. But I can also see myself enjoying other
periods:
Renaissance: The mix of swords, pikes, arquebuses, cannon and horse is a
heady one!
American Civil War: The pre-cursor to the destructive modern wars of the
20th century: mines, trenches, iron-clads, railways; yet still retaining a
feel of the past with Southern gallantry and cavalry sweeps - plus the seed
of interest planted by so many Hollywood films.
WW2: Quantity versus quality. I suppose as a child of the seventies and
reader of D.F. Featherstone those early teenage years re-fighting WW2 with
Airfix figures and vehicles will never lose its charm.
Other periods are less attractive: Napoleonic (too costly; somehow, unless
you're fighting with hundreds of figures it does not feel right); Colonial
(who want's to be other than the British?); Sci-Fi (WW2 with silly names
for the weapons!); 18th Century (what did separate the different
nationalities other than their leaders?); aerial warfare of whatever period
(the models just don't look like they're in the air); Post-Second World
War (too close to home to be gameable).
Would anyone else care to make the case for their favorite period?
Stephen Patten
Steven M Goode
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.miniatures.historical: 29-Nov-97 Best
period to wargame by "Stephen Patten"@globaln
As the subject says, I think you're opening a can of worms here. People
enjoy gaming various periods for a variety of personal reasons. For
example:
the Renaissance bores me, as does ACW. WW2 appeals to me only on a
grand scale or when dealing with vehicles rather than figures.
Napoleonic and Colonial bore me, too. Why? I don't really know. Why
do the periods that do appeal to me do so? There are a host of reasons,
all of them subjective and personal. I suspect there are periods/scales
that are very rarely gamed - for example, trench warfare in WWI at
anything much above platoon scale - for reasons that have to do with
gameplay or general emotional associations. But that doesn't make the
more-often-gamed periods "better". One man's meat....
Ray Rangel
Stephen Patten wrote:
> Other periods are less attractive: Napoleonic (too costly; somehow, unless
> you're fighting with hundreds of figures it does not feel right); Colonial
> (who want's to be other than the British?); Sci-Fi (WW2 with silly names
> for the weapons!); 18th Century (what did separate the different
> nationalities other than their leaders?); aerial warfare of whatever period
> (the models just don't look like they're in the air); Post-Second World
> War (too close to home to be gameable).
>
Napoleonic gaming doesn't cost any more than, say, DBM. An acceptable
game can be made with a few Old Glory bags (sack-o-soldiers). In fact,
my French line Division consists of a half dozen bags (elites, line,
command, artillery, and chassuers). I had enough left overs to make an
LPE French army! Speaking of Le Petit Empereur, this is a simple game
with a DBA level of abstractions but retains a very Napoleonic flavor
that only requires about 130 figures. Napoleonics expensive? I think
not.
As for Colonials...perhaps a closer look would show you that there is a
richness of history of which you might be unaware. The Northwest
Frontier, Sudan, Egyptian campaign, Boer war, Boxer rebellion, Zulu war,
Sepoy rebellion all have battles and match ups that put the either side
at an disadvantage. Besides, who wants to play same side all the time
anyway? Doesn't that get boring?
Why restrict your horizons because of misconceived ideas or
misapprehended history. I choose favorite periods because of personal
interests in the period and a desire to do research. I think that there
are certainly valid games in all periods.
As you might have guessed I fancy myself a Napoleonics and Colonial type
guy. The reason is simply that I have an interest in the period, enjoy
the research; likewise enjoy painting the many varied uniforms and
costumes...oh, and I like playing the games that are available.
Ray Rangel xr...@texas.net
VP Operations (and all around nice guy),
Lone Star Historical Miniatures
Visit the LSHM Web Site at: http://lonestar.texas.net/~xay
Ray Trochim
Best period to wargame... tuff question if you ask me. It all depends on
a few factors as well as interest. If a game is fun to play, then this
helps. Lemme give you a quick example or two as it would be easier then
trying to explain right now (me so tired but can't sleep).
