"In the UK refuse to play the opposition in the ECW?" Topic

Here in the USA I am constantly running into gamers who absolutely refuse to play one side or the other in the American Civil War. Is this tendency also among players in the UK when the ECW game comes out.

I hope you don't think this is an attempt to hijack your thread, but as a gamer in the U.S. I have never seen that problem with the ACW. I run a high percentage of ACW at home and have been in them at HMGS conventions. Some players have preferences, but I have not seen any refusals. I guess I have led a sheltered wargamer's life.

It will be interesting to see the responses to your question.

Tom

I've never seen it either.

I really don't think this is an issue in the UK with the ECW

There are 5 sides in the ECW.

It's not an issue in the UK.

I have never seen this issue in my ACW gaming in the US.

No problem for me – I'll play the despicable and foppish pampered Royalists or Parliament's stout and honourable men with no hint of bias to either.

No problem for me, I'll play foul traitors or loyal subjects of the soon to be martyred King at the drop of a plumed hat.

20thMaine,very well played sir.

Never seen it either.

I'll only play Northern Royalists. The original lost cause.

I have known one US player who would only play Confederates.

For ECW, I greatly prefer playing Confederate Irish. Cromwell? Ewwww, but I suppose somebody has to play the baddie….

Only seen people refusing to play one side or another due to the scenario and wanting to be on a particular side

I tried to field Union infantry in an ECW game and was told I couldn't play. Does that count?

In our group, there's one SJW, who says he won't play Confederate. Before he went to college and rotted out his brain, he always wanted to play Confederate.

Been playing ACW in the US for decades and never saw anyone not one to play one side or another….is this a strawman?

I have play both sides in both Civil Wars. I will admit I don't try as hard to win when I'am a Rebels.

Seen people with preferences as to the side they are playing but never an outright refusal.

Really? We're playing toy soldiers gentlemen – not advocating a particular sides' philosophy or political views. Anyway, I'd think WW2 would be more contentious than ACW or ECW.

That said, I don't feel comfortable in gaming anything past Vietnam (aside from hypothetical WW3 scenarios), so perhaps I'm being hypocritical. Too close in time.

A friend of a friend refuses to play one side of the ACW. Only person I've personally run into.

I don't game either but I always thought the Rebels for ACW were the popular faction, rather like the Germans for WW2.

One of the reasons I play Sci-fi and fantasy that it avoids all the nonsense of who's the bad guy. I quite happily play the Ultra bad guy and don't mind when they die glorious for their nefarious cause.

I.ve had two politely refusing to play confederates refusing to refusing play union. But u am in Georgia

never had a problem playing ECW after numerous re fights and campaigns its never reared its head – your mistaken

I have run into gamers who will not play sides they consider to be "bad guys".

The thing with the ECW is that there are no clear good guys and bad guys.

As the amazingly brilliant "1066 And All That" puts it:

The Parliamentarians were "right but repulsive" and the Royalists were "wrong but romantic"!

1066 and All That is perhaps the best book on British history ever written.

I have never encountered anyone refusing to play any side in any game -- I guess I've lived a sheltered wargamer's life, too.

"…constantly running into gamers who absolutely refuse to play one side or the other in the American Civil War."

Their solo games must be awfully short…

I've gamed the US Civil War in NY, TN, GA, and FL at homes and conventions of various sizes. I have also played the English civil war in the UK at shows. I have never had anyone refuse to play a side or faction on political grounds.
There have been times where someone does not want to be the attacker or they want the side with the most cavalry or some other preference not related to the historical politics of each side.

Well I have my own preference but will happily play any faction- in any game for that matter. Despite the history we are merely playing with toy soldiers and rolling dice.

The thing with the ECW is that there are no clear good guys and bad guys.

Oh, we could debate that!

If I have to provide my own troops, I guess I can only play the Union, as I don't collect Confederates.

