Old West or 19th Century as a board?

[JJ Parus]

As I’m sure you’ve read elsewhere “More boards…lovely”

But I was wondering whether there is any / sufficient interest in this break-out, and if not, is this (or ACW?) the place to discuss and post.

 

Cheers,

 

JJ

[Mike]

Happy to make one if people want one.
Old West would be a good name I feel.

[Not Connard Sage]

 

Ah, my bete noir

 

Let’s not go the way of another place. Compartmentalisation and division is not the way forward.

 

This is a British based forum, and we already have an unnecessary sub-division for a 4 year long 19th century American civil war that is arguably a minority interest in the UK. If we must have a 19th century board, ditch the ACW board.

 

Stop it. Now! Before it gets out of hand. Everywhere else manages with few’ specialist’ boards – WD3 and Frothers spring immediately to mind.

 

…and it’s ‘More boards. Lovely’

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

[Piyan Glupak]

I am not too fond of having too many boards; I think that the level of compartmentalism that this site has is about right.

If there are a lot of topics started on the old west, then it might be useful.  However, I don’t think that you  can have a board for every possible war or period of interest.  For instance, one of my ‘wouldn’t it be nice to have a go at’ periods is the War of 1812, but I am sure that there wouldn’t sufficient interest to justify a board for that.  If  I wanted to pick people’s brains on the War of 1812, I could either ask on the Napoleonic Board, or the General Horse and Musket Board.

[Mike]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

This is a British based forum,

I am not sure I agree.
True, I am not sure what you mean by British based though.

It was set up by 2 British people but is for the global community.
I don’t intend it to feel British, the use of color and mould and mould and colour and airplane and aeroplane are all OK here.

If the Sponsoring members declare they want a board, they can have one unless I have good reason to say no, after all the Sponsors are paying my wages!

[General Slade]

I’d rather not have anymore compartmentalisation. Personally, I would prefer just to have a Horse and Musket board with no further sub-divisions.  I don’t really see the need to have separate 18th Century, ACW and Napoleonic boards.

[Mike]

The correct use of Tags should make the need for more boards redundant.

Maybe I should do a post around Tags?

[General Slade]

A post about Tags would be a very good idea. I haven’t been using them because I wasn’t sure what they were for.  Maybe it could go in a general post collating advice about formatting, embedding links, posting pictures etc.

[Not Connard Sage]

Animal Farm?

Mike wrote:

If the Sponsoring members declare they want a board, they can have one unless I have good reason to say no, after all the Sponsors are paying my wages!

 

I don’t have a PayPal account. I have no intention of creating a PayPal account. Your PayPal system doesn’t allow me to use my credit card to pay. Find another way and I’ll bung you twenty four quid so I can say I don’t want any special interest boards.

Moving swiftly on…

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

[Paul]

Please do a post about tags. It could be a very useful feature and I don’t see it being used enough.

Also, I am in the “less is more” camp. Having a limited number of boards makes it easier to browse through all boards, because a lot of ideas that get posted in one board/period is transferable to other periods.

Those are brave men knocking at our door. Let's go kill them!

[Patrice]

I’d prefer to see 2 or 3 more forums (“18th C”; “19 th C”; etc) and no boards at all in the forums (except perhaps in the General forum for obvious reasons), it would be faster to navigate without having to select the boards inside the forums.

“Western” is a genre with its own terrain and rules etc, it could understandably have its own forum (or board if you prefer); that’s also true of “Colonial”. But wars don’t need their own board (except WW1 and WW2 but these wars are broad periods including other events).

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

[Not Connard Sage]

Patrice wrote:

“Western” is a genre with its own terrain and rules etc, it could understandably have its own forum (or board if you prefer); that’s also true of “Colonial”. But wars don’t need their own board (except WW1 and WW2 but these wars are broad periods including other events).

It could also be argued that it’s true of pirates. And skirmish games. And Conquistadores. And samurai. And dozens more possible exceptions.

I’m sorry but this is something I do have strong feelings about. You have only to look at the sprawling mess other sites have become in their efforts to please every minority interest. I don’t want to jump through those hoops every time I come here.

