>>97475564
>like this
Yeah me.
I can’t really explain why but maybe it is because the warhammers got to me first and now I just prefer fantasy and various flavors of science fiction from alt history to cyberpunk to whatever else.
That may be the reason for me but I can only guess because I want to avoid saying it is a preference thing.
Which it just might be.

One thing I will say is that I prefer miniature paint companies to be rooted in mimicking historical colors. That way if a paint company goes out of business then another hobby paint brand that has colors rooted in historical colors will easily provide close enough replacements.
At least that’s what I’m hoping. I think the reality is that everyone just mimics Citadel paints and if it isn’t Citadel it is Vallejo and AK and AMMO and Tamiya and others all mimicking each other.

No you're just a fuckin weirdo

>>97475602
>I can’t really explain why
For me it's pretty simple: I don't care about other people's characters, I care about Your Dudes. Historicals is all refighting famous battles with little tweaks, the few that let you be a bit more generic like Bolt Action still feel constrained in what you can do narratively without basically running alt-history(at which point I'd much rather play something that's *meant* to be alt-history that frees me from historical constraints completely) and also tend to get sneered at by purists.

With Star Wars, Battletech, 40K, WHFB etc etc you used to be able to have all the Your Dudes fun you wanted, but of course these days they all also cater to drooling fuckwits who need to be spoonfed their slopgruel Marvelesque "storylines" so they're just as hostile to creativity by players as historicals are.

>>97476206
I think you nailed it anon.
>your dudes fun
I mean it’s a bit weird that these settings still try to cater to the creative crowd and try to create “homebrew legroom” for those who want to create their own guys, but the best way to have that is through miniature agnostic and setting agnostic games.
Maybe like how dnd players joke about gamemasters accidentally creating amazing worlds and lore through having fun the same will happen for these wargames

Now if only I could find players who would give such games a try even with the promise of their 40k models being usable.

>>97475564
>I'm a nogames and have no intention of ever not being a nogames
Why even make this thread? Do you have a humiliation fetish and get off on people calling you retarded or something?

your dudes is a lame crutch and is always fabled by the biggest mind drooling retards possible

>>97475564
How does replicating a real battle in-game even work? One player is meant to intentionally lose?

>>97476240
Welcome to /tg/, but you really should lurk more.

>>97476359
There's a fair number of scenarios that have asymmetrical forces and victory conditions, even warhammer games used to have some.

>>97475564
>he wasn't into history before could read
Get off my board secondary
also a history major is fun and pretty easy but unless you luck out with some connections the job market is (unsurprisingly) completely ass. If you *must* do something /his/ related archaeology is a bit better though not by much

File: IMG_20251206_155458.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>97476240
>le no games le no games
what is with you retards, like I'm really curious to know how my posting of said question triggers such an autistic feminine meltdown

>>97476541
I mean, you can always try and self publish books about a history niche I suppose, but I don't see that as something you can live off of.

>>97476490
>>97476547
damn, it really hits you hard doesn't it

File: 1732675941796907.jpg (934.4 KB)

934.4 KB JPG

I think the worst thing about historicals is that they never really try to balance their games around the most popular gamemodes or tournament play, and really, thats why no ones interested in them and why its a dying aspect of the hobby. at the end of the day these are games and games need to be balanced and fun if you want people to play them. for example, look at pic related

yes, obviously, left looks better than right, no one is going to disagree with that. but when playing a GAME, right is obviously going to be a funner experience for BOTH sides, just look at the utter lack of balance in the left terrain set up. the near side has to traverse a river and then fight through open fields while the far side immediately gets access to most the hard cover of buildings on the map and on top of that gets the hedgerows overlooking the open fields. its blatantly not fair and poorly set up.

>but just give the attack side more units!
ok then, how do you balance that? how do you know how many points to allocate to balance out the terrain advantage? double? triple? what if thats too much and now the attacker has the distinct advantage? its way too much trouble to figure out. thats why tourney tables will always provide the better gameplay experience for BOTH sides. GAMEplay. WarGAMES. These are GAMES. A good game needs to be fun for all involved. It is not fun when one side has an inherent advantage over the other. There is a reason why 40k tournaments are by and far the most popular wargaming events and playstyle over every single alternative."

Think of it this way. Look at Battletech players. They arguably play on the ugliest paper hex mats and hex counter terrain in wargaming, despite the fact that playing BT with physical and 3d terrain has existed for decades. They CHOOSE the uglier terrain because readability and clear rules for LOS matter to gameplay, aesthetics do not.

>>97477562
>>97475564
>>97476206

and you bring up a really good point, because some of us, myself included, would be fine with playing historical games, I'd love to push little napoleonic lines around and all that stuff but focus in on this line because its very important

>Historicals is all refighting famous battles with little tweaks

its the same thing over and over. the gamemodes are boring and repetitive. this isn't creativity, this isn't your dudes, or your battles. its waterloo for the 200th time. Where the Capture the Flag? Wheres the Zone Control? Wheres the TDM? Gamemodes modern audiences actually connect with today?

97477562
bait used to be believable. What a hideous, spiritually hindu, post.

