A rare appearance was made by an FJ2/FJ3 Fury, which was the naval version of the very successful USAF F-86 Sabre. I was quite surprised to find that there still is a flying example of one of these
A bunch of plastic miniatures, painted, mounted and everything, not necessarily of this game. Would appreciate help in identifying exactly what these are. LBOW $6.00.
The photo next to this one (click to see my gallery) shows the full amount.
"If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." (GK Chesterton)
"That's how the light gets in." (Leonard Cohen)
For years, off and on, I thought sure I'd get into ACW miniatures. But it never panned out. It really wasn't for me, as much as I wanted it to be in some respects.
This book was just sitting around, so I sold it to somebody who wanted it.
It's a pretty book, and it's probably a good game system. But it requires miniatures, and I don't like 'em.
Is the modernity of the Civil War overstated or understated? In what ways was it still Napoleonic and yet modern? Was decisive battle possible? Have Americans overestimated the skill of the generals involved and the war's effect on military developments?
Beauregard was both modern and Napoleonic in his military actions:
Furthermore, didn't rifles supplant muskets as the war lengthened?
I figure there were some missed opportunities to quite literally destroy armies on both sides. Decisive battle was certainly possible in WWI, not to mention 1866-1870.
As I've allways understood it, the tactics were still napoleonic,after all that's how the officers learned, by looking at what napoleon had done.
But the weapons were more modern and becomming ever more so.
With such modern weapons it must have been close to suicidal to use napoleonic tactics. I mean in them (napoleonic) days you needed to keep troops bunched up, so you'd at least have a chance to hit something with the weapons of those days, but with this not being the case in the ACW, I sometimes wonder why they kept using these tactics.
Was it at the start of the war to keep green recruits from running at the first volley? Or was it simply because that was how things were supposed to be done.
I think we will never even be able to really imagine how it must have been for those men to charge a position. (like Pickets charge), I reckon you could only make them do heroic things like that if you'd kept them herded together like sheep.
Have you ever wondered how you would have acted in such a situation? Would you have stuck with it to the end spite all horrific scenes around you. Or would you have used the first volley (that missed you) as a good excuse to lay down and play dead for the rest of the battle.
I know many of us would like to believe we'd done the first, but in our hearts we know we'd have chosen for the latter. Good thing we'll never have to find out for real.
Again, there's an issue of balance here. It wasn't totally modern or totally Napoleonic. Lee seemed to want to fight decisive battles, for instance, even though that didn't look like the best way for the South to go. What seemed to swing the difference, in the end, were a number of things that strike me as being "modern." The North's economic resources (particularly, I think, in being able to field a far superior Navy). The North's grasp of what is often called "total war," i.e. a willingness to use economic devastation to bring a foe to it's knees. Teh importance of logistics, rail and road networks, etc. Those things seem, to me anyway, the decisive elements in the war.
I'm no military historian, but the character of the war becomes increasingly modern and increasingly near-total over time. It starts out with limited war aims, fancy formations, political generalship, and the like and becomes increasingly all-out, hardscrabble, and professionalized (not in the sense of, say, coming from West Point but in the sense of it being businesslike).
"If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." (GK Chesterton)
"That's how the light gets in." (Leonard Cohen)
Just a random example of miniatures rules. I have a stack of them in my closet. Also have a shoebox full of miniatures, most of them unpainted, a few of them partly painted.
Ever since I saw my first miniatures wargame, in May 1972, I thought I wanted to be a miniatures wargamer. So, I made several abortive attempts to get into that part of the hobby.
It took years for me to finally realize that miniatures wargames are not what I wished they could be--and that I'm not really interested in what they actually are. I had been seeing only what I wanted to see, disregarding the aspects of miniatures I didn't care for. So, I kept running into obstacles. I hated painting; I didn't like collecting figures; I didn't want to make terrain; I wished the games were played on hex grids; I wanted the games to be solitaire-friendly; and so on.