No real bias, I just started collecting the regiments my ancestors belonged to, and expanded the collection to include units from the same battles they fought in. The majority of my collection is the Iron Brigade.

constantly running into gamers who absolutely refuse to play one side or the other

Does this mean that there are eight people in your quarterly gaming group and on the second time that you hit your every other year ACW game, two of them refused to play the same side they did last time -OR- that you attend four conventions a month and from sixteen different players in ACW games at least twelve of them refuse to play one side of the other?

I've played Yanks,Rebs,Germans,Austrians,Russians,Mexicans,British,French,Boers,VC,very little problem with. Remembering it's only metal and/or plastic.

I tend to prefer whichever side isn't over-powered by the rules set in use. These are usually things like Napoleonics French and WW2 Germans (especially SS). Winning with those armies never seems satisfying, I always suspect the odds were in my favor anyway.

Now, winning with WW2 Italians, that's satisfying!

Now, winning with WW2 Italians, that's satisfying!

Preach it brother! Winning with Finns against the soviet hordes is nice too.

It's not an issue when I lived there and played ECW. Personally I prefer playing Parliamentarian forces.

Now, winning with WW2 Italians, that's satisfying!

That's why I have both Spanish and Neapolitan Napoleonic armies.

I think the only side I wouldn't want to play would be scumbags like AQ, ISIS, the Taliban, etc., …

I'm with Legion 4. Add to his list SS and that ilk. It depends on the times and your own biases.

I have Union and Confederate forces for ACW, and I have Royalist, Scots and Parliamentarians for ECW. My biases lend themselves to Union and Parliamentarian forces, but I'll happily play any side. I don't see any side as the baddies. I don't think I'm making a political statement about the evils of slavery by playing with Confederate toy soldiers.

I'm Canadian and I like playing the War of 1812 also. So my bias may be with the British side, but I'll happily play the American side. I certainly don't think of either side as the "baddies" either.

It's a hobby involving toys and not a political stance.

It was not uncommon for wealthy families to have ofspring on both sidesin the ECW to cover both bases. In some cases folk changed sides so nither could be said to be really "good guy". However I prefered to play Rupert as he had the best trained cavalry or Sir Thomes Gell our local commander, swapped sides and embesseled them both, but he was a local lad;-).

Never come across any issue with the ECW – I suspect the difference is because the ACW still seems to be a cause of contention in the USA whereas the ECW is long forgotten by most.

Only when the players are fielding Brexit vs Remain armies…

AVBCW? :)

I'd dispute Rupert having the best trained cavalry. Compare The NMA horse at Naseby to Rupert's cavalry wing. Rupert broke his opposition and went off in pursuit and put that cavalry wing out of the fight. Cromwell's wing pursued with the front line and held the balance in reserve to flank the Royalist Foot.

BTW I have never had or seen anyone with an issue on playing any factions in the ECW. When re-enacting though, I might drag my feet a bit if asked to fight Royalist. I absolutely cannot bring myself to utter their battle cries!

We fought a large Game of Marston Moor in 6mm over the Holidays. At one stage of the Battle, Cromwell was slain by a cannon-ball. Both sides cheered!

I agree, Elenderil. The Eastern Association/NMA cavalry were in a class of their own

12thFoot, Numerically I would agree, at both Marston Moor and Naseby they considerably outnumbered their opponenrts, and so had reserves available to decide the battle. At Naseby, Rupert did not command a wing, but the army as a whole. He may have got caught up with Maurice's wing at the start of the battle, although this is not certain. What is clear is that Royalist reserevs were necessary to break through Ireton's horse (and even then not all of them) and so they had little opportunity to use uncommitted reserves as Cromwell could.

I don't refuse to play the Parliament's side but chose to play Royalist (as a Royalist). I would take Parliamentary's side is we were short of players for that side in a game but this has not come up yet. Happily play either side in The ACW but I do lean towards the Confederacy a bit more dash and more colourful commanders.

The advantage of finding oneself representing the Malignant Party is that tactical ineptitude and poor dice throwing don't matter quite so much…

I will happily command Roundheaded Rebels; due to my tactical ineptitude this will almost certainly condemn them to ignominious defeat, and I can go home a happy man :-).