(female wargamers are a rarity, alas!)
(Last update -main text or comments: O3.26."14).
(To think that I'm pestering the TMP readers with this peculiar topic since 2004!)
Edit sept."12: 18th C. Imagi-Nations now have their own boards on:
and their own forums:
To use mythical mid-18°C countries in a wargame campaign (with tabletop battles, not as a boardgame) was, AFAIK, initiated by P. Young and C. Grant in their ‘Charge !’ and ‘The Wargame’ books in the early "70. Henry Hyde took up the public torch with his "Fictitious Wars" article, published in Miniature Wargames 47, April 1987 (he kindly posted it in the Files of the Old School Wargaming Yahoo group). Yet, before the Internet era each wargamer or wargaming group lived in relative isolation, and such endeavours remained known only locally.
I posted here links to all blogs and sites I know of devoted partly or totally to fictitious Lace Wars (taken in a wide sense) countries. 37 at the last counting (46 mid-november), plus the ‘Battlegames’ magazine site, where Henry Hyde posts, under «Old School Games», tremendous photo reports of his ‘Prunkland vs Borscht’ battles.
An almost equal number of other fictitious Lace Wars wargaming countries are mentioned, described or illustrated in the archived messages, files or photo folders of the Old School Wargaming and Society of Daisy Yahoo groups, or in the archived posts of the Emperor vs Elector diplomatic campaign blog. A few passing references appear in the TMP 18th C. discussion board .
An interesting general debate on 'fictitious countries in wargames' appeared on the TMP forum.
I strongly hope to discover additional fictitious Lace Wars armies on the Web, with or without their own blog /webpage. If you know of such, please mention it here, giving a way to contact their author and learn more about them. A personal pet idea of mine is to built one day, as a group effort, an exhaustive compilation that would be ‘our’ «Fictitious Armies of The Lace Wars» Funcken.
Wargamers who chose to ‘play’ fictitious countries do so for 1 to 3 of three major reasons; the ‘unhistoricity’ of their country and army increases with the number of these reasons that motivated their personal choice.
1-To avoid arguments about ‘national characteristics’ (my troops are bettet shot, they deserve special rules, yes but mine have a more resilient morale…) and perhaps to avoid also some uneasy feeling from blasphemously altering the historical records of Countries, Commanders (what admirer of Der Altze Fritze will take the risk of having 'Him' regularly defeated on the tabletop?) and armies. Such wargamers play totally historical countries and armies, just giving them and their characeters of note assumed names. No blog that I know is devoted to such masquerading historical games, though Alte Fritz in his Journal refers to the ongoing war between Hesse-Seewald (Prussia) and Gallia (France); reports of this campaign are posted in the files of the OSW group.
2-To scale down the conflict. As advocated by C. Grant, the campaign is limited to a map suiting exactly the player’s wishes and taste, with no side disadvantaged from the start. Your batallions have neither to count as brigades on the tabletop, nor to moonlight as other units when playing a battle on a second front. Gamers motivated by these 2 reasons create countries mythical in their name and geography, but which can field a totally historical army: C.S. Grant’s Grand Duche de Lorraine (WAS French units) is an exemple.
3-To enjoy the process of *creation*. As underlined by H. Hyde, to create a totally fictitious campaign setting is to act as a novelist. Indeed, to design your own uniforms instead of faithfully reproducing historical ones (no longer a meritorious achievement, with all the information available on the Net) is exactly like writing a novel instead of ‘passively’ reading published books. Your country, your army are your own brainchild, they are unique. Such players as a rule fully develop their country in non-military matters, inventing its history, detailing the ruling family and its genealogy, the major characters in the Court, Government and High Staff, observing the plots, keeping record of love affairs and health or pecuniary difficulties… All was already part of Tony Bath’s seminal Hyborian camapaign, and for the players involved there was a part of role playing involved, before the word was coined. C. Grant’s Vereinigte Freie Städte and P. Young’s Empire and Electorate are venerable pioneers in this domain.
Note that the fictitious uniforms and flags are NOT designed according to whim, but reflect a deep knowledge of historical armies of the era, then modulated by personal taste: H. Hyde accurately descibed the process, ref. also the July post Fictitious Lace Wars Armies can ‘look right’ here.
Then, the location of your mythical mid-18th C. country is in no way restricted to Western Europe: Eastern Europe, any other ‘real’ Continents and even a totally mythical one, are possible settings.
Wargaming fictitious wars is of course possible in other eras, yet it is not my mere chance that most are set in the mid-18°C.
°Firstly, players gaming in this time are (generally) a bunch of gentlemanly, friendly, relaxed, open-minded people (there was a lot of humor in Grants and Young battle reports). More so, on the average, than in other wargaming circles, as argumented on the TMP by Alte Fritz last June; indeed all Ancient and Napoleonic gamers I knew were overserious historical integrists (though they hope to change History when refighting a battle ‘their’ army lost!).
°Then, with its some 300 independant countries the Holy Empire sets a reassuring precedent. No one would feel sacrilegious to add a pair of enbattled mini-countries to this already overcrowded background.
°Thirdly, the cut of european uniforms was, precisely, extremely uniform, at least at the level of minis seen en masse on a tabletop. By the 19°C almost each and every nation had its own specific cut of clothes, its peculiar shako, kasket or helmet. Thus your fictitious troops will immediatly be identified as British, French or Prussian minis painted in odd colors. This could be an advantage if you want to use them as proxies of historical majors powers in a fictitious mini-campaign, but generally their credibility will suffer.
And of course, the ‘ballet-like’ manœuvres of two initially symmetric battle lines marching up to one another in a sort of minuet of combat, the chess-like tactics, even the fact that war seems so much more civilized (if there is such thing) give a somehow ‘artificial’, ‘theatrical’, almost ‘oniric’ feeling specially propitious to the addition of a fictitious element to the setting.
1-To avoid arguments about ‘national characteristics’ (my troops are bettet shot, they deserve special rules, yes but mine have a more resilient morale…) and perhaps to avoid also some uneasy feeling from blasphemously altering the historical records of Countries, Commanders (what admirer of Der Altze Fritze will take the risk of having 'Him' regularly defeated on the tabletop?) and armies. Such wargamers play totally historical countries and armies, just giving them and their characeters of note assumed names. No blog that I know is devoted to such masquerading historical games, though Alte Fritz in his Journal refers to the ongoing war between Hesse-Seewald (Prussia) and Gallia (France); reports of this campaign are posted in the files of the OSW group.
2-To scale down the conflict. As advocated by C. Grant, the campaign is limited to a map suiting exactly the player’s wishes and taste, with no side disadvantaged from the start. Your batallions have neither to count as brigades on the tabletop, nor to moonlight as other units when playing a battle on a second front. Gamers motivated by these 2 reasons create countries mythical in their name and geography, but which can field a totally historical army: C.S. Grant’s Grand Duche de Lorraine (WAS French units) is an exemple.
Note that the fictitious uniforms and flags are NOT designed according to whim, but reflect a deep knowledge of historical armies of the era, then modulated by personal taste: H. Hyde accurately descibed the process, ref. also the July post Fictitious Lace Wars Armies can ‘look right’ here.
Then, the location of your mythical mid-18th C. country is in no way restricted to Western Europe: Eastern Europe, any other ‘real’ Continents and even a totally mythical one, are possible settings.
Wargaming fictitious wars is of course possible in other eras, yet it is not my mere chance that most are set in the mid-18°C.
°Firstly, players gaming in this time are (generally) a bunch of gentlemanly, friendly, relaxed, open-minded people (there was a lot of humor in Grants and Young battle reports). More so, on the average, than in other wargaming circles, as argumented on the TMP by Alte Fritz last June; indeed all Ancient and Napoleonic gamers I knew were overserious historical integrists (though they hope to change History when refighting a battle ‘their’ army lost!).
°Then, with its some 300 independant countries the Holy Empire sets a reassuring precedent. No one would feel sacrilegious to add a pair of enbattled mini-countries to this already overcrowded background.
°Thirdly, the cut of european uniforms was, precisely, extremely uniform, at least at the level of minis seen en masse on a tabletop. By the 19°C almost each and every nation had its own specific cut of clothes, its peculiar shako, kasket or helmet. Thus your fictitious troops will immediatly be identified as British, French or Prussian minis painted in odd colors. This could be an advantage if you want to use them as proxies of historical majors powers in a fictitious mini-campaign, but generally their credibility will suffer.
And of course, the ‘ballet-like’ manœuvres of two initially symmetric battle lines marching up to one another in a sort of minuet of combat, the chess-like tactics, even the fact that war seems so much more civilized (if there is such thing) give a somehow ‘artificial’, ‘theatrical’, almost ‘oniric’ feeling specially propitious to the addition of a fictitious element to the setting.
An appeal to Rulers in manner of post scriptum
Several ‘Brothers in Lace Wars Imagi-Nation’ really *would* create their own blog (it’s free and, believe a dinosaur from the age of wired receiver, mechanical typewriter and International Money Order, so *easy*!) to display their original creations, currently accessible only in the ‘files’ or ‘photos’ directories of Yahoo groups such as OSW and SOD (access restricted to members), or merely quoted in very tantalizing messages in the same groups or on the TMP!
Specially (but not exclusively):
.
-'aa19003' for '301st backwater of the HORE' (TMP)
-Alan B. ‘alanbgam’ for Lower Fenwick (Niederpfenweig) (posts on OSW & SOD)
-‘bogdanwaz’ for his ‘Sci-Fi games in the Age of Reason’ (files and photos on the GASLIGHTrules group)
-Richard B. for Byzantium Reconstitued (Emperor vs Elector)
-Michael Campbell for Kriegspiel (OSW)
-Georges ‘charla51’ for Rubovia (OSW photos, incl. Colonel Clouseau’s Pink Pandours)
-Peter Coles for Argoz-Bern (OSW files)
-Garyl Comardo for Aldoberg-Holstein (OSW photos)
-Larry 'Correus' for his Imagi-Nation under development (posts on OSW)
-David C. ‘Ogrefencer’ for Artois and Kronenburg (posts on OSW)
-‘dandamianoff’ for the colonies of Mindt and Maroon in North America (posts on OSW)
-Rob DeWolfe for Bad-Bierwurst (posts on OSW)
-Guido 'doguipreacher' from Buenos Aires, who is taking the plunge into fictitious Lace Wars (posts on OSW)
-‘eastridingmilitia’ who is dealing with the ‘imaginary’ uniforms of de Saxe’s ‘daydreamed’ mixed Legion
-‘Grey Ghost’ for Vestland, the seige of Vechta (and various other creations), and who recently stated : «I'm trying to make up some flags useing beer logos, as most of the regiments I'm working on will be named after beers, or cheese, for my ficticious 18th century armies including steam tanks and Hussite-like gun wagons .»
