"You prefer big battles!" Topic
8 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.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Profile Article
|
Editor in Chief Bill | 30 Apr 2019 6:11 a.m. PST |
You were asked – TMP link Do you prefer to game the really large historical battles? 41% said "I prefer to game big battles" 30% said "I do not prefer to game big battles" |
Frederick | 30 Apr 2019 8:49 a.m. PST |
|
Old Contemptibles | 30 Apr 2019 9:06 a.m. PST |
|
emckinney | 30 Apr 2019 11:06 a.m. PST |
This would have been better with a definition of "really large." I assume that varies with the game's scale, so that "big" means different things when each figure is 1 man, 10 men, or 100 men? Is the question about historical "bigness" (Kurks, the Battle of Nations) or about table size and number of figures? |
Rudysnelson | 30 Apr 2019 4:29 p.m. PST |
Big battles hide the lack of command ability, whether unit control or tactics, by some players. I prefer one on one battles or 2 on 2 battles in miniatures. |
Syrinx0 | 30 Apr 2019 5:37 p.m. PST |
I love getting hundreds of painted figures on the table. Generally with multiple players on each side. Bad luck or an overly aggressive commander can still lose the flank for his army. |
von Schwartz | 30 Apr 2019 5:53 p.m. PST |
The bigger the better applies to wargame battles just as much as it does to women's sweaters. |
Garryowen | 01 May 2019 6:27 a.m. PST |
I prefer large historical battles. But around where I live small historical battles seem much more prevalent. Tom |
|