File: t6h55665.jpg (405.5 KB)

405.5 KB JPG

>>97477596
>>97475564
This is the problem, I dont know if people would go for it but it would seem like a good idea to create a setting in which that era of historical warfare could just create scenarios and its own history BASED on those things. I dont know, its a strange issue, because you need a setting that allows for battles that never happened, but the point of historicals is specifically that its based on history, and historic battles are not balanced, they were scenarios where some sides had more troops, came from different directions and were varying levels of proficient etc. You would need a setting/system in which it would account for these things more, some games do this still, like you have to roll to get on the table, which signals that section arriving late, and coherency rules where the units dont fully follow through on commands if theyre low on leadership, but that is not really what people want from a TTG;
They want to make a list with a point cost and fight other peoples armies, where factions are distinct, and you can get battles that never couldve happened.

The video game For Honor's setting is that it takes warriors from different periods and places and puts them in one place in a war, it would need to be something like that where the fantasy elements are so downplayed they can be forgotten. Look at stuff like pic related though, if you added fantasy elements then that starts to deminish what this is as historical, as people would be inclined to use made up uniforms, start adding no historic armours and items to their models etc, and then its just not historical at all anymore.

I dont know what the soloution is, its a shame because historical models are fantastic.

File: 1657193861249.jpg (70.5 KB)

70.5 KB JPG

>>97477668
>>97477596
Braindead zoomers pls go, everything you want already exists, you're just too stupid and lazy to find it.

>>97477936
>stop having a discussion about the topic of the thread
Noones saying the games dont exist, its why does noone have interest in playing them even though they like history and TTG. They would rather play something like Warhammer. Keep up.

>>97476754
You don't know how the board works, lurk more. Last (You).

>>97477562
I no longer know is this pasta is being used ironically or not

>>97477936
>calls others braindead
>falls for the world's most obvious bait
Maybe you're just in on the joke and I'm the retard here but if not come on.

>>97475602
>>97475564
>I'm a gigantic douchebag, anybody else?
kek

File: 1762039967409011.jpg (486.2 KB)

486.2 KB JPG

>>97475564
I was like this back when I was a GW drone, but about a decade ago I actually got pressured into playing a historical wargame and it made me realize how much better they are. I started playing more and more and eventually I gave up Warhammer all together because it wasn't even satisfying anymore and the lore is much worse.

>>97483704
Honestly im coming around this too. Mainly because victrix models blow gw shit out of the way, and mainly because I deluded myself into thinking fantasy was good ( its not, I just liked the idea of it, the reality of it is mediocre past 5th edition), but im engrossing myself into stuff like saga and hopefully something Napoleonic later this year. Maybe Bolt action too considering victrixs ww2 line looks nice as well.

>>97483704
Sounds like a fake story.

>>97484113
Sounds like a right poofter.

>>97484113
I don't care if you believe me or not, to be honest LMAO

>>97477562
Everything you just said is wrong.

>no tournament games
Except DBA, ADLG, Triumph!

>dying
The market is continuing to grow

This bait is boring please go paint your space wizards.

Also, OP? The point of historical wargaming isn't to interrogate history. All wargaming requires too much abstraction. To me it's just fun with some of the flavour of the era.

>>97476754
Ngl the historical waragming hobby usually has a great barrier of entry: you usually need more than 18 dudes swirling around a centrepiece model.

>>97477668
>what is the solution to a problem I invented also computer game analogy

We just don't need you lil bro

Is the lack of /your dudes/ even a thing? i mean outside playing about a specific battle why people can't treat X regiment or X platoon as your dudes? i mean you build them, paint them and convert them, maybe not with the same degree of freedom as something as a custom space marine chapter, but history is so big, depend on period though, but some regiments fought for years in multiple campaigns and countless skirmish so there are multiple ways you can model an army, that or people can always go the Sharp route.

>>97484308
>Is the lack of /your dudes/ even a thing?
No, because even in Warhammer nobody paints your dudes anymore, literally everyone just paints official paint schemes

>>97475564
That;s not surprising at all.
Interest in /tg/ stuff depends much more on whether you find this type of games cool rather than whether you find their topic cool.
Otherwise everyone who plays 40k vidyas or reads Black Library slop would rush to play the tabletop, which generally isn't the case
Unless you mean that you do like wargames, just not historicals despire your general interest in history, then no clue

>>97484113
Not necessarily. I doubt most of GW's actual studio guys would ever REALLY say they wrote the BEST stuff. It's simple stuff that lets little Timmy and his friends put their toys on the table and have some fun (although personally I fell they've gone far too 'computer gamey' over the years, but then that's where the kids are, so...), but it does get them into the hobby, and if you're not snooty about engaging with them (and oh god have I seen too many people instantly kill some young tyke's curiosity that way) you can show them a wider world.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with a greasy pizza, in moderation.

>>97475564
I am you.

I think it's because I'm naturally inclined to separate "study hobbies" from "work hobbies" from "play hobbies". So I'll study a historical subject to satisfy my curiosity, work on an unrelated practical project to feel like I'm doing something immediately beneficial, and spend time doing something that offers social interaction and Fun(TM). Reading, carpentry, TTGs.

>>97484308
>Is the lack of /your dudes/ even a thing?
you guessed it, it's another "problem" that doesn't actually exist
plenty of people make up characters, units, uniforms, armies, battles, nations, regions, continents, and play with them using a historical or pseudohistorical framework

Why not?