-Groves ‘sevorg’ for Grovania (posts on SOD)
-Norris Hazleton for Vapidia (empty folder on SOD)
-Ken H. ‘Oldsmoblogger’ for Scandalusia (SOD)
-'Ivan DBA', 'MONGREL1', ‘OldGrenadier’ and 'thehawk': I refer collectively to the 4 of them since each alluded to his own fictitious Lace Wars campaign in the same thread on the TMP '{General Discussion}squared' forum
-‘John’ for Lutelande (OSW, including photos of home-sculpted & cast troops, and some marvelous ships)
-Chris J. ‘nancella20170’ for Bratwurst (posts on SOD)
-Jerry Lannigan for Argonne, Braunschweig and Hangover -and his new Hesse-Silkenheim (posts on SOD)
-Michael Lonie for Barataria, Graustark and at least 8 other mythical countries (posts on SOD)
-Hal Lotman for the Levitzer Rabbinate (empty folder on SOD)
-Mike L. for the Lace Wars on Harn
-‘MacDuff’ (aka 'andygamer'?) for Rosmark (a few photos)
-‘madhatter66’ who wrote on the TMP : "I'd also love to see some Lace Wars females – cossacks or otherwise. I've got a lot of left over figures and I'm painting them up as an imagi-countries. I just need some females to 'spice' things up!"
-Ioannis M. who could at least add a ‘fictitious 18th C. warfare’ page to his excellent ‘historical’ site, to post his ideas (and realizations) about ‘a squadron of Prussian elephants carrying a 3-pdr and a couple swivel guns’ and ‘a camel corps, a personal gift of the Sultan to Fritz, with swivel guns on their backs’.
-Ross W. M. for Axphania (posts on OSW)
-'fcmilling' who is 'forming his own mytical 7 Years war country' (SOD # 8640)
-‘Luke Mulder’ who converted minis to de Saxe’s ‘daydreamed’ legionaries
-Pete Murray for Schwiesslander (file on SOD)
-Otto 'Sigurd' Nemopholist for Saxe-Burlap und Schleswig-Beerstein: Otto is the owner of SOD and posted documents and pics of Princess Trixie's army, but he would really take photos of *all* the units and models he refers to, and make them accessible to everybody; and what about thse many minis he painted with an ardent love for his Empire of Viagra?
-Neil Patterson for Arcadia and all the other countries of «Soldier King» (posts on SOD)
-GdP ‘Paris Guard’ who did, and is planning, promising fictitious Lace Wars units
-Harry P. for D'Etain and Flachstadt (posts on SOD- uses 'flats')
-Howard "altfritz" for another «Soldier King» campaign with minis (post # 20839 on the ‘Lace Wars’ Yahoo group)
-Jim ' Der Alte Fritz' P., when his model of SYW war balloon is finished, if he would feel 'ashamed' to post it on his 'serious' SYW blog
-Joe Saur ‘shandysbrigade’ for the Grand Duchy with No Name (folder on SOD)
-Mike Taber (post # 18421 on OSW)
-Martin T(?)' fpw1870' for the Principality of Boltenstein (posts on OSW - more Napoleonic than LW? So WHAT?)
-Ed Youngstrom, who tells us nothing of Gauchestein and Ostphalia (SOD)…..
Up to 40 new "Fict:" links to wish for! (update: comment posted jan. 18, 2008: 78 + John 'OSW' Preece = 79 «wished for» bloggers!)
And all of you that I don’t know as yet, but hopefully shall discover one day on the Web !
Oddly enough, among the fictitious countries from litterary (in the widest sense) sources, GEROL{D}STEIN is never quoted.
.
OK, under one spelling it is a real country, but the alternate spelling is 'canonical' for Offenbach's creation.
.
And then, a Country ruled by a Grande Duchesse †*extremely fond*† of handsome men in glamorous uniforms may have an interesting potential as a Lace War-gaming Imagi-Nation with a specially colorful army?
†††
Remember: of the 6+ billions people on Earth, only *YOU* can write the Gazeteer and Traveler's Guide to YOUR Imagi-Nation, organize its army, draw its uniforms: all are YOURS and yours only, they exist only in your brain, nobody can 'publish' them in your place; and they are UNIQUE, so to leave them undiscovered is, somehow, as allowing a living species to disappear...
But in no way feel restricted to developing military history: fictional court intrigues and rich characters are part of the creative enjoyment!
- - -
As for imaginary uniforms (further than a single fictitious regiment, with its original badge, facings, lace… in a basically historical army) their creation can well be made compulsory by a purely historical (at the start) campaign, if *balanced* enough to have the struggle carried on for years. *All* wargamers are writing 'alternate' History since the outcome of a game may differ from ‘reality': no medium-term consequences if you are re-fighting some historical battle in isolation; inavoidable consequences regarding ‘unhistorical' units and uniforms in a lengthy campaign.
If the Pretender wins at Culloden but does not conquer whole Great Brirain soon, he will raise new regiments and have the means to uniform them: the player will have to *logically* design these uniforms.
If your group starts playing the 100 Days and Napoleon wins at Waterloo then resists the Coalition for game-yeras (how unlikely is this outcome is irrelevant to the exemple), you'll have a Kingdom of Netherlands under strong French influence: what uniforms its army will wear in 1817 or 1818? Certainly no longer those of 1815 –specially not the British-looking ones of the infantry. Thus in this ‘historical' campaign the ruling player will have to design these ‘unhistorical / imaginary' uniforms –within the limits of the minis commercially available. A likely, ‘logical', answer could be: uniforms of French cut (‘French' minis of 1814 – 1815) but keeping the ‘traditional' Dutch colors patterns of 1815. (I doubt minis for the French Legions Departementales of the early Restauration, that would be more appropriate, are available; perhaps some semi-Napoleonic ‘Mexicans at El Alamo' could be pressed into service? An enterprising converter mais multiply headswaps to give his Dutch heavy cavalry helmets with ‘French' floating horsehair rather than ‘Allies' caterpillar).
Thus events during an initially ‘strictly historical' campaign may lead to the design of imaginary uniforms. Now suppose events of his kind happened *before* the start of your campaign: you'll have to design ‘imaginary' uniforms from the onset. That's precisely –and simply- what builders of Imagi-Nations do : they suppose that events decades or centuries ago lead to the creation of an independant Principality of Ruritania, Hesse-Trolheim, Saxe-Appel, Vulgaria, Scandalusia (in Spain), Felicia Felaccio (in Italy), Ikea (in Scandinavia), you name it… Then they design its army and uniforms following logical lines.
They choose to play in that era because they like its typical warfare and typical wargames reflecting it: the army will be ‘historically accurate' / ‘representative' in its composition and organization.
As for the cut of the uniforms and their colors (what ‘historical' minis to paint and in what colors), they are ‘historically', logically chosen according to the time and location, the dominant / most influencial ally (may give the ‘cut' –e.g. during the Lace Wars Prussian uniforms were specialy skimpy- but maybe also the dominant color –e.g. both Austria and France fielded mainly white-clad infantry during WAS-SYW), the religious alignement (Catholics tended to give bearskins to their grenadiers, Protestant mitres instead)…. Thus a Protestant mini-country strongly allied to Austria may well field as infantry ‘Prussian' minis painted in a predominantly white uniform; for a Slavic Orthodox Principality independant from Russia but firmly associated to it, Russian uniforms / minis in an original color are a likely possibility. As for colors, heraldry of the country / ruling line may provide additional suggestions: the azure of the Bavarian coat-of-arms is traditionnaly a *light* blue…
Not only are builders of imaginary units / armies / countries constrained by the minis available, they are generally rather conservative and (historical precedents such as the fondness of Berthier for yellow ; hence the ‘Canaris' of Neuchatel, or of Murat for amaranth notwithstanding) they will not paint the *bulk* of their forces in lilac, lavander or yellow.
If they wish to do so they'll follow the historical precedent of the Frenchs in India and Egypt and use some oversea setting, where such ‘exotically died cloths are locally available.
Then historical exemples such as the Polish pseudo-janissaries show that some ‘exotic' minority types *can* exist, and all the ‘non-military' dyes used e.g. by Streltzis –all those ‘berries', tender greens, cinnamon- grants freedom about the colors of their uniforms.
Thus there is no clear-cut border between the most ‘historical' wargames and the campaigns between totally fictitious countries and armies: the gradient is continuous.
(For the blurred borderline between historical and fictional wargames see also the "Historical wargames?" 'folder'.)
.-.
A series of very interesting imaginary regimental flags (for an independent Habsburg Burgundy) posted on the Alternate History Forum (complement there)
(For the blurred borderline between historical and fictional wargames see also the "Historical wargames?" 'folder'.)
.
51 comments:
Total of links to 'Fict' is now 46.
Remember that your texts and photos are far more easily accessible on a blog than in the Archives, Files or Photos Album of a Yahoo group: so don't hesitate longer and take the plunge - I can testify it's incredibly
*EASY*.
Posted on a TMP thread: "Which era allows for most fantasy ... ?"
- - - - - -
- AncMed: in the tradition of Tony Bath's 'Hyborian campaign': many Fantasy armies are copied on historical ones, you can mix historical and fantasy minis (even Elves: we used them for 'spider-haunted Zamora' because of the Drows' Spider-cult: pass easily for humans on the table-top) - and you have *Amazons*!
- LACE WARS, in the > 30 years old tradition of P. Young's 'Charge' and C. Grant's 'The Wargame'.
Currently in full expansion , with a new blog almost every week.
Propitious to amusing,yet elegant and efficient, ideas.
Can be extended to oversea theatres of operations.
And you can easily 'spice' the setting with Sci-Fi elements ; with a few inspirational litterary sources.
And, YES, you can still field AMAZONS !
A very friendly, convivial and active web group: ‘Emperor vs Elector’ (currently 40 members).
Minis / uniforms are rather generic, so your fictitious troops don't look like 'Prussians painted unhistorically', and you even have free uniform templates to design, try -and share!- your original uniforms before painting a single mini.
LEVELS OF IMAGI(-)NATION
One can rank Imagi-Nations according to their level of 'fictitiousness'.
-° Some are totally historical countries, accurate in their geography, fielding 100% historical armies with faithfully reproduced flags, uniforms and OOB. Merely, the country receives a pseudonym – maybe to avoid to blasphemeously modify the historical record of the model, specially if their creator as a tabletop general is less successful than its 'Real World' ones? In the 'Emperor vs Elector' group Bill Protz' 'Gallia' (France) and Der Alte Fritz' 'Hesse-Seewald' (Prussia) are typical exemples.
-° Some are fictitious by their name and geography but field historical Armies, accurate in their uniforms and flags following the example of Grant's Grand Duche de Lorraine. Within the 'EvE' group, Carpania and Courland and The Kingdom of Wittenberg (& its hereditary foe Monrovia) belong to this category.
Aschenbach and Luftberg also fall in this category, but their creator allows himself some 'artistic freedom' in the flags (stag instead of Prussian eagle for Aschenbach, single-headed for the quasi-Austrian Luftberg) and, probably, facings colors. Exactly like for the countries involved in the Euratia campaign of continental scale.
-° At last -and most countries of 'EvE' belong to this category- name, geography, flags and uniforms can all be ± original (as for Young's Electorate and Reich and Grant's colorful VFS). Take a look for instance (not a ranking, just because of recent relevant posts) at the Soweiter League and Grand Duchy of Stollen; outside ‘EvE’, see for instance Neues Sudland and Todos Santos...
