|
The funniest thing about Warlord sculpted infantry is almost half of them look like someone has just squeezed their balls really hard or are posed like they're trying to do it to someone else. I wanted to run a Black Death list but then I saw how much £££ I'd have to shell out to run it and went gently caress that. I want my little black hat mans. 
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
moths posted:I would accept this because the 1:700 model is farther away from the table. I've never forgiven Battlefront for making 1:144 airplanes closer to the observer than 1:100 ground forces. That's not how perspective works! If anything, they should be using 1/76 so it looks right when viewed from above. That's why you should use telescoping rod stands for airplanes, so they end up 2-3 feet above eye level when you play. That and it looks really cool
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:If I go 17th century, I'll probably go Northern Wars and get By Fire and Sword to satisfy my ancestral Polish-Cossack blood. Though I'm sure Sharp Practice would be a good segue into that, too, so that's making it seem like a good deal. If you're modeling for both Fire and Sword and Sharp Practice you should be set for just about any rules you care to pick up at that point, because ostensibly your mans would have a tray and also free bases. Do it. Doooooo it. Commission up your mercenary captains and take to the field in the fanciest of leggings and feathered hats. Post your work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:If you're modeling for both Fire and Sword and Sharp Practice you should be set for just about any rules you care to pick up at that point, because ostensibly your mans would have a tray and also free bases. Ha, yeah, that'd be great. Otherwise, I will have to dig around. By Fire and Sword is Battlefront/FoW level of expensive to get started it seems. Sharp Practice + a bunch of Perry 28mm mans seems pretty cheap by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Hey, Serotonin, you mentioned earlier that you have a bunch of Osprey manuals as  With minis starting to come in, I'm looking for painting/color tips for various WW2 North Africa forces. Willing to help a brother out with a couple of jpgs?
Ilor fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Apr 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Perry stuff is amazingly good value for everything you get so I'm not surprised.moths posted:The WGF Soviets are great for a number of reasons. Besides women soldiers, you also get enough extra detailed parts that you can make a PSC 28mm box look awesome. I think it's meant to be that they look smaller to the people on the ground, since you're measuring stand-to-plane to shoot at them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Solution: build and paint cool artillery pieces. Place them off the table, like in your kitchen or on a shelf or something. Then you can role play your observers calling in the artillery strikes, AND you can make the little explosion noises, AND have a realistic depiction of artillery in the game. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Why am I surprised, BA has everything (except for a decent range of plastics). Man no
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:Does either FoW or BA have Anti-Tank dogs? I would have figured this to be clearly in the "That Guy" range of disgusting things social inept basement dwellers find entertaining but regular folks find horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Numlock posted:I would have figured this to be clearly in the "That Guy" range of disgusting things social inept basement dwellers find entertaining but regular folks find horrifying. How many mounted cavalry models do you have?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:How many mounted cavalry models do you have? There is a whole world of difference between the two that should be obvious to anybody with any sense though you could certainly object to both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Numlock posted:I would have figured this to be clearly in the "That Guy" range of disgusting things social inept basement dwellers find entertaining but regular folks find horrifying. If you wanna get all moralistic about it, the whole idea of reducing pretty much any aspect of any war, much less the frickin' Ostfront, to a game of rolling dice and playing with little dolls is socially inept basement dweller trivialization of something horrifying? I thought the ill-fated anti-tank pups were a relatively little known darkly fascinating part of a darkly fascinating theater of a darkly fascinating war. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
