Help support TMP


"Heyday or decline? What's more interesting?" Topic


12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Historical Wargaming in General Message Board


Action Log

15 Aug 2016 3:31 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Changed title from "Heyday or decline? Whats more interesting?" to "Heyday or decline? What's more interesting?"

19 Jan 2017 7:23 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board
  • Crossposted to Historical Wargaming board

Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Workbench Article

3Dprinting A River

Playing with rivers on a 3Dprinter.


821 hits since 14 Aug 2016
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Aurochs Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2016 1:40 a.m. PST

Concerning gaming what do you find more interesting?

A military power in its heyday or in its decline?

Personal logo Flashman14 Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2016 2:57 a.m. PST

No preference

GarrisonMiniatures15 Aug 2016 3:31 a.m. PST

Probably decline or rise – heyday they're expected to win.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2016 4:45 a.m. PST

Has anyone noticed that war is sort of zero-sum? One side's heyday is the other side's decline.

But I AM partial to wars and armies where people know what they're doing. I had enough of random deployments, bad activation rolls and lousy command radii when I wore a uniform.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2016 5:37 a.m. PST

Over ripe, bloated, decadent, fetid & spoiled. Such a once great force can be a beatable opponent: just ripe for picking whilst armies at their peak should be difficult to beat.

So the French at Austerlitz or Jena won't be IMO as enjoyable an adversary as their 1812 or Waterloo force.

Grignotage15 Aug 2016 5:39 a.m. PST

@robert---lol!

I like gaming forces that don't know what they're doing or are still learning.

TGerritsen Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2016 9:10 a.m. PST

That's a tough question, and I'm curious how relevant it really is to gaming. Politically, I would say it's hard to argue that the British Empire wasn't in decline during World War Two, and the repercussions of this would be immediately apparent after the end of the war. However, that didn't stop them from fielding an amazingly professional, powerful and ultimately successful force.

Does the former really affect the later in a gaming situation? Or are you being specific to a longer campaign like the Napoleonic Wars where you have a clear ascendancy, heyday and decline of the French forces? I'd argue those cases aren't usually as clear cut in history.

Lascaris15 Aug 2016 9:47 a.m. PST

I find the decline more interesting. Whether it's Late Imperial Romans or French in1870 I'm a sucker for playing the guys who used to be great but are just hanging on.

Texas Jack15 Aug 2016 11:54 a.m. PST

I am an early war guy, no matter what the conflict. I also do both sides, so one side is usually in its heyday and the other not.

vtsaogames15 Aug 2016 12:53 p.m. PST

Hmm, I've got Late Romans (and Franks, Goths and Huns). 1870 French too, and 1866 Austrians. Never thought about the decline thing as a theme.

Ney Ney16 Aug 2016 1:31 a.m. PST

Depends on the campaign. Romans, I like Lates. WW2 Germans, I like earlies.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.