Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Kommando_J on November 27, 2018, 01:15:08 PM
-
Got a notification in this morning that Empress had released some new freikorp minis...which as usual being by Paul Hicks were top notch. Looking at the packs it said in the command pack that the two officers were based off historical figures (Franz Ritter von Epp and Ernst Roehm) while lovely miniatures I couldn't help but feel a slight twinge of disappointment that the minis weren't more 'generic' as I prefer to envision my own characters rather than be constrained by historical personalities.
...All of this got me thinking on the subject of ''your dudes'' and I was wondering how everyone else felt? Do you prefer historical battles with ''real life'' combatants or fictional characters and a looser feel?
Below the pic for reference.
-
Overall, I prefer to put 'my own dudes' in my lists, envisaging my battles as part of the larger historical narrative, where untold nameless men played their role. mine are just some of those nameless dudes.
Should I put historical characters in a list, it eventually boils down to the same, since whatever battle we're playing, is now alternative history: I've never played a single historical scenario that turned out exactly like the real deal; more often than not, they ended up radically different!
I'm not role playing a famous general after all; I make my own decisions on the battlefield, conditions turn out different than they were back then, because we're randomizing everything, so it remains a game instead of a blow by blow recap of the original conflict.
So whatever historical characters we put into our lists, they will extremely likely not act like their real life counterparts, because of dice rolls, card draws and being moved around by a different general (with different training, insights, experience, mindset etc, etc).
I don't mind historical characters in my lists or those of my opponent, but I never expect them to actually reenact their historical role...
-
If you are actually playing a "historical" battle you not only need the actual historic characters but the historical tactics and overriding national characteristics too.
I recently saw an "Agincourt" refight where the French player dismounted most of his noble cavalry and advanced behind a screen of infantry and crossbowmen. When asked about this the player said something to the effect of ".....well I can't win if we play it properly".
I would dispute that this game was "Agincourt" despite having the correctly named and painted characters. It takes more than that to make a game "historic". Unless you are looking to closely recreate a very specific event in history having the right names on the army lists is irrelevant.
-
I like a mix; I have no problem playing with actual personalities but also enjoy the nameless leadewrs that played important roles on the field.
robh: that stuff doesn't bug me so much. To some degree, what is the point of re-fighting a battle if you are going to do everything exactly the same as the Real Life commander?
-
If you are actually playing a "historical" battle you not only need the actual historic characters but the historical tactics and overriding national characteristics too.
I recently saw an "Agincourt" refight where the French player dismounted most of his noble cavalry and advanced behind a screen of infantry and crossbowmen. When asked about this the player said something to the effect of ".....well I can't win if we play it properly".
I would dispute that this game was "Agincourt" despite having the correctly named and painted characters. It takes more than that to make a game "historic". Unless you are looking to closely recreate a very specific event in history having the right names on the army lists is irrelevant.
An interesting scenario could be bought about by having the bulk of your nobles leave in disgust or even have some go over to the other side for such a slight. Can you now defeat the English with the few lords you have left and your Genoese crossbowmen?
Re the dudes - It really depends on the period and battle. WW2 tactical combat doesn't matter either way, recreating Agincourt without Henry V, probably not.
-
I must admit, I’m in two minds about the inclusion of Roehm. A thoroughly unpleasant man who went on to head Hitler’s SA.
Still, as the avatar for barely repressed homosexuality amongst nazis he would produce interesting talking points in any game and would cause a degree of discomfort for those who really enjoy playing the Freikorps.
Excellent sculpts, as ever. Roehm is well portrayed but then the facial scars make it an easier than usual figure to spot.
-
Overall, I prefer to put 'my own dudes' in my lists, envisaging my battles as part of the larger historical narrative, where untold nameless men played their role. mine are just some of those nameless dudes.
That's my feelings in a nutshell.
-
I have to agree with Carlos about real life characters.
On the other hand, if they do not look like Carmine Russo, I would just use them as generic officers/objectives/targets.
-
Oh yes, I definitely prefer having my own anonymous characters rather than real historical figures.
In a medieval context, I'm not interested in playing out the famous big battles like Agincourt, and painting up all the heraldry for Henry V and all the other nobles who were there.... Then what do you do with them? Refight Agincourt? And then.... refight it again?
