"Why multiple periods and rules" Topic

I an simply curious why do folk play lots of periods and rules. I have to confess I have interest albeit long neglected for the Roman empire as it was when the UK is occupied and for ww2 to present. These take lots of time to study and get to grips with, how do you find time to study lots of periods.

I guess the second issue is why change rules? If you find a set that mimics your period well why would you change it save perhaps if you found a set that was significantly better at representing the period? We do look at new rules but in the last 16 years we have seen nothing better,indeed some to us are far worse so no incentive to change. what drives the compulsion to change rules.

With changing rules, as you said, maybe something comes along that fits the period better. Maybe life changes happen and you can't play your favorite game in the time and space available, maybe you or you opponent move and need to find someone else to play with and the new people play something different. Maybe you want to try different sizes of actions that your chosen rules don't scale well to?
For me, the best game is the one I can get someone to play with me in the time and space available.

As a solo gamer, I find that having multiple periods available keeps my interest level up.

Everyone in our group has different interests. One guy has massive 15mm SYW armies, and exclusively hosts Age of Reason.
Another has Franco Prussian War. He rotates between at least 3 different rules, because none give exactly what he is looking for.
Those who paint and play 15mm ACW have also yet to find "perfect rules".

I used to play competitive tournament games, but got bored and sold them off.
I've played TSATF colonial rules since the 1980s.
I've also painted, collected and played AWI for the same length of time, but have yet to find rules that "work".
I'm currently doing Wild West, with saloon brawls, Marty Robbins' El Paso, and Comanche vs Spanish. Each level of play requires a different set of rules. You can't have Gunfight at the OK Corral playing a Little Big Horn set of rules.

All this means is that we both have entirely different expectations. I seem more tolerant than you do. I love to paint accurately, with a lot of detail. For instance, I'm looking for a good figure for Wes Studi as Toughest Pawnee. You don't seem that interested.
I like the novelty of new periods to paint. I have Pirates and 1920 Irish Rebellion.

Different strokes for different folks. So on and so on and Scooby doobie doobie.

I play a lot of time periods because I am interested in a lot of time periods.

One – I enjoy different periods of warfare

Two – Would be hard pressed to find a set of rules for Samurai warfare that also covered the Roman empire. Also a skirmish battle is vastly different from battalion to Army/Corps sized battles. Finally as two things terrain (if nothing else think of urban warfare today versus sieges in the past) and weapon capability both have an impact on rules and the way armies fought – usually requiring some changes in rules – Dont see a foraging patrol in ancients fighting the same way a modern unit does.

Nick+1; Joe +1

I am also pretty mucj a binge gamer.
I will play one of my area of interests exclusively for awhile. And then switch

D…W… has the right of it for me.

+1.

I suffer from "Solo Shiny Syndrome", always jumping from project to project. My work life sucks, so I immerse myself into something until it starts to feel like work, then I jump to something else.

I play multiple periods because I'm interested in multiple periods. (I can't help it: I was a military history major back when there were such things.)

I play multiple rules because rules written for the ACW don't work well for WWII, and because rules in which I command a brigade don't work well for situations in which I command an army of multiple corps.

I change rules because I learn and better ideas for representing a situation come along. (Tell me again how often your group has modified the ones you play with, UshCha?)

Variety is the spice of life.

Multiple periods is a case of having diverse interests. Often it is specific conflicts rather than periods per se. I game the Western Front of the Great War, but not Palestine or the Eastern Front. I dabble in the Sudan campaigns, but not Zulus or Afghanistan.

My choices of rules are largely based on what best captures what I think are the key elements of a given conflict in a way that is enjoyable to game. For some periods this means several rule sets for different size engagements. Once I find a set I like, I tend to stick with it.

Everyone and every group is different, of course. Many people are looking for the "perfect" rules. That can take more than a lifetime. As for different periods, I was a never Ancients until Warhammer historical came out with beautiful pictures of great looking Roman soldiers. I painted a Roman force and used them, to some extent, for years. You never know what may strike you fancy when you wake up in the morning.

Different periods because variety is the spice of wargaming.

Different sets of rules (for the same period) because none of them work perfectly – not even the ones I write to suit my needs, wants and aspirations. It was ever thus with rules because rules are the most important element of a game outside of the players and, outside of myself of course, none of them are perfect either.

