"Invention in Historical Gaming?" Topic

As a bit of background to my questions, I grew up with Games Workshop (and still play Mordheim), and in that culture there is a lot of emphasis on making your army "your own" by inventing names and 'fluff' (backstory) for your characters and units. Indeed, one of the things that put me off historical wargaming for a long time was that I imagined there was none of that- everything was laid down, paint-by-numbers and absolutely accurate.

Now that doesn't seem so important to me and I'm looking at getting into historical gaming, I'm wondering to what level I was right. What *do* people think about inventing characters and personalities? Would you invent regiments? Would you paint uniforms based on the norm, but with details of your own invention? Would you choose miniatures that weren't necessarily accurate, but fitted in with a 'romantic' vision of the past? At what level would you consider it unacceptable for an opponent to do any of the above?

Thanks,

Will

I think it depend on what you want and the type of game you play. In many skirmish level games I think there is more of a tendency to do what you describe, which is to give more character and individuality to your men and units. On the other hand, a large scale game where you are manuvering regiments, or divisions, etc. I think there is less of that. This being said, our group is very active in campaigning in a fictitious world based on the armies of the Seven Years War; where we each design the uniforms and organizations of our forces.
There are then crossover historical/non historical genres like Victorian Science Fiction where you have historical units but can create them as you like.

I don't consider it unacceptable for an opponent to invent backgrounds and stuff.

Using figures that weren't WYSIWYG would be a problem for me as I like knowing what I'm fighting, but looking at something like Vikings, Shadowforge do a nice range of 28mm Female Vikings. I'd have no problem with someone turning up to a historical game with an army of female vikings.

I play solo mini games in a fictitious, horse & musket era world. So I make up armies, regiments, generals, etc. My figures are 2mm, so there isn't much creativity in uniforms (I have a red army, a blue army, etc.)

It really depends on how open your regular opponent is to it.

Several of my modern armies are utterly fictional –

The Dahomey Army – An African Force

The Arab Alliance of Al-Asad – A generic Middle Eastern Army

They have whatever I like in them but are also useful for 'historical' games too as they are both fairly generic.

Most of my armies have some sort of fictional background such as my WW2 German leader, Colonel Von Valentine, who seems to have led armies on every front in almost every major operation of the war!

One of my earliest memories of wargaming was reading about the campaigns played between Chas Grant and his son (at least I think it was). These were fought in an entirely fictional setting with characters and units named by the two players. Though they were anchored firmly in the SYW era using weapons and tactics of the period I found them fascinating reading and have always liked the idea of fictional as opposed to entirely historical games. Historical wargaming isn't written in stone, if you can find like minded opponents my advice would be to give it a try.

Bdr.

garagegamer.blogspot.com

We ran a campaign using Historical armies. so everyone could play (There was a Bit of a Stretch between the oldest and newest armies) we made our own world they could fight over. It also meant the Seleucids, Persians and Turks could play without arguing about whose country Anatolia was.

I believe that's pretty much what Grant did as well.

Pat

Historical gamers can be very creative

Charles Grant painted up a whole bunch of historical units, then created a couple of imaginary countries to state battles with – a Frie Stat with some sort of German last name, as I recall – he has a couple of neat chapters describing them in his book, The Wargame, which I have the privilege of having an original copy of

As to units, lots of gamers create imaginary units, and the closer to Ancients you get, the more creative you can be – even more recently, some of our Seven Years War colleagues have created some very interesting Frei Korps units – one was in black with red facings and white small clothes

My Roman army is based on VI Legio Ferrata, but the attached auxilla are pretty much totally made up

Ah – another observation – some of the neatest 19th century games I played were set on an imaginary continent, with the Americans, Mexicans, English, French, Japanese and Prussians duking it out with each other and the restive natives

The book and game rules "Charge" uses fictional forces and I believe the book is some decades old. I have always thought of doing it in the horse-and-musket era but I never took the time to decide which uniforms to start with, what colors, etc. Too busy buying for the historical I wanted to have. More ideas than money and time.

My British Peninsula War army has a South Essex Regiment with a double sized light company in it.

It's easier to invent historical battles that never happened and basing the game on historical armies rather than fit a real battle into a less than ideal format.

my napoleonic british skirmish force is from the entirely imaginery '1st chertsey' regiment.

no one has even spotted it yet in any game i've played. (despite it being written in large letters on both standards!)

regards

jim

Actually this goes back to one of the books of the wargames explosion of the 1960's – Peter Young in "Charge" had imaginary units from the forces of "The Elector & the Emperor".

