Also, the centerpiece of the time period that Gallia and others seem to be focussed on is that of the Seven Years War. Prussia was the leading combattant of that period, with north central europe the location of the primary battlefields.
be warned! This is a very large map file and it may take a moment to download into your system.To that end I have borrowed a copy of the map from "Fredrick the Great", again this one does not have the lat/long but once again it has been game tested and can easily be 'morphed' into something useable by us.
3 comments:
I feel there should be room for storytelling- for putting one's energy into recreating the past or a plausible alternative past. It is surely possible for this and the kreigspiel to co exist happily.
I agree. I happen to like the storytelling . . . but I'd also hoped for more "combative" interaction.
Perhaps the OSW "Big Game" in a couple of weeks will bring more of that to the foreground.
(NOTE -- previous paragraph refers to the "Old School Wargaming" Big Battalions game in the Midwest featuring some 17 players -- a number from here -- in a Gallia vs Germania conflict).
So, come on, folks. Let's have some build-up from those involved, please.
-- Jeff
Of the two maps presented, I definitely prefer the first, the "Empire in Arms" map, as it does present a more "global" area and isn't as obviously a boardgame map. However, being relatively new to the group, and definitely falling in the category of one who enjoys the "story telling" aspect of this particular hobby, I will simply bow out of the decision-making process and acquiesce to the group's preferences. To me, the "story telling" is every bit as much an element of the hobby as the research, the painting, the gaming, the presentation of the armies (terrain), etc. If it weren't, I'd probably still be playing WRG at tourneys and be done with it.
I would point out to my esteemed colleagues that, while such scientific "mysteries" as latitude and longitude did remain mysteries to the common man, and many of the political leaders, they were well known to the staff of the Naval Observatory at Greenwich, every master sailor and pilot, most scientists, mathemeticians, astonomers and cartographers of the day. And they were used to define land grants and treaty-defined territories as early as the mid 17th century. Because the politician's did not always understand their significance, and because not all parties agreed on the exact position relative to the sun until much later in history (or on what they had just agreed to), there were conflicting boundaries in both the grant's and the treaties, as well as in the minds of the signatories and grantor's involved. This is, to some degree what gives us a built-in conflict to resolve. We can resolve these issues through diplomacy or militarily, as the involved parties determine. Or we can choose to ignore the disputes, as happened on several occasions in history, until it suites our purposes to suddenly make an issue of it.
At any rate, M'Uedail will continue to muddle along in its chosen direction, as will I, and will await the determination of the "powers that be" to see what map shall be used for any possible joint interactions. This discussion actually began as a simple suggestion to address a perceived opportunity for an improvement in our "tools". It was not intended to stir a controversy or ruffle feathers, and if it has done either, I do apologize.
Respectfully, Sir William
Post a Comment