Instead I like to find a specific war that makes for a great 'sandbox' setting, allowing for all sorts of smaller scale conflicts - skirmishes, sieges, raids, ambushes, small battles, etc.... and I design my own heraldry for commanders, doing enough of them so that I can switch them around and not have the same match-ups for every game.
-
I have purchased the 'Oliver & Hardy' mortar from Empress. As I want a second
mortar I am preparing some head swaps. No big problem & I love the originals.
That's another fine mess you've gotten me into!
-
Then what do you do with them? Refight Agincourt? And then.... refight it again?
You can't. Not only do we as individuals have 600 years of military innovation stored mentally, but every medieval historian, armchair general and his dog Spot, have dissected the battle in print too. Oddly the French usually win the re-fights.
-
You can't. Not only do we as individuals have 600 years of military innovation stored mentally, but every medieval historian, armchair general and his dog Spot, have dissected the battle in print too. Oddly the French usually win the re-fights.
...because Longbows are totally underpowered in the current meta, I'm telling you! I have posted a blogpost in which I explain in excruciating detail and based on the findings of many youtube videos why they should do 5 points of damage rather than 3!!! ;)
That's an interesting question. In games in which personalities and their little stories make for much of the enjoyment of the game (to me), like Chain of Command, and similarly granular games, I like to have my own characters.
In larger scale battles I think we're detached enough that we don't really have a direct relationship with the characters. Of course you take the role of General Lee or Napoleon or something like that, but usually their direct well-being isn't in danger with these. Apart from that these figures usually have so much myth around them anyway that they are more 'personalities' than 'persons'. On the other hand, with games featuring much less distance between the player and the guys on the ground things like some NCO sitting in the trenches and getting wounded do feel much more personal and at that level especially I would't like having a name and a photograph attached to this miniature.
It's one of these very subjective things, and as always I think it's also a matter of historical (and possibly cultural?) distance. But with WW2 especially, or maybe anything on which we have very exact information about a person's biography, and possibly a photograph of them, things get tricky.
I've written a fair share of WW2 battle reports for our Chain of Command campaign. When writing these I ran into an interesting problem: Each of us players has a set platoon of soldiers and a Lieutenant whose role we take on more or less for the run of the campaign. Of course for narrative reasons and for presentation reasons you want to have a picture to go with this person, but I instinctively found myself opposed to the idea of using some person's photograph for that. I found it hard using photos of people for these battle reports in general. I don't view it as constricting (history rarely is. It's usually more interesting and gives more good stories than fantasy backgrounds or anything made up anyway), but rather as a matter of 'not being right' at that level. Again, on the level of proper battles - sure, I'll have Pappenheim's Corps here, and there's Holk's command over there, and all of that. Because these are well known historical characters. I think to me it's a matter of the amount of role-play involved in the game and what person we're talking about (ie if it's just some poor dude or one of the historical bigwigs who have been interpreted a billion times in literature and research).
As for Röhm - yeah, I wouldn't have that guy in a game, but that's another matter. However, nothing stops you from just renaming the figure and using it anyway of course. :)
-
...All of this got me thinking on the subject of ''your dudes'' and I was wondering how everyone else felt? Do you prefer historical battles with ''real life'' combatants or fictional characters and a looser feel?
Can I have option C - both? Why stick with one approach, I’d cheerfully alternate.
And Agincourt - why stick with the battle exactly as it was fought? That’s one way, but a variation on it using the plan the French wanted to use (but were too disorganised to) would be interesting as would a totally different approach where the French player used any tactic to see if he could overcome the winning English tactic.
-
...because Longbows are totally underpowered in the current meta, I'm telling you! I have posted a blogpost in which I explain in excruciating detail and based on the findings of many youtube videos why they should do 5 points of damage rather than 3!!! ;)
omg Warlord plz buff.
-
I suppose you could use part pseudonyms. I could go for a character like Tony Röhm, the jaded down to earth ex-cop turned Freikorps leader. No?
-
Ernie Roam, the extremely butch motorcycle cop, whose sartorial taste is let down by an obsession with the colour brown?
-
Ernie Roam, the extremely butch motorcycle cop, whose sartorial taste is let down by an obsession with the colour brown?
Whats wrong with brown? Geoff Randall wore shades of it exclusively, but manages to pull a dollybird every third episode.
