Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 737 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Room For Manoeuvre #75324
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    The link implies it’s two separate games side by side, so maybe not as bad as it looks. 

    I suspect it will give a realistic game, it certainly looks like what I’d imagine it should.  I’d be happy to play it, I expect there would be plenty of tension and excitement to be had as you hope for one part of your line to hold just a little longer while wishing a neighbouring section to break through.  Not sure I’d want to do it every week or paint all those figures required for it though.

    When it comes to pre twentieth century wargames I have a suspicion many people tend to play in a Napoleonic way regardless of which armies they are using.  It gives good games which allows for more player decisions than limiting yourself to battleplans more appropriate to your period, so fair enough, I do it myself too.

     

     

    in reply to: Thuseld's 6mm Journey #75317
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Indiana Jones and Han Solo?

    Well, they make me think of them anyway. 🙂

    in reply to: German fallschirmjäger 20mm #75304
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I like the irregular shaped bases.  It’s the sort of thing I’ve done for terrain pieces, never thought of doing it for figure bases though.  I might have to try it in future. 🙂

    in reply to: A Shuttle #75291
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I can’t help wonder if the engine pod of the top would work as a small one person shuttle in 6mm… 😀

    I was thinking it looks like a detachable drone.

    Really nice looking model. 🙂

    in reply to: Gaming Personalities #75268
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant
    in reply to: Gaming Personalities #75262
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Not to get too far off topic, but I must admit that I find the “geography of geekdom” rather interesting. If boardgaming (even excluding stuff like chess and Monopoly) is like the London Metropolitan Area, then miniature gaming is probably like Stoke-on-Trent or something. “Probably” meaning “I’m just pretending I know what I’m talking about” in this case

    I think board wargaming is well down on where it used to be, the original big publishers disappeared at the end of the last century.  European style games and Big Box games with plastic figures seem to have taken their place on game shop shelves.  All the great board wargame magazines went too so far as I know, The General, Fire and Movement, The Grenadier.  You can still get the old style games, but they do seem more of a niche thing now. 🙁

     

    in reply to: Mycenaean Nobles in Dendra bronze corselet… #75261
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    The only part of the body left unprotected by the Dendra armor as the back of the lower leg.

    And the arms, the eyes, the lower thighs…

     

    in reply to: German fallschirmjäger 20mm #75241
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Very nice. 🙂

    Are the three unbased ones in the first picture artillery crew?

    in reply to: Viking Longhouse #75236
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Thanks Ruraigh, I’ll bear that in mind for next time. 🙂

     

    in reply to: A MY Miniatures Epiphany #75235
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Great, something else I want now. 

    in reply to: Zvezda fast build tanks #75158
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Are they hard or soft plastic?  I’m mainly worried if the guns would snap off.  And how well do they take paint?

    I’ve looked at them in my local model shop, very tempting, especially as they seem to do a lot of the less popular tanks, if you know what I mean.

    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I’m really enjoying this series of reports, many more to come I hope. 🙂

    in reply to: Viking Longhouse #75138
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    It’s great! If you make a water and pva glue mix, soak the roof, and then comb it, you can get the straw to lay flat. What did you make it with? Balsa? Or match sticks?

    Thanks for the tip, I’ll try that the next time I do thatch (He’s taken delivery of this one, so too late to change it now).

    The beams are all matchsticks, it was a bit of a rush job because he only requested I make it at Friday lunchtime so I had to use whatever I had available which turned out to be match sticks and offcuts of mounting board.  Balsa would probably have been better, as the longer beams had to use more than one match stick joined end to end which wasn’t ideal.  It’s also why the cross beams inside the roof are higher than I would have liked, if they’d been longer I’d have had them so they rested on the walls.

    in reply to: Local Game Shops #75084
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I can’t imagine any local store having enough space to stock all the figure ranges I might be interested in.  Shops are  more a board game thing for me, I am far more likely to be tempted to buy a game if I can hold it in my hands and feel the weight of the box.  Also there is more chance of seeing a game I didn’t know existed that appeals to me, figure purchases are more a case of knowing what I want and finding out who makes them.

    Can’t say I’d ever want to play a game in a store either, to be honest.

    What I really want locally is model shops where I can get paint and other supplies I run out of in the middle of a project, fortunately there are a couple of them within walking distance of my home so I’m happy. 🙂

    in reply to: Rommel in 6mm #75036
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Your link isn’t showing for me, and I want to see more.  I’ve never seen bases done like that before, each one is like a little work of art. 🙂

    I guess you could use the theme of the base terrain to identify which bases are part of the same unit?

    in reply to: Neil Thomas's American Civil War #75035
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    One size bigger, 4″ squares and 12mm and 15mm dice. The figures are 15mm and I didn’t use the standard basing from the rules (3 infantry on a 40 x 20 base and 2 cavalry on a 40 x 40), I went for 4 infantry or 2 cavalry on 25mm squares.