Moral: Don't buy a game based on what you wish it could be; take a reality check, then accept or reject the game based on what it is.
Roger's Reviews: check out my reviews page, right here on BGG!
Who let this guy become wargame subdomain moderator anyways?
You nailed this one beautifully.
I too have some miniatures rules (the entire suite of Canadian Wargamer Group ones), but I have never played them. I keep them for the historical notes mostly and because they take up so little space in my games closet.
Yeah, I loved the figures for 40K, and the setting and theme and everything, but the actual game mechanics are so dreadfully watery, unbalanced, and poorly tested, that they utterly deflated my excitement for the milieu.
My aunt was a teacher, and I was subject to Sesame Street far beyond the average age. She had a Sesame Street cassette tape she used for school, but she liked the songs. So often she played them for enjoyement. 2 songs I enjoyed immensly. "Fur"
And "Do you see that cookie tree" which is a fun little song about cookie monster, grover & harry trying to get cookies out of a cookie tree. I think it was made just for the tape though, too bad a video would have been kinda neat.
Traded my 2nd copy of Washington's War for this rule book and pewter game markers. I intend to use the miniatures from The American Civil War to try out some of the Gettysburg scenarios. Acquired May 2010
It's been ages since I did this list so I though it was about time I did it again.
It feels like ages since I last played a wargame. The last one I remember was a refight of Champions Hill at the ConQuest SF convention on Labor Day Weekend, 2008.
"And now with my latest writing and utterance, and with what will be near my latest breath, I here repeat and would willingly proclaim my unmitigated hatred to yankee rule -- to all political, social and business connections with Yankees, and the perfidious, malignant and vile Yankee race."
Another backbone of the wargaming hobby is the miniature combat system. There are a ton of different miniature systems covering land, sea, air and even space. Rule systems such as DBA, Shako, Fire & Fury, General Quarters and Raiders & Blockaders cover the gambit of historical conflict. In general however they all use measured movement rather than hexes. Here the tape measure is king.
I have a bit of a problem here. From my experience, miniature gaming covers nearly the enitre scope of this list. There are hex based, and free-form mini games. I've played card-activated and card-driven mini games. I've played Igo-Ugo games as well as random-ish unit activation systems. Just this past weekend I played a mini game with zero charts! Imagine that! I think minis are a form of presentation and not a mechanic in themselves.
I have a bit of a problem here. From my experience, miniature gaming covers nearly the enitre scope of this list. There are hex based, and free-form mini games. I've played card-activated and card-driven mini games. I've played Igo-Ugo games as well as random-ish unit activation systems. Just this past weekend I played a mini game with zero charts! Imagine that! I think minis are a form of presentation and not a mechanic in themselves.
Minis are a form of presentation. However, the Miniatures Game usually has free-form movement and range, and some sort of CRT or dice/card driven combat. Wings of War (mentioned Earlier) plays like a minis game, but with cards in place of Airplane miniatures (There are Minis, if you buy WoW: Miniatures.) Battletech (also mentioned earlier) when played on a hex-map is a hex and counter game; the lead minis just stand in as very impressive and expensive counters. In fact, you could use cardboard chits or cardboard stand-ups in place of the expensive lead figures (The base game comes with cardboard stand-ups.) However, Battletech also has a true-blue Miniatures system as well.
There are arguments for both. Any wargame can be presented as a minis game. But it's not really a "Minis Game" unless you gotta break out the tape measure and the laser-level.
One of the standards for ACW gaming. One stand is 150-200 men. In my opinion, it works best for medium sized battles. For the big battles, you need lots of stands, lots of players, lots of time, and a really big table.
Fire and Fury is one of the best sets of rules for medium sized Civil War battles. For the really big battles, Volley and Bayonet is better since you don't need hundreds of stands like you'd need in F&F.
Posted Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:12 am
Not only that, but his "Floor Games" ought to have a prominent 'place' here also. Someone look it UP, and enter this into here if you please!