As for the argument that fictitious regiments are harder to sell when your wargaming interests change, *who* can claim to know all the uniforms of Kreis contingents?
Anyway, Imagi-Nations builders are constrained by the minis
commercialy available: all are 'historical' (for the Lace Wars at least: far more 'fictitious' choice in the Ancient-Medieval era). Thus they are restricted basically to painting, and most are quite 'reasonable'.
Only fanatical converters -or people entreprising and gifted enough to sculpt and mould their own minis- can hope to field really unconventional units, such as the (quasi-historical!) ones advocated by de Saxe in his "Reveries"!
Will the GRAND DUCHY OF GEROLSTEIN join us?
I'm always disappointed that no Imagi-Nation builder puts to life the Grand Duchy of Gerolstein.
Mind you, a Grand Duchy somewhere in the Saint Empire, ruled in Lace Wars times by a Grande Duchesse fascinated by handsome soldiers in glamorous uniforms («How I love the military, their huge mustaches and their plumes») – a Grande Duchesse in addition *supposed* to be young and pretty…
Who will take up the challenge?
Then what about Syldavia by the mid-18th C.?
Balkanic, with a maritime frontage in the south in the area of Dbrnouk so a close neighbor of Cavenderia…
.
NAME THIS REGIMENT
An imaginary unit, of the type that makes the fictitious armies of Imagi-Nations.
For those intrigued (we are not on the 18th Century Discussion Message Board here), a few links :
- TMP presentation of HMKNW,
- TMP presentation of ‘EvE Diplomacy’,
- TMP presentation of ‘Emperor vs Elector’
- TMP presentation of 18th C. Imagi-Nations.
The ‘modern’ –mid-18th C. generally- equivalent of Tony Bath’s campaigns in Hyboria : quasi-historical armies fielded by imaginary countries, but without any ‘fantasy’ element. A traditional component of mid-18th C. wargaming since the seminal late sixties – early seventies books Young’s ‘Charge !’ and Grant’s ‘The War Game’.
The Lace Wars are the niche par excellence of wargame Imagi-Nations for several good reasons. A practical one : commercially available minis are ‘historicals’ and –if you are not too nitpicking, and when seen en masse on a table top, mid 18th C. uniforms are rather ‘generic’, without the obvious national distinguishing features that appeared by the late 18th C.. Thus your fictitious troops will not be immediatly identified as soldiers of this or that nationality painted in bizarre colors. Then an ‘intellectual’ rationale: with the 300+ historical states ans statelets of the Roman Empire, adding a pair of imaginary ones is not ‘blasphemous’ – you can even field your troops in a large historical games as minor Kreis contingents!
In this context a few of us freaks had sometime ago a forum exchange (elsewhere) about the following ‘what if’ : in an ‘alternate’ timeline Cagliostro became a free-lance mercenary general loaning his private army to the highest bidder; what this army would look like?
We agreed that Cagliosto’s ‘historical’ travels would give the main areas of recruitment: Italy, South-Eastern France and (Swiss mercenaies being commonplace then) Italian-speaking Switzerland. This gave us the general cut and likely main colors of the uniforms –‘fictitious’ wargamers take their designs as seriously, put in their figments as much devotion and work, as ‘historicals’ searching for the shako plate pattern of the Xeme Legere during the winter 1808-1809.
Now Cagliostro used a number of assumed names, general ‘noble’ ones built on the name of an Italian town. The coat-of-arms of these town would provide the secondary colors (smallclothes, distinctive facings) of the uniforms and the badges on the flags.
While the names of these town would be used as the names of the corresponding regiments.
Now there’s a firm tradition, among Old School Imagi-Nation builders, not to be afraid by the occasional tongue-in-cheek tone, witticism and even debatable pun. Thus one proposed to add one Reggimento Mc Aroni recruited among descendants of TYW mercenary Highlanders settled in Italy (they no longer wear the kilt : too many thorny bushes, too densely packed thorny shrubs… Basically, Grenzers in blue bonnet with the typical Highlands short waistcoat and even shorter coat; alternatively Highlanders with, instead of trews or kilt, the short (but, for them, chequered ?) breeches and light shoes with lacing-up around the ankles that were worn in parts of Italy, in Malta… : quite similar in appearance to the better known lower garnment of Napoleonic Spanish guerilleros).
Then David Linienblatt, Master Military Taylor of of Tippelbruder, who offers those so useful SYW uniforms templates and flags designs, posted the Ordnance Flag of Sardinian Swiss Reggimento Fatio: of course I could not resist and suggested the REGGIMENTO FELLATIO!
So here we are…
French historical ‘Dragons de Beauffremont’ and ‘Hussards de Beausobre’ give Dragons de Foutremon and Hussards de Beauzobe respectively, but only those with a good knowledge of French can appreciate.
The Regiment d’O is historical –merely a variant spelling of ‘Regiment d’Eu’ (of Fontenoy fame).
Wargamers are, in their overwhelming majority, anglophones: so, any suggestion of a ‘good’ (in English, but at least vaguely sounding Italian or French) regimental name?
.
Full list of French names (!) posted jan. 15 "09 as a comment.
Blog or Discussion Group?
Remember that what you post on the web may be for more than ‘immediate consumption’. People who read your messages when you posted them may wish to come back to them years later. Newcomers to the wargaming era or to the hobby may be interested by information and illustrations you posted year ago.
Forums / Discussion Groups are exactly that : discussion boards. Great for *real time exchanges*, but very unfriendly when it come to illustrate a message or search for old posts. Photos (with minimal, almost useless captions) and text are kept separated, so navigating between them to read a battle report or a modelling tutorial is a but in the pain (the same when pics are stored outside a blog, in a gallery such as Photobucket). The search engine (if any) for archived messages is extremely poor. Thus Discussion Groups are good for light chat and exchange of information of limited interest / soon to be obsolete, but totally inadequate for anything of more long-lasting value –such as eye-candy pics, painting tutorials, after action reports, campaign journals...
On the opposite blogs allow to insert illlustrations in the text, and while most are not ‘searchable’ a very handy tool is provided by the *labels*, which allow to sort out and isolate posts dealing with a given topic (rather like the Excel 'filter' utility). Extremely reader-friendly, specially when the blog is devoted to several hobbies / wargaming eras or even merely combines different approaches (‘novelization’ of characters’ adventures, battle reports and terrain pieces modelling, for instance). I wish they were more frequently used on not a few blogs I regularly follow…
Indeed Discussion Groups and blog correspond to different aims / requirements, and may be complementary. Taking as example the ‘Great Pangean Campaign’, the devoted forum is great for the light chat and exchange of hundred of messages in *preparation* of the campaign: they would be an encumbrance on a blog, even if most were posted as comments rather than ‘true’ messages. But it is to be hoped that, when the campaign really starts it will be ‘blogged’.
Indeed not a few fellow ‘alternate’ Lace Wars players started posting pics, battle reports and drafts of a campaign journal on a Yahoo Group, but soon turned to launch their own blog (Saint-Maurice) or even blogs (the Euratia campaign)… Hope future campaigns will receive the same treatment.
.
THE LACE WARS? WHAT'S THE FASCINATION?
(An interesting debate on the Grand Duchy of Stollen blog.
As an attempt of summarized synthesis:)
Eye-candy: Tricorns and justaucorps... and lace
At the age of 10 I started collecting info. and images of Napoleonic uniforms (Bucquoy…) – not that the was much other choice in France in the mid-"50! But at 15 I was already oversaturated with nitpickings about the actual pattern of the shako plate worn by the Nème de Ligne during the winter 1807-1808. I explored other eras, and at 20 had no longer any inclination toward soldiers in stingy clothes wearing flowerpots on their heads. 200% subjective of course, but for me the Lace Wars -the WAS even more than the SYW- saw the optimum of H&M military elegance. The uniforms are myriad, gaudy and colourful.
By the GNW / WSS times the coat was 'too' (in my eyes) large and bulky, turning the soldiers into bibendums in bathrobes; while as early as the SYW uniforms started following the 'stingy' Prussian fashion and lace started disappearing. By the end of the 18th C. armies tend to become more (gloomily) 'uniforms' (the Russian and Swedish ones had already been so for a century, but were the exception): distinguishing colors tend to be no longer proud characteristics of a regiment, but of an area of recruitment (American infantry of the AWI) or of a whole arm of service. Probably linked to the breaking of traditions during the revolutionary turnmoils (Great Britain was unaffected) and to the economics of huge draft armies (in Revolutionary and Napoleonic France it affected only line infantry, yet the bulk of the army). Progressively one came to the like of the American "Yellow: cavalry, light blue: infantry, red: artillery" of the ACW and John Ford's 'US Cavalry' movies. Even before khaki a good part of the pageantry was lost.
Simple and elegant linear warfare... and wargames
With the Revolutions (American and French) small professional armies were largely replaced with masses of volunteers and draftees – basically civilians in arms.
Meaning that formations previously known: infantry squares (Blenheim), screens of skirmishers and attack columns (the Plains of Abrahams) but rarely used became common-merely because the infantry was no longer able hold its line, to remain steady exchanching murdererous fire with 'the shop across the street' at 100 paces, to stop a cavalry charge by its fire. Troops type so far (normally) absent from a regular, pitched battle (light types, militia…) became commonplace, in units of their own and as subunits (voltigeurs..).
On the opposite as Charles 'The War Game' Grant demonstrated, you can refight major battles of the mid-18th C. with only 3 troop types -infantry, cavalry, artillery- and 2 formations -line and column. Ideal for simple rules yet very pleasant games, (and to attract newcomers to the hobby).
Of course you CAN add later, at leisure, skirmish lines, columns, squares, 'morale & training classes', light troops, militia, 'irregular charging infantry' (Highlanders up to "45..) and even open the Pandora box of the dreaded 'national characteristics'. But it's entirely up to you. All are compulsory for 'Napoleonics'.
Ethics (?)… and lack of connection to ‘Real World’ feelings
The Lace Wars were basically wars without hatred. The 'knightly' attitude, the taste for panache, affected by the officers reflected on the soldiery. Of course there was blood, suffering, mutilations… but, like to-day football / soccer players (but without the obscene incomes), soldiers were professionals doing their job, often to their best, often with pride and devotion to the Regiment. They killed, but were not indifferent to courage and 'good workmanship'. The 'enemy' was more an 'opponent', alliances changed (though France and Great Britain *always* managed to be at each other's throat) and 'transfers' (deserters, POW) were allowed: so 'the enemy' could become an ally or a comrade-in-arms.
Contemporary texts show that most at least sincerely tried to spare the civilians (except during sieges, of course, where 'embargo' and bombings had the same consequences as to-day).
With Revolutions and wars of independance (all *civil wars* at least at the start) at least one side fields bloodthirsty mobs maddened by fanaticism -just as with Wars of Religion, with the same consequences. At no time in Flanders during the WAS were whole villages massacred, babies bunrt in the bakers' owens, POW mass slaughtered… as during the French Revolution.
