"Big Battles" Topic

Do you prefer to game the really large historical battles?

I prefer playing big battles at a manageable scale.

Yes, we do.
Using Black Powder rules, we have gamed several battles from the 1870 FPW and even recreated Waterloo and the Brits in the Sudan.
Games like these are good multiplayer games.
Joe

Absolutely my favorite type of game.

You tell me:
link

like most things, 'it depends'

Yep big.

I prefer to battle historical battles or reasonable what if games and include big battles in the mix – though a 32 player pirate game may or may not fit the topic at hand. So, does a game with well over 1,000 figures for pirates count?

I'm sure numerous civil war actions I've run do count.

So, in the mean, yes, I like them – and the multi-player element if all of the players are worthwhile opponents (as in camaraderie versus tactically sound – though players who know tactics improve historical gaming in my opinion).

Since the WR warren SoCalifornia group tends to player team vs. player team 25/28mm napoleonic, ancients, and 20mm WWII games, the tabletop scenario battles can become "large" in miniatures or tabletop surface area. Examples on the Wargamerabbit with links below.

Ligny, for example was 120 square feet surface "Z" shaped table: link

Maybe a recent Pyramids 1798 on 12x6 table: link

Or maybe Omaha beach using 20mm (1/72) playing FOW on 16x6 table: link

M aka WR

mars la Tours

Balaclava

Not particularly.
I'm really getting into doing the small yet crucial battles of the AWI using "small" rules, like TSATF or Age of Reason.

I used to like Big Battles, but they just took up too much time and space and expense.

We have done Wyoming Massacre, Bennington, Cowpens, etc.

A couple of times a year we want a game with ten thousand+ figures on the table. The rest of the time our games will have a few hundred to a thousand. Skirmish level games have little appeal to us.

Yup.

link

Very much so

Absolutely!

I only play historical wargames. I strongly prefer to play scenarios, whether actual or hypothetical, that would have had a significant impact on the course of a war, or at least an important campaign. The actual size of the battle is irrelevant. In some cases, such as the War of 1812, that may involve only a few hundred to a few thousand actual troops per side. In other wars, it may require at least several divisions or naval squadrons per side to constitute an important battle. Of course the rules used must be appropriate to the size of the battle, so one may still wind up with a table full of miniatures for a small battle.

I generally prefer to play historical scenarios, and as many of those were big battles, then yes.

Wargaming a big battle does not however necessarily involve masses of toys and a huge table. You need to pick an appropriate level of representation.

Big, historical scenario or orbats, weekends, beer, curry!

[/URL]

[/URL]

[/URL]

Tally Ho!

+ 1 Martin Rapier – I'd much rather have a big battle at an appropriate scale than an enormous game involving lots of players that takes a long time not to reach a conclusion (although it might be a memorable social event!).

I'm happiest at a somewhat lower level, though I enjoy being a participant in a well-run big historical battle. The range is wider, though: a solo game or one fought one on one against an honest, competent opponent is always a pleasant day, but not much more. A good big historical battle is almost a piece of history. A bad big battle--and they're easy to screw up--is a bitter memory for years, and a waste of time and money.

No. I don't prefer large historical battles any more or less than any other set.

I prefer battles that have interesting tactical challenges. Sometimes those are large battles, sometimes not.

I don't prefer to fight large historical battles with 1:1 or even 10:1 figure ratios or on large tables.

I do enjoy the visual spectacle of other people playing large area games with many hundreds of figures. Plus, the bit where it takes five minutes to execute a move is a great time to go get another beer, a sammich, or hit the facilities. It's kind of like the parts of an action movie where they're talking in intense whispers.

I've been playing big battles but using only a few hundred figures per side on a 6 X 4 table. I don't want a table so crowded there's no room to maneuver or for the game to take a long, long time to resolve.

I did the whole of Operation Crusader on a 3x4 with one base per brigade, which was plenty for an evening game. I did the entire Six Day War at a similar scale. Borodino I did on a 3x3 using division sized bases.

You don't need tons of stuff or huge playing areas to play big battles.

Big Battle DBA with 2–5 armies per side — very manageable and with a great gameplay:time ratio!

If your going Napoleoic go big or stay home

I do like to see the majesty of big table with terrain and figures, but I don't think I've ever played very large historical miniatures game.

I have played some big map-and-counters games, mostly Napoleonic era (La Bataille de la Borodino, e.g.) I liked them, but not enough to run them myself.

I like big battles – historical but not necessarily actual battles

I like games with plenty of tactical choices. I'm not too keen on big games where the table is covered in troops and your only choice is to march towards.

Our usual group game night will have 700+ figures on the table.
Armati 2 or Shako 2.
Every few years or so we do a really big game.

2009 Wagram, 36' table, just under 7000 Napoleonic miniatures.

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Wagram%20June%202009/IMG_1059-1.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Wagram%20June%202009/IMG_1071.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Wagram%20June%202009/IMG_1074.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Borodino 2012 Just over 6000 figures

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Borodino%2028mm%202012/147.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Borodino%2028mm%202012/109.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Eylau 2013 just under 5000 figures.

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Eylau%2028mm%20Napoleonic%20Battle%201807/066.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Eylau%2028mm%20Napoleonic%20Battle%201807/059.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Ligny 2015 at Enfilade Convention just over 6000 figures.

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Ligny%20and%20Waterloo/Plancenoit%20205.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Ligny%20and%20Waterloo/Plancenoit%20209.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Ligny%20and%20Waterloo/Plancenoit%20210.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Waterloo 2015 at the Enfilade convention, just under 5000 figures.

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Ligny%20and%20Waterloo/Plancenoit%20215.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Ligny%20and%20Waterloo/Plancenoit%20216.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Ligny%20and%20Waterloo/Plancenoit%20218.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s219.photobucket.com/user/tjm3/media/Ligny%20and%20Waterloo/Plancenoit%20219.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Big battles are fine with a playable set of rules specifically designed for them, such as "Volley & Bayonet" or "Bloody Big Battles". Otherwise, they can be a big PITA.

Its fun to participate in, but I prefer the skirmish level.

Big battles are a spectacle though.

No

Absolutely! The bigger the better.

I love big battles, but be careful of which rules you choose.

A simple yes.