A friend hounded me to play Space Hulk with him many many years ago. To
tell you the truth, I tired to avoid the Space Hulk topic at all
costs but he finially got me in a corner and convinced me to play. Well,
I really enjoyed it. Steve, don't worry, Space Hulk is the only GW
product I ever got. I'm a historical gamer first :)
The point I'm trying to make is that an interest in a period is only
part of the fun factor for gaming. The game itself and how it plays is
important. But more important and probably the most important are the
players that you play with. When I was a kid and just getting into
gaming (25mm Napoleonics) the group that excepted me as the youngest
gamer in the club was a great group of gamers and friends! Had it not
been for them, my interest would have fallen to the side and I would
have gone on to something else. Instead I became a life long gamer. Hey,
its better then having one of those "real" bad habbits :)
Rule #1
Winning or losing, if your not having fun then there is something wrong.
Enough rambling. Must go out for a jog.
-Ray
>I enjoy most periods of history, though currently I'm heavily involved in
>the early medieval period. But I can also see myself enjoying other
>periods:
>
>Renaissance: The mix of swords, pikes, arquebuses, cannon and horse is a
>heady one!
>
>American Civil War: The pre-cursor to the destructive modern wars of the
>20th century: mines, trenches, iron-clads, railways; yet still retaining a
>feel of the past with Southern gallantry and cavalry sweeps - plus the seed
>of interest planted by so many Hollywood films.
>
>WW2: Quantity versus quality. I suppose as a child of the seventies and
>reader of D.F. Featherstone those early teenage years re-fighting WW2 with
>Airfix figures and vehicles will never lose its charm.
>
>Other periods are less attractive: Napoleonic (too costly; somehow, unless
>you're fighting with hundreds of figures it does not feel right); Colonial
>(who want's to be other than the British?); Sci-Fi (WW2 with silly names
>for the weapons!); 18th Century (what did separate the different
>nationalities other than their leaders?); aerial warfare of whatever period
>(the models just don't look like they're in the air); Post-Second World
>War (too close to home to be gameable).
>
>Would anyone else care to make the case for their favorite period?
>
>Stephen Patten
>
>
gbranco
Stephen Patten wrote in message <01bcfd01$ccefe640$d60e93c3@alpha>...
>I enjoy most periods of history, though currently I'm heavily involved in
>the early medieval period. But I can also see myself enjoying other
>periods:
>Would anyone else care to make the case for their favorite period?
>
Dear Stephen Patten
The best period to wargame in is the one where you got good friends playing
it and willing to have you in their group.
Even if the period most popular to your friends lags a little behind in your
favorits list, do not hesitate, go for it.
In fact the most important factor in wargames is the social side. You can
enjoy research and painting, but you work will never come alive unless you
have a group of people to share experiences on the hobby - and to play with.
This is somewhat contadictory because most wargamers are not very social to
start with, but the above is nevetheless true.
Take the word from someone who has gone through some 'lonely' projects.
Most of all, have fun, weather winning or losing.
David G. Bell
> As for Colonials...perhaps a closer look would show you that there is a
> richness of history of which you might be unaware. The Northwest
> Frontier, Sudan, Egyptian campaign, Boer war, Boxer rebellion, Zulu war,
> Sepoy rebellion all have battles and match ups that put the either side
> at an disadvantage. Besides, who wants to play same side all the time
> anyway? Doesn't that get boring?
Colonials are a wider field than you might think...
The French, in Africa and Vietnam. (Pre-WW2, of course, for all these.)
The Germans in various parts of Africa.
The Italians in Libya and Abyssinia.
The US Army, both within the current USA and against the Spanish.
For something a little more exotic, the policing of much of the Middle
East by RAF-supported local levies, which gives a mix of Arab raiders,
unreliable infantry, and a few aircraft as a deus ex machina. Plus the
RAF-operated armoured cars.
