• The window for editing your posts has been extended from 48 hours to about two weeks or so. Please report any problems with this in Trouble Tickets.

Historical Games Thread

Anopheles

I draw bugs
Validated User
Sounds like a few wargamers I know. I'm thinking particularly of Carl, who hasn't found a minis game he didn't need to get into yet.

(Given that he's got a full-time job and various other hobbies and responsibilities, I marvel that he gets as much of it painted as he does.)
He was super into Batman for a bit, encouraging me to try. By the time I was considering, he had gotten out of it to try 40K (again). I worked on his Romans over the summer, and by the time I was done he was infatuated by By Fire & Sword, Middle Earth Strategy, and Gasland. He's a fun player and really supports the FLGS, but I wish he'd pause for breath.

This switching around is why I painted the Romans in the first place (that and almost no one else around likes painting 15mm).
 
Last edited:

Aesthete

A for Aeffort
Validated User
No need to shame me, man.
You're not alone, brother.

Here's how I think about it for myself: I get great pleasure from anticipating, planning, and even starting projects. You know, scheming about list building, prodding at rules, planning (and even sometimes buying) the components for various projects. I've spent countless hours and hours doing that, and they have been incredibly enjoyable. Sometimes I even complete a project and that's fine (if rare) - but I'm enjoying my hobby immensely and the early steps are where I find the bulk of that enjoyment. There's no shame in that.
 

The Last Conformist

Incompletely useless
Validated User
I too can greatly enjoy the planning phase - heck, only yesterday I was sketching a Carmathian army* which I may or may not ever get around to buying or painting - but when unpainted lead and half-finished projects accumulate, it gnaws at my conscience, so in recent years I've tried to focus on clearing out my backlog and only buy stuff that I expect to get painted soon. Success has been mixed, but it gave a warm fuzzy feeling to see net erosion of the lead mountain in 2017. Currently a net gain for 2018 but I'm on track to see a net reduction at the end of the year unless I go buy more stuff.


* The Carmathians (aka Qarmatians or Qaramita) were a Shi'ite sect whose followers controlled parts of Syria, Iraq, and Arabia in the tenth century. Part of their attraction as a wargames army, I confess, is that they reportedly wore pink clothes and carried white flags ...
 

Anopheles

I draw bugs
Validated User
I certainly didn't intend to shame anyone. I have no high ground on that (eyes my own Lead Mountain and the neighboring Plastic Foothills).

The start of a new project is great to shake things up or break me out of a painting funk. I do so much commission work that after a while I start to hate painting. It becomes a grind. And in those moments, new armies pop into my head.

For instance, I was starting to feel that painting funk from doing so many Death Korps for 40K, when we started playing more Crusades era for Saga. I've had an interest in the Poles of the era for a while, even trying to design a battle board for them last year before I found out they were in the Age of Crusades book. So, reinvigorated, I'm working on a pile of Knights alongside my commissions.
 
Last edited:

Ravenfeeder

It's True. All of it.
Validated User
Went to the WHC last weekend to play Lutzen 1813. Four players a side. I was part of the French command that starts on table, completely disorganised and assaulted by Prussian hordes. As my force came under pressure I suffered an incredible sequence of poor morale roles leading to my whole command giving up large amounts of ground. At one point I suffered a complete sense of humour failure as I rolled yet another snake-eyes to rally completely fresh units. It actually turned to my advantage in the end as the Prussians desperately followed up my retreaters, losing cohesion of their own. This meant my reinforcements and another player's Guard Chasseurs a Cheval could defeat them in detail. It was close at times but we held on long enough for all the French reinforcements to arrive, giving us a decisive numerical majority.
 

Scutarii

Registered User
Validated User
Went to the WHC last weekend to play Lutzen 1813. Four players a side. I was part of the French command that starts on table, completely disorganised and assaulted by Prussian hordes. As my force came under pressure I suffered an incredible sequence of poor morale roles leading to my whole command giving up large amounts of ground. At one point I suffered a complete sense of humour failure as I rolled yet another snake-eyes to rally completely fresh units. It actually turned to my advantage in the end as the Prussians desperately followed up my retreaters, losing cohesion of their own. This meant my reinforcements and another player's Guard Chasseurs a Cheval could defeat them in detail. It was close at times but we held on long enough for all the French reinforcements to arrive, giving us a decisive numerical majority.
Hurray for tactical withdrawals? Yeah, let's go with that!

===

Locally 5 of us saw the new Cruel Seas from Warlord and everyone asked if it included bigger ships. It does not. So instead someone suggested going small scale and I hunted down a copy of Victory at Sea. Then we went for 1:6000 scale ships from Magister Millitum and it cost ~£35 for a full fleet with loads of options for varied fleets and replay value.

I do so love the low cost entry of small scale games :)

Victory at Sea is a bit beer and pretzels and a bit historical sim. No rivet counting here but attempts to broadly make the ships have the same characteristics as they did historically even when it doesn't really lead to balanced or fair match ups (fancy being a radarless Japanese ship engaged in nighttime combat with a US or British fleet with radar guided guns in abundance?). The aim is to make players face similar choices to those faced by a 'real' captain and come to similar conclusions about course of action. Whether it succeeds or not I am not sure as I don't really know much about WW2 naval combat. But it plays easily and is a good fun way to push little ships around the table.

Easy to paint too.
 

Ravenfeeder

It's True. All of it.
Validated User
And here's a pic. In the foreground some Chasseurs a Cheval return from riding down Prussians, plus some more being cut down by the Russian Guard Hussars. In the middle distance the high water mark of the Allied assault. Desperate fighting over the next three turns saw the French just edge it. In the distance two French corps have arrived and are pushing back the Russians on that flank, although the fighting is hard.

 

ChariotDriver

Registered User
Validated User
Locally 5 of us saw the new Cruel Seas from Warlord and everyone asked if it included bigger ships. It does not. So instead someone suggested going small scale and I hunted down a copy of Victory at Sea. Then we went for 1:6000 scale ships from Magister Millitum and it cost ~£35 for a full fleet with loads of options for varied fleets and replay value.

I do so love the low cost entry of small scale games :)

Victory at Sea is a bit beer and pretzels and a bit historical sim. No rivet counting here but attempts to broadly make the ships have the same characteristics as they did historically even when it doesn't really lead to balanced or fair match ups (fancy being a radarless Japanese ship engaged in nighttime combat with a US or British fleet with radar guided guns in abundance?). The aim is to make players face similar choices to those faced by a 'real' captain and come to similar conclusions about course of action. Whether it succeeds or not I am not sure as I don't really know much about WW2 naval combat. But it plays easily and is a good fun way to push little ships around the table.

Easy to paint too.
One of the things I'm fondest of about naval and air warfare is that it's feasible to replay large battles on a one-to-one scale. Although for something like the Lepanto game at Salute a couple of years ago needed 500+ galleys, and some ancient battles would be even larger, which gets expensive even with smaller models. Earlier periods have the advantage, if you want to call it that, of much more spectacular colour schemes (although WW2 'Dazzle' patterns aren't exactly plain). I think the earlier periods make for a better spectacle in that they're also at close range rather than with tiny models lots of empty space and then another row of tiny models.
 
Top Bottom