In spite of my question about 6mm earlier I've decided to dive into Sharp Practice ACW instead. With the caveat that instead of Union vs Confederate I'll be going Union vs. Perry's British Intervention Force. My summer job will be as a re-enactor at Fort Henry in Kingston, ON, representing a british trooper, so I couldn't resist painting up an army of minimes. The line infantry in kilmarnocks look near spot on to our uniforms, except we wear shell jackets instead of frock coats and as an 1867 unit we use Snider-Enfield cartridge rifles. I want to do some rebels too but maybe instead of the usual ANV I'll do some anti-lincoln northern militia fighting for and armed by the brits. The idea of grey-coated infantry in snappy, well-done blue-grey instead of the ramshackle look is appealing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Has anyone tried the Blood Eagle Dark Age skirmish rules? They seem really interesting, and only needing around 10 28mm dudes per side is convenient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:The funniest thing about Warlord sculpted infantry is almost half of them look like someone has just squeezed their balls really hard or are posed like they're trying to do it to someone else. In case you didn't know Old Glory makes Morskaya under their Boxer Rebellion range. It's troops from the WWI era obviously but the uniform is basically the same. They also make some ones in greatcoats for the Berlin or Bust WWII range. Also for the most part they wore a pretty generic sailor uniform, so if you're going with 28mm there are a grip of different sailors you could use. The German Sailors from Brigades Great War in Africa would be good since they have the heavy boots that the Morskaya often wore and have Maxim teams (which the Black Death had abandoned near the end of the war but never gave up completely). Brigade also has some Russian Naval infantry in their Storm in the East line which are also wearing correct uniforms (since the Naval infantry basic uniform was basically unchanged, well, unchanged enough where it wont be noticeable in 28mm). Your big issue will be SMG guys since those are very distinct to the time period (and important for the Black Death in general!). My advice would be to find some cheap sailor minis, saw off the heads and put them on WGF Soviet bodies with SMGs. In colder climates the Morskaya often wore standard Soviet uniforms, usually with black pants, so that wouldn't be super far off from reality. For things like Flamethrowers they wore the standard Soviet flamethrower uniform. Gripping Beast also has a bunch of Sailor heads under their WWI British range. You'll also probably want to give them the bandoliers, even though that wasn't 100% standard (lots of them just used a standard hip bag for bulletts) it's sort of what people expect when you say Russian Naval Infantry, I'm sure lots of companies make them but they would also be pretty trivial to greenstuff, you could probably just make one by cutting up some plastic tubing very carefully and then make a press mold out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Sweet, cheers dude! I'll definitely have a browse around the places you've mentioned as I think the Morskaya Pekhota are cool as hell. I know someone who could probably cast up the bandoliers if I asked him nicely enough (and seduced him with enough alcohol).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Sweet, cheers dude! I'll definitely have a browse around the places you've mentioned as I think the Morskaya Pekhota are cool as hell. I know someone who could probably cast up the bandoliers if I asked him nicely enough (and seduced him with enough alcohol). They are an interesting sort of anomaly in the Soviet command structure, because they existed prior to the Russian Revolution, but were one of the few parts of the Imperial command structure that sided with the Red army very quickly they transitioned into the Soviet power structure without any major reorganization or widespread doctrine changes that plagued the real Soviet armed forces (since their command and units were mostly descended from the Red army in the war not the pre-Revolution Imperial army). They kept their uniforms, their guns, most of their organization and were given a large amount of wiggle room when it came to how they were organized and what they did with their troops. This lead to stuff like the general infantry going into battle in their Sailor clothes while a lot of the more specialized units like the full SMG platoons wore basically the standard infantry uniform with black barring. They are better represented in BA than they are in FoW, since at least the BA list gets some of their quirks right (their early adoption of using LMG teams in HMG roles due to mobility for instance).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:My summer job will be as a re-enactor at Fort Henry in Kingston, ON, representing a british trooper, so I couldn't resist painting up an army of minimes. The line infantry in kilmarnocks look near spot on to our uniforms, except we wear shell jackets instead of frock coats and as an 1867 unit we use Snider-Enfield cartridge rifles. Interesting to see another Kingstonian/FHG here. But my question is: why wouldn't you use the minis wearing shakos?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Friendly reminder that the grand sum of differences naval infantry have in FoW compared to regular infantry is that naval infantry get -1 stand per platoon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Scratch my earlier jpg request, I found a fantastic set of WW2 painting guides complete with good pics of the minis and broken out by VMC #s! They're here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
