Naval Wargaming

[Billy Fish]

Do we need/want a separate Naval Wargaming board?

[Not Connard Sage]

No

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Billy Fish]

Reasons, Connard, reasons.

[Not Connard Sage]

I’m against ghettoisation.

The fewer boards, the more likely I, and others,  are to read them.

 

Not rocket surgery is it?

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Frog]

Not Connard Sage speaks sooth.

Bunch of monkeys on your ceiling, sir!

[Billy Fish]

So I go to Horse and Musket for Napoleonic naval gaming; and WW1 for WW1 naval gaming; and WW2 for WW2 naval gaming; and Modern for Modern naval gaming; and Horse and Musket for Pirate ship gaming; and…

Many thanks, Connard. And I won’t suRgest where you can stick your rocket.

[Piyan Glupak]

One question I would ask (and answer) is: ‘Does wargaming, for instance, naval battles of the First Punic War have more in common with WW2 Naval actions than with ancient land battles?’  I suggest that naval wargaming covers an awful lot of different periods, and that periods where there is a possibility of naval wargaming are very different from each other.  In my opinion, naval wargaming topics are best included on the board that is relevant for the period.

I have some interest in ancient naval wargaming.  I also have an interest in ancient land wargaming.  I am more likely to notice topics on ancient naval warfare on the ancients board than in a separate naval wargaming board.  Conversely, if I start a topic on ancient naval battles, I am less likely to bore someone silly on the ancients board than if I post it on the board where most ancient wargamers will miss it, and a lot of the people using it are more likely to want to recreate the Battle of Midway than the effect of not allowing the hulls of triremes to dry out frequently enough.

[Billy Fish]

Conversely, Richard, I, and others, am interested in various periods of naval gaming -pirate , Napoleonic, ironclad, pre-dreadnought, WW1, WW2, and modern- but not in their corresponding land games. It seems to me that without a Naval Wargaming board, naval gaming will become ‘ghetto-ised’, as our friend suggested, on these other boards. Something he wished to avoid.

[Sparker]

Piyan Glupak wrote:

In my opinion, naval wargaming topics are best included on the board that is relevant for the period.

FWIW, my opinion too! As a retired naval officer…

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Shandy]

I agree with Richard Lee! I am interested in naval wargaming in some periods, but not in others.

My blog: http://wargamingraft.wordpress.com

[Billy Fish]

Better go along with the opinion of Senior Naval Officer present, then:  Sub Lt Sparker.

[Patrice]

Billy Fish wrote:

and Horse and Musket for Pirate ship gaming

Pirates (and privateers, c.1700 Caribbean etc) games often have a part of sea battle and a part of skirmish on land, and it would be difficult to separate them from their historical period.

I understand the reasons for the question, but… it wouldn’t work well.

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[Sparker]

Billy Fish wrote:

Better go along with the opinion of Senior Naval Officer present, then: Sub Lt Sparker.

Well that’ll be a first!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Luddite]

No separate board.

I too am only interested in one period of Naval Wargaming. In fact I don’t even see it as a separate genre.

My interests are WW2. All of it; land sea and air. This multi-dimensional aspect is what makes WW2 interesting as a wargames period and differentiates it from eveything that went before.

[Author]

Posts