Lot depends who you game with if you rename units. Some people will not mind, others wil.

Since I found this on the Napoleonic Board and you want a change from the French, the if your interested in some variation of uniforms – paint up Confederation of the Rhine forces gives a lot of variation.

"My British Peninsula War army has a South Essex Regiment"

The South Essex regularly appear in my WW2 games if I need a generic infantry battalion.

I prefer to paint and organise my stuff based on historical units, but then I'll use them as stand-ins for other units.

The degree of inappropriate stand-inds varies with what I can stand and what I'm trying to. Ancients, I'm appalling, any old Gaul will do for gauls and pretty well any old bloke with a tatty shirt and pointy stick will do for a Hoplite. I regularly use Waterloo era Brits for the Peninsular. I however very rarely use out of year vehicles in WW2 games, although I did use some Pz IIs as Lynz stand-ins once. I've also mixed figure scales to get the right stuff on the table, using 6mm artillery with 15mm figs/vehicles (they are 'far away') and once fielded a couple of divisions of 15mm figs alongside a few divisions of 20mm stuff – the 15s were at the north end of the battlefield so 'far away' so smaller…. worked OK.

I don't make up unit insignia etc on uniforms, even my AK47 stuff is largely based on historical units.

I've done the Chas Grant fictional country thing a few times though, they are usually very thinly disguised historical countries.

- Since I found this on the Napoleonic Board and you want a change from the French, the if your interested in some variation of uniforms – paint up Confederation of the Rhine forces gives a lot of variation. –

Or paint some in the short-lived white uniforms. I like the colour pink, so I painted the 53rd in their white and pink uniforms, that maybe they never wore on the field: link

When I can't find info on a regiment's drummer, I'll gladly use artistic license and go with colourful schemes. Who can prove you're wrong?

The point is, if you look deep enough, you can always find historical justifications to let your imagination run wild.

Having said that, imagi-nations are quite acceptable, I see nothing wrong with it.

I like silly names for generals and the odd imaginary regiment in a strict historical milieu. The line is drawn at a female Viking army however.

Part and parcel of wargaming since the "60, but hard boiled 'historicals' sneer at it; specially napoleonics and WWII. Among Ancient-Medieval gamers it changed with time -in the good old days of the early Society of Ancients Tony Bath's 'Hyboria' campaign set in the world of Conan the Barbarian (yet without magic) was perfectly accepted; nowadays…
Young's 'Charge' and Grant's 'The War Game'both using Imagi-Nations were set in the mid-18th C. (the Lace Wars): for several reasons this era is specially propitious to fictitious countries and armies: the 'Emperor vs Elector' collective blog (the 'League of Lace Wars Imagi-Nations') has 60+ contributors, and I know of 30 more 'independants'.
emperor-elector.blogspot.com
link
link
Level of 'unhistoricity' is quite variable: among the 'EvE' countries,
- 'Gallia' and 'Gross Hesse-Seewald' are France and Prussia, perfectly historical with 200% historically accurate armies, only the names of the countries are invented (so that nobody blasphemously changes Histories and spoils Frederick's record if France wins?)[The Britishs and Jacobites of the same group are also 'historical', but the Pretender is leading a new attempt and as yet quite successfully- a few yeras after Culloden].
- Wittemberg and its foes are 'historical' but with in addition a modified geography (for a better control of the campaign scale).
- Others are purely fictitious, but with 'historically likely and realistic' armies.
- Some gamers field historical armies, but when in friendly company add a small contingent from their Imagi-Nation as a minor ally to their 'major' historical army -e.g. Lichtenbourg to Austria (since Austria was supported by so many various contingents in the Reicharmee, who would notice?).

And, yes, two imaginary countries field a female regiment of infantry (they are located in Australia, as are their 'creators' in the Real World: may be more than coincidental, Eureka minis of Australia has a range of 'SYW' women soldiers…).

It's something (making up names, units, etc.) I do all
the time.

