- 08/06/2018 at 10:33 #92795
Always find it strange to put these on a Sci Fi Board as there’s no actual historical one but – suppose even Sci Fi it’s useful knowing what the ‘original’ uniforms are.
I’ve added some colour plates of German army uniforms, flags, etc to the Pages section of my blog.
Rob Young08/06/2018 at 10:36 #9279708/06/2018 at 12:23 #92801
Probably both… Certainly, I don’t look at WW1. Likewise, don’t think really general topic – but people doing a War of the Worlds type scenario would use the various nationalities in Victorian unifoms so I think this is the nearest relevant Board. Certainly Victorian SciFi is a lot more relevant that WW1.
Rob Young08/06/2018 at 14:11 #92803Hafen von SchlockenbergParticipant
Well, whatever the board, they are most welcome; thanks for posting!
Michael, I know you don’t want to clutter up the site, but sometimes it would be useful to have resources like this available on more than one board, don’t you think?08/06/2018 at 14:21 #92804
Maybe, maybe not, but which topic would people reply to, the one on forum A or the one on forum B?
What if both topics get quite large and start growing and both have really good posts, people would need to subscribe to two topics rather than one, also the author would potentially be answering questions on topic B that have already been asked and answered on topic A.
What if someone decides their new topic is mega important and slaps it on ten different forums, it could get messy quickly.
I want to try and keep TWW as streamlined as possible and avoid duplicate identical topics dominating the forums, no-one wants to see the same person saying the same stuff over and over and cluttering up the place.
As for the possibility of crossposting one topic so it appears on several forums at once, as the same topic…
TWW’s software does not allow for this, in fact I don’t think any actual forum specific software does?
So that alas is not an option.08/06/2018 at 15:09 #92806
That is an issue – balance. What is a suitable number of boards? If not enough boards, then things are liable to be shoehorned into somewhere they don’t fit. Or just not posted. There is one board here – ’18th Century American Civil War General Horse and Musket Napoleonic’ – how messy is that? A mix of generic and specific – if that was changed to ’18th/19th Century including Napoleonic and ACW’ – that would fit Victorian – and I would look there for up to 1900 period – but not when it seems to be for Horse and Musket… difficult, I think it would probably be considered a minor problem not really worth looking at at the moment, but perhaps at some stage a renaming of some boards and looking at need rather than having things a bit haphazard?
Rob Young08/06/2018 at 16:40 #92821OBParticipant
Grand info’ there. Thank you.
I agree about considering re naming a board or even creating a new one. I often find myself sticking stuff in the General Horse and Musket category and then wondering if folk will see it.
http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/08/06/2018 at 16:43 #92822
And… just put the Austro-Hungarian army 1880-1900 on Pages – so not sure where to post it here – I’ll put the link on this thread but obviously most people won’t be looking here for Austro-Hungarians!
Rob Young09/06/2018 at 09:10 #92857Autodidact-O-SaurusParticipant
Wow! Both books (or whatever) are great additions to any wargamer’s library.
As for forum location, I find that I use the latest topics page (http://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/view/latest-topics/) much more than drilling down through the forum itself. So the actual location is pretty much irrelevant to me.
Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/09/06/2018 at 14:50 #92880irishserbParticipant
These are fantastic posts, thanks for sharing the color plates.09/06/2018 at 15:37 #92886
TWW has run into the ‘my thread on xxxx subject is so important that I want a new board for it, lest anyone miss this perfect pearl of information’ thing again.
Never mind that LAF seems to manage to please anyone even though it has a dearth of dedicated boards – The Age of the Big Battalions board covers 200 years of horse and musket FFS, there’s not even a separate Napoleonics board. How do they manage?
Or that TMP has become a sprawling mess of (mis)information dissipated across hundreds of boards that renders it useless as a ‘resource’. Especially since the search function went tits up.
Keep it as it is Mike.
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."09/06/2018 at 18:41 #9290309/06/2018 at 19:55 #92905
Rob Young09/06/2018 at 20:15 #92906
Actually, with your permission Nichael, there possibly is a need to answer ‘TWW has run into the ‘my thread on xxxx subject is so important that I want a new board for it, lest anyone miss this perfect pearl of information’ thing again.’ – as the one who started the thread that has to be aimed at me. I’m trying to see in my posts where I did any of those things. ‘my thread on xxxx subject is so important’ – no, it’s a thread of apparent interest to a few people who would like it in the most appropriate place to view – with a number of people (including yourself Michael) making positive comments, and ‘that I want a new board for it’ – no, but have suggested greater clarity with the subject matter – actually, my comment ‘if that was changed to ’18th/19th Century including Napoleonic and ACW’ ‘ would fit ‘The Age of the Big Battalions board covers 200 years of horse and musket FFS, there’s not even a separate Napoleonics board. How do they manage?’ – so not sure what the actual gripe is? (Incidentally, LAF have more Board headings than there are here. )
And reasonable discussion doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with you – reasonable discussion is about how you say it, not your own viewpoint.
Rob Young09/06/2018 at 20:16 #92907
Is everyone playing nice in here?
You know that ‘More boards. Lovely’ is a subject that raises my hackles. I suppose I have reverse OCD. In my world less is more.
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."09/06/2018 at 20:18 #92908
reasonable discussion is about how you say it, not your own viewpoint.
Indeed so.09/06/2018 at 20:19 #9290909/06/2018 at 20:22 #92911
My spelling is – sorry Michael, didn’t notice Nichael until after pressing post button.
And NCS – I agree, don’t want thousands of Boards. But I’ll do a misquote of Phil Barker. Years ago people complained that a lot of other peoples rules were shorter. He commented that most weren’t shorter, just incomplete. I refer back to my ‘balance’ comment earlier – and it’s something that is worthy of discussion, though not really on this thread.
Rob Young09/06/2018 at 20:27 #92912
In my world less is more.
Except when it comes comments on more forums 😉
Everybody is allowed one bete noir shirley? I shall probably continue to be objectionable on the subject until I’m forcibly bound and gagged. Which is your prerogative. 🙂
…and Rob. Not aimed at you in particular, just a general observation.
- This reply was modified 3 years ago by Not Connard Sage.
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."09/06/2018 at 20:30 #9291409/06/2018 at 20:34 #92916
…*wanders off, having said more than enough*
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."09/06/2018 at 22:50 #92918General SladeParticipant
I agree with NCS about not having more boards but I do think that changing the ACW board (which doesn’t attract much traffic) into a Nineteenth Century Board would solve the problem. That way the Colonial, Crimean, FPW (and ACW) posts would have a home.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.