And this goes far further than ideology-crazed volunteers. As soon as you have an army based on *draft*, as soon as you tear numerous young men from their family, home and civilian life to send them to the bloodbath you *have to* -to keep them motivated and merely willing- mobilize them with hatred. And to keep this hatred burning by constant propganda de-humanizing the enemy, military and civilians alike. Recent wars largely devoided of political / ideological content, 'classical' wars between countries but involving draft armies: WWI, WWII in the Pacific… remind us of this unsavory reality.
The Lace Wars are unlikely to stirr embarrassing religious / ideological / political / patriotic echoes. While religion tended to mould alliances among the German states, it was no longer a primary issue. The Wars of Religions were over, a thing of the past (within Christianity –of course, if you add Turks or pirates fromthe Barbary Coast...).
Most belligerants were monarchies, thus no obvious political / ideological connotations for us 21st C. wargamers.
France and Germany were *not* at war -Germany as such did not exist, and French armies if roaming in Germany were there as allies of half the German states (of course, swapping alliances if needed, France and Great Britain *were* at war: but has been a trivial fact of life almost from the days of William the Conqueror, and would remain so to the Crimean War - negligible, thus, as that scratch on the wallpaper that has always be here and you no longer see!).
The limited nature of the conflicts and general regard for "the laws of war" give the Lace Wars an innocence and even naivete which sorts well with the innocence of play.
Wargaming without "discernable baddies" prevents you from *enjoying* their slaughter. Probably a good thing not to rejoice at mutilations and deaths, even 'virtual' -too easy to carry it to 'The Real World™'. Not that I am a politically correct 'bleeding heart', but I prefer games to be moments of escape / haven / respite from reality -thus somehow 'peaceful' even if wargames. Passionate massacres we have enough in reality.
A related point is how can one bear to send his (/her, rarely alas) lovely painted (regardless of the artistic level of the result!) minis - one's *children* in a way- to the bloodbath? Not by remembering they are 'toy soldiers' -if you acknowledge to be 'an adult playing with toy soldiers' you are probably of the 'Old School' mentality that tends to forget a mini is only the 3D marker of 15 or 20 'real men' but on the opposite to see, 'feel' him as an 'individual'. You are of the lucky kind that kept, as an adult, the children's marvelous imagination and ability to 'submerge' in imaginary world -what Cocteau translated by 'All children are poets'. The 'protective reflex' is to see -unconsciously- tabletop fights as some Grandes Manoeuvres / lifesize training session rather than 'real' battles (hypocritical but confortable). Easier when these battles look somehow 'unreal' / 'not serious'.
The Lace Wars, by the nature / motivations of the 'real' conflicts, the contemporary war ethos, the formalized, ballet-like appearance of their pitched battles, the gaudy uniforms... have some 'unreal' feeling which greatly helps to keep battlegames 'disconnected' from 'bloody reality', to be and stay *games*.
And, given the simple nature of the Lace Wars mainstream armies and tactics, specially *simple* games.
Possibilty of world-wide campaigns… and of unconventional battles: Specially if you use a fictitious restricted setting -traditional in the period since C. Grant’s «The War Game»- you can play a campaign of very limited scale. But on the other hand, while the SYW is often called 'the first World War' but indeed -with France and Great Britain already involved oversea- the 1st WW is actually the WAS.
Major Powers but also a myriad of statelets and realms to immerse yourself in - each with their own customs, history and traditions.
Skirmishes on the fringes of the known world.
Even some great naval strategy in the shape of Hughes and Suffren. ‘Hornblower’ and ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ are sources of inspiration as well as the more obvious ‘Barry Lyndon’!
Given this precedent, in addition to ± 'historical' oversea (for us Europeans) campaigns in North & South America, India and to minor actions in Africa and the Indian Ocean, you can play 'corsairs or is it pirates' PoCarribean fashion, and / or attempt by the mid 18th C. a 'rehearsal' of the great colonial expeditions of Victorian times (and by then the Fachoda incident would start a real conflict): field your 'tricorns' against your Victorian Sudaneses or Pathans or Chinese Boxers for instance?
’Charge !’ and ‘The War Game’: a beneficial ‘historical accident’ in the history of wargaming
'The War Game' and 'Charge!', with their charm and whims, their delightful depiction of *simple* 18th C. wargaming, had several other contributors –myself included- of the thread hooked to the hobby, and we are certainly not alone in this case. Hopefully the 'Companion' and the 'Raid on Saint-Michel' will attract new people to the Lace Wars.
Imagi-Nations
Some among us take greater pleasure from the building of a fictitious country (its geography, history, economics, genealogy of the ruling line, current political situation and court schemes) and [or 'at least, / to start with'] an imaginary army, to design its uniforms and flags… than to search (in Osprey, generally..) for the historically accurate cuff pattern of this or that regiment. A few Imagi-Nations exist set in other eras, Napoleonic or (African) cintemporary e.g. but the Lace Wars are their niche 'par excellence'.
Why so?
-The enticing, even fascinating description of the VSF vs Lorraine campaign in Charles Grant’s ‘The War Game’.
-The 300+ states and statelets of the Empire: against such a bewieldering kaleidoscope of countries and uniforms, adding 'yours' is not a monstruous incongruity. One can add in a state of his own invention without disturbing History, because there were already so many petty little states with their own little concerns around which the great wars occured with only minimal disruptions.
-The unicity of military practices, types of troops, tactics... in 'western' armies: you have sure guidelines.
-The identical (at least at first glance and at the level of troops seen en masse from a distance on a wargame table) military fashion across the whole 'western' world. Commercially available minis have just to be painted to become parts of your imaginary army, without their intented 'nationality' as obvious as with Napoleonic ones -each country having its own characteristic headgear for instance: thus your troops are not immediately identified as 'Prussians painted in bizarre colors'.... and your fictitious regiments can moonlight in ‘historical’ games as badly known Kreis contingents, who would even notice ?
.
THE LACE WARS? WHAT'S THE FASCINATION?: a post-scriptum
Two (not unrelated) points, mentioned here for completness but separately as a kind of post-scriptum since most wargamers will find them irrelevant and even, at first, out of topic. Indeed these points could perhaps favour ‘astounding adventures’ games more than ‘mainstream’ wargame campaigns.
-By the mid-18th C. a good part of Earth was still to be discovered.
Meaning that deep in the Amazonian forest or the Indochinese jungle you can discover a ‘lost city’, either in ruins but filled with treasures or still inhabited by the survivors of some ‘forgotten civilization’ –maybe a miniature whole ‘lost continent’. In the Sahara you can run into the city-states of Ayesha or Antinea, further South the King Solomon's Mines: instead of being ‘Victorian’, your intrepid explorers can well wear tricorns.…
And most of the Pacific Ocean is still to be explored in detail. Thus you can create your own pleasant kingdom in Tahiti, or large Imagi-Nations in Australia. You can even discover a new continent –call it Mu if you wish– with its original primitive and / or advanced cultures.
Of course all this was true before, and will still be for some time. But by the Lace Wars times the maritime powers, their navies and Indies Companies had the required ships and experience. The 18th C. is the century of exploration of the Pacific, by Behring, Cook, La Perouse… Later the ‘blank’ areas shrank progessively, making ‘great’ discoveries more and more unlikely.
The «Century of Enlightenment», its name of «Age of Reason» notwithstanding, saw the cooccurente of two opposite cultural features:
-on the one hand most people still believed in ‘magic / sorcery’: re. the rumours of werewolves in Gevaudan, the inquiries of the Austrian police in the Balkans about vampires, the success of Saint-Germain and Cagliostro at the French Court, the common ‘magical’ interpretation of Mesmer’s experiments…
-on the other hand it was the time of technological innovations and breakthroughs with the first balloons, submarine, steam-powered car and boat…
Thus adding a pinch of ‘supernatural’ to your setting would not be out of character - while Munchausenian contraptions *can* be built as prototypes, and steam power now makes several of Da Vinci’s projects almost viable in a ‘Lacepunk’ setting.
Both approaches (not mutually exclusive, in the same way as both are accepted components of Victorian Science Fiction) are far from ‘mainstream’ Lace Wars gaming, but currently are tempting a few a few inquisitize minds.
To summarize, the ‘tricorn’ era is specially propitious for two gaming genres normally associated with Victorian times: ‘Colonial’ and ‘Science / Fantasy adventure’. Certainly *NOT* what most wargamers would spontaneously think of as appealing characteristics of the 18th C. –but true nonetheless. And you can add not only ‘Khartoum’ but ‘Van Helsing’ and ‘Tomb Raider’ to your sources of inspiration: is not the Lace Wars gamer’s life marvelous?
.
ARMIES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF 'UNHISTORICITY'...
... can coexist merrily in a given campaign: for instance in Pangea all countries are fictitious in their names and geography. Yet the eye-candy illustrations of the Battle of Bayerlindorf and the Battle of Geldoff's Woods reveal that Melchester, Nouvelle-Champagne and Vandenburg field 100% historical armies (British-Hanovrian, French and Prussian, respectively) while those of Kopf-Schlager and Vorlund are imaginary -and all are* beautiful*.
Btw this example show how forums are less reader-friendly than blogs: following the rules and architecture of the forum, the continent is described in a given directory, 'general posts' in another, the AAR appear in still another, specially devoted one or in 'Club Activities. Seemingly without possibility of 'crossposting' (as e.g. on TMP). And of course posts cannot be 'tagged' / 'labelled' for future sorting out, insurance of an exhaustive retrieval of pertinent information.
Yet on such *forums* -re also the Lead Adventure, Gentlemens Wargame Parlour and Legends of the High Seas ones for instance- any web explorer can fully enjoy the whole content, benefit from the experience accumulated for years by the members: if not registred you are unallowed only to post a comment or start a new topic and to contact members. Quite more convivial than most Yahoo groups you have to be a registered member to gain access to the messages, files, photo (without real captions, nor 'link' to any corrponding message or archived file!): like a public library as opposed to a private one.
.
'BIODIVERSITY' OF LACE WARS ARMIES, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
(First, some eye-candy as a post-scriptum to previous comment: the (fictitious) army of the Electorate of Enteburg in Pangea deserves a look -and more!)
Just like living species, Lace Wars armies are each unique and irreplaceable.
Now, historical armies are well and safely documented, and -specially now with the Internet- the documentation is available and duplicated everywhere worldwide. Thus they are the equivalent of thriving ubiquitous species.
On the opposite fictional armies are rare -only one specimen!, of extremely restricted habitat -the brain, files, and wargame room of their creator- and terribly vulnerable: if their designer for instance closes his blog, they are lost for the world. And since they fully exist -with all their background, units history, minute uniforms and flags details, characters of note...- *only* in the brain of their designer, no one can 'clone' them to ensure their survival. Thus they are the equivalent of endangered endemic species.
So you who built an imaginary army, even a single unit for a start, please share with us. Your creation is as unique and precious as any rare species of orchid or butterfly. And by publishing all the relevant material you ensure the survival of your brainchild.
.
Imagi-Nations set in other periods then the Lace Wars with their propitious peculiarities?