One of my CSA generals is Jubilation T. Cornpone (from
the 'L'il Abner' comic strip and film), a British Home
Guard Commander is Sir Macon Bacon (descended from the
1st Baron Becon <'Bee-sohn>, who came over with William),
a US Frontier Cavalry officer is Lt. Simon Whetear, and
on and on and on…

This is interesting, I was expecting a raft of very snooty comments along the lines of "why bother if you're not interested in accuracy?". To me this is quite reassuring, that if I prefer to paint my miniatures in a certain way or call them by certain names I'm not going to be cold-stared to death.

I will snoot you if it makes you feel better, you Historically Inaccurate Sans-Culotte.

Pat

Sure I've invented regiments or modified armies to fit the figures I had and the way I wanted to paint them.

I invented a regiment called the Eton Rifles for my ACW army, because they had hats a bit like boaters.

When I did WoTR, I made the whole army Duke of Norfolk, which wasn't really historical because he didn't have that big an army of his own. I just liked the purple and orange livery.

I don't see anything wrong with it providing it's just a bit of fun.

Part and parcel of wargaming since the "60, but hard boiled 'historicals' sneer at it; specially napoleonics and WWII.

WWII I can understand. In many ways its too close historically to us as our parents and grandparents who may still be living fought in that war. Personally I would not do it with WWII out of respect to the veterans.

The 18thC has the advantage that you can draw uniforms from the smaller German and Italian states and create a game that has the feel of the Grand Duchy v. the Frei Stadt.

The Napoleonic period does seem to attract games who take the period very seriously.

I've have personally done the imaginary campaign with 1870's periods to do some naval games over the years, as well as the "Last Gentlemanly War" Sweden & Norway versus Denmark and the Netherlands of 1905.

"The Napoleonic period does seem to attract games who take the period very seriously."

But there's also a cohort who do anything but – generally the ones who like Sharpe and Hornblower books, rather than (or in addition to) the real historical stuff.

I'm firmly in the "don't take the period seriously" camp!

Hazkal
''Now that doesn't seem so important to me and I'm looking at getting into historical gaming, I'm wondering to what level I was right. What *do* people think about inventing characters and personalities? Would you invent regiments? Would you paint uniforms based on the norm, but with details of your own invention? Would you choose miniatures that weren't necessarily accurate, but fitted in with a 'romantic' vision of the past? At what level would you consider it unacceptable for an opponent to do any of the above?''

The level determined by an average gamer's knowledge. There's just so much interesting history that if you invent too much, it means discarding the very things that got your opponent interested in Napoleonics in the first place! I reckon the trick is to keep your inventions…well, mostly within the bounds of possibility. And to have the backgruond convincing.

The 95th might have had a one-armed captain called Cholmondley.
There might have been a brigade skirmish in Estonia…..why not, because most of us can't rule it out so will accept it.

Likewise, if there were armies from strange places like Anhalt Dessau, Schaumburg-Lippe, Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt (which there were) then who's going to know if you invent one from the Duchy of Flarti-bartfast? If you like skirmish, then of course, inventing personalities, personal angsts, strengths and weaknesses a la Dungeons and Dragons is normal and there are plenty of games that encourage you to do that. Counter-factual 'what if' battles are normal too: what if Loison had joined up with Delaborde before Rolica for example?

Charles Grant, an early Wargaming populariser invented armies all the time but the inventions didn't really catch on. So I reckon invent away and no one will mind as long as you don't step on any toes. Invent a whole campaign in Spain and you'll irritate Peninsular War buffs. Invent a campaign in an obscure Saxon Duchy and no one will know better. Fight a campaign in Scandinavia (where there was no real one to speak of) or in South America (where there was, but hardly anything's been written about it) then you'll be fine.

I would so go ahead and do it. The one caveat would be that if you ever wanted to sell your armies, you might not find any takers for imaginery Napoleonic units. The advice to pick out some of the obscure German duchies/principalities, etc is good advice for the imagination trend.

This seems to be more prevalent in the 18th Century, probably due to Charles Grant, but I see no reason why it couldn't work in 1812.

For Ancients, you can often be quite inventive and still be entirely historically accurate, because the evidence is so scanty.