At the risk of starting another Battlefront hates Soviets derail, the amount of  they put into Soviets is baffling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Scratch my earlier jpg request, I found a fantastic set of WW2 painting guides complete with good pics of the minis and broken out by VMC #s! They're here. Wow, his guide to Soviet uniforms is so bad, he spelled "Zaloga" wrong, and the parts that are correct are straight up copied from RKKA.ru.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:At the risk of starting another Battlefront hates Soviets derail, the amount of I don't think a train of discussion about how a wargames company treated one of the major powers of WW2 is really a derail in the historical tradgames thread 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I don't think a train of discussion about how a wargames company treated one of the major powers of WW2 is really a derail in the historical tradgames thread To be fair there's only so many ways you can say "Battlefront's a bunch of lazy assholes"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Does anyone here have experience of V&V miniatures? I'm working on some Viking warbands for our homebrew game, and they have a few options that I can't build from the Gripping Beast boxes. I found them by googling for viking minis, but I've never heard of them before. http://vminiatures.com/28-mm/vikings/
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:To be fair there's only so many ways you can say "Battlefront's a bunch of lazy assholes" True. Honestly it might be interesting to discuss better FoW soviets. To a degree, FoW is plagued by "being FoW", but there's got to be some areas that could be worked on. I'd be interested in hearing what people would recommend for the naval infantry, since it sounds like there's some really big fans here. One thing I'd like to see on Katyushas is the ability to move and bombard, and probably a time-on-target or mike target type rule. Compared to an artillery barrage, a rocket barrage takes much less time, and dumps it's ordinance much quicker. This is consistent with TOT's justification of being a synchronised barrage which gives people little time to dive for cover when it lands. Having a short firing time also allows for a barrage followed by a rapid relocation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:At the risk of starting another Battlefront hates Soviets derail, the amount of I don't recall this being said on the last most recent discussion, but I think the problem with FoW and BA is trying to make World War 40k. Games like 40k, both on the table top and on computers, tend to have a rock-paper-scissors mechanic; or in the very least, each army has a unique "gimmick" that is suppose to appeal to different play styles. So, for a casual game that you want to reach as wide an audience as possible, you want to appeal to these game styles. Off the top of my head these are: The Few But Elite: Few, powerful models and units. The Jack of All Trades, Master of None: Does everything everyone else does, just not as good. The Swiss Army Knife: A tool for every situation, each unit is special tailored to a specific task which it will do far and above better than anyone else, at the cost of flexibility. The Advancing Horde: High model count, poo poo troops. Quantity over quality, the idea is to charge into melee while getting shot at. The Gun Line: A variant of the Horde, except now you sit still and wait for the enemy to come to you, and hope to destroy them with your guns. Creating an interesting war game usually entails setting up armies that fall into these five styles (or variations thereof) and people picking their favorite army and trying to use their gimmick in a way that overcomes their opponent's army's gimmick. Most RTS computer games are this way. This is the meta of a game; where part of whether you win or lose depends on if your army and what units you chose to bring can deal appropriately with the enemy's gimmick while also maximizing the effects of your own. Obviously, WWII Generals didn't draw straws to decide what their gimmicks would be. There could be some variations in tactics, but often this is down to chain of command structure, or theater tactics, rather than individual unit tactics; both of which are difficult to translate onto the board, forcing each player to employ their own ideas of what they need to do with their guys. This can be confusing, as new players will be unaccustomed to figuring out their own tactics, rather than a prescribed idea based on what "style" their army plays to. This means a higher learning curve for a game that is more true to life; a game in which a beginner might not see victory, and might not understand playing scenarios where his army isn't meant to win, or that winning means something other than curb-stomping his enemy. The "play-styles" aren't a bad thing in a war game. They create unit interaction within and between factions, and generally players can see the results of having picked one unit over another when list-building. However, they do, to some extent, destroy the flavor that already