What is the most common thing that appears in ALL periods of warfare?

I have more than 40 projects. Many share the same rules sets. I've also been gaming for more than 50 years. One can accumulate a lot stuff over that period of time.

But more than anything, my projects represent my historical interests, some quite obscure.

Rules must be era specific. There is too many variants between different wars due to weapons and tactic and mobility.
So rules must reflect the demands of the era.

For over 20 years I played my home brew set of On To Richmond that I had modified extensively for units to be regiments rather than brigades. I went through several major revisions over that period. It also got to be 28 pages of double column print in 8 font. For the last 10 years or so of it, I played with the same opponent every 2-3 weeks. Then I retired and moved to Jacksonville, Florida, and had to adjust to the historical miniature players I found playing in a game store. That group (which has changed over the years with a small core staying solid) played a wide variety of games and periods. The core group has somewhat steadied on some rule sets, but still try out a variety. I've played some really excellent rules I wish we would play more often. And I have played some real stinker of rules I never want to play again. I view my gaming these games as being similar to going to a game convention. If I'm running the game, I am usually using a small set of rules for different periods. If someone else is running the game, I go with the flow. It's been quite an experience and I love playing once a week and twice a week on a bi weekly basis.

I bounce around as many things interest me and sometimes it is a question of scale/level of a game. Skirmish games are not my main thing but a few figures paint up quickly for a fun game of Dead Man's Hand as a nice break from 1/3000 Napoleonic fleets for Follow the Admiral's Wake.

Rules vary as I may stick with something I like for years or one of my friends finds something better after but a few games.

The answer to my question above: Man.

I'd hate to do the same thing over and over for 50 years. I'm interested in different periods and different levels of game. I'm also interested in different takes and approaches to periods I'm familiar with. eg I just spent a few days refighting the entire Peloponnesian Wars using a simple set of campaign and battle rules. It was lots of fun, briefly interesting and I'm unlikely to do I again as I understand how it works now and other things call on my time.

My pals are similar, so we play lots of different things, constantly rotating. I also enjoy making terrain and painting vehicles and aircraft, figures perhaps less so. I was a modeller before I was a wargamer.

Rules must be era specific. There is too many variants between different wars due to weapons and tactic and mobility.
So rules must reflect the demands of the era.

Rules must certainly have period flavour but basic game mechanics can run through from one (pre-modern) period to another because: Men in all periods, where foot and horse were the primary modes of transport, move at about the same rate and are effected by terrain in much the same way; the basic principles of unit cohesion and morale didn't change much over time (I'd have reasonable arguments to say that they haven't ever changed); orders are given and received, understood and acted upon, in largely the same way (though the means of transmission can be different).

Weapons change tactics, so period specific flavour is essential but, a generic rule set that uses some basic rule mechanisms (factors will vary from one period to another) to determine movement, combat and morale doesn't make it a bad set of rules.

Different periods and different rules because it is nice to try different things. Fun to play a skirmish, or a small battle, or a big battle, but each will require its own set of rules. Fun to change periods because each has a different look and feel.

Because I want to have different armies and play different rules for different periods.

I enjoy the history and artistry of the hobby, coupled with a lifelong attraction to models and toy soldiers. I settled on satisfactory rules for all my favourite periods just before I stopped playing, so that particular conundrum is solved.

Now, free from the tyranny of gaming, I can paint stuff from any period, in any size, just because I fancy it and the research to get them right gives me my history fix.

Because tying myself to one period would bore the tears out of me.
And there are few rules in the periods I like that really cut the mustard.

Years ago, I was involved with a club whose Grand Poobah sneered at games that he said were "not serious".
His definition of "serious"? DBM games that all involved the same scenario and armies. Because they gave a "won lost" outcome and he could keep score. 🙄

Years ago, I made the decision to stick to one major period/genre – Napoleonic Wars/War of 1812/South American Wars of Liberation/early 19th century ImagiNations – and have one subsidiary period – ECW – to avoid ending up with several unfinished projects and being seduced by the latest new ranges of figures.
But if a friend is providing the figures for both sides, I'll have a go at other periods.