*Some* Napoleonics took the plunge:
obernordwestfalen.blogspot.com
obernordwestfalen.com
link

Given that us wargamers, unless enterprising and skilled converters, or sculptors of their original minis, have to paint what is comercially available an advantage of the several advantages of the 18th C. is the 'generic' cut the uniforms, at least for the *tolerant* viewer of minis seen en masse on the tabletop: most European infantrymen wore *roughly* the same tricorn, coat and gaiters. By Napoleonic times the very cut of the uniform was more 'national', major powers all had their own flowerpot, stovepipe or frypan-like headgear: thus the troops of your Imagi-Nation are immediately identified as 'soldiers from that historical country painted in odd colors'. Yet there are historical precedents -many French allies looked like Frenchs in odd colors, most Italians e.g.; and later the NMA Spaniards and Belgians-Dutchs had a 'British' look- so the obstacle is not insurmountable. More generally winners influence military fashion world-wide (re. the 'Napoleonic' look of some Mexicans under Santa-Anna, the 'zouave & kepi' from Napoleon III, then the Prussian spiked helmet after the FPW…) and 'poor' allies are ± clothed by the leader of the coalition, or 'ape' it in a slightly different shade.

Remember that *all* wargamers are writing 'alternate' History: how 'historically accurate' the initial background, TOE, uniforms, deployment… may be, as soon as you *play* (rather than animate move by move the 3D display of some historical battle) Alexander can be killed at Gaugamela, Charles the Bold may crush the Swiss, Whasinghton be shot down by the Frenchs for his war crimes, Bonaparte taken prisoner in Egypt… This is already true if one re-fights a given battle -the outcome *may* be different- and becomes blatant if one plays a long campaign.
And since he is animated by a player, the lead or plastic Napoleon or Lee on the tabletop is certainly not THE 'historical' character of that name.
Thus all is a matter of *degree* in this unavoidable departure from 'real' history.
You can simply invent a few individual characters -Conan Doyle's Brigadier Gerard, Hornblower, Sharpe, General Pettygree- in a perfectly historical setting, and record his achievements;
then create a fictitious regiment, give him traditions, battle honours;
then create a mini-state. The gradient is continuous.

As for Imagi-Nations, propitious backgrounds have many small, preferably not very steady, countries badly known by the average man. Germany of the Holy Roman Empire is specially convenient, with its 300+ states, countries, minis & micro-states (some had to provide a *single* soldier to the Reicharmee!): adding one of your own creation is not 'blasphemous' and may well pass unnoticed. Other propitious settings may be South America of the Independance Years (who knows al the Republics, who will immediatly spot San Theodoros or Nuevo Rico?), the Balkans between the two WW (Tintin's Syldavia and Bulgaria – but in our Real World a pair of satirical journalists managed indeed to convince some French politicians of the very existence of Poldevia!) and nowadays the post-Russian Caucasus with all its 'stans', and subsaharian Africa (re. 'Bongolesia' regularly mentioned in other TMP forums).

If you browse the various blogs linked to 'Emperor vs Elector you'll see all these various degres of 'unhistoricity', and also the tremendously different approaches, from traditional wargaming to RPG and almost novel-writing.

As I haven't really started historical wargaming yet this question was a bit academic, although the answers have been interesting. To my mind, the idea of aiming for as accurate a force as you can no longer seems boring as it once did. I would still probably invent captains, colours etc for a more personal attachment.

Since our knowledge of ancient armies is often incomplete and based on very few contemporary descriptions and illustrations of often suspect reliability, you actualy may have more leeway than you think. Furthermore,if you look at actual historical miniatures armies you will notice that just about every painter has his own interpretation of how his army should look. No two are ever completely alike. Go with what you like, not what you think others may find "acceptable". It's your army!

Invent countries, armies, units. Just remember to make them historically accurate.

Rich

For wierd Napoleonic uniforms, you can always go with the French from the Egypt campaign – after the first uniforms gave out – all manner of combinations of coats and facings.

For Ancients, known evidence is not only sparse but evolving fast: I lost contact, but between 1960 and 1995 it did not take a decade foe a 'perfectly historical army' to become an 'utterly fictitious one'.
Not that more recent are totally spared: Bavarian infantry of the SYW has *now* to be clad in dark blue; an irrefutable justification to create the Reich Duchy of Beaveria if you still want to field 'tricorned' infantry in this pleasant sky blue…