exists in actual, real life armies, in favor for a flavor that is more tangible and easily digestible by people who are being converted from Spysy Myryynys (Space Marines). So, Battlefront made the decision when creating FoW to follow this template, and I'm sure you already pegged the various powers into each "style". The Soviets being the horde was an obvious choice, because idiots from 40k think that the Imperial Guard are space Soviets. They've already got it set in their mind that the Soviets are going to be this massive, bloody horde, and would probably actually be turned off if they weren't. The myth was already there, Battlefront just went along with it. And this is where I think their apathy towards changing it comes from. That to change the Russians to a more historical vision would mean getting rid of one of the five faction "styles", and how are we supposed to get Orc/IG/other war game minis horde faction players to jump into historicals if we don't have a horde army? tl;dr: I said a lot of words about game design that are probably wrong, but "Horde Soviets" exist because of 40k Orcs and IG, basically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
The thing is every army tends to have a variety of list types, with the special rules to support them. Britain has the assault company, armoured divisions, infantry tank divisions, motor rifles and leg infantry, commandos and paras, etc etc. Even the germans, who're heaviest in the "elite few", have lists with CT replacements or RC volksturm. You even get niche poo poo like all-88 lists. Then you have the soviet lists, where your options are horde, tank horde, cavalry horde, even shittier horde, and so on ad infinitum. Even within the movie-WW2 thing it's doing, soviets have very little breadth, that other armies have in spades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
When minis wargames find ways to make inferior forces interesting to play in a pick-up setting they'll have a lot more design space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
I would rather my games compromise on strict historical accuracy to get better gameplay, but the problem is, from what I can tell, that Flames of War does this rather poorly. Bolt Action has some silly rules for the Soviets, but they don't actively penalize the army so it's not as big of a deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:The Soviets being the horde was an obvious choice, because idiots from 40k think that the Imperial Guard are space Soviets.  The image of a "Soviet horde" was long before 40K - in the early war, poor communication led to successive waves of troops all launching at once, making it seem like a huge onslaught to the Germans. In addition, purges helped wipe out a lot of the upper echelons, so leaders had to relearn tactics. So, there's a grain of truth to it. FoW might be WW240K, but 1) they're trying to appeal to an existing player base; and 2) factions/armies with no particular "thing" aren't as fun to play for a lot of people. Not everyone wants to sit there and recreate a battle all the way down to the supply chain level and lose just because "that's what happened to the Germans in this engagement." Hell, you should be happy that people are playing historicals-lite and not playing 40K/supporting GW.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Please don't get me wrong in my sentiment. The idea is that most of the new players to FoW are probably coming from GW, and Battlefront is going to on some level cater to that. So, Soviet hordes it is, because that's the myth we've all grown up with. It's just a shame that Battlefront is treating their horde army the same way GW treats their horde army, more or less; and with their focus ever expanding (Pacific Campaign, TANKS!, Team Yankee, WWI, etc), who knows how likely it'll be that the Russians get a proper going over like the rest of the major powers. It's just not a concern to them because they feel they've succeeded in meeting the five basic play-styles necessary in a war game. And again, "X army has Y gimmick" is fine, up until it starts becoming clear that's all the thought the creator put into it. e: With the IG remark, I mean more that many players will expect the Soviets to be a lot like the IG, rather than the IG being influenced by the Soviets. Perhaps I should mean that many expect Soviets to be earthbound ImpGuard. e2: Eh, I'm probably not coming across how I want to with my post. I don't mean to begrudge FoW or anything like that. Hell, I have a ton of FoW stuff back in the states, and it was the number 1 game at my old LGS. I guess I'm just trying to nail down the mindset that produces "Soviets = Horde Army" beyond just the myths that persist that you'd think would go away if they anyone cared to do research. CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Please don't get me wrong in my sentiment. I was just giving you a hard time with the 40K IG stuff. Personally, I think some of it comes down to a certain style that people expect - people expect Soviets to play as horde armies, and that's what they want to see. Not having read the rules fully, what is the problem with Soviets in TY? At a glance, they seem ok...