TMP threads:
- General comparisons,
- Invention in Historical Gaming,
- Historical vs Balanced vs Fantasy,
- Ancients,
- Caribbean,
- Alternate timeline,
- 'fictional' (±) Napoleonics,
- Victorian (SF) -one also has Slobbovia, beside archetypal Ruritania, of course!
- references to 'modern' Africa (and search for 'Bongolesia'!)....
[See also WWII Opeland]
Obviously, all of the enjoyable, stimulating interactions practiced by the members of 'Emperor vs Elector' are eaqually possible playing other periods!
.
LACE WARS IMAGI-NATIONS ON THE WEB: A POINT AND A PLEA
Having just added a new link on my blog, to take stock of the situation I did a counting: I have now 127 'Fict' links to 'active' blogs or websites at least partly devoted to one (or more) 18th C. Imagi-Nations.
More than half are contributors to the 'Emperor vs Elector' collective 'diplomatic' blog.
12 links lead to contributors to the Great Pangaean Campaign (a note of warning, go get all the relevant information be sure to look for miniatures galleries, some battle reports posted as such or as Club meetings reports, and some general considerations as well as any 'weird' action are posted elsewhere again); more to come there, several countries don't have their own 'folder' yet.
Since many of these players created both sides of their fictitious conflict, these links lead to some 200 imaginary 18th C. countries. Several other are fully described in the 'Files' and photo albums of a few Yahoo groups; indeed, with more concise passing references in various forums (this one included) I collected some 260 names of Lace Wars Imagi-Nations.
Yet for sure there are many others on the web that I still have to discover. I browse wargaming forum, read the profiles of people commenting posts on the 'devoted' blogs -just discovered a new blogger with 2 countries yet to be named. But, if you know of a 'webbed' fictitious 18th C. (WG or RPG) country, could you please check my list of 'Fict' links and post any additional link here on TMP? In advance, thanks.
In addition to the 'active' links I keep trace of 14 -piteously- 'dead' ones, and here comes my second plea: when your wargaming interests changes, or when the harsh (or less so: birth of the heir...) requirements of 'The Real World™' pull you away from the hobby, PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE / DELETE YOUR BLOG! Don't be selfish -other people still have a passion for what does not interest you any longer. Don't be misled by the superficially 'ephemeral' day-to-day diary appearance of blogging: actually you accumulated a precious 'bank' of files and illustrations Actualized to-day or two years ago, your blog is a precious source of information and inspiration for the newcomer, and a library of useful references for the veteran. A blog is free and doesn't require any maintenance, so please keep it open to the community!
(Xposted on the 'Pirates' board for possible late 17th -early 19th C. Barataria-like countries in the Gulf of Mexico - Carribean area, and on the VSF one for possible Ruritania-like 19th C. countries)
.
WHY DOES THE 18th CENTURY ATTRACT 'IMAGINATIONS'?
An interesting thread -with links to some other relevant ones- on TMP.
.
TELL ME ABOUT IMAGI-NATIONS...
A promising thread just started on T M P.
.
"IN PRAISE OF CHARLES GRANT, Old Style 18th Century"
On the Lead Adventures forum:
"I read Charles S. Grant's The War Game Companion, then returned to his father's classic. The upshot? Spencer Smiths - a sort of German states musketeer regiment:"
(photos removed from some reason, unfortunately: ?¿?).
.
LACE WARS, IMAGI-NATIONS, TOLERANCE, INNOCENCE AND TONGUE-IN-CHEEK
It's certainly not coincidental that on the one hand the 18th C. specially attracts Imagi-Nations, that Lace Wars gamers on the average show more indulgence toward aesthetically-justified 'inaccuracies', and at last that, faithful to the Old School tradition of P. Young and C. Grant, creators of Lace Wars Imagi-Nations indulge in the occasional 'tongue-in-cheek', often including witticism in names.
My interpretation is that the Lace Wars as we like to imagine them -those gentlemanly officers with lot of delicate Dutch lace at the collar and cuffs of their shirts, trying to outdo each other with courtneousness ("Shoot first, English gentlemen"); this 'knightly', 'elegant' warfare with opposite commanders exchanging compliments, fine meals and wines, almost invitations to concerts and dinners, between battles... - taste *irreal*, taste more like a theaterical play than the 'The Real world ™'. Thus, the Lace Wars are 'in harmony' with tolerant, light-hearted, 'peaceful' wargamers, the kind that may feel less uncomfortable with the obscene association of war with game when wargaming is obviously not taken more 'seriously' than the "Bang! You're dead!" of children playing Cow-boys & Indians; when wargamers do not claim to be 'seriously' simulating a bloodbath, but acknowledge to be adults playing with toy soldiers. Such detachment cannot be dissociated from an indulgent tolerance toward other people's approach of the hobby; and the 'tongue-in-cheek' tone, including wittiness in the choice of names, contributes to 'adversise' their 'innocence / innocuousness'.
.
WARGAMING IMAGI-NATIONS IN OTHER PERIODS?
Wargaming with imaginary countries and armies is an acknowledged part of Ancient – Medieval wargaming at least since people began to play in the inspirational setting of Conan the Barbarian, e.g. Tony Bath's seminal 'Hyboria' campaign; and of mid-18th C. wargaming since the late sixties (Young's 'Charge!', Grant's 'The War Game'). A long-standing Imagi-Nation, Gerolstein, is known for 18th C. events.
Then… Numerous minor German states, many of them for a time members of the Confederation of the Rhine, still existed during the Revolutionary – Napoleonic period: yet I know of only one example of imaginary country 'wargamed' in the period, Ober Nord Westfalen. Napoleonic players are generally die-hard 'historicals'.
Victorian wargamers may be encouraged by literary precedents, such as the Ruritania – Graustark series; the (historical) Fenian attempt against Canada intrigued a few wargamers. Yet even VSF players seem to prefer Belgians on Mars over Ruritanians on Earth. The current renewal of interest in H.G. Wells -fashion 'Funny Little Wars' may give a new impetus to 'alternate' (but not Sci-Fi) Victorian wargaming.
A few Imagi-Nations were created for an Interwars setting, yet seemingly (Tintin's) Borduria and Syldavia just begin to appear as wargaming countries. It looks like Freedonia and Grand Fenwick have not yet attracted a buyer (though the names are used for Lace Wars imaginary countries), probably because they are basically 'void' names without detailed background? The recently 'discovered' British Civil War will certainly promote 'alternate' Interwars gaming.
Contemporary Imagi-Nations are flourishing with AK-47, but the system would work equally well for Belchistan or Pukistan.
Then, why this lack of appeal of 'alternate' Late Renaissance / TYW? I doubt the Empire was less scrappy by then than a century later. Maybe people gaming in this period are mostly 'historicals'? Not much literary inspiration (H. Beam Piper's 'Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen'?) either. Also, uniforms were not as common as in later times: and why bothering to create an imaginary army if you cannot distinguish it with characteristic uniforms (or dress and armour: this may explain for a part why 'alternate' Ancient – Medieval countries are generally set in a blatantly 'non-historical' background, combining cultures from tens of centuries; to some degree the universe of Prince Valiant is such a patchwork, yet does not seem inspirational: to my experience Ancient – Medieval wargaming changed *a lot* since 1970 to a 'competitive & simulationist' atmosphere).
In any form of fiction -wargaming among them- settings specially propitious to imaginary countries accumulate
. numerous countries,
. often many of them small,
. a good proportion not well known of the non-specialist,
. several with bewilderingly similar names.
Such was the Holy Empire until early Napoleonic times, to some degree the Balkans as they progressively gained their independance from the Ottomans and Austria. Such nowadays are Subsaharian Africa and post-USSR Caucasus. What is surprising is the lack of 'success' of South America, since the Wars of Independance a 'real' setting very propitious to Imagi-Nations? Will Tintin's Nuevo Rico and San Theodoros or Spirou's Palombia soon appear in a wargames campaign?
.
CALLING TO IMAGI-NATION
(Shamelessly hitchhiked a TMP thread: "You are interested in creating your own imaginary Lace Wars country and army, but are still unsure of what miniature figures to use? Well, there are many creative processes you can enjoy before owning a single mini!"....)
Toy with ideas for:
- YOUR COUNTRY:
- its name, general location, rough geography , then the distinctive features of its variousprovinces / counties;
- the political situation: political system, ruling line, ongoing plots;
- the cast of characters;
- its history;
- and of course its national flag.
Some players enjoy to 'novelize' the picaresque / swashbuckling adventures of outstanding characters.
And of course as soon as you have a few minis you can role-play these adventures.
- YOUR ARMY:
Once you have the OOB,
you can start your career of military fashion designer
NBA uniforms templates are so convenient to help visualize and test considered colors combinations
Then you can write down the individual 'profile' of each regiment, its colours, regimental anecdotes and traditions
Thus you will be constantly cheered up by the developments of your project.
Once you gave it the initial impetus, this enthrallling process is self-maintained, your project will develop on its own: like Dr. Frankeinstein you'll feel your brainchild got its own life and will!
.
ADVOCATING 18th C. WARGAMING & IMAGI-NATIONS
Hitchhiked a thread "Why are so few French wargamers taken by the 18th C.?" on a French forum. Argument in French, so I do not insert it here. Hope to at least intrigue a few people?
.
COLLECTIVE BLOGS FOR POST-18th C. IMAGI-NATIONS
Posted on TMP as an echo to the creation of Interbellum, a collective blog devoted to be "Emperor vs Elector's equivalent" for 'Imagi-nations and imaginary wars set in the 1920s, 1930s & 1940s'.
Historical 'zones' (areas x periods) specially favourable to imaginary countries and conflicts combine a patchwork of numerous countries -many of them small, hardly known by the general public, either old but ignored or 'new' (resurrected from oblivion), often with bewilderingly similar names (all those Hesse- and Saxe-...; more recently Moldavia / Moravia, Slovakia / Slovenia...)- with a state of turnmoil, political instability and / or rampant hostilities; typically, broken up or crumbled down empires.
(INTERWARS): such indeed is post-WW1 Eurasia with the post-Czarist ('Back of Beyond') East, Baltic area, post-Czarist and post-Austrian (after being post-Ottoman) ark from the Balkans to the Caucasus.
And of course during the Interwars South America was as propitious to imaginary countries and conflicts as it had been since the wars of liberation -re the famous Gran Chapo war between Nuevo Rico and San Theodoros, for which very suitable minis are now available. While during the 1920-1950 period the 'Yellow Peril' was a real concern, at least in fiction...
As for imaginary conflicts, the British Civil War is already well known.
(continued)
Two other recent periods are potential cradles of Imagi-nations and imaginary wars, and would deserve each a collective 'EvE'-like blog of its own:
- the 1860-1914, Victorian to Belle Epoque one, of Ruritania fame and already well represented 'oversea' (Afriboria, Morvalistan... but also the republics of Sonora and Texas, the Fenian state -several incarnations- and 'progressive Hawaii'). Several novels of the time described a 'Yellow' (or 'Black') invasion of Europe and 'the end of civilization as we know it'. As for imaginary conflicts, they are currently fought by an increasing number of 'Color' armies in their 'Funny little wars' of Wells' tradition; the 'Things to come' movie could equally be set in 1905, and most of French public opinion was ready to revive the 8 centuries old tradition of 'Guerre aux Anglais!' after the Fachoda incident.
