Period or Game? A purely personal view.

 Back in the mists of time- say the 1980s, when you met another wargamer for the first time one of the first things you asked this worthy fella was, 'What period (s) are you intrested in?'

 Most of the time you would get a polite answer and a conversation would begin. Though I do recall a mate from those years- a Zulu War aficionado- being told in W.H.Smiths rather brusquely perhaps, that  the ZuluWar was 'small and uninteresting'  by a Napoleonic dude of ill manners. Such unmannerliness was the exception rather than the rule back then (though the hobby has always had its share of the socially clumsy) and most of the time still is even though the language has changed for many.

Some of my 15mm Marian Romans Blue Moon models. These are most often used for Tactica games.

 Sometime in the 1990s or early Noughties the tenet of our hobby changed. The switch was sort of two- fold first the change from  a hobby that was 'model-driven' to a hobby that was 'rules-driven' then from rules- driven' to 'game-driven'. Now this change was by no means universal and indeed in older wargamers probably barely at all, and for some was little more than a change in labels. Models became 'minis' (awful term) Wargames rules became 'games' .

Some of this was simple commercialisation- the advent of 'easy' desktop publishing could mean that anyone could perhaps market his favourite set of rules and, even if such is considerably harder than it may appear we are now awash with so many sets of rules or  'games' that it is impossible to keep track even within the historical periods that may interest you. Social media may help but it will depend upon how much time and energy and indeed cash  any publisher is willing to spend on a given project. 

I'd go further, unless you spend a lot of time staring at the screen watching various 'how-tos' and 'play throughs' (to do which you must have a very high boredom threshold) many newly published games may well pass you by unoticed. I have never really considered our hobby as any kind of spectator sport to be stared at, often uncomprehendingly, while the players do their thing, so while seeing a game 'live' at a show may hold my interest- especially if I can talk to the chaps running said game- watching on U-tube as some fella tells me how to move an army I don't have to a set of rules I have never heard of does not in any sense blow my skirt up! This most especially if the background noise is all about how wonderfully playable, quick and simple  this 'game' is because of 'innovative mechanisms'. 

Now I grant you some are exactly what they say they are  no question but I have over the years bought more than a few sets of rules that appear to be the direct opposite of the publishers blurb. So, Gentle Reader forgive me if I am a tad sceptical when a publisher releases yet another skirmish game with innovative mechanisms but never mentions historical background.

One of our 15mm Moderns games- using Combined Arms

To be honest reading rules, much less learning them, has always been someting of a chore for me. Give me a choice between say, a volume of Oman's Penisular War and a set of 'Napoleonic Fast play' and it will be Oman every time no competition. This even if these rules are being used in  our next game. It is one of the reasons I much prefer multi-player Umpire controlled games- rules are the Umpire's job. Oh and yes I LIKE  Umpiring  most especially as an 'active Umpire' whose job it it not only to run the game but to add flavour and perhaps a tad of historical versimilitude which may at times involve some skullduggery and a misleading of the players - all within the confines of the scenario of course. After all most rules- even good ones- are at best a useful toolbox and never ever Holy Writ. For me this is immeasuraably better and more fun that any head to head lead 1000 points per side   repeat each week type of game I played in the 70s and into the 80s   when I knew no better. 

The ECW or more correctly the War of the Three Kingdoms has been one of my favourites for years. I have 2 sets of armies. This photo is from the 'retro' collection of Hincliffes and Minifigs Oh and a few Garrision,

Sikh Goracharra cavalry - Old Glory models from my Sikh wars collection.

Fortunately I  found there was much much more to be had from this wargaming lark than that limited horizon and so it has remained. Period far more important than mere rules and carries far more continuing interest than any game. Some of the rules I use are somewhat venerable others not so and still others  have been 'locally modified' either by me or one of our gaming group.

So for the record here are the rules I use- or am happy to play- in our group's games.

Ancients- Tactica a 1980s set which is now in its 3rd edition. MeG One of our chaps is quite taken with these and I can see his point much more complex than Tactica but both have their point. Tactica is overall simpler but somwhat more limited.

ECW. I have about half a dozen ECW sets but keep coming back to Forlorn Hope as I have found none better. Pike and Shotte has its points but is I feel better for the Italian Wars than for ECW and I no longer have Italian Wars armies.

 A more modern take on the ECW- these 28mm Old Glory models are part of my other ECW collection. The regiment is 96 strong and usually fights as 2 battalions on the table.

18th Century I have mid 18th century armies and use Warfare in the Age of Reason on the rare occaisions these forces get to the table. However I do quite like Maurice and Honours of War both of which I have played despite their small units.

AWI It has to be British Grenadier- though my 'retro' AWI collection of Stadden 30mm may get to play under a modified version of 'Charge! ' which will suit their age and style.

Napoleonic. When I had Peninsular War forces I used General De Brigade these armies have moved on so now most of my Napoleonic collection is 'retro' so I use Charge! 9see 'Shinyloo' posts). Once the 'Wellington in India forces are table ready it will be General de Brigade or perhaps Age of Reason.

Colonials- Now here is a problem. Currently my main table ready colonial forces are for the Sikh Wars. For these I like General de Brigade- but with 'Indian modifications' as outlined in my book on wargaming these wars. For the Indian Mutiny I want a different style of game to reflect the different types of fighting so Mad Dogs and Englishmen is looking good for this. Though there is a tempation to do another modification of Charge ! - still thinking about this.

WW2 and after.  I do this in 15mm and find Command Decision the best of the bunch with its modern variant 'Combined Arms' for the 'Moderns'. We've have had some sucess with other modern rules though. A modifed version of Team Yankee has seen some use and a set whose name escapes me but was something to do with the Rhine likewise- both with some success. Cold War Commander was tried condemned and binned to universal disapprobation as longwinded and simplistic -which after the passage of time seems a difficult feat for the writer to achieve.

Now there have been other rules One of our group likes to write his own and his 19th century rules for the Austro-Prussian war  were rather good. I have no forces for this period so can off no comment on commercial sets. The same chap has his own rules for the Crusades and for WW2 Eastern Front both of which we have played. Again period taking the front seat but with perhaps a different emphasis than I would use and nothing wrong with that at all. Different ideas are all grist to the mill.