     

     

    in reply to: Gridded tables – coordinate references #75019
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Something like this?

    I only use it for the notes I make during a game for when I’m writing up an AAR after.  I prefer letter-number because if I used two lots of numbers I can guarantee you I’d forget which number should come first at some point…

    I should really play more grid games, I’m still using the same terrain but for non grid games at the moment.  Hopefully you’ll share your progress and encourage me to get back to it.  🙂

    in reply to: Neil Thomas's American Civil War #75004
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I did say I’d probably explain it badly. 

    Musketry range is double the retreat distance (which is a full move), but it makes sense to open fire as soon as you move into range so a retreat normally takes the target back out of range as a result.  If you took another turn of movement to get closer before starting to fire that wouldn’t be the case, but you’d take an extra round of fire to get that close.  It would open up the possibility of a charge, but that seems like a poor choice compared to firing (I may change my opinion on that as I become more familiar with the rules, it does have the advantage of moving you forward while getting to fight in the same turn).

     

     

    in reply to: A very green Planet board. #74980
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Cool it’s getting exhibited, it really deserves to be more widely seen. 🙂

    in reply to: A very green Planet board. #74971
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Kind of makes you feel inadequate, doesn’t it?

    in reply to: A very green Planet board. #74963
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant
    in reply to: Do You Need Victory Conditions in Games… #74962
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I don’t think Mike gets paid enough.

    in reply to: Moscow Dragoons #74935
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I was thinking the same about the helmets. 🙂

    You’d think if they ducked a sword blow it would catch the crest and break their neck instead.

    Wonderful looking unit.

    in reply to: Neil Thomas's American Civil War #74922
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    That is a nice visual of battle. In his One Hour Rules, the sequence of play is move followed by shoot, but units that moved cannot shoot. When I introduced a retreat result to those rules as a house rule, the effect was that a retreat actually helped the target (unless they were on the edge of the table) as it allowed them to disengage and forced the enemy to ‘come on again’, during which time they would move and then not be able to fire (attack – there is no melee), while having to endure another round of enemy fire. Also, in those rules, if you attacked an enemy and removed them in the fire phase, you then had no opportunity to advance that turn as there is not a move after combat option, so taking ground in the same turn as disposing of the enemy cold not happen, which becomes critical in the last turn for most of his objectives in his scenarios. I wondered, do these same sort of issues happen in his earlier Introductory set? I had the book years ago and got rid of it (a stupid decision as it turns out), but still have his Napoleonic book.

    You do get the same issue, yeah, though it depends how you look at it whether it’s a problem.

    I’ll probably explain this badly, but here goes.  X fires and causes a base loss on Y.  If Y passes it’s morale it stays in place and can fire back on it’s next turn.  If it fails it retreats and can not fire, now being out of range, so X advances and can not fire and then Y fires.  In both cases the sides are getting one shot each before the other shoots back, no one gets to shoot twice in a row.

    There’s the added possibility of a unit rallying if there is no enemy in range to fire on them, which complicates things a bit because the unit which retreated out of range may do this while it waits for the enemy to advance.  And the victor might choose to rally before moving forward again.

    The only way you get two shots in a row without reply is if you force the enemy back and they return to their position on their turn.

    I’d need to play more to form an opinion about advancing after combat, it’s hard enough to get anyone to move into melee let alone win one. 🙂

    in reply to: Neil Thomas's American Civil War #74920
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I’ve played games with hidden morale, and it’s ok but I like to know which troops are good or bad.

    I would too if I was playing an opponent, as a solo player I like the uncertainty. 🙂

    in reply to: Do You Need Victory Conditions in Games… #74919
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I’ve simply gone where the conversation went. As now and previously it’s my position that is under discussion so why would it include other periods? 

     

    Well, no.  Lets be honest here, you started by making general statements and when it was shown you were wrong you cut down the scale of what was being discussed to one where you felt more likely to win the argument.

    But then, your only objective is win, isn’t it? 

    Well done you, this opponent is retiring from the field.  No doubt you can describe this as a discussion where there was a clear outcome and everyone involved loved the experience…

     

     

    in reply to: Do You Need Victory Conditions in Games… #74895
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    I think it seems to some that you have steered the conversation solely around the horse and musket period and excluded any thoughts of how victories were historically defined in other, typically later periods because you simply have limited or no knowledge or understanding of them whereas this is a general discussion about victory conditions and how they are used and how they affect different players, different periods/wars and the different conditions used.