- Our very time, with 'decolonized' Africa (AK47 'republics') and post-USSR Eurasia, from the Baltic to all those 'new' countries in the Caucasus: Blechistan, Pukistan... And South America as always, of course: since Argentina started a war in 'The Real World™', an open conflict between Palombia and Uroguy is more than likely.
Sadly, despite (or because of?) literary precedents such as The Land Leviathan and the Draka series, South Africa is seemingly ignored by 'Imaginative' wargamers. While the French Huguenots who settled there in the late 17th C. *could* have built a country of their own. And, had Christian Ethiopia extended as envisaged in the Belisarius sequence, it would be ruling -perhaps under the name of Afrodizia?- from 'our' Somalia to 'our' South Africa since the Renaissance at the very least.
Hopefully, with time, Imagi-Nations first known from a given period will see their historical coverage extended, and most of their creators contributing to more than one (4 or 5 by then: what about one for the 'Confederation of the Rhine' / Congres of Vienna' Europe) of the 'period specific' League of Imagi-Nations collective blogs.
.
"WHAT-IF?" NATIONS AND IMAGI-NATIONS
Is there any fundamental difference between them?
A Catalan wargamer, perhaps because of his 'scrupulously historical' background and experience, suggested they are totally different beasts.
In a series of comments to his posts I argued that the frontier between What-if Nations and Imagi-Nations is more than blurred. Indeed most Imagi-Nations are What-if Nations, their degree of "fictitiousness" varying with the 'weirdness' of the "What if?" -and, for a part, with the age of the divergence from 'our time line'. Bill Protz' Gallia is a "What if?" SYW France, the "What if?" being no more than "What if France is also known as Gallia?". His Britannia is the equivalent Great Britain, with the additional "What if the Young Pretender attempts a new landing in Scotland sometimes after Culloden?". At the other extreme Neues Sudland and the Holy Mormoan Kingdom, both located in Australia, are of course totally fictitious, but are also "What if Australia was discovered and colonized during the 17th C.?" countries. Most 'EvE' "Germanic" Imagi-Nations are of the "What if, two centuries ago, some Duke or Prince had one more heir than historically?" type countries: the only consequence being that, still by Lace Wars times, the patchwork of 300+ states and statelets that is the Empire has one more small member....
.
HISTORICAL 'WHAT-IF?' VS 'WEIRD' IMAGINARY COUNTRIES AND CONFLICTS
For an attempt to discuss the frontier between 'historical fiction' Imagi-Nations & 'alternate' Nations -that could fit in the mainstream 'Emperor vs Elector' "universe"- and 'science-fiction' / Lacepunk ones -that would belong to a different 'collective world' / be federated in a collective blog of their own- see O4.16.2010 comment there.
.
(TOUTE PETITE) PRESENTATION & DEFENSE DU JEU 18ème SIECLE AVEC IMAGI-NATIONS
En Français sur Les forums du jeu d'Histoire.
.
FROM "WHAT-IF?" COUNTRIES TO IMAGI-NATIONS
A comment (attempting to be reassuring) to a TMP post shyly announcing "'maybe?'a "What-if?" -but emphatically - not -fictional- 18th C. country."
.
"WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE FROM AN IMAGI-NATION BLOG?"
An interesting thread on the TMP 18th C. board
"Putting articles on all manner of topics- history, geography, customs, laws, peerage, etc- ."
All the topics you mentioned are what make the unique character, the originality of an imagi-nation.
For me I also really enjoy:
- 'regimental profiles',
- spies / counterspies confrontations, plots and (picaresque) individual adventures.
Eye-candy -finished units and illustrations of battle reports- is always appreciated.
For some of us wargaming is just an excuse to design an imagi-nation (and / or designing original uniforms and flags), then writing down the history of their country since the Late Roman ages, &/or having it 'to live', &/or follow the 'Pulp' adventures of a few characters / unfolding of Court plots; you may wind out your irritation about current political events in 'The Real World™' by depicting them in a satirical way Voltaire-fashion, in your 'alternate' 18th C.
On the opposite an imagi-nation can be no more than a convenient setting for a wargaming campaign, or merely a series of enjoyable, spectacular battles -or even to paint a lot of minis or to model lovely buildings and vignette backgrounds .
But your blog should reflect what you are interested in and not what you think that others want: post what *you* enjoy to post and we'll share the enjoyment!
Also on the same forum, an interesting debate about the relative merits of the TMP boards, Yahoo groups, forums and blogs.
.
A FINE 'ALTERNATE' GEOPOLITICAL SETTING
Developed by Rudy Nelson for the 2nd half of the 19th C., but could be rather easily transfered to the mid 18th C. - with or without the Sci-Fi 'Lacepunk' aspect.
I suggested similar alliances for far away expeditions, either to Mars or on Earth to Mu :
- the Pan-Scandinavian Union is new, but could be enlarged to / replaced by a 'Northern Protestant' Alliance including Great Britain and perhaps the Netherlands (red uniforms)
- the Catholic League corresponds to the Bourbon alliance (France, Spain, Naples) here + Austria (white or light colors uniforms)
- the German States Union could be restricted to Reformed Volkdeutsch / Protestant Northern Germany gathered around Prussia (dark blue uniforms)
- the Pan-Slavic Federation (no-Russia) could be enlarged to include Russia (green uniforms); or either, since its original definition corresponds mainly to countries still under Ottoman rule by the mid-18th C., could appear as a 5th competitor, Ottomans with a lot of European auxiliaries?
.
IMAGI-NATIONS: WHAT IS IT AND WHY?
Two recent threads on TMP:
- What is it?
- Why this 'deviance'?
.
AN 'ALL-PERIODS' TMP BOARD FOR IMAGI-NATIONS?
My contributions: I
Rather hostile…. Because Imagi-Nations set in different periods have only in common the fact to be 'imaginary'.
An Imagi-Nation by itself has *nothing special wargaming-wise, to set it apart from its contemporary 'historical' neighbors: the rules, from campaign to battle, the logistics, the tactics are the same. So it would be extremely counter-productive -for both parties- to discuss them in a separate board. Wargaming-wise the 18th C. "Duchy of Hasselhoff" has more in common with 'historical' 18th C. countries / armies than with the Medieval or Victorian "Duchies of Hasselhoff".
There are also 'borderline' cases such as "What-if" nations (re. Soldadets' Catalonia) and pure "Image-Nations" ('I'll built a British army but since I use a different map I'll call it Britannia').
An where will you place "imaginary conflicts" involving 'historical' countries?
Will (imaginary or historical) countries using a little 'advanced technology' (e.g. a few, rather inefficient hot air balloons and steam-powered 'fardiers' of the Cugnot type by SYW times?) count as 'Imagi-Nations' or will they require a board of their own, VSF fashion (as if there were not constant exchanges of informations, on TOE & uniformology e.g., between 'historical Victorian' and VSF gamers?)
The same for (imaginary or historical) countries where occasionally a 'Pulp / Horror' adventure is played, involving possibly 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' component? Will they require a board of their own, 'Fantasy in Imagi-Nations'? If the French Bete du Gevaudan is indeed a wolf or a tamed hyena -or a psychopath *believing* to be a werewolf it can be discussed in the 'normal' 18th Discussion board, but where to report the game if it is a *true* werewolf? A 18th C. (imaginary or historical) country colored with *a few* Sci-Fi (for the period) or Fantasy features has more in common with 'purely historical' 18th C. Countries than with the 'mainstream' settings discussed in the 'Science Fiction' or 'Fantasy' forums.
Specially in wargaming, the borderline between 'imaginary' and '200% historical' is so fuzzy, in the form of a *wide* "no man's land slope", that it would be counter-productive and in many case *artificial and arbitrary* to compulsorily post the corresponding messages on different boards.
Conclusion? Not against a new "all periods" 'Imaginary conflicts and Countries' board
PROVIDED - the Venerated Editor and the 'regulars' of this board are extremely lenient about what is covered and allowed by 'Imaginary', - the accepted, official protocol / TMP etiquette requires a message posted in this new board to be cross-posted on the 'Discussion' forum devoted to the period covered. Thus we would have the best of both world, exchanges between 'imaginers' playing in different periods and exchanges between 'imaginers' and 'historicals' playing in the same period.
But is it worth the extra complication?
Unless this thread was started because some people feel that posts dealing with Imagi-Nations, currently scattered among 'period' boards, are 'littering' / 'soiling' them? Or is it because 'pure historicals' in *some* periods are as appalled / revolted by Ruritanians on Earth as by Belgians on Mars?
Don't know for all periods, but 18th C. regulars seem to perfectly satisfied by the current situation….
AN 'ALL-PERIODS' TMP BOARD FOR IMAGI-NATIONS?
My contributions: II
I can't see where is the problem -except perhaps a peculiar snobbery of the Napoleonic forum, since you precise your 1st Oustandian army is Napoleonic?
We already have enough 'period specific' boards, so if you want, with time, to cover the History and armies of Oustandia from Antiquity to the 21th C. (a worthy project), you can post messages devoted to a given period in the already existing period-specific board
Historical inspiration and rules-wise, a medieval Oustandian army would have far more in common with historical medieval armies, than with its own army by Victorian times. Thus you would have far more useful and inspirational exchanges with other (i.e. 'historical') medieval players -which requires that you post on the same board- than with a Victorian one.
The same does for rules and miniatures: editors and manufacturers produce nothing specific for 'Imagi-Nations', it's to the imagi-gamers to paint (sometimes slightly convert) *historical* miniatures of the period. If you want to build a 18th C. Outstandian force, you'll have to consult the '18th C. products board' and ask veteran historical gamers of the period for suitable ranges. The same for 'economics': if you want to know what proportion of the male population can be reasonably enlisted, or the cost of raising and maintaining a regiment, you'll ask the specialists *of this period*.
And if you carefully take the precaution to mention 'Oustandia' in the title of all your relevant thread-initiating posts (the equivalent of a 'label' in blogging), the 'search' utility will sort out *all* the posts devoted to your Imagi-Nation, regardless of the board / forum they were posted.
In the TMP discussion board I know best (18th C.) Imagi-Nations are well accepted, and I doubt (but may be I'm naive) that an imaginary mini-duchy set during the Italian Wars or the TYW would be anathema in the 'Renaissance' discussion board. Imaginary countries (Tintin's Syldavia, Borduria, San Theodoros…) and conflicts (the VBCW) are not rejected from the 'Interbellum' board. Is the situation different in some 'period specific' boards I'm unfamiliar with?
I'd even go further: without turning to full-fledged Sci-Fi or Fantasy, in the 18th C. discussion board occasional posts about *experimental* war balloons or steam-powered artillery tractor of the Cugnot types do not arouse a barrage of criticisms and vociferous indignation; nor do posts about potential pulp/ horror games set in the 18th C.: is the situation different in other 'period specific' boards?
