"Mixed Armies" Topic

With so good and interesting answers about the thread of the best unit forum members had (and by the way congratulations to those who show them in their pages, they are all superb!), I feel courage to ask if any of you had decided to mixed your armies in a wargame.

For example 7YW and Napies, or WW2 infantry with WW1, etc

thanks in advance for your comments.

Amicalement
Armand

Although I would not personally do this. I have often wondered why "historical gamers" so readily accept this with ancient armies and would consider it almost blasphemy to do it with later periods ???
Regards, Russ

Good question Mr. Old Glory!.

Amicalement
Armand

I consider it blasphemy with ancients!

I have converted some AWI generals to 1809 Saxons and use SYW Prussian hussars for my Saxon husaars does that count?

No I do not do this. Even my ahistorical pseudo-nations are era specific with unifroms matching the era in use.

Mix when correct like WW1 in the inter-war era or WW2 for Korean and other 1950s or post-war what iff like USA vs USSR, etc.

Not when playing a historical game, and the weirdness of Old Kingdom Egyptians v Wars of Roses is very very odd for so-called historical games.

Occasionally figs from different periods have masqueraded as the real thing (ie when somebody forgot his Colonial cavalry but there were some Napoleonics on hand and otherwise there'd be no game). Sometimes slightly out-of-period troops are little different in smaller scales eg ECW Highlanders for Jacobites, WWI/WWII French, WWI Brits as WWII Greeks etc.

However- Sci-Fi, Pulp or Fantasy games- why not?

I remember a scifi game when 28mm space-adventurer types faced an angry mob of 15mm Mikes Models Zulus (which looked a bit alien at the best of times).

15mm ECW peasants standing in for hobbits, 1/32 medievals as giants etc.

Even dabbled in a good guys v bad guys Warhammer matchup where the forces of evil were joined by a couple of squads of Panzergrenadiers and the goodly types reinforcd by a couple of sections of Tommies, who memorably PIAT-ed a dragon :-) .

Doesn't matter too much with Medievals- though with cavalry you have to be abit fusser with, fashion changes far more with the rich. So much of figure design is best guess, so there's no point in being to certain about how they looked. I don't like it looking like more than a 100 years out (50 for Knights etc)-I have a lot higher standards than most of my friends but that's because they know so little about the peroid :(

I've used my French Napoleonic infantry as Santa Anna's Mexicans and AWI militia as the valiant Texans – but not in the same Alamo re-fights.

I have wittnessed plenty of ancient games with armies that are seperated by centuries of time --??? New kingdom eygptians vs Mongels ,punic wars armies vs vikings,etc ?????
Regards, Russ

If one wanted to explore the War of 1812 in North America, one could certainly use Portuguese line as Americans, and the British as themselves. I recall one gamer using French light infantry as Americans in one game.

I bought 54mm Britains and Authenticast when I was 11 years old up through high school. A buddy and I put our units together, and gamed on the floor with the "Red Army" against "the rainbow army" – the other colors. This was essentialy British foot guards (modern dress), and infantry of the line in red (latter with spiked helmets) against Union, Confederate, French Foreign Legion, French Zouaves, one unit of Authenticast solids in green – French Napoleonic era advancing with sprinkling of tricorns for an eve nearlier period thrown in. I even remember 8 Italian Bersagliere in blue coats with buff breeches; Prussians of the Franco Prussian era, all on the same side. We restricted them all to single shot muzzle loaders, and fought them as Napoleonic – before we knew there were rules for such games!

When we were 12 or so, we even used moderns in battle dress with the earlier period, and in one came we had mounted armored knights riding next to home-made armored personnel carrier loaded with Coldstream Guards kneeling, firing!

Brings back happy childhood memories!

GdeP

"15mm Mikes Models Zulus (which looked a bit alien at the best of times)." I have a regiment of Mike's Models hussars. Looks like a beer barrel on a horse with sausages for arms and little stumpy legs and a huge head. Very sturdy though, 30 years old and still going strong.

"New kingdom eygptians vs Mongels ,punic wars armies vs vikings"

this is getting a lot rarer now .

back in the day, folks would only have two or three armies at all, so you had little choice.

Now most ancients rules break this down to sub periods to cut out this sort of stuff.

And the great forum for this – competitions – can be a lot more restrictive on top of that too 'only eaten europe from book 3', and so forth.

I think Armand's question relates to within the same army though – would you field a Napoleonic Prussian Army with Seidlitz's Hussars? or pop a chafee on the world war 1 battlefield.

no, I doubt anyone would. except in the fantasty boards.

I once used ECW cavalry as Indian auxilliaries of the French against the British in India circa 1790's. all other figures were Napoleonics. Personally I can't afford the time or money to field absolutely correct armies for every conflict.