    It’s not just period, it’s scale.  Skirmish games are improved greatly by objectives and victory conditions, as is playing out a sector of a battlefield.  Arguably these become almost pointless without them.

    in reply to: More '98 for The Pikeman's Lament #74828
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Is the Irish/French side complete now?  Or are you aiming for really big games?  I’m looking forward to seeing these guys in action. 🙂

    in reply to: A Rather Different Fate for the CSS Albemarle… #74799
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed the AAR. 🙂

    in reply to: More '98 for The Pikeman's Lament #74790
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant
    in reply to: Do You Need Victory Conditions in Games… #74776
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    We never play those kinds of games. Our table is generally bursting with figures (5,000-10,000+)

    That explains a lot.

    in reply to: Do You Need Victory Conditions in Games… #74753
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Oddly enough I don’t see the need for any “victory conditions”, etc. One side or the other will gradually be worn down and have to withdraw/surrender/give up/etc. (regardless of orders) and if so that’s the loser and the remaining side is the winner. Am I missing something or do you see some shortcomings in my approach?

    I think it depends who you are playing with, whether or not they will play ‘realistically’ without needing incentives.  Most armies benefit from concentration, for example, but it’s no fun playing against someone who sets his force up in one corner of the table rather than trying to cover as much of the centre of his line as he reasonably can.  For those types of players you need a reason for them to do that, and that’s where objectives and victory conditions are useful.

    Going back to Waterloo, given a free deployment the player representing Wellington would be wisest to concentrate as close to where the Prussians will arrive as possible.  This was not a historical possibility, and any game where he does so is going to have little claim of realism.  Plus the players who turned up wanting to refight Waterloo aren’t going to be happy.  Even if you fix initial deployments he can withdraw his right and redeploy it to the left.

    If you can rely on your players to stick to the script that won’t happen, but a published scenario will be played by all types of players, and some will only want to win at any cost or know nothing about the historical situation.  Those players need the objectives and victory conditions even if you don’t.

    Well, that’s how I see it anyway. 🙂

     

    in reply to: Do You Need Victory Conditions in Games… #74705
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Because if you don’t have objectives Napoleons best strategy is to go on the defensive. He has artillery superiority and can pound away with his guns all day.

    Both Napoleon and Wellington do have an objective. Even without it Napoleons best strategy could never have been defensive. He was doomed to lose if he did. Short term the Prussians were moving on his flank and rear. Long term the massive allied armies would overwhelm him, just like they did previously.

    Neither of those effect the game unless you have victory conditions.

     

    in reply to: Do You Need Victory Conditions in Games… #74679
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Because if you don’t have objectives Napoleons best strategy is to go on the defensive.  He has artillery superiority and can pound away with his guns all day.

    in reply to: Micromunda / Urban War Clau Tactics Nano. #74652
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    That is gorgeous. 🙂

    You are amazingly talented.

    in reply to: Do You Need Victory Conditions in Games… #74651
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Seems to me that in almost every battle at least one side had an objective other than ‘destroy the enemy’, because battles are not fought by equal forces with an equal chance of doing that.  Wellington’s objective at Waterloo wasn’t to destroy the French army, it was to hold on till the Prussians got there and also to ensure that if he didn’t do that that he kept his line of retreat open so his army could get away.  There’s two victory conditions right away, a time based one (survive X amount of turns) and a terrain based one (keep the enemy away from the road to Brussels on his baseline).  That also gives Napoleon a terrain objective, the road to Brussels.

    If there is no time pressure or ultimate terrain objective where is the incentive to attack?  Defence is generally stronger than attack, objectives force at least one of the players to go on the offensive, that’s why we have them.  And victory conditions give the player with the weaker army a goal to aim for, even if it’s just to hold out till nightfall.

    in reply to: The Other Pikeman's Lament. #74612
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Victorio Ricardez?  Just a suggestion…

    Oh, and remember you can upload pics directly to this site. 🙂

    in reply to: The Other Pikeman's Lament. #74606
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    Blue Moon look quite nice, I’d say. No cast on pikes, don’t know if that’s a plus or minus for you.

    in reply to: The Other Pikeman's Lament. #74541
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    The Black Hat ones are characterful, I’d say.  Which appeals to me, but isn’t everyone’s taste.  They’re also on the large side, so I doubt they’d mix well with other ranges.

    I’ll try to get my sample figures painted up this week and let you see what they look like painted.  Plus it gives me a reason to get a move on with my painting. 🙂

    in reply to: The Other Pikeman's Lament. #74539
    Victoria Dickson
    Participant

    The current plan is for Essex for the Government forces, for most of the highlanders too as they have two suitable ranges for them.  I’ll also pick up whatever highlanders I can from other manufacturers and mix them in to get a more varied look.

    But that’s subject to change. 🙂

     

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 737 total)