Would a post about a 'Da Vinci' army -basically a 'normal' Italian army of the time, with a few impressive but basically inefficient models added- would be rejected from the Renaissance board? Some medieval illustrations (many copied from a Byzantine original), depict unlikely but 'authentic' projects, such as a galley propelled by paddle wheels powered by oxen, and a war wagon with sails propelled by the wind: would posts proposing to built a model of these designs be rejected as 'off-topic' from the 'Antiquity' or 'Medieval' boards? Possible, I don't visit them often enough to guess… But on the other hand 'regulars' of the Science-Fiction board would for sure judge them 'out of place'!
A risk with the multiplication of boards is that, unless carefully perusing all, including many that don't directly interest you, you can miss inspirational or useful information. Sensible cross-posting limits this risk, but only to a degree; while the titles of topics are not always informational, and use an unlimited vocabulary so a 'search' is never certain to be exhaustive.
AN 'ALL-PERIODS' TMP BOARD FOR IMAGI-NATIONS?
My contributions: III
You wrote: "I actually had a small army once for when my friends and I played Risk. I painted a bunch of 15mm Napoleonics in my choice of uniform for my game pieces.
If my little Oustandia wants to show off to membership it new purple and green uniforms with silver piping I can do it under there and not tick off the Napiphiles with my "lets pretend army."
So your problem, and the reason you ask for a 'period-aspecific' Imagi-Nation board, is that you don't dare to present your imaginary armies of the Napoleonic period on the Napoleonic boards, for fear of vociferous reactions of rejection and outrageous indignant comments? Maybe you are facing a peculiar hyper-susceptibility of the *Napoleonic* bunch? I can assure you that not such reject exists in several other period-specific boards, the 18th C. ones for sure, but also the 'Interwars' one.
Then, there is a variant of Risk with minis in tricornes that you can buy by whole bags: carry on them the original uniforms you invented and designed for your 'nappies' and join the merry and tolerant 18th C. brotherhood! Be sure even a presentation of your current 'napoleonic' imaginary armies would nor be rejected (specially if you have a blog or, failing that, a photobucket or the like album, and simply post a link to it for those interested).
Imaginary countries and armies set in a given period share *all* -miniatures, campaign and battle rules, economical background, logistic problems…- with 'historical' armies of that same period, and practically nothing with Imagi-Nations (even *that same* Imagination, its national history excepted) set in other periods. If you want period-specific information of any kind from knowledgeable TMP regulars, you'll obtain it on the period specific board, NOT on any 'all-periods' one!
So an 'all periods' Imagi-Nation board would have for only justification to be a location for systematic cross-posting messages dealing with Imagi-Nations and initially posted on the relevant period-specific board. At such it *may* have some usefulness, but….
AN 'ALL-PERIODS' TMP BOARD FOR IMAGI-NATIONS?
My contributions: IV
The reluctance (to say the least) of most of 18th C. gamers to your proposal may stem from the fact that (while generally being not fully conscious of it) we constitute a privileged bunch: 18th C. gamers as a whole appear as a specially tolerant and open-minded community (is this another aspect of the 'Are 18th C. gamers more polite?' question asked on TMP by Der Alte Fritz some time ago?).
Tolerant and open-minded toward Imagi-Nations: while most 'Ancients' seem to have rejected the heritage of Tony Bath's 'Hyboria', Grant's "Grand Duchy of Lorraine" & «Vereinigte Freie Städte» and Young's «Electorate of Teutoberg-Althaufen» are accepted and respected components of most 18th C. gamers' 'cultural background'.
But tolerant and open-minded also toward 'Munchausenian' experimental designs: the topic "Anyone Ever Tried 18th Century Air Balloon Wars?" was initiated by one of our 'hard-boiled 'historicals', Der Alte Fritz. The recent thread "A French Seven Years War Steamtank" was well received and collected serious answers from knowledgeable 'historical' readers. And this is a not a novelty in the 18th C. Discussion board, the thread just mentioned was an extension of the 2008 one "Steam Tanks and War Wagons"; and a friendly discussion about "18th Century VSF?" dates from 2006.
And tolerant and open-minded also toward *occasional* 'Pulp / Horror / Supernatural' games set in the 18th C.: the recent "American Colony Mysteries?" and "Tale of Horror on Frederick Wars" topics were well received and followed, and again this is not a new trend in this discussion board, re the 2007 thread "Horror in the time of The F&I War".
Thus you understand that for the majority of the TMP 18th C. boards (one can exclude the existence of a silent minority judging some 'deviances' or 'extensions' are 'littering' / 'spoiling' the boards) "Unity makes strength " / "Union makes us strong", and the idea of separated 'Lace Wars Imagi-Nations', 'Munchausenian Science-Fiction' and 'Perrault – Swiftian Fantasy' boards an aberrant and dangerous (potential risk of missing interesting posts) suggestion. But your initial message indicate that some other period-specific boards don't enjoy this merry situation….
AN 'ALL-PERIODS' TMP BOARD FOR IMAGI-NATIONS?
My contributions: V What is specially propitious to Imagi-Nations? A "location x period" combination offering: - numerous small states, hardly known by the man in the street, - often with confusingly similar names (Moldavia / Moravia, Slovakia / Slovenia…), - with a rampant unstable state due to controverted borders / contested territories. Such combination generally corresponds to a vast empire which had lost any real central authority (the Holy Empire since at least the Wars of Religion) or, more generally, to the scttared fragments of an exploded / fallen Empire: - The Roman Empire, the Western Europe following the dismantling of the Merovingian and Carolingian 'empires', - Spanish America since the wars of independance… to the present (how many people can pocate differentially Paraguay and Uruguay?) - the Balkans following the recoil of the Ottoman Empire (Ruritania, Syldavia…), - the Balkans and South-Eastern Europe again (and for a part the Baltic shore) after WWI, - Sub-Saharian Africa since the sixties and the independence, - the peripherical areas of the late USRR, mainly -but not only- in the Caucasus with all those Belchistan, Pukistan…
Now, take 5 creators of Imagi-Nations roughly located in the same area (say, the southern part of the lands alloted to Louis the German by the Prüm Treaty ) but set, 1 during the Dark ages, 1 during the Lace Wars, 1 during the late Victorian times, 1 during the Interwars and 1 during the early 21th C.: WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON, even if it is the very SAME imaginary country with an unchanged name? They don't use the same minis or rules (these they share with 'historicals' of their respective periods), the human, cultural, economical, political, technological backgrounds are totally different…. What can they exchange, what kind of mutual inspiration can they provide each other, except bits of genealogy, heraldry and local history?
While 4 creators of 'AK47' contemporary Imagi-Nations located in SubSaharian Africa, the Caucasus, the Baltic Shore and South America CAN have fruitful exchanges, *because they play in the same period*.
Thus I see little or no interest (and a notable risk of missing interesting information) in a new 'centuries-spanning' Imagi-Nations TMP board; at most, if you play a period in which 'mainstream' gamers are totally allergic to Imagi-Nation, open a *period specific* Imagi-Nation board, along the lines of the VSF and WeirdWW2 ones?
18th C. Imagi-Nations (most, but it's not compulsory, with their own blog) exchange through the 'Emperor vs Elector' "collective" blog; the "Interbellum" collective blog was recently launched for the Interwars imaginary conflicts (VBCW excluded, a whole universe in itself) and countries. Why not do the same for other periods, specially if the 'historical' crowd gaming in this period reject Imagi-Nations?
.
A SPECIFIC 'IMAGI-NATIONS' BOARD ON TMP?
A controversial suggestion and an interesting debate.
.
IMAGINE-NATIONS: WHAT RULES?
A TMP 18th C. thread promising (at least!) another 'Imaginative Brother'.
.
IMAGI-NATIONS CAMPAIGN: 'SOLDIER KING' WITH MINIS?
Soldier King (GDW, 1982) is a boardgame simulating a quasi-War of Austrian Succession in the fictional island-continent of Estavia: "When the old Emperor died without issue, four claimants jostled for the Crimson Throne of the Estavian Empire".
According to a few posts on several Yahoo groups years ago, at least two wargaming teams were independently undertaking to translate it as an Hyboria-like campaign with miniature armies; and a googling delivered what looks as a 3rd attempt.
Yet, so far no concrete expression appeared on the web, as far as I know. True, to build at least 4 armies requires *time* and dedication...
Tried to ask for news on TMP, the Lace Wars, Old School Wargaming and SOCDAISY Yahoo groups: : we'll see...
.
I followed some of your links on Estavia. Looks like it should be a good workable basis for a campaign....
I also enjoyed reading your thoughts on the appeal of the lace wars period to Imagi-Nationeers. It is a question that interests me greatly too.
One thing that occurs to me is that the period is appealing in part because it is so bawdy!
Well, not really, but later reactionaries in the more prim and earnest 19th-century certainly felt it was an impossibly decadent age and I think the way those later descendents chose to characterize that period still informs our impressions of it, even today.
In any case, I think the odd juxtaposition of "Age of Reason" and "Age of Decadence" makes the period well suited to fictional, personality-driven gaming, especially gaming with a light-hearted tone.
LIMITS OF THE 'LACE WARS' PERIOD?
While Guerre en dentelle is a centuries-old French designation of mid-18th C. warfare in Continental Western Europe, 'Lace Wars' appeared in English only with the translation of Funcken's book. With a slight misunderstanding: Anglophone readers generally interpret 'lace' as 'tape / ribbon' (tricorne lace, buttonholes lace...) ['galon' in French], French 'dentelle' refers to the 'frilly' lace / 'Dutch' / 'doll' lace (as in lingerie lace) worn by officers at the collar and cuffs of their shirts: its delicacy, rather incongruous for a piece of military field attire, associating itself well with the (reputedly) chivalrous / gentlemanly behavior -almost ludicrous during a bloodbath- of the same officers ('By all means shoot first, Gentlemen, I pray you'). Thus the archetype of the Lace Wars is the War of Austrian Succession, the LW era is the period during which, in western Europe, typical uniforms and tactics were those of the WAS.
Beginning? During the Great Northern War ([1700) and the War of Spanish Succession ([1701) the essential details of uniforms were already similar to those of the WAS; the main difference being that infantry was not yet wearing gaiters. And, while Russian and Swedish infantries still included a low proportion of pikemen, the linear tactics typical of mid-18th C. Europe were already used.
End? I'd set it ca. 1770.
- Uniforms-wise, lace was disappearing, by the mid-1770 reformations had removed it from coat and hat in France, Sweden... Uniforms, following the Prussian trend, were more and more skimpy, already similar in cut to those of Revolutionary / early Napoleonic times; tricorne was turning into a bicorne, was replaced with a flat-topped 'postillon' hat in Sweden, by a helmet in Russia, announcing the 19th C. when each major power had its own peculiar military hat -flowerpot, frying pan, stovepipe...
- With the AWI appear a new type of recruits, and thus of tactics: one side was made of volunteers / militia mostly lacking training and discipline (at first): heralding the mass drafted armies of the Revolutionary / Napoleonic times, with the consequences of the 'lack of professionalism' on tactics. Infantry had no longer the discipline / nerve to hold motionless exchanging fire with an enemy line, hence the charges at the fastest possible speed (in columns) screened by swarms of barely controlled skirmishers; lack of confidence facing cavalry prompted the generalization of the square, &c...