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:And again, "X army has Y gimmick" is fine, up until it starts becoming clear that's all the thought the creator put into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:Wait - they weren't? The image of the endless Russian "Asiatic horde" made up of fatalistic savages that care little about casualties predates WWII and the Soviet Union altogether.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:Wait - they weren't? You may note that I pointed out that every other army has multiple "Things". Red Bear, the mainstay soviet book, has nothing but Confident/Trained and Fearless/Trained lists with the core soviet special rules. With the Guards Heavy X lists, you get relief for Hen and Chicks on guns that're already RoF 1, so not exactly mindblowing. There's the Shtraf battalion, but their special rules amount to "Even the machine guns and mortars count as shtraf". This is a book covering over a year of fighting across thousands of kilometers of front, and absolutely no exceptional or noteworthy groups were identified to write about. Grey Wolf, it's sister book, is also a broad collection of Confident Vet Heer and Fearless Vet SS lists... But there's also RV and RT lists of blocking detachments and security forces militia, FT lists (irony) for dismounted cavalry, and lists for specific companies. And every major company has special rules you can take, including bloody Totemkopf in case you needed encouragement to play them. If we look at the western allied books like Italy or Overlord it gets even worse, likewise with the counterpart books there: I've got a ton of options for training/morale combos, usually within lists, and almost every division has it's own set of special rules. I can play airborne (three types!) with their own special rules (who can be canadian with canadian special rules too), commandos who get a whole page dedicated to special rules. I have the also-unique-special-rules landing companies in CT or CV. All of these comes as canadians, guards, or northumbrians, which is more special rules and subdivisions of the list. I'm on page 60 of a 300 page book and we had twenty pages of "fluff". There's no comparison between the diversity of soviets versus every other list in the game. If I want to play brits, I can play elite-but-few commandos or a horde-y infantry company, or I can go for a variety of armoured lists, or... Pretty much the only thing I can't field are conscripts, and those get pretty rare in late war in general. And they'd probably have unique special rules too. YF19pilot posted:It's just a shame that Battlefront is treating their horde army the same way GW treats their horde army, more or less; and with their focus ever expanding (Pacific Campaign, TANKS!, Team Yankee, WWI, etc), who knows how likely it'll be that the Russians get a proper going over like the rest of the major powers. It's just not a concern to them because they feel they've succeeded in meeting the five basic play-styles necessary in a war game. The depressing thing is they did get a major going over, and all they got out of it was a borderline reprint of red bear lists and garbage hero lists that raised points, shrank sizes too low to make use of their special rules, and gave mostly useless special rules. berzerkmonkey posted:I was just giving you a hard time with the 40K IG stuff. Personally, I think some of it comes down to a certain style that people expect - people expect Soviets to play as horde armies, and that's what they want to see. TY soviets aren't too bad, actually. They're a specific (fictional) group, and they're fairly powerful. I don't have much of a complaint about TY's soviets. spectralent fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
What are the special Canadian rules? You have to say sorry to enemies you shoot and issue orders in both French and English?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:What are the special Canadian rules? You have to say sorry to enemies you shoot and issue orders in both French and English? Mostly the same as British, except they get Mission Tactics (Platoon leader can swap bases with another team if they get killed) instead of British Bulldogs (Re-roll failed morale tests to counter-assault).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Mission tactics and "Assault Troops" which gives them rerolls to unpin and unbail. For the 5-10 points you pay per platoon for it, it's pretty amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
In other news, I read the blurb about SP2 in WI this month and now I want it. They didn't go in to TOO much detail, but stressed the narrative nature of the rules, which is my favorite thing in rulesets, especially for skirmishes. I mean, I already have Muskets & Tomahawks, and I love that ruleset too, but it has some flaws. I have like 2 pages of house rules. So maybe SP2 is needed. I just wish I could buy it in the US directly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:48
|
|