Stuff I don't like

[Hertsblue]

Try a bit of fantasy

You can do whatever the hell you like then

Moving goals are very tricky to hit. No thanks!

[FierceKitty]

OK, what I don't like:
Opps who pick up elements with no regard for the fragility of pikes, lances, or banners (and in Japanese armies, pikes and banners or lances and banners together); players who resign with a fit of sulks because you were also trying to win and didn't do what they wanted, or because the dice were unfriendly; players who play like idiots but win with good rolls (which is part of the game) but then lecture you as if they had taught Hannibal everything he knew; players who leave coffee cups on the table (come on, folks, it's all about spectacle; if we wanted real tactics, we'd play shogi or bridge); players who try to take over their partner's command as well, especially in scenario games.

And realising that my rabble of Arab levies are about to rout through my Janissaries fifty yards in front of the incoming Polish royal hussars, causing a very short battle.

[Leman]

Stuff I like:
Pretty much all Ancients and Dark Ages
The Angevins
100 Years War
Wars of the Roses
Early Tudors
The Great Italian Wars
The English Civil Wars
WAS
SYW
The Danube 1809
The Peninsular
The Mexican American War
The Franco-Austrian War 1859
The ACW
The Austro-Prussian War 1866
The FPW
WWI 1914/15 and 1918
The RCW

Stuff I don't like - simple - WWII and Modern

[SV52]

To clarify, I don't like Eastern Front not because the campaigns might not be interesting but because I don't care for either the Germans or Russians, neither side has anything redeeming features as far as I can see.   

What I like are conflicts where there is a radical difference between forces but where each has a chance of winning or conflicts where there are sufficient variations to make things interesting. 

My all time favourites are late antiquity through to the third crusades not only very different armies but different civilisations. I dable in Ancient Bronze age.  Great Italian Wars to the fall of Rome.  World War 1 the speed and scope of development was amazing.

I see where you are coming from, no Nazis for me either. Russians v Japanese early war, not a T34 in sight.  Doesn't matter who wins or loses either. Italian Wars, oh yeah;  WW! for me is Mesopotamia, ANZACs v Turks.

[FierceKitty]

Stuff I like:
Pretty much all Ancients and Dark Ages
The Angevins
100 Years War
Wars of the Roses
Early Tudors
The Great Italian Wars
The English Civil Wars
WAS
SYW
The Danube 1809
The Peninsular
The Mexican American War
The Franco-Austrian War 1859
The ACW
The Austro-Prussian War 1866
The FPW
WWI 1914/15 and 1918
The RCW

Stuff I don't like - simple - WWII and Modern

Words of wisdom. Learn from this man, all.

[Ithoriel]

Stuff I like:

Pretty much any war fought before I was born or sufficiently in the future that I will no longer be around in the time in which they are set.

Fascinated by WW2 Eastern Front, particularly Stalingrad to Kursk which seems the pivotal part of the war and one in which weaponry and manpower were fairly evenly matched. So far, not interested in sideshows like the Western Desert but who knows Oddzial Osmy's 3mm stuff might persuade me.

[Zippee]

So far, not interested in sideshows like the Western Desert but who knows Oddzial Osmy's 3mm stuff might persuade me.

It wouldn't have been a sideshow if Germany had cut the canal, denied ABC Alexandria and captured the Iraqi and Persian oilfields - we'd have been out of the Med except for Gib and many of the reasons for pushing on the eastern front would have dissipated with German access to the oil fields through friendly states in the south.

[fsn]

I am very interested in the wars of the perfidious Vichy French - Madagascar, Syria, Torch. 

Sideshows all.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

SS.
People who take it too seriously (including, at times past, myself).
People who insist on perfect forces, even when the documentary evidence is scant/black and white, especially many Flames of War players!
Massively over priced rules and figures.
People who criticise a paint job when they won't take/share advice themselves.
Players whose terrain is not thought through (remember the days of DBM, an opponent used to chalk his terrain in)!
People who cannot appreciate the beauty of the fez or the glory of wine gums.

[FierceKitty]

Oh, and can we add the know-it-all who's never put brush to figure or written a rule, but tells you at interminable length what's wrong with your efforts?

[Zippee]

Oh, and can we add the know-it-all who's never put brush to figure or written a rule, but tells you at interminable length what's wrong with your efforts?

unfortunately isn't that at times all of us when our personal little pet theory or project is questioned by some ignorant heathen, with . . . evidence . . . 

(I ignore the brush to figure bit - I know several jolly good chaps who earn far too much and outsource all painting  )

[FierceKitty]

Those I can take. Not the ones who've read - at best - some tiresome Featherstone item from the 70s.

[Hertsblue]

So, to sum up;

a) personal preference of period is as wide as history itself, and

b) we all hate a smart arse, especially when he's right.

Have I missed anything important?

[sebigboss79]

So, to sum up;

a) personal preference of period is as wide as history itself, and

b) we all hate a smart arse, especially when he's right.

Have I missed anything important?

Rudeness, mannerless people, lukewarm beer, German Pedanterie ( )...

[FierceKitty]

Spiders and Visigoths.