And as I’ve already said I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.

 

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

[Mike]

I will have a ponder.
Not a knee jerk reaction, but a proper think.

This could take a while so don’t expect anything too soon.

😀

Until then please post in the most appropriate board and IF another board is made the posts can be moved across.
I will do a TAG post soon though.

[Mike]

Righty ho then.
I have done a TAG tutorial in the Announcements from TWW. board.

General

[Cerdic]

I would favour re-naming the ACW board the 19th Century board.

Generally though…..More boards. Lovely.

http://28mmreview.blogspot.co.uk

[General Slade]

Cerdic wrote:

I would favour re-naming the ACW board the 19th Century board. Generally though…..More boards. Lovely.

I think that’s a good idea.  Keeps the number of boards the same but creates somewhere for Crimean War, FPW, Old West, Colonial etc.

 

[Rick Inhoff]

I do not like too many boards. I probably would be happy with a Games board and a Tables board. Anything else is just details.

[Mike]

I am inclined currently to have ACW in the ACW board, Napoleonics in the Napoleonics board, 18th Century in the 18th Century board and everything else in this board; the General Horse and Musket.

The ACW and Napoleonics are very popular and well known ‘wars/periods’ call it what you will.
They are BIG hitters in the Horse and Musket period and in my opinion warrant their own boards.
A 19th Century board could have Napoleonics and the ACW in it, but we already have boards for them, so it could create confusion as to where to post such topics.

So, for now, unless I change my mind we stay with what we have.
Old West and Zulus and other things go in here, but use those TAGS if you want people to be able to zoom in on your stuff.

[Henry Hyde]

Can we have a board for the War of Jenkins’ Ear? Oh, and another for bricoles? 

Editor, Battlegames
http://battlegames.co.uk
Battlegames on Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/battlegames
Author, The Wargaming Compendium
http://amzn.to/leWoNO

[Not Connard Sage]

Mike wrote:

I am inclined currently to have ACW in the ACW board, Napoleonics in the Napoleonics board, 18th Century in the 18th Century board and everything else in this board; the General Horse and Musket. The ACW and Napoleonics are very popular and well known ‘wars/periods’ call it what you will. They are BIG hitters in the Horse and Musket period and in my opinion warrant their own boards. A 19th Century board could have Napoleonics and the ACW in it, but we already have boards for them, so it could create confusion as to where to post such topics. So, for now, unless I change my mind we stay with what we have. Old West and Zulus and other things go in here, but use those TAGS if you want people to be able to zoom in on your stuff.

 

Good.

 

Now how do I give you my money? 🙂

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

[Mike]

😀

Now, if you are serious about being a sponsoring member but the option to pay by card is not there, drop me an e-mail and I can do an invoice where card payment is an option..

[Not Connard Sage]

Mike wrote:

Now, if you are serious about being a sponsoring member but the option to pay by card is not there, drop me an e-mail and I can do an invoice where card payment is an option..

 

Will do Mike. I can even send you an old-fashioned cheque if you like. 🙂

 

The option to pay by card is there, but it’s asking me to create an account first. That’s not going to happen. 😉

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

[Ben Waterhouse]

Rather than 19th century how about actual dates, so a 1816 – 1913 board?

 

[Paul Beck]

I would fine a 19th Century board a big plus

[Billy Fish]

Do people think we need a Naval Wargaming Board? After all, Napoleonic naval games don’t really ift in with ‘Horse and Musket’.

[Not Connard Sage]

And so it begins

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

[Piyan Glupak]

Billy Fish wrote:

Do people think we need a Naval Wargaming Board? After all, Napoleonic naval games don’t really ift in with ‘Horse and Musket’.

In my opinion, Napoleonic naval wargames fit rather better with the rest of the Napoleonic period than with either Salamis or Midway.

[Noel]

I like a bit more board classification.  Lead Adventure Forum has a good balance.

[Anonymous]

For me, No. But that is only IMO.