The Russian Army advancing into Central Asia and Siberia.
And the Turks trying to control the Arabs.
If you want to set up a varied range of opponents, start with desert
Arabs. There are differences across North Africa and Arabia, but you
can use essentially the same force against the Spanish, French, Italian,
Anglo-Egyptian, and Turkish armies, with uniforms and equipment ranging
from the middle of the last century to the early years of WW2.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
D. Anderson
Best period to wargame?
That's easy. The Scanian War of 1675-1679!
Life just doesn't get any better than this.
Dane
Timo A. Nieminen
Stephen Patten wrote:
> Would anyone else care to make the case for their favorite period?
Renaissance:
You can have a colorful bizarre army (eg Conquistadors with Mexican
allies) or a conventional army. Command and control was somewhat
improved, so justifying the use of sophisticated tactics in gaming
(unlike much of mediaeval battle). Relatively short range weapons only,
with little or no need for hidden movement. Nice compact formations are
common. These make the era technically suitable for miniatures.
WWII:
Good, but I think that to do it properly, you need a good hidden
movement system, the best of which need a GM and 2 or 3 different
tables. (For that "where the hel is that MG?" feeling!)
But in the end, any technical points are ruled out by: Which period
appeals to you the most?
Timo
Beer page:
Beer Beer Beer Beer!: Glen and Matty's Shrine to Suds
at http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/4960/beer.htm
Spirits page:
Vodka, Rum, Whiskey and More! - Timo and Glen's Shrine to Spirits
at http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/4960/spirits.htm
smur...@bit.net.au
On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 10:52:29 +1000, "Timo A. Nieminen"
<ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Renaissance:
>You can have a colorful bizarre army (eg Conquistadors with Mexican
>allies) or a conventional army. Command and control was somewhat
>improved, so justifying the use of sophisticated tactics in gaming
>(unlike much of mediaeval battle). Relatively short range weapons only,
>with little or no need for hidden movement. Nice compact formations are
>common. These make the era technically suitable for miniatures.
I agree. I think it is an ideal period to wargame for all those
reasons.
My only problem is "Landsknecht Colour-Scheme Imagination Fatigue"
..must be becuase I'm used to a little research telling me exactly
what to paint on Napoleonics.
Stuart, the severely lacking in imagination.
s.mu...@agrf.org.au
Suvoroff
The best period to wargame? The one you like the most! For me, any period
with Russians in it!
Yours,
A.V. Suvoroff
Patronius
>Would anyone else care to make the case for their favorite period?<
As a matter of fact, I'd love to. I've done so before in this newsgroup, but I
enjoy it enough to do it again.
Me, I hate machines. And 20th-century battlefields have been dominated by
machines: machine guns, airplanes, tanks, and other mechanical contraptions
during the first half; and all kinds of wire-guided, laser-guided, computerized
electronic stuff during the second half. All much too complicated for my
liking--and also too much like day-to-day life. When I lose myself in a
wargame, I want to escape back to a simpler era.
On the other hand, there's something to be said for the familiar. I find it
terribly difficult to relate to a Viking berserker or Sumerian spearman, or
even a Landsknecht or musketeer. Even the 18th-century and Napoleonic armies
seem strange to me, with their brightly colored uniforms and rigid
parade-ground formations. Of course, my images come largely from paintings
I've seen--and the artists often paint military things in an unrealistically
glorious light. But it's hard to shake the influence and see armies of these
eras as they really were. Especially when Romantic Age literature also
portrays Napoleonic-era armies and events with fanatical zeal.
My favorite period, therefore is the Victorian Age--roughly the period between
the Napoleonic Wars and WWI, but especially the years 1850-1900. In this
period, the ideals of glory and honor were still present, but balanced by a
dose of earthy realism. Even the uniforms showed it: some colorful uniforms
remained, but there was a tendency toward plainness. By the end of the period,
for instance, the British had traded their scarlet tunics for khaki.
