GW returning to the organised play arena.

[grimmas]

Nope I don't like the term because I think its incorrect.

Hasn't fantasy always been a hard sell in the US though. Wether WFB, AoS or Hordes they all seem to do far worse than their more futuristic counterparts.

[Erik Setzer]

I don't know about "hard sell." I think it's always been slower than 40K, but I think it really dropped off at the same rate as the rest of the world. It did do better in Europe than the US exponentially, though. I think the main issue is that European history is steeped in regimental combat, which helped sell a regiment-based game, whereas the US came into being around the time people were starting to realize lining up wasn't the best idea any more (and when the two most prominent "regimental" wars to pick from are the one where the nation fought hard to become independent and the one where it split in two and had a war between the two nations that'd been one, there's not going to be huge interest in recreating that feeling on the table top).

[grimmas]

You surprise me I always thought there was big interest in the Civil War in the US. It's very much a war that shouldn't have been fought in regimental blocks, what with fact rifles had become the primary infantry arm rather than muskets. Still sounds plausible I suppose things like Knights, dragons, goblins and the like are much more intrenched in European culture as well

[Erik Setzer]

There's some interest, but not that much, really. I can't remember the last time I've seen a game in that era played. The political climate's heated up on making anything to do with the CSA sound worse than a combination of Hitler and Stalin together, and even if you don't buy into that, you're not really going to feel great playing a game where the people around you might be judging you based on your toy soldiers. The way some people want to push laws, such a game might become impossible in time, as they want to pretty much ban any mention of the CSA other than history books. Just not a good setting for enjoyment.

I'm surprised there's not more Revolution era gaming. But there's not much scope there, I suppose.

Meanwhile, I've seen this historical game set in 1600s Europe, and they've got almost a dozen armies fleshed out that you can play. That's a lot better in terms of variety. Go to the Napoleonic era and you've got a good selection of nations to pick from. Makes for better gaming.

[grimmas]

Yeah the CSA don't come across well.

The Napoleonic period is pretty much the dream for a wargames setting the armies all wear different coloured uniforms it's like they were expecting it 🙂

[Erik Setzer]

That's pretty much about the time that they started doing wargames on tables, so maybe they had a glimpse into what those games could become.

[CryptCat]

You surprise me I always thought there was big interest in the Civil War in the US. It's very much a war that shouldn't have been fought in regimental blocks, what with fact rifles had become the primary infantry arm rather than muskets. Still sounds plausible I suppose things like Knights, dragons, goblins and the like are much more intrenched in European culture as well

Where I live there is a huge community of war veterans who build and paint dioramas of just this sort of thing. Huge interest in World War II and Civil War settings, especially. Every now and again, someone spins a little fantasy into something, and it looks great. I'm actually surprised that there isn't a popularize miniatures wargame with this kind of setting. I think it'd be a hit!

[grimmas]

Where I live there is a huge community of war veterans who build and paint dioramas of just this sort of thing. Huge interest in World War II and Civil War settings, especially. Every now and again, someone spins a little fantasy into something, and it looks great. I'm actually surprised that there isn't a popularize miniatures wargame with this kind of setting. I think it'd be a hit!

It certainly surprises me too. But historical Wargaming has played second fiddle to fantasy stuff for a while now, which is again a bit surprising when one considers that the Napoleonic wars had very distinct factions who all wore different coloured/designed uniforms (much like the ACW) you'd have thought it'd be prime Wargames territory. With Perry miniatures starting to crank out the hard Plastic historical sets who knows maybe it'll give it a boost.

[Erik Setzer]

Yeah, but Napoleonic era was countries fighting against each other. ACW was a nation split into nations that had once been one nation fighting each other. It feels weird to a lot of us. I couldn't play the USA army because I despite the man who was president and the way a lot of those guys were forced to fight. I don't really feel much more enthusiastic about playing CSA because, while I can sympathize with what led to the mess, it still feels weird cheering my army on to kill other Americans.

No offense to various Europeans, but I don't have those qualms if I'm lining up British regiments to mow down Frenchmen. Or, in other historical settings, I have no problem with cheering my force of Caroleans on to wreck everyone else's faces while blasting Sabaton (until I'm told to cut it out because this is a game store where other people play and I should be respectful to their ears despite the peasants not respecting historical metal).

Obviously some folks are fine with it, but given that it's a very divisive part of history, and how people like to get into their armies when playing, it's not the easiest to get people into.

[Mr Mystery]

Maybe Historicals have managed to retain their rather stuffy reputation?

Not gonna pretend for a second it's more than just my own experience, but back in the mid-90's, my local Historical scene was more about being able to paint 100% accurate uniforms and markings etc - and the games were literal reenactments.

That made it a very different experience to the 'go for it' freedom of GW, and their latter day alternatives.