You think I'm joking. I'm not - watch and take count. He even manages to sort Miss Russia out with nothing more than tea, a winning smile and light brown crimplene clothing.
-
I think he parody name idea is good, and I know what was meant about the earlier comment by Battle Brush Sigur about refusing to use old soldiers/peoples photo...it would feel off to me too.
-
BOTH:
I was Marlborough in a refight of the 1704 storming of the Schellenberg in Bavaria. The GM egged me on (I'm normally cautious) to attach Marlborough to a battalion attacking a Franco-Bavarian defended wall. Naturally, Marlborough was seriously wounded! The crowd of players howled! Of course, this would have potentially disastrous consequences for the campaign of Blenheim and the whole War of Spanish Succession. That impact on the moment in our gaming group would have been far less impressive or memorable with a fictional leader.
Another scenario that would have had less impact was one I read about on LAF about the assassination of Trotsky in Mexico. Would the scenario have been as good if it was about the assassination of "Comrade X"? Maybe.
One genre I play is Pulp. People purposely play games with Indiana Jones, Tarzan, John Carter of Mars, Tin Tin, Conan, Scooby Doo, etc. But then again we sometimes play with figures sculpted to represent a Pulp or historical figure, but renamed to be a character of our own or someone else's creation. For example, I might use an Indiana Jones figure to represent "Tennessee Taylor." Or I might use a Tarzan figure to represent George of the Jungle.
The sculptors, for reasons of trademark, may need to sculpt "not X" figures. One can name them in one's own game after the trademarked character, or create one's own character, depending on desired backstory.
I'm on the lookout for specific figures for historical characters in the SCW. But other characters will be made up.
-
I usually rename the Character or make up my own, and only use historical persons in rescue/capture/kill/meet up with games.
Of course if I am playing a historical refight then yes the commanders names will be the same, but the battle is played by myself warts and all.
:D
-
I'm on the lookout for specific figures for historical characters in the SCW. But other characters will be made up.
Except for Hemmingway and Orwell, I'm not aware of any. The same is true of WWII though; apart from the more famous generals and Churchill with Tommy Gun, it's a barren field.
I have no use for them myself and would rather see a wider selection of ordinary troops to be honest. The earlier example of having Laurel and Hardy as mortar crew was a good one for limited utility, if you need more than one mortar you end up doubling the L+H element of your army. It's not the only ill-thought out pack make up in the Empress stable either. Convenient for them, but costly for the customer.
-
omg Warlord plz buff.
That's what I keep e-mailling them every day, but they just won't listen! ;D
IF one wants to find historical figures to base their games on, it's usually no problem, especially in the 20th century. There are so many well recorded biographies out there, especially for the Spanish Civil War.
-
Except for Hemmingway and Orwell, I'm not aware of any. The same is true of WWII though; apart from the more famous generals and Churchill with Tommy Gun, it's a barren field.
I have no use for them myself and would rather see a wider selection of ordinary troops to be honest. The earlier example of having Laurel and Hardy as mortar crew was a good one for limited utility, if you need more than one mortar you end up doubling the L+H element of your army. It's not the only ill-thought out pack make up in the Empress stable either. Convenient for them, but costly for the customer.
Stoessi's Heroes has quite a lot of WWII personalities, both real and fictional (for instance, you can get a certain Stalag Kommandant and his Sergeant ADC).
-
I know nothing. ;)
*Edit - There's a collection of characters in the WI "Giants in Miniature" range too.
-
This is a very interesting topic.
For most I like to use real historical people but in scenarios or battles I have come up with. At least from ancient times and up to napoleonics I think.
But for WWII and beyond I only use made up characters. It somehow feels more respectfull.
-
*Edit - There's a collection of characters in the WI "Giants in Miniature" range too.
Whatever could have possibly given you that idea? ;) lol
-
I felt a great disturbance in the Force. ;)
-
I felt a great disturbance in the Force. ;)
Well, Christmas is coming up. No wonder you felt their presents.
-
For me it‘s a bit of both depending on the game, szenario and period.
-
Re specific personalities for SCW:
Except for Hemmingway and Orwell, I'm not aware of any.
I've got two Pulp Figures that should work great for Aalto & Goff, 2 of the 3 guys who led the Republican special operation to blow the Nationalist bridge before the Republican attack on Teruel. Those will be for a pulp scale game though, not for a big battle.