As for imaginary uniforms (further than a single fictitious regiment, with its original badge, facings, lace… in a basically historical army) their creation can well be made compulsory by a purely historical (at the start) campaign, if *balanced* enough to have the struggle carried on for years. The outcome of a game may differ from ‘reality': no medium-term consequences if you are re-fighting some historical battle in isolation; inavoidable consequences regarding ‘unhistorical' units and uniforms in a lengthy campaign.
If the Pretender wins at Culloden but does not conquer whole Great Brirain soon, he will raise new regiments and have the means to uniform them: the player will have to *logically* design these uniforms.
If your group starts playing the 100 Days and Napoleon wins at Waterloo then resists the Coalition for game-yeras (how unlikely is this outcome is irrelevant to the exemple), you'll have a Kingdom of Netherlands under strong French influence: what uniforms its army will wear in 1817 or 1818? Certainly no longer those of 1815 –specially not the British-looking ones of the infantry. Thus in this ‘historical' campaign the ruling player will have to design these ‘unhistorical / imaginary' uniforms –within the limits of the minis commercially available. A likely, ‘logical', answer could be: uniforms of French cut (‘French' minis of 1814 – 1815) but keeping the ‘traditional' Dutch colors patterns of 1815. (I doubt minis for the French Legions Departementales of the early Restauration, that would be more appropriate, are available; perhaps some semi-Napoleonic ‘Mexicans at El Alamo' could be pressed into service? En enterprising converter mais multiply headswaps to give his Dutch heavy cavalry helmets with ‘French' flaoting horsehaire rather tha ‘Allies' caterpillar).

Thus events during an initially ‘strictly historical' campaign may lead to the design of imaginary uniforms. Now suppose events of his kind happened *before* the start of your campaign: you'll have to design ‘imaginary' uniforms from the onset. That's precisely –and simply- what builders of Imagi-Nations do : they suppose that events decades or centuries ago lead to the creation of an independant Principality of Ruritania, Hesse-Trolheim, Saxe-Appel, Vulgaria, Scandalusia (in Spain), Felicia Felaccio (in Italy), Ikea (in Scandinavia), you name it… Then they design its army and uniforms following logical lines.
They choose to play in that era because they like its typical warfare and typical wargames reflecting it: the army will be ‘historically accurate' / ‘representative' in its composition and organization.
As for the cut of the uniforms and their colors (what ‘historical' minis to paint and in what colors), they are ‘historically', logically chosen according to the time and location, the dominant / most influencial ally (may give the ‘cut' –e.g. during the Lace Wars Prussian uniforms were specialy skimpy- but maybe also the dominant color –e.g. both Austria and France fielded mainly white-clad infantry during WAS-SYW), the religious alignement (Catholics tended to give bearskins to their grenadiers, Protestant mitres instead)…. Thus a Protestant mini-country strongly allied to Austria may well field as infantry ‘Prussian' minis painted in a predominantly white uniform; for a Slavic Orthodox Principality independant from Russia but firmly associated to it, Russian uniforms / minis in an original color are a likely possibility. As for colors, heraldry of the country / ruling line may provide additional suggestions: the azure of the Bavarian coat-of-arms is traditionnaly a light blue…

Not only are builders of imaginary units / armies / countries constrained by the minis available, they are generally rather conservative and (historical precedents such as the fondness of Bertier for yellow ; hence the ‘Canaris' of Neuchatel, or of Murat for amaranth notwithstanding) they wil not paint the *bulk* of their forces in lilac, lavander or yellow.
If they wish to do so they'll follow the historical precedent of the Frenchs in India and Egypt and use some oversea setting, where such ‘exotically died cloths are locally available. Then historical exemples such as the Polish pseudo-janissaries show that some ‘exotic' minority types *can* exist, and all the ‘non-military' dyes used e.g. by Streltzis –all those ‘berries', tender greens, cinnamon- authorises some freedom about their colors.

But on the whole the basic conclusion is there is no clear-cut border between the most ‘historical' wargames and the campaigns between totally fictitious countries and armies: the gradient is continuous.

abdul666lw,

''For Ancients, known evidence is not only sparse but evolving fast: I lost contact, but between 1960 and 1995 it did not take a decade foe a 'perfectly historical army' to become an 'utterly fictitious one'''

Well exactly. Ancients players mostly play with imaginary armies anyway. If you see a glinting Roman army with articulated armour, Roman helmets, rectangualar shields and stabbing swords facing some motley-looking Dacians, then you're looking at something from the imagination (or Trajan's column, which amounts to the same thing). Many of the barbarians were better armed and trained than the Romans, yet still you see the nonsence of the 'war-band' being used in every battle.

