Why is there an 18th century board?

[Pijlie]

I know the Horse and Musket era lasted longer than the 18th century but why have a hundred years as a sub board? The subjects seem to spread evenly (and rather randomly) between the 18th century board and the general board. Isn’t it better to combine them?

http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl

[Not Connard Sage]

More boards. Lo…

 

er, hang on

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

[Cerdic]

I believe it is all about the hats……

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

[Patrice]

The 18th century board was a request from some members and is already very busy.

But things a still a bit confusing; there is a “Renaissance” board – which in its broader sense seems to include the ECW etc – so as there is a 18th century board, a Napoleonic board, and an ACW board, it means that the “General horse and musket” board only includes the late 17th century and 1815-c.1900 except the ACW…

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

[Pijlie]

Well, less is more, I always say.

http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl

[Nick the Lemming]

Patrice wrote:

The 18th century board was a request from some members and is already very busy. But things a still a bit confusing; there is a “Renaissance” board – which in its broader sense seems to include the ECW etc – so as there is a 18th century board, a Napoleonic board, and an ACW board, it means that the “General horse and musket” board only includes the late 17th century and 1815-c.1900 except the ACW…

 

The general board also covers topics relating to all of the subperiods.

Glory Eagles de l'Empereur! blog

[Not Connard Sage]

Patrice wrote:

The 18th century board was a request from some members and is already very busy. But things a still a bit confusing; there is a “Renaissance” board – which in its broader sense seems to include the ECW etc – so as there is a 18th century board, a Napoleonic board, and an ACW board, it means that the “General horse and musket” board only includes the late 17th century and 1815-c.1900 except the ACW…

 

The 17th century isn’t generally considered ‘horse and musket’ is it ? More ‘pike and shot’.

 

Or if you want to be precious ‘ye pike & shotte’

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

[grizzlymc]

So we could break H&M into:

 

Ye pikke and shotte

Ye Tricorne Hatte

Ye Shako and bicorne Hatte

Thes here kepis

Ye pointie hatte

[Billy Fish]

Why not just have three boards: Land warfare; naval warfare; air warfare?

[grizzlymc]

Because although I have a passion for land warfare from 1780-1980, I find pointy sticks and ultra moderns boring and incomprehensible, respectively.

 

Others may find lining up muskets and shooting each other boring, or the “empty battlefield” (a concept not adhered to by all WWII rules) lacking in majesty and spectacle.

[Not Connard Sage]

Billy Fish wrote:

Why not just have three boards: Land warfare; naval warfare; air warfare?

 

Why not just have two?

 

Wargaming

and

Everything Else

 

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

[Henry Hyde]

Is there anything else?

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

[grizzlymc]

Money, sex, power, booze.

 

Of course wargaming is not incompatible with one of these and can give delusions of another, but it tends to be antithetical to a third.

[Billy Fish]

I like your reductionism, Connard. But why not just one board, which, in fact, would mean No board?

[willz]

Just enjoy posting, all the boards are interesting I like some more that others but I look in most over the week.

Post and be happy.

[Patrice]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

The 17th century isn’t generally considered ‘horse and musket’ is it ? More ‘pike and shot’. Or if you want to be precious ‘ye pike & shotte’

Although it’s not called “Pike and shot”, but “Renaissance”.

(but then I’m biassed, as the strict or broad sense can depend of the context – in English, “Renaissance” seems to include the ECW; in French it would only mean the early 16th century).

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

[Not Connard Sage]

Patrice wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Not Connard Sage wrote:</div>
The 17th century isn’t generally considered ‘horse and musket’ is it ? More ‘pike and shot’. Or if you want to be precious ‘ye pike & shotte’

Although it’s not called “Pike and shot”, but “Renaissance”. (but then I’m biassed, as the strict or broad sense can depend of the context – in English, “Renaissance” seems to include the ECW; in French it would only mean the early 16th century).

 

Mais oui Patrice. Let’s not start further sub-divisions of the divisions though, least it encourager les autres

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

[grizzlymc]

Don;t you have to shoot an admiral do do that?

[Pijlie]

No shooting except on the playing table! And to be clear: I advocated one LESS board, not one more.

http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl

[General Slade]

I’m in favour of one fewer; I don’t approve of one less (or one more for that matter).

[Not Connard Sage]

grizzlymc wrote:

Don;t you have to shoot an admiral do do that?

 

Bingo!

 

Or rather, Byng-o!

 

…I’ll get me coat

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

[grizzlymc]

[Cerdic]

I think that joke could be the wargamers’ equivalent of the Masons’ handshake……

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

[grizzlymc]

I have used the phrase “encourager les autres” most of my life.  Only around h&m wargamers does it get recognition.  I would suggest that it is unlikely to raise peaks of laughter in a he shop.

[Anonymous]

Why go down this (more or less divisive) route of “discussion” – it brings up memories of the insipid and fruitless burst of self-righteousness found on some forums and never ends well. Post where you like and read what you like, don’t let others dictate (even if it is disguised as a question) the form of the forum or your enjoyment.

[Author]

Posts