RFCM

The is a partial outage on the server we share. There is a downed switch

It will take a while for a fix

Here are the possible dates for 2026

• Sat 13th June
• Sat 20th June
• Sat 27th June
• Sat 4th July
• Sat 11th July
• Sat 18th July

Please call out any preference

Hi,

At the moment we are discussing the idea of possibly running the Squarebashing day at Britcon in 2026. That means it would be August time at Loughborough . Britcon is a 3 day event so we could look at being a 1,2 or 3 day type event (players choosing which dates they can attend)

Would this be of interest? or just a non-starter

thanks
Simon

I don't really thinks is 'thoughts and pictures' though. One might see it as a 'keep the lights on' subscription, as Sean alluded to. To increase the profitability of a company/organisation.

This forum is founded on the same premise. Its not free, but a 'pay want you want' model. Some choose nothing, some pay more. If everyone paid nothing it would go away, and you'd have to go back to FB etc.

I don't personally subscribe to any Patreons, as I really can't find anything worth the money :-)

Rich from TFL does pose an interesting angle in that its aimed as being a safe space compared to FB, X , Bluesky etc. This I think is probably worth paying for - if you are fed up with the increasingly invasive & vile attentions of a lot of social media. There is a bit of rise in paid community hubs (Circle, School etc) so it shows that people are willing to pay to keep the undesirables at bay.

That said, the what content they create I don't know.

To be honest I would have thought that PP would be ripe candidate for this sort of activity. I don't think there is anything wrong with a 'go fund me' approach

More personal experience...

I've moved over to predominantly playing GW games now. I think accessibility is a major factor. I can go to several clubs (many within walking distance) and get a game with a large range of opponents. The age range is late teens to sixties. The clubs/stores typically have a retail component, I can just pick up off the shelf and pay. If I need to learn something about these games there are hundreds of 'professional' quality content creators online. Historical games are not going to compete with this. I think its more likely that historical gamers ar more likely to move that way rather than the other way round.

There is probably an element - IMHO - where there is an arrogance that historical games are of a higher level of value. Again in my experience, these new larger communities are way more friendly (maybe because they're trying to earn a quid). In my recent experience old gamers can be more insular, opinionated, unwilling to try anything new, and generally unwelcoming to new folk. Obviously, there will be exceptions to the rules. I'm sure we seen grumpy old men at clubs/shows.

My thought would be to start playing these 'large' brand games, meet the people and then try to introduce them to new historical games. BUt the question would be what would make this better than what they currently do?

Lots of websites (including this one) seem to be happy ignoring the UK Distance selling regulations.

No business details, no privacy policy, no returns policy

buyer beware

I often have this conversation with my kids and peers, who are all late teens and early twenties. One common theme, is that they are not interested in History at all, and generally have negative view of how history is presented. There is also a limit of exposure - by Historical, they mean Warlord Games (nothing else really exists)

its definately not cost. I think the idea of 'young Timmy' is not really the main spending group. These are young adults with - what seems - large amounts of disposable income. Its not unusual for these folks to spend hundreds on hobby each month.

In the past 10 years , just local to me there are many GW clubs dwarfing the old Historical clubs. The amount of GW tournament is on a different scale. If you were so inclined you could go to a GW event with over 100 competitors every week. London GT and LVO have between 5-700 competitors.

I think the idea that GW gamers migrating to Historical as they get older is a bit naïve. I think if you ask the GW gamers they would expect historical gamers to move to GW hobby as its a better/safer space.

just my experience.

QuoteThe attacker might also win by holding most of the  row 2 and 3 squares too.

I do find it odd that the defender gets 3 for occupancy and the attacker only 2

Based on Martins comment

Quote1. Both players contribute to the countdown. With re-rolls. To mirror the 21 point countdown a 40 point countdown would be needed.  40 Zebras?

As its stands we have a single roll (1-6) stopping when it gets to 21
Minimum Turns = 4
Maximum Turns = 21

Over 10K iterations we largely get a 6-7 turn games (over 50% of the time)



The proposal is 0-40, both players roll, each with the option to re-roll for a more preferred value.
(in my simulation defender re-rolls results < 4 and attacker re-rolls > 4 - typical situation)

over 10K iterations


it does push the distribution more into the middle - with nearly 50% games being 6 turns.

QuoteI feel to win you need 3 out of 4 !

suffice to say, as an attacker you need to at least 3 objectives to have a chance of winning

I think 40 slots is perhaps too many ... its not particularly linked to any system more a case of an idea of less paper book-keeping.

So, if it were linked to 0 to 40 countdown you could do a board of 'tens & units' so 3 larger pieces (on for 10, 20 & 30) and 0-9 tracker to get there.

Here is an idea. Rather than a countdown of numbers you could have a 'board' (like the cache loops). You could have a nice set of diorama elements (representing events that typically ended battle) .. and nice little figure pack

• Walking wounded
• Barbed wire
• Mud /shell crater
• Empty supplies (shell case/wagon)

that could be added at the end of the turn. When the board is full the game ends

QuoteAt least, with SB, the army lists look good to go. I don't think they need re-writing.

I feel that improvement can be made here also. Moving to a online/pdf version would help matters. There are quite a few errors that need correcting, plus there are some enhancements (in the middle eastern front lists)

4 objectives I feel makes the game too formulaic. 99% of games have the row 6 objective given to the attacker by the defender, knowing that the attacker still needs to take another 2 objectives to have a chance of winning.