Likewise in Bonaparte's time: soldiers (non-guard infantry particularly) often wore serge trousers, odd head gear covered in oil-cloth or canvas, dusty coats with hands, uniforms and faces black from powder and outdoor living (no Persil then). Yet on the table-top we see scrubbed and glistening lines of immaculate gay blades: highlanders with their bonnets and kilts, bright white breeches, shakos with cords and plumes just so…

Fantasy.

:-)

Yet on the table-top we see scrubbed and glistening lines of immaculate gay blades: highlanders with their bonnets and kilts, bright white breeches, shakos with cords and plumes just so…

Fantasy.

Not "Fantasy" . . . "Fiction"!

It pays to use the terms accurately, since they mean quite different things. Fantasy includes, by definition, elements which are magical or supernatural, i.e., things which do not and cannot exist. While there is plenty of room for invention within the scope of Historical Wargaming (which is by its very nature, after all, historical fiction), it generally confines itself to things which actually did, or could arguably have existed.

The respondents have shown a wide variety of colorful and inventive possibilities that exist within the bounds of historical wargaming (and there are more); "fanciful" in some cases, yes, but none of it is "Fantasy".

- Yet on the table-top we see scrubbed and glistening lines of immaculate gay blades: highlanders with their bonnets and kilts, bright white breeches, shakos with cords and plumes just so…

Fantasy.

Not "Fantasy" . . . "Fiction"! -

Even then, not that much fiction. Some battles were fought in pristine Full Dress, it did happen. Not the majority of battles by far,agreed, but certainly not fantasy.

Do what you feel good about. If you don't keep to "historical accuracy" a few might sneer or berate, but most folks just don't care that much what other folks do with their own time and money. It is a personal hobby in the end! Now if you insist on becoming evangelic about your notions there will be more negative feedback and there should be. By the way the Colonial Period is a great place for imaginative personalities, places and events! The adventures of Sir Sidney Sydney ex Royal Marines were once a major wargame saga in these parts. He won't be found on any official historical roster!

I wouldn't refuse to fight an opponent with non-historical units, so long as they had roughly the same fighting capabilities as historical ones.

So NO to Imperial Guard Lancer Cuirassiers packing M16s.

So last night I pass 5 British Napoleonic casualty figures to a friend that plays in our games but doesn't provide any miniatures.

His response is "I hope you don't mind if the uniforms aren't right."

….

I have to mind. Now, I don't expect intense research and perfect detailing, but it should not be unreasonable that he doesn't invent his own uniforms.

I think it comes down to compromises and even if the colour he ends up using for the trim has more to do with what paint tins he has on hand than what the historical unit's colours would be based on available dyes, climate fadings, and dress regulations of a certain year, it should be reasonable enough that it is still recognizable across the table as British infantry.

Invention may need be sacrificed for the sake of clarity.

malcolmmccallum, I'm a little confused about your anecdote- were you letting him paint some of your figures? If so, then by all means you have a right to ask that they be painted to your specifications, which appears to be that they should be as accurate as possible.

As a thought experiment, how would you feel (and what would you say/do) if your friend brought his own troops to the game, but they were painted incorrectly? Would inaccuracies in his troops be a problem, and if so, could you quantify the level of inaccuracy?

I apologise if I'm asking a lot of questions, it's just that yours is the only dissenting post from the idea that some level of invention is acceptable thing, and it's interesting to hear the other side.

Thinking about this I brought out a French force for a game on last Saturday and fielded something like 30 battalions. Most where standard French but I also put into the field the following troops:

Duchy of Nassau ( 2n btls – green coats, white trousers)
Duchy of Anhault (1 btl – green coat, grey trousers)
Duchy of Reuss (1 btl white coat, mid blue trousers) – yes I know technically they only fielded 1/2 a battalion but it looks good!
The aforementiond "Canaries" of the Prince of Neuchatel (1btl yellow coats white trousers)
The 3reme Estrange – accuratly called the "the Irish Legion" up until 1809/10 – (3 btls all in green – with green flags).

Technically at about 25% that's rather high for the non-standard types and I know the Canaries were not really field troops.

Was the force historically accurate, no but it was impressionistic; the VI did have Confederation of the Rhine troops in it during the '09 campaign and damn it, the result looked good on the table.

My friend Jeff (WarArtisan) has the red coated Swiss for part of his French force and we do it to make for a change. That's why I've Bavarians on the stocks at present too. No, I will not have a unit of Bavarian magic users to represent the Illuminati that would take this a step too far.