[Anonymous]

Mike wrote:

<snip> but use those TAGS if you want people to be able to zoom in on your stuff.

Good point,very under-utilized…

[Anonymous]

Noel wrote:

I like a bit more board classification. Lead Adventure Forum has a good balance.

Which it had at least one major overall when I was on the forum, from more thematic to more time oriented. Until the Far East/Samurai types got their own board.

Much as I hate to agree with Not Connard Sage – death by a thousand boards is not a pretty sight…

[Anonymous]

Piyan Glupak wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Billy Fish wrote:</div>Do people think we need a Naval Wargaming Board? After all, Napoleonic naval games don’t really ift in with ‘Horse and Musket’.

In my opinion, Napoleonic naval wargames fit rather better with the rest of the Napoleonic period than with either Salamis or Midway.

Agree totally with this statement.

[Anonymous]

Henry Hyde wrote:

Can we have a board for the War of Jenkins’ Ear? Oh, and another for bricoles?

Aaagh, the pain!!!!

[Anonymous]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Patrice wrote:</div>“Western” is a genre with its own terrain and rules etc, it could understandably have its own forum (or board if you prefer); that’s also true of “Colonial”. But wars don’t need their own board (except WW1 and WW2 but these wars are broad periods including other events).

It could also be argued that it’s true of pirates. And skirmish games. And Conquistadores. And samurai. And dozens more possible exceptions.
I’m sorry but this is something I do have strong feelings about. You have only to look at the sprawling mess other sites have become in their efforts to please every minority interest. I don’t want to jump through those hoops every time I come here.
And as I’ve already said I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.

You know I hate to admit it, but I actually agree with this as a general guideline.

[Anonymous]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

<snip>

This is a British based forum, and we already have an unnecessary sub-division for a 4 year long 19th century American civil war that is arguably a minority interest in the UK. If we must have a 19th century board, ditch the ACW board.

<snip>

Only slightly elitist… Stop with the Rule Britannia theme song, okay? This is the 21st Century. You had the 19th and the USA had a good portion of the 20th but this is world wide hobby now.

[ExtraCrispy]

The balance is always tough. Some places just have so many the overall site becomes dramatically less useful.

I think a policy about how and when you do this is a good idea. I think a board a century for post-renaissance might make sense. 19th century does seem like a nice addition because the following periods/genres don’t belong in “horse and musket” but seem to have nowhere else to go: Old West/Indian Wars, Many Colonial wars, FrancoPrussian. 20th century would cover Spanish Civil War and Korea (now WW2, not Modern). I also think if a given board is 50% one topic perhaps a split. I feel like “General” already has too many sub-boards.

I have suggested Mike might raise money by hosting forums (boards) for specific rule sets so their authors don;t have to set up their own. Mike gets traffic and so do they. Maybe they pay him a small fee for his services. So you might end up with a “Latest & Greatest Napoleonic Rules” board specifically for errata and rules questions on that rule set. Maybe that’s a bad idea….

 

[grizzlymc]

Henry’s idea has merit as a base for going forward but really we need:

Jenkins Ear Land

Jenkins Ear Naval

Jenkins Ear Air

Jenkins Ear Subterranean

 

Jenkins Ear Imaginations Land

Jenkins Ear Imaginations Naval

Jenkins Ear Imaginations Air

Jenkins Ear Imaginations Subterranean

 

Im not sure about sieges.

[ExtraCrispy]

What about Jenkins Ear In Spaaaace? Or is that SciFi?

[Steve Burt]

Anonymous wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Editor Mike wrote:</div>
<snip> but use those TAGS if you want people to be able to zoom in on your stuff.

Good point,very under-utilized…

One thing about TAGs. I see them when I view the forum directly.

I do not see them when the forum messages get converted to email by blogtrottr.

[James Ewins]

Less is more. Subdivided boards are a pain to browse on mobiles, I vote for no boards and more tags.

/
Chief Sarcaster at http://www.exmouthwargames.org.uk/
Assistant Dogsbody at http://legionaryshow.co.uk/
/

[Author]

Posts