I wouldn't generally field armies from different eras against each other but I don't feel the need to stick to historical encounters. I'd happily play Napoleonic Russians versus British or Austrians for example.

I've also toyed with the idea of using Crimean War British and French alongside American Civil War troops.

;-) Murvihill – I think the Mikes Models cavalry were inspired by the Thelwell cartoons!

I only did once, when I used five SCW Militias (civilian dresses and generic weapons) to bolster the strength of an IRA Flying Column.

Proxying troops is one thing. Pitting a-historical armies is, to quote another thread…pants.

We once played a game where our French Napoleonic Army was ambushed by orks -- just once. Orks 1, French 0.

I'll play my Gauls (based for warhammer and anything else for that matter) against the Warhammer fantasy armies (no magic games).

mjc

I think the original post was speaking about pitting one historical army against another and not proxing troops in substitution ? I think it is common in ancients to see one army from a period fight another from an entirely different perion -- especiallly in tournament games that I have observed. I ,for a few minutes anyway,recently watched a WW2 game with brits fighting brits?? With this thinking then,why could we not see Marborough and Napoleon sguare off,Lee VS Charles,etc? I am aware of the arguments that will be put up concerning tactics,advanced equipment,firepower,etc --but would this not hold true for a hittite chariot running into a plate armored knight?
Regards, Russ

Ancient tournament rules use the rational that a man on a horse is a man on a horse and the technological factors separating Biblical and Medieval armies are pretty small.

Of course Phil Barker's Horse Foot and Guns rules uses the supposition that linear warfare didn't change much between 1700 and 1900, so presumably in a HFG tournament you could see Marlborough's Army of the Rhine fighting Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. But I think HFG takes a level abstraction similar to DBA and classes things by battlefield role. So the Duke's 'Heavy Artillery' (12 pdr smooth bores) would be the same as Lee's 'Heavy Artillery' (which would be what 10" parrot Rifles?).

My first proper wargame, put on a by a friend and using his figures, back in 1970 had a unit of 7YW British Grenadiers in what was a Napoleonic game. He apologized because he was a unit short. I've never done it since.

One of my main objections to Ancients, especially tournament games is the willingness to field a-historic opponents. So the concept of mixing units in a horse & musket game is an anathema.

My Napoleonics are built for wargaming, but when "off duty," many grace my booshelves and other living room display areas. When someone does a Stadden-compatible French infantry figure in bi-corn for pre-1806, I will add a battalion to my collection.

I have French line in white uniforms from 1807 up through line and light of the Waterloo period, all used in any Napoleonic game (if I could only find other gamers here!). My British include the 7th Foot, Royal Fusiliers, in dress uniform with the "bearskin" or sealskin, or whatever, in white breeches with black gaiters up to below the knee. I have the 5th Northumberland Foot in Spain, cylindrical shako. I converted Willie Austrians to the 28th, wearing French back packs, cylindrical shako without the back number, as though just finished in Egypt in 1800. And I have the 40th and 27th in Waterloo uniform. Again, they all fight together in early, mid and late Naplionic battles.

Spanish in the late war British-style blue uniform fight against the white-coated French. Portuguese cacadores with their early Barretina fight against Waterloo French a la Bardin.

They are 30mm, and I just see no need to be slavish about Waterloo only, or 1809 only, etc. It is too varied and too colorful an era to be that specialized.

GdeP

It's a game.

Mixing armies from different eras would be fantasy.

But is mixing uniforms? Ie, some troops in the 1942 uniform, some in the 1943, or some in the 1809 next to some in the 1812?

Sometimes it is fun to throw ahistorical units at people, just to get a reaction, but those are games for the sake of playing a game, not gaming Waterloo, for example.

Dear Forum,

I recall the wargamer who had painted up all the Italian cavalry regiments and the Italian Guard units, for an 1809 Campaign. He had not painted ANY Italian line infantry regiments, so he wanted to "subsitute" his Early Imperial Roman legionaires to fill in….we all got a chuckle for his creativity and promptly subsituted French Ligne and Legere regiments and caled them all Italian infantry.

I still think my 1809 Austrians could have made some headway against all of those "Italian legionaires"!!!!

Sincerely,
Wayne

Just a thought: aren't some Colonial games effectively pitting the armies of one (technological) era against those from another?

I wouldn't pit armies from different historical eras. Not that I intend to judge those people that do it. It's just a matter of personal choice, because for me wargaming is related to a certain amount of role-playing: I want to be able to imagine myself as an Austrian general in SYW or a British lieutenant trying to catch a weapons cache from the Irish, or something like that. If I would pit my SYW army against, say, an Egyptian New Kingdom army I wouldn't be able to imagine myself in my chosen role, and then half of the fun would be spoiled for me.

A.