"What Do You Like Least About Miniatures Wargaming?" Topic

"Well, this is a loaded question if I ever saw one! In this case, the question was open-ended meaning respondents could enter whatever was on their mind. Some did!
Given that the responses were free text with about a 2100 character limit, responses could be quite long and detailed. Out of the total number of survey responses, 7,278 entries had text in this field. A sample snippet of these responses is illustrated below…"

Palouse Wargaming Journal

link

And you?

Armand

The research needed to paint uniforms correctly.

Lack of pictorial/visual sources for many medieval warriors and their equipment. Like bow cases and quivers for Seljuks, Magyars, Pechenegs, Mongols, etc. for example.

The behaviour of my dice!

Robert

Having the exact uniform figure for the unit you want to make

Thanks

Armand

Having the exact uniform figure for the unit you want to make.

And that exact unit may have been in few battles.
"In tonight's game, the part of the 13th Regiment will be played by the 23rd."

Storage

The current ethos.

The whole "us" vs "them" dimension of Miniatures Wargaming is nothing new. Once upon a time it was Historical vs Fantasy SciFi. You can still hear echoes of it today. "We'd have plenty of space at historical cons if we limited the number of fantasy events." This dismissing the extensive amount of crossover that goes on. "I'm playing Bolt Action this afternoon, and Frostgrave tonight."

Even more problematic has become the inward looking exclusive bent. People join ADLG or Lion Rampant and invest tons of time and rules analysis to hone their skills and feel like playing with noobs detracts from their enjoyment.

I would NEVER join a premier event Tournament unless I'd decided to invest weeks of club level play to insure I didn't ruin the experience for the veterans.

And this is even before addressing the age old problems of rules lawyers, rules critics, hyper competitive players and general grumpy Gus'es.

Sadly, the population of miniature gamers are drawn from the ranks of homo historianus, a peculiar subset of homo sapiens, a singularly flawed bunch. We are stuck with getting representatives from the more irascible stripes in the mix. We've all seen events spoiled by one or another overbearing sod.

Fortunately, I believe that those individuals hosting events like "The 17th SS Pzgrdr Division outside Polderitsnot vs the 5th Guards Armored Corps" are the gaming equivalent of that movie cliché of that nice GI who throws himself on a grenade. Events like this are like porch lights in the gathering evening. :》

I'm sure a lot of gamers have drifted away from the hobby thanks to this dynamic. I'm one of them.

The paint snobs; the YouTube channels that perpetuate the paint snobbery; the hyper-criticism of any "cheat" painting techniques -- contrast paints, Speed Paints, The Dip Technique, Magic Wash, etc. LOL!

What I truly hate is how much effort wargamers heap on each other in acrimony for anything anyone sees as beneath their superior attitude and approach. The condescending, "I'm right, and you are all wrong," attitude. We're a small niche within a small niche; we can't afford to be so rude to each other, especially since this acrimony drives newbies away, quicker than just about everything else. If hobbyists within wargaming treat each other with such vitriol, why would anyone want to join this hobby?… Cheers!

"What Do You Like Least About Miniatures Wargaming?"

Not having enough time to play with my toys… ;-)

The fragmentation of the hobby into little cliques and exclusive groups that aren't interested in expanding into other periods/rules/interests, to the point where it can be impossible to get a quorum of players together to play any given game.

That, and the utter domination of Fantasy in the USA at least and the unwillingness of said Fantasy minis gamers and RPGers to try something different.

The behaviour of my dice!
AMEN ! ! :o

The prep time for a new project. Hours of preparing to paint, painting, basing and finishing. This can be very satisfying but VERY time consuming.

Having to paint lots of figures to any standard, let alone the one that seems to be the current orthodoxy – putting the effort into painting wargame figures that used to be reserved for 54mm display pieces.

Painting cavalry.

No matter how much effort you put into painting and basing, the "Tomorrow Pile" never seems to diminish.

