#1 - Big Battalions:
I'll be honest - in horse and musket games in general, but Napoleonics in particular, there is a tendency towards big battalions - particularly as shown in the wargames press - and I don't like it. I'm turned off by units of 24+ figures on both a practical and an aesthetic level. Since I started wargaming with plastic 1/72 figures, a battalion has been 16 figures. Sometimes I have extended this out to 18 figures (Marlburian for instance), or lowered it to 12 (ACW for instance), but that is really the limit of my Horse and Musket playground. When I see 36 figure units all I can think is that there is actually 2 units worth of painting there, and what a waste it is putting them all into one unit. It also starts to limit manouevre especially with 28mm figures, and aesthetically I find a table crammed with large units sitting bumper to bumper (to take a phrase that is a common criticism of Flames of War) to be unhistorical and messy. Not all (in fact hardly any) Napoleonic battles were as crowded as Waterloo and Borodino.
 |
| A recent game at the club with just too many figures cluttered up on the table for my liking. |
Incidentally, I'm not against big armies, just unwieldy and ugly masses of figures masquerading as a single unit.
#2 - Aerial (Space) games:
I love Star Wars and collected a few X-Wing models, but the games just left me cold. Basically I've never found a spaceship (or aerial) game that I really enjoy. I've tried Wings of War (Glory), and like X Wing, it was OK, but not what I want to spend my gaming time doing.
#3 - DBMM/R:
I love DBA. Absolutely love it, and DBA 3.0 is the best yet. But DBMM and DBR leave me cold. I tried DBR for a few years, and the guys I played against were really cool, but the rules themselves I found geometric and cold. It seemed that a degree in history was not as useful as a degree in maths, and to me that is not something that should happen in a wargame.
# 4 - Games where the meta matters:
The thing that turns me off about many games is the list-building aspect of them. 40K, Warmachine, etc leave me cold. Now I do enjoy Flames of War and Team Yankee, which do have their own meta, but this is restricted to some extent by history. I'm unlikely to come up against an army composed entirely of British TOGs for instance. It also has a lot to do with the people I game with, many of whom are more interested in the history than the points. Not that I don't like points, but only as a guideline as opposed to building a killer list.
#5 - Overly detailed rules:
I've tried a lot of different games and rules, and I keep coming back to the idea of KISS (keep it simple stupid). If I have to work out which type of canteen a character in a game needs to take, then it is too complicated. If I have to check morale on a unit 3 times in a turn on 3 different tables (test to stand, test to fire at chargers, test to break upon losing melee), then this isn't a set of rules I want to play. I really wanted to like Infinity, for instance, because the figures are fantastic and Mike was really keen. But I found the rules to be opaque and the game just wasn't enjoyable. Not for me, move on.
#6 - Horses hooves:
I think that there is something that everyone dreads painting. For me, it is horse hooves. There is nothing rational about this. I just don't like doing it, especially on 15mm figures.
And that's about it. People will disagree about some of this stuff, but we all have our own take on the hobby. I'm sure my love of skirmish games and solo gaming would be irksome to some people. Just how it is. I might have a think and publish another post about things that I like, but that would have to be a very long list, surely?
Nate
#2 - Aerial (Space) games:
I love Star Wars and collected a few X-Wing models, but the games just left me cold. Basically I've never found a spaceship (or aerial) game that I really enjoy. I've tried Wings of War (Glory), and like X Wing, it was OK, but not what I want to spend my gaming time doing.
 |
| Tried it. Didn't like it. Models are fantastic though. |
#3 - DBMM/R:
I love DBA. Absolutely love it, and DBA 3.0 is the best yet. But DBMM and DBR leave me cold. I tried DBR for a few years, and the guys I played against were really cool, but the rules themselves I found geometric and cold. It seemed that a degree in history was not as useful as a degree in maths, and to me that is not something that should happen in a wargame.
# 4 - Games where the meta matters:
The thing that turns me off about many games is the list-building aspect of them. 40K, Warmachine, etc leave me cold. Now I do enjoy Flames of War and Team Yankee, which do have their own meta, but this is restricted to some extent by history. I'm unlikely to come up against an army composed entirely of British TOGs for instance. It also has a lot to do with the people I game with, many of whom are more interested in the history than the points. Not that I don't like points, but only as a guideline as opposed to building a killer list.
