"Did learning about a period turn you off of it?" Topic

Did you ever get interested in a period based on "looks" without really knowing much about it, then lose your interest after reading some history/background?

It's happening to me with dark ages. I've got Vikings and Saxons galore and wanted to do battles – I'm sick to death of skirmishes.

But the more I read about early medieval battles the less interesting they get (from a gaming perspective). There simply aren't enough decision points. It mostly becomes an exercise in rolling dice.

Has this ever happened to you – reality wasn't at all like what was in your mind's eye?

Well, yep. Thirty Years War – the more I learned, the more I realized it wouldn't be a great gaming experience (for me).

Specific to your comment on the Dark Ages, I never got involved in gaming the period until Dux Brit came out, so that there was a campaign element to the raids, leading to larger battles. I'm now using Lion Rampant for the tabletop rules of a Dux Brit campaign, using big 60mm bases with a dozen 15mm figures as the base unit. Much more similar to TSATF (large skirmish with lots of options built into the scenario, terrain, and troop types) than a shieldwall scrum.

Cheers,

Christopher

Mexican American War. After reading a lot it seemed not as appealing to me.

I second the MAW. The Balkan Wars might fall into that category as well.

My "Repulsive" list, periods I have no interest in after reading about them (never make an investment in figures and rules without reading about it) are, in order of descenging non interest.

The Dark Ages- The Long thin fur clad line has no interest at all to me. Gepids, wepids, tepids, goths, Vandals,blah blah blah, is as boring as can be.

French and Indian War. I love the wars of the 18th century but there are no battles in the FIW only skirmishes and massacre (courier du bois and Indians versus some poor isolated family) is not my idea of fun. There is no interest in massacre.

3rd World Colonials. I am not interested in massacre by maxim gun.

World War One. Mutual massacre has no interest either.

Modern Warfare (post WWII) I don't see the point of it when you have nuclear weapons.

Franco Prussian War. Seems cruel to take pleasure in one sides incapacity, like mocking the handicapped.

Yes, 30YW is a good example. WW-2 Japan is another

Many occasions. Most recently, I couldn't figure out how to make a decent game of the Texan War of Independence, or whatever it's called. Spanish Civil War was another one.

Sino-Russo war. Not very interesting. Looked potentially very interesting, but like the OP says, the more I read, the less excited I was about it.

HOWEVER -- it can all depend upon what you read. I love the Samurai period and I can tell you the wrong Samurai book will kill it for you if you haven't read a lot of good ones! So Reader Beware!

As a designer and article writing, researching became the most enjoyable part of the hobby.

Wars of the Roses. Love the figures, love the look. But reading about some of those people? I think Mr Shakespeare seriously glammed it up.

Grew up in St. Albans too, so it should have got, but it just hasn't.

Spanish Civil War. Potential for some sort of many-sided strategy game, but as a table-top wargame it started to look like a bad investment.

The Spanish Civil War is a difficult one: deeply unsavoury characters and horrible deeds on both sides, so no obvious "good guys" to side with.

Probably the same in most wars, but at least someone normally manages to put a positive historical spin on one side or the other!

There are plenty of periods that are interesting to read about but which don't necessarily translate into games or models.
I would usually get put off by realising just how many men with spears you'd have to paint to provide opposition to the chaps with the rifles and gatlings.

Or any period where its obvious you need to cover the entire table with jungle, mountains, or snow.

Spanish Civil War – where it seems there actually were no goo guys

Also Penninsular War – seemed interesting but reading about it convinced me that I really liked Napoleonic gaming in Central Europe better

Being a board war gamer that also does miniatures the "look" of a period is secondary. Every history I read about gets me looking for games on it.

I'll join in on Spanish Civil war. Played Panzer General, bought some books, and only came close to buying figures.

Same reason as others, no good guys. That's kinda strange since I enjoy the East Front. Guess bad on bad only works for me if the sides are varsity level and not the peewee teams.

Nothing in the 20th century except naval before 1945.

Yes, many times. More that I read about a period, more that I realize how wrong are the rulesets that pretend to represent warfare in that period, and that is what puts me off.