Thanks also…

Armand

I do not think this is a massive problem but I also find the Balkanization of the my rules/scale/painting expectations are "the only way" to be really disheartening. I really enjoy attending an HMGS Con and attending all manner of games/scales/rules that demonstrate the wide range of things this hobby offers and just think we are collectively a bit poorer when we shut ourselves off.

The expense and the storage space required.

If you don't like to paint and do research, then I would suggest board games.

Yes, storage IS a problem, esp. if you are fond of multiple periods and settings and want a ton of armies and terrain and buildings and perhaps vehicles. All that stuff can fill all the space available, and more.

Sorry, late at night and I responded incorrectly.
My least favorite part of the gaming is the poorly written, over priced rules. Especially those with expansions.
Whatever happened to the SPI case system for rules. Less room for mistakes or misinterpreted rules.

Glup!…

Armand

I hate painting, so much I colour only and even that I find tedious.

Old Cointemptible, I play with 3D models with 3D terrain as it helps me appreciate the correspondance of the game to the real world; before you jump in again with that old bit of folklore promulgated by folk who consider painting should be the be all and end all for all folk in he hobby.

I like figures, for similar reasons to UshCha, but hate painting, so I make some extra money by doing things I can and quite enjoy doing, then pay someone else to paint the figures.

H.G. Wells never had to paint his figures for Little Wars as Britain's toy soldiers were sold ready painted; Brigadier Peter Young paid the young Charles S. Grant to paint figures for him. So I'm in good company.

I'm not saying painting is the be all to end all. Pay someone to paint for you or play with unpainted figures. Buy scenario books for your research. I just find it odd that some people complain about two of the tenets of this hobby.

We thought about paying but in the end saw no point. At beyond 3ft(ish) it all sort of blurs out and we only look at the stuff when playing. Especially at 1/144. And we found better use for our wargaming funds.

I do hate it when folk make it clear than anybody not using posh painted figures and especially unpainted figures should cease and desist. from wargaming, however that seems to be a fading trait now.

I would argue that many people combine painting model soldiers with wargaming – that's great if they enjoy both – but it does not mean that painting is one of the 'tenets of the hobby' of wargaming. There are many people who enjoy making and painting model soldiers but never play a wargame with them. Similarly, there are people like myself, H.G. Wells and Brigadier Peter Young, who do not paint their figures but definitely fight wargames with them. Surely this shows that there are actually two separate hobbies, which some choose to combine and others do not.

UshCha, I play 'black powder' period wars when soldiers wore brightly coloured uniforms and I do enjoy the spectacle that even 10mm troops create on my tabletop,so it is worth it for me to pay someone who can paint them far better and more quickly than I can. But I can appreciate that when playing periods when troops wore camouflaged uniforms, and in such a small scale, the expense would not be justified for you.

arthur1815 I agree with you, paint or don't pain. unpainted or painted, none are as you put it so well 'Tenents of the hobby' just a personal choice. I colour my figure because I like that better than unpainted, chore though it is to me. Painting proper does noting for me but that is pesrsonal choice and reflects nothing on opthers approaches.

Almost all of my models are pre-painted or gifted to me painted, so no complaints there. In the last 10+ years, this is what I've encountered, but the vast majority of players are great:

No strategic thinking or regard for casualties. You only fight for today and always to the last man.

Spotting rule: "I can see his arm sticking out from behind the tree, so I can shoot at him."

No Corpsman, recovery of wounded or their evacuation in the game.

Complaints about unbalanced (in their eyes) games: real combat is anything but balanced.

Players are complaining about being ambushed by hidden units. That's how most engagements historically started.

Unrealistic unit density that eliminates the ability to outflank the enemy. Too many games break down into static attrition.

Placing all the units on the board for visual effect and picture-taking, even when there will never be a LOS to them in the game.

Unrealistic scale because the figures generally have too much of a footprint for the ground scale.

Waiting for your turn in large games. Boring unless you need a p i s s break or a beer run – or both.

Sadly, the population of miniature gamers are drawn from the ranks of homo historianus, a peculiar subset of homo sapiens, a singularly flawed bunch. We are stuck with getting representatives from the more irascible stripes in the mix. We've all seen events spoiled by one or another overbearing sod.