#5 - Overly detailed rules:
I've tried a lot of different games and rules, and I keep coming back to the idea of KISS (keep it simple stupid). If I have to work out which type of canteen a character in a game needs to take, then it is too complicated. If I have to check morale on a unit 3 times in a turn on 3 different tables (test to stand, test to fire at chargers, test to break upon losing melee), then this isn't a set of rules I want to play. I really wanted to like Infinity, for instance, because the figures are fantastic and Mike was really keen. But I found the rules to be opaque and the game just wasn't enjoyable. Not for me, move on.
 |
| Sorry, Mike. |
#6 - Horses hooves:
I think that there is something that everyone dreads painting. For me, it is horse hooves. There is nothing rational about this. I just don't like doing it, especially on 15mm figures.
And that's about it. People will disagree about some of this stuff, but we all have our own take on the hobby. I'm sure my love of skirmish games and solo gaming would be irksome to some people. Just how it is. I might have a think and publish another post about things that I like, but that would have to be a very long list, surely?
Nate
Well, Nathan, I am almost in total agreement with you. Horses hooves pose no trouble for me. Mine always get a coat of black (horse) shoe polish.
ReplyDeleteMine usually do to, but it doesn't mean I like it! Just one of those little irrational bugbears I can't shake.
DeleteGood rant. Nothing wrong with nailing one’s colours to the mast! One of my pet hates is opposed die rolls. I can tolerate it for a while, but the old ‘oh look, I’ve rolled a 6 and you’ve rolled a 1!’ eventually drives me up the wall!
ReplyDeleteThat's basically the DBA mechanic! But I can understand it totally. Nothing worse than having someone feel like a good general because they rolled better than you.
DeleteFascinating insight into your dislikes, Natholeon. I think the big one I agree with is overly-complicated rules, especially in an age when there are so many competing rule-sets. These days I find it really difficult to swap from one set of rules to another without forgetting a load of rules/conditions, and find that very frustrating when I discover I’m doing something wrong (but right for a different set of rules) :-)
ReplyDeleteI hear you Simon. Flames of War WWII ended up like that for me, which is why I don't play it anymore. Way too many special rules etc. I'm hoping Team Yankee and the 2nd edition Great War rules don't go the same way.
DeleteAs you say wargaming is a broad school so it is inevitable there will be areas one is not fussed about. I concur with avoiding overly detailed rules.
ReplyDeleteThat's right Peter. You seem to have the balance right with the rules that you use. There's nothing quite like writing your own.
DeleteI agree on the larger sized units Nathan - for me, its generally been three figures per base rather than four - it started off as meanness (as I am Scottish) but it also has other advantages you mention EG quicker to complete a unit etc. A couple of era's I did give way and accept that units were more densely packed - AWI and Marlburian - but generally I have stuck with 3 per base - or even 2 if they are light troops - Napoleonic rifles for example!
ReplyDeleteThanks Keith. Yes, your War of 1812 units are the perfect size in my book.
DeleteInteresting choices and views. the only one I personally don't agree with is the big battalion view. I love the sight of massed battalions and find that small 12-18 man units just doesn't look right to my eye. I guess it depends on how you were brought up in the hobby and with me being weaned at Peter Gilders it is very difficult to give that view up - although painting small units would be a lot easier for me. As you say it's a broad church and room for us all.
ReplyDeleteHi Paul. It was listening to Henry Hyde answer your question about Large Scale games on his Q&A that prompted me to write this. I'm certainly not against big battles, but I'd much rather more smaller units on the table than a few big units. Which isn't to say that I don't pop over to enjoy your blog on a regular basis!
DeleteHi Natholeon. First I'd like to say I've just stumbled upon your Blog and think its outstanding. Second. I've been trying to get my head around 36-48 man units and googling around I see game reports where they split them up. So it then sort of makes sense by I still can't bring myself to do take that step. I didn't play FOG because I didn't want to collect 24 figure ancients units. Third. Simple easy to remember rules. Please!
ReplyDelete