There are also photographs of the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War,
the British colonial wars, and so forth. And photographs--even when
staged--show a greater degree of realism than a painter can ever achieve. The
literature of the era, too, reveals a sense of harsh, earthy realism
encroaching on the wild-eyed idealism of the previous age.
My period allows me to escape back to a simpler era, yet also enjoy a sense of
really being there. The near absence of electronic and mechanical gadgetry on
the battlefield makes conflict in this era seem very different from today's;
but at the same time, one can read firsthand accounts of the events, look at
the photographs, and think, "Those men are not very different from me and the
people I know. If I were transported back in time, I could be quite at home
there."
I also like the variety of conflicts that occurred in this brief span of years.
There's the ACW, with virtually homogenous armies. Then the Seven Weeks War
and FPW, where each modern army is uniquely equipped and new weapons systems
are tested. And the Plains Indian War and Colonial wars, where primitively
equipped forces met the modern rifle and bayonet, resulting in bloody but
colorful clashes. Quite often, it could be described as a clash between the
old and the new: even in the ACW, the South was, in one sense, fighting to
preserve its traditions against the march of industrial progress.
I won't ramble on any further. But those are some of the reasons I happen to
like the period I do.
Vincit omnia veritas
PC, Minneapolis
Patronius@AOL
DSundseth
<<My only problem is "Landsknecht Colour-Scheme Imagination Fatigue"
..must be becuase I'm used to a little research telling me exactly
what to paint on Napoleonics.>>
I thought it was just me ;-}. I seem to have this problem with most of the
armies that I paint. End up sitting and staring at the figure trying to figure
out something different that isn't too difficult. Of course I have mostly been
painting later Swiss, Old West skirmish, and fantasy. It seems so much easier
when I paint uniformed troops.
Doug Sundseth
TYGHOCK
Historically, I believe most Landsknechts had two base colors, with perhaps a
third color for ribbons, feathers and (maybe) hats.
When we had 15mm, we used two base colors. The inside of the slashes was always
either white, yellow or black, and the outer slashes were a basic
red/blue/green whatever. The variety came with the 'third' color, applied to
either a single legging, or to the hat, or feathers, etc. Only very
occasionally would a fourth color, or a bizzarre unique pattern, be introduced
(2 or 3 in a 24 figure unit, for instance).This gave a most pleasing appearance
in 15mm, even if patterns were repeated.
I do not know if this would work for 25mm, however, as no one in our group
desires to try to paint any!
- TYGHOCK
David G. Bell
In article <19971203214...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
dsun...@aol.com "DSundseth" writes:
Why not use dice to decide?
Work out a few tables of colours, and start rolling.
And if you get some really unpleasant combination, you know which
figures are colour-blind.
smur...@bit.net.au
On Thu, 04 Dec 97 13:20:08 GMT, db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G.
Bell") wrote:
>> <<My only problem is "Landsknecht Colour-Scheme Imagination Fatigue"
>> ..must be becuase I'm used to a little research telling me exactly
>> what to paint on Napoleonics.>>
>>
>> I thought it was just me ;-}. I seem to have this problem with most of the
>> armies that I paint. End up sitting and staring at the figure trying to figure
>> out something different that isn't too difficult. Of course I have mostly been
>> painting later Swiss, Old West skirmish, and fantasy. It seems so much easier
>> when I paint uniformed troops.
>
>Why not use dice to decide?
>
>Work out a few tables of colours, and start rolling.
>
>And if you get some really unpleasant combination, you know which
>figures are colour-blind.
I actually considered creating a database that, given known outfits of
Landscknechts, would create colour schemes for x number of figures
using some combination of randomness and AI...
...but surely this is the sign of a mind, totally lacking in
imagination and with way too much time on it's hands (well, minds
don't have hands, but you know what I mean).
I might still do it as an interesting programing project - you could
do the same thing for greek shield designs etc.
Stuart.