LOL! There are more than a few people who I think play wargames only to show off their superior intelligence, and you dare not disagree with them.

At conventions, players who take a spot only because they are waiting for their preferred game to start, and when it does, they leave.

Players who don't really care about the game but just want to be told when to roll the dice.

Players who complain that the game is unfair and unrealistic. I ask them about their personal combat experience compared to the game, and they are normally silent for the rest of the game.

Players who critique or question the rules mid-game. I keep my mouth shut when playing.

Players who take too long to figure out what to do. This is mainly caused by games that give the players too many unrealistic options to choose from (as with command dice), rather than just allowing them to do what makes sense and what they'd do in combat. It overly complicates the game.

Unrealistic outcomes: I can't tell you how many times I played next to combat vets who mutter under their breath in the middle of a game, "That could never happen."

Personally, I'm more about rules I can relate to rather than the visual spectacle and visual effects. That puts me in a distinct minority.

Wolfhag

This is a looong list… (smile)

Armand

I should be ashamed of myself.

Wofhag

My problem is that my interests and ambitions far exceed my time and budget.

Ha!…

Armand

The inevitable lag time between deciding I'd like to "do" a period or type of gaming and actually being able to execute.

I dislike the generalists approach. You should play lots of diffrent games. That is like saying to a keen tennis player you should cut back on tennis, get worse at you should play football as well. Fine if you want too but it's not a requirement of the Hobby.

I have been playing the same rules for 16 years and having enourmous amounts of fun. Why would I want yto play periods I have no interest in with rules I don't like?

We should encourahe folk to play what they want not moan about what it is they do or do not play.

Games having weapon ranges cover the entire game board. Really cuts into possibilities for maneuver. Games all devolve into attritional blood baths.

Quirky rule nuances designed to give some level of advantage or disadvantage to a force. Done in the spirit of approximating what might be perceived as "keeping it historical". To me it's a Band-Aid approach to address some imbalance in the rules.

Games having such granularity that constant reference to the rulebook is needed.

Games so generic that they don't give a feel for the era being represented.

Games lacking a narrative.

Get to the point in a project where you can start playing games and realize, you don't like anything about this. Why did I do this?

Players who are not fun to game with (I am pretty sure I am occasionally that guy too.)

@ wolfhag "Unrealistic unit density that eliminates the ability to outflank the enemy. Too many games break down into static attrition".

Isn't it often very realistic though, particularly in the modern period but also in periods where neither side possessed the tactical ability to manoeuvre

Removing flash and mold-lines. If I could pay a little extra to receive my figures ready for priming I'd be happy to.

(Alas, I suspect the economics would only work out if I paid a lot extra.)

Mark J Wilson,
Isn't it often very realistic though, particularly in the modern period but also in periods where neither side possessed the tactical ability to manoeuvre

Yes, you are right. To clarify, I think there are two factors, the scenario and terrain set up and the players.

My experience is that many games break down into attrition with medium and long range fire once contact is made. If you are playing a "fair & balanced" game it's hard to give one side a historical advantage in speed, fire power or rate of fire. If you have a game with a limited number of turns (6) you basically need to shoot every turn to win.

Another is that most players are not aware of some of the historical risk-reward tactics and if they do the system may not allow it. If you get one action per turn a shoot & scoot is two turns.

My experience is that a vast majority of players like the instant gratification of rolling the dice and blowing things up and the quicker they can do that the better, so be it.

My solution has been to have the players playing across the short side of a 6x12 foot playing surface. By having more room to maneuver and dodge in and out of the LOS presents more decisions for players. I don't have to change the unit density.

One example is in very few games there is no reward for using bounding over watch ( is that?) which is a basic tactic while advancing into contact. Except Ushcha's game of course!

I think the reason for this is the publishers put out easy to play games because most miniatures players are more interested balanced and fairly simple rules and mechanics with exquisitely painted terrain and models along with the social interaction because that's what sells.

It's an observation, not a criticism. Of course, there are always exceptions.

Again, as I've said many times before, Reality Sucks.

Happy New Year,
Wolfhag