Crimean War sounds interesting until you actually read about the battles.

Avoiding periods without "good guys" would narrow one's choices a quite bit.

Same issue with Dark Ages on the continent. In Britain there were lots of big battles are variety in troops. On the continent not so much.

I am collecting Franks right now and they basically get kicked all of the time by the Vikings who never stick around for a proper fight. The Franks never get far in Spain due to terrain and except for Charlemagne (who mostly fights other Germans) argue with each other. Love the army but I may need to twist history a bit to get a game in. Fortunately if you believe they looked like most everyone else gear wise they morph well into Visigoths and other Germans.

Same issue with ECW which is why I am looking for smaller actions for Pike and Shotte as the big ones are mostly Cromwell kicking everyone up and down the British Isles.

Franco Prussian, Mexican American and other one sided affairs mainly.

I suppose every genre that I know of and don't play falls in this category. I mean, I haven't read something about it, I wouldn't know I don't play it. And if I have heard of it and don't play it, then there must have been not enough attraction in what I was presented to not motivate me to play.

So, yes … 40K.

Just about everything. Exceptions are the handful of topics I play. Reading is one thing, investing to game is a "whole nother" thing.

The handful of topics I play are fantasy/medieval (not often separated into "historical"), WW1 air combat (go figure) and Levantine crusades (at least in theory I'm still interested in gaming crusades setons, or even doing a campaign).

Naval warfare after 1945. Submarine warfare is boring and annoying, and most matches are too one-sided to be worth playing.

Naval combat after the age of sail. it really is too cut and dried tactically to be interesting to me. Form a line and shoot until dead, while if faster trying to cross the tee.

Gladiator fights.

Vietnam and just about anything that has to do with Afganistan or where there are living "participants" still around feeding their egos or rationalizing the politics of it. The ACW is starting to head that way, if just because of the climate of present day politics. Tactically interesting but too "charged"

I love Dark age and Medievals, the colour still trumps the tactics, but I paint and nothing is as boring for me as painting WW2 and moderns. Green, Green, Greys and Browns to the end of days.

Post ACW to pre WW2 with the exception of naval and air. Viet Nam as well (my Dad was there but it does nothing for me). Probably none of the Israeli- Arab conflicts either or the Balkans of post Yugoslavia. Would also not do anything post WW2 with South Africa unless on the opposite side. Same with Bay of Pigs, 1950s Hungary, Central or South American land wars post WW2. Or Cambodian disintegration, Indo-Pakistan, Chinese invasion of Tibet.

Yep, for me it was Franco-Prussian War. Sounded great, colourful uniforms, huge numbers of men, horse foot and guns charging round the French country side, whats not to like?!

Then delved into the history and discovered that any true simulation would have the Prussians and their allies win every action. Pretty tough ask for the French player, to go into battle knowing you should lose every time. Now, I love leading napoleonic Austrians, accepting they'll get beaten a lot of the time if the rules are at all accurate but at least they have a chance.

Battles in the Hundred Years war. As an example Agincourt a great victory we won hands down, NOT. The French commnaders were second line, ill disaplined officers and greedy. They lost because they underestimated the Brits badley. If they had fought with intellegence they may not have won. Ergo no fun when one side has to play an idiot. A shame realy as the figures are attractive.

Reading some answers I realize how lucky I am that I don't care for re-creation as much as I care for gaming. Why would you play your French HYW like an idiot? Voluntarily, I mean. You can try and do your best. The problems you face should be the relative strengths and weaknesses of both opponents, not the idiocy of their commanders. Maybe that is why I dislike so much those games that give stat lines for CinCs. No matter how "Superior" you classify Napoleon, or Alexander. I am still me, not them. I understand it has its uses for subordinate commanders, but not for the CinC.

I have always liked Aztecs, and bought a couple dozen, but after taking a close look at the paint required never had the guts to go the distance.

No interest in gangsters. Virtually all other eras there was at least a single war game scenario of material available to convert to a game for personal play or an article.