"So last night I pass 5 British Napoleonic casualty figures to a friend that plays in our games but doesn't provide any miniatures."

Was this a gift, a request he paint them, or what?

If the first you have no control over what he does. And you shouldn't.

If the second, yeah, sure, but you should have specified your expectations befoe you gave them to him. Failure to do that gives him liberal interpetation parameters.

Gracias,

Glenn

The inaccuracies would be a problem if it created confusions. It is the exact same problem that arises when playing with proxies (but we accept that as the cost of doing business in a world where you cannot have paintied miniatures on hand for every concievable historical unit).

Still, I could put Neapolitan Light Infantry on the table and I'm sure that I'd be the only one in my gaming group that would have the least idea if they were painted correctly at not so it is an artificial and selfish concern.

I constantly make decisions in games based on the visual information that I get from the miniatures. If it looks like a Russian grenadier, I want to treat it as a Russian Grenadier. It the unit is painted up as teddy bears it requires that I step back, out of the game, out of character, and work out what their stats are. It is a small step though and not one that would be too great a price to play if my opponent had a greater need to paint ahistorically for some reason.

My first question though to anyone saying that they want to invent units (and I do this inventing in some eras), is "why?". What is so bad about the historical units and uniforms that choosing a historical one, that can instantly be identified correctly by opponents, is not good enough? If they showed me all sorts of dressed mannequins, design drawings, and colour swatches for their proposed uniforms I would take a step away, nod gently, and then encourage them to pursue their dream but if, on the other hand, they simpyl shrug and say "I just want to do something different" then I would be less enthusiastic.

I think you need to have a reason to justify stepping away from history when doing historical gaming. It may be a flimsy reason but it must be a reason.

War Artisan
''Fantasy.''
''Not "Fantasy" . . . "Fiction"!
It pays to use the terms accurately, since they mean quite different things. Fantasy includes, by definition, elements which are magical or supernatural, i.e., things which do not and cannot exist''

A school dictionary probably doesn't contain all the definitions.
Fantasy:
''An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need''.
''An unrealistic or improbable supposition.''

……er, like a rank of glistening perfect soldiers after sleeping rough on campaign. Allusion with overstatement for rhetorical effect.

It pays to know your own language. Cheeky man!

Do whatever is fun for your group.

Some people like strict accuracy.

Some people want correct troops, but arent fussed about whether its this or that battalion

Some people play fictional battles between real armies

Some people just make stuff up

As long as everyone in the group is on the same page, its all good

Anytime you go to a dictionary to argue a distinction, even a word definition, you should accept that you are wrong.

There is an implication with the term 'fantasy' that cannot be denied. That implication makes it inaccurate. Because one definition meets the description that the author might intends, he does not get to discount the presence of the others.

You cannot call someone 'gay' and then point to a dictionary to show that you only meant to describe them as 'cheerful'. Definitions come as a set.

malcolmmccallum

''Anytime you go to a dictionary to argue a distinction, even a word definition, you should accept that you are wrong''

Logic has left? Perhaps you obtain your language knowledge from films and computer game genres? Some of us also read and listen. Fantasy is any imaginitive construction, magical or non-magical.

''You cannot call someone 'gay' and then point to a dictionary to show that you only meant to describe them as 'cheerful'''

Ah – you're inventing now – I never bought up the subject of a dictionary in that contect. In English, nouns with adjectival modifiers have to be treated together to understand them. Thus, someone who has never come across the term 'Gay blade', which can even be used in a hypobolic context, might, if he were intelligent, try to find out its meaning, which exists comfortably in the 19th century context in which it was used. And to take that step whether he was literate or not. I mean, rather than making it clumsily obvious that not only does period literature not necessarily play a huge part in their understanding but that they're not even prepared to consider that it might be a legitimate part of communication on the subject for others. Which is the road to perdition.

:-)

I for one sees where WarArtisan is coming from – its more how wargamers describe games rather than the dictionary. To me fantasy games involve magic (with or without the k). Fictional games are are more real-word technologies and events that never ocured (but should have done,to paraphrase Melville on the history of Queequeg)- but should have for example my naval war games between Norway & Sweden versus Denmark and the Netherlands in 1904-05.

- Fantasy is any imaginitive construction, magical or non-magical. -

By that logic, all work of fiction should be classed as fantasy.
It does not make sense.