Oh and I have never been banned either.

I just like to hang out with the bad kids, smoking cigarettes down by the tracks.   

Bonjour Sam.

And welcome!

It certainly does spring to mind hordes of angry cattle ...

I am just happy that Quiberon Bay got a mention. People tend to look at The Plains of Abraham as the biggie for French colonial efforts in the New World. I am not so sure you even have a P of A without a Quiberon Bay. At least not the impact of it.

And I am happy that Waterloo was not mentioned (Trafalgar was bigger IMHO) and neither was Tours (heard some recent debate about the significance of that battle too).

The most interesting tidbit from the article for me is the notion that this battle's impact was a first step towards a democracy in Britain and a step towards autocracy in France. Hmmmm.....

I saw this today on the BBC website. Found it quite interesting I did so I thought I would share. Something to peruse over your morning coffee/tea ...

Embedded deep in the story are five other decisive battles from history which I thought were coolio too.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28484146

Not sure if this is the best place for such a post, but there you go.

PS - And I had heard of Bouvines ....   

PPS - Oh .... They did this over on BGG. Doh! Ah well. It is still a nifty little article, which is the point of sharing it of course.

The first few times I play a CDG I note the flavour text and how it helps the narrative of the session.

I have found, though, that the more familiar I get with a game, the less I pay attention to it. In particular the PoG-style games which I tend to lean more towards "game" anyway. So that fancy text is subsumed by the fact that the card is a 3 OP or whatever.

I still get a kick out of the flavour text in the COIN series cards though. Go figure.

Stop it you.

Else I will tell my spouse about your evil plans for my wallet. THEN you will be in trouble!

It has been a million years since I read anything on the subject. That won't stop me from blathering though!   

I had read that the original Schlieffen Plan had taken account of the manpower requirements to reach the coast. However, with increased fears about the needs in the east (ie Russians), the plan was modified for a number of years prior to the war. Primarily by reducing the strength of the right wing in favour of deployment to the east and even strengthening the centre/left in the west. And modified further still once the balloon went up. The result was a German right that did not have enough raw manpower to complete the sweep.

I even think that the far right was to swing west and south of Paris in the original plan.

Needless to say, that is not what happened. In fact, I doubt you can really say that the plan that carries the man's name was even tried given the modifications to it.

Like salty peanuts at a bar.

I do not need another series to obsessively complete.   

Korea might, just might, get me off the fence with OCS.*

* Not to be confused with an earlier statement along the same lines about TBL.

Sluggo played a fair amount of 1914:TitE a number of months ago. He rolled up his sleeves and really dug into it in an effort to learn a hard game. At the end of the day he was quite happy with it.

Hopefully he will see this discussion and chime in.

That's a pity.

As Kevin notes, it is all pretty much guesswork. And that goes for much of the GBoH oeuvre. At least as far as battle details and whatnot are concerned. The important thing is that it can be a hoot to play.

Perhaps he will come around.

Fun comparison.

Expecting some trouble around Paris I see .....     

That's a good point. The mechanism may be a spurious correlation? Subject is the key? Or main issue anyway.

Another factor may be solo play. I come from a long, long background in solo play. For many years it was the only method by which I played. Then I came across a local wargame club. And discovered VASSAL. Well...  One thing that I noticed with my play when I started playing more FtF games is that I would sit and ponder more than my opponent(s). Now, in large part that was due to the "facing the unknown" factor, but I was applying my solo methods to solving it.

In other words, when playing solo you have nothing but time. So pondering a move can take hours, days, weeks even. Not such a good thing when playing FtF. LOL! I learned to spend less time pondering and more time doing. At least FtF. So I would still come up with an initial plan, but not worry about implementing it to maximum effect.

Still, I often ponder my brains out in a PBEM session ...

I suppose what I am getting at here is that I employ two different methodologies when tackling the "unknown" factor. Depending on whether the session is solo/PBEM or FtF.

As an aside .... I suppose CDGs and other hidden info mechanisms would add to the issue.

I thought it was a typo the first time I came across it.

The interesting aspect of that lost feeling is just how much AP it can generate.

The best cure .... just play a card and do something. A wise wargamer told me that once. Chances are it will not be the best move, but it will be a learning one.

I have not noticed the problem vis-a-vis CDGs vs h&c though. At least not in myself.

And I dislike not knowing about the historical situation in the game I am playing. Makes it less interesting to me. Such knowledge helps the narrative, which I yearn for.