But chiefly with the Revolutionary Wars the 'feel' and 'ethics' of war were totally changed. The 'professionals' of the Lace Wars were like football / soccer players to-day: they played for money and pride, they played rough but with 'nothing personal', individual 'transfers' of 'players' (soldiers) and 'coaches' (generals) from a 'team' (army) to another were not frown upon, the men you 'play against' to-day may be on your side next season. And it was enjoyable to esteem and honor the 'adversary'. On the opposite, Revolutionary Wars are *political* and thus as passionate, vicious -and cruel- as Wars of Religion; to put it bluntly, to keep fighting, drafted civilians have to be motivated by *hatred*. A totally different type of war, where no one bothers for niceties...
.
IMAGI-NATIONS - AND WHY MOSTLY SET IN THE 18th C.?
A presentation on a new forum: proselytizing '¡hasta siempre!'...
.
"SEPARATE TMP BOARD FOR IMAGI-NATION TOPICS?"
Debated again on TMP.
Hope it will not pass.
Even if some put them in the same (contemptuous) bag, 'Imagi-Nations' and 'Weird Wars' are basically different. WWII deserves a board of its own, using special minis and rules. Not so for Imagi-Nations: those from different periods have *a lot * in common with their respective contemporary historical countries, firstly miniatures and rules, two major topics on TMP.Will a players intending to develop a 'quasi-Danish' imaginary principality on the Baltic shore have to hide his intention, as if ashamed, when posting queries about Denmark on the 'historical' board corresponding to his chosen period? Thus, basically almost all entries on such 'apartheided' (that's the intention and motivation of the OP, I suspect) board would be cross-posted on 'period specific' boards. Useless board.
Besides, the frontier between 'historical' and 'imagi-nary' armies and games is fuzzy. In the 18th C. at least, even hard-boiled 'historicals' sometimes indulge in a little 'creativity': Bill Protz fields a few WAS light troops in his SYW games because of their flamboyant uniforms; Der Alte Fritz created an imaginary unit -Milady de Winter's Black Legion- occasionally moonlighting as an auxiliary to his SYW Prussians.
Indeed Imagi-Nations set in different periods *do* share a few common features (map making, characters and genealogies generation…) but far less than they share with historical countries of their respective periods, making cross-posting compulsory most of the time and an Imagi-Nation board redundant.
As was suggested in the TMP initial thread, 'Imagi-Nation' in the title would allow 'historicals' allergic to such to avoid / skip the thread, and would ensure an easily exhaustive search for relevant posts on all boards.
And for those who are really "not interested" (read: who think that Imagi-Nations "muddy up History" \\ depreciate / disgrace / dishonour the hobby in the same way as GWshopping and toy wargaming à la H.G. Wells), ask our Venerated Editor for a possibility to 'stifle' keywords in threads titles.
Our hobby is one -among the hundreds of 18th C. so-called 'Imagi-Nations' you'll find the whole range from 200% historical countries under another name to an imaginary continent. Union gives strength, division weakens.
.
"SEPARATE TMP BOARD FOR IMAGI-NATIONS?" (end)
- Where to draw an impassable barrier between historical and what-if? campaigns? There may be none at the onset: re Defiant Catalonia, its creator playing not an 'Imagi-Nation' but a 'What-if?' situation, historical at its start. But Catalonia was 'unhistorically' successful, and its 'ruler' had to recruit new regiments, and thus to design 'original' (yet 'accurate') flags and uniforms, as many Imagi-Nation builders do (some simply use historical armies under another name).
'Historical' wargamers are not writing some historical treatise, but *historical fiction*. As thoroughly researched and historically accurate the OOB, initial deployment, uniforms, flags… maybe, as soon as *playing* (rather than moving pieces in a didactic dynamic display), as soon as players can takes initiatives and random factors get involved, one can get an 'unhistorical' result. So at best one is playing a 'what-if?' game.
Not only the outcome of the battle maybe different, but you can have Alexander killed at Issos, Frederick at Mollwitz, Washington during the FIW or Bonaparte at Arcole. Without consequences if playing an isolated battle game, not very consequential even in a *short* wargame campaign; but think a moment about the *long term consequences*, either in a protracted campaign or in 'Reality'.
At wargame level, imagine Nelson killed and the French Navy victorious at Abukir, Bonaparte's expedition thriving in Egypt. Then if successful, Bonaparte following the steps of Alexander conquering the Ottomans then Persians: after a few campaign years he would be fighting Wellington for the overall control of India. And note that in such protracted campaign under 'unhistorical' skies, players *have* to design original uniforms, since historical ones evolved in the meantime, but under a different climate. After years of campaigning in what is now Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, North-West India… French troops would wear uniforms quite different from those of Iena and Wagram (in this case, probably a development of the uniforms tailored in Egypt) -not to speak of the 'sipahis' recruited locally.
As for the long-term consequences of an 'alternative' outcome in 'Reality', the basic idea of K. Roberts' Pavane: what life in the mid-20th C. could be following the assassination of Queen Elizabeth in 1588- as a thought experiment, is stimulating. Each and every wargame has the potential to be a 'diverging point' from 'our' History, the origin of an 'alternate timeline', and the consequences are more and more drastic as time passes -a 'snowball' effect.
- Now, most 'Imagi' nations are mere 'What-if?' ones.
The 'Lace Wars' seem specially propitious to Imagi-Nations (wonder if their use in the Young's 'Charge!' and Grant's 'The War Game' are causes or consequences of this peculiarity?) -the 'What-if?' is merely the addition of one or two statelets to the historical 300+ of the Holy Empire. But 'historical What-if?' countries can be set in most periods: for contemporary examples additional banana Republics in South America or post-colonial Black Africa, and "X-kistans" in post SSSR Eastern Europe - Caucasus (note that at least 3 such *do exist*, if recognized only by Russia). All 'field' the same miniatures and models as 'historical' contemporaries armies of the same area: why should they be restricted to 'apatheided' in / a separate TMP board / ghetto?.
.
PROXY BATTLES STILL AN ENJOYABLE & FRIENDLY CHARACTERISTIC OF 'EMPEROR VS ELECTOR
Re. the (lethal for a favorite character of mine) 'proxy' Carniola ambush.
.
TONY BATH'S HYBORIA
I urge every Imagi-Native player to (re)discover the most seminal world-building of (and for) all wargaming campaigns in a series of excellent posts. Specially fascinating is the multi-levels nature of Tony Bath creating process, from character generation to continental design. Combining role-playing game -long before the expression was coined and even the publication of D & D- to campaign gaming at all levels up to world-wide diplomatic interactions and then down to sabotage 'adventures', Hyboria is *the* model and a treasure of inspiration.
.
KEEP FOCUSED [ON] YOUR IMAGI[-]NATION
'Dispersion' between several projects is often the bane of wargamers: to have several irons in the fire may lead to dissatisfaction, disappointment, disaffection and discouragement since none of the projects seems to progress fast enough, and / or one treads water while the other advances. Thus when having two projects it is generally gratifying to *link* them somehow: any progress in one benefits to both, both implicitly keep making progress.
For instance, if tempted by wargaming in another era after having developed an Imagi-Nation in a given period, it's more cheering to carry your 'brainchild' to the new setting: history, geography... are common, the overall background and 'personality' of your country get more 'rich'.
{Equally, better imho to change the 'representational scale' from 1<=>1 [playing 'Flashing Blades, 'LOTHS', 'Gloire', 'Sharpe's Practice', 'Chaos in Carpathia', 'Strange Aeons'… 'Necromunda'] to 1<=>12-20 for large battles (or even 1<=>50, as when Charles Grant refought large Lace Wars battles with 1 48-minis unit <=> 1 brigade), than building the same army at two miniature figurines scales, one for adventures / skirmishes the other for large battles: when it comes to 'characters' one will never find *exactly* the same mini in two scales.}
In the same way, if already playing 'tricornes' (OK, I'm biased...) and tempted by (Victorian) Colonial wargaming, paint the 'Natives' first, and you'll can try your hand at the Colonial genre by sending a small 18th C. expedition to the 'exotic' oversea theatre of operations. 'Natives' minis are generally 'period-generic' enough, and wargaming figurines are not intended to be scrutinized individually, but to be seen 'en masse' from a distance: any 'too modern' firearm for instance will pass unnoticed. Your 'Victoria's Boys in Red' will be painted at leisure in the meantime.
Similarly if already the happy and proud owner of 18th C. figurines and tempted by some 'weirdness' -"mal-morts" (undead) such as zombies, Chaos in Carpathia, Strange Aeons, Call of Cthulhu or even Malifaux...- rather than waiting to have the 'canonical period' human characters painted, start with the 'monsters' and play your first games with figurines in tricornes. Lovecraft's Elder Gods and their minions, for instance, were here long before the 1920, people believed in vampires and werewolves long before the 'Victorian Gothic' or 'Pulp' times....
Even a first try with VSF / Steampunk can be done with 18th C. minis, if you already have some.
Totally unsolicited ruminations, but -perhaps a scar from the "70 and the rarity of potential wargamers in France then- I'm convinced that division / dispersion disheartens & weakens, while union / unity gives strength and enthusiasm.
.
POICTESME AS A 18th C. IMAGI-NATION
A very stimulating thread of comments on Emperor vs Elector.
.
18th C. IMAGI-NATIONS GET THEIR OWN TMP BOARD
Not sure of what to think about it: on the one hand it may help potential 'creators' to come out and favor specific inspirational, stimulating exchanges. On the other hand most topics (uniforms, miniatures, rules, 'real' historical references…) are common with 'mainstream' 18th C. War Gaming (some possibly also with 'Pirates' or 'Swashbuckling') so more often than not cross-posting will be not only justified but almost required to reach the whole 'knowledgeable' audience.
And with a separate board 'we' run a big risk of being 'ghettoised' / marginalized / rejected.
.
ANOTHER CATALAN-OCCITAN IMAGI-NATION: TRYPHEME
Described as in 1900 ("Les Aventures du Roi Pausole") but full of potential for the 18th C.: presented on Emperor vs Elector, with -as previously for Poictesme- possible uniforms and imagi-nary FLAGS.
.
IMAGI-NATIONS ON THE MINIATURE PAGE
Not only does TMP now has a devoted 18th Century ImagiNations Message Board, but interesting links can be found in other boards.
.
AN IMAGI-NATION CAMPAIGN TRAILER
Thirteen gamers gathered in East Ayton, Yorkshire, over the May Bank Holiday weekend, 2012. Following last year's imagi-nations campaign "The Grenouissian Intermezzo", events have moved south across the Grossmeer to defeated Granprix's colony of Byzarbia. Can Duke Zigor's allies help him and the brave Byzarbian natives fend off King Raoul's land-grabbing axis?
The Invasion of Byzarbia, 174I received a video presentation
posted by Henry Hyde of 'Battlegames'.
.
WHAT MAKES AN IMAGI-NATION IMAGINARY?
Interesting debate on TMP; related threads about ethical 'Lace Wars'.
.
Post a Comment