|
muggins posted:Hey goons, I bought some Spanish napoleonic guys because gently caress, they look cool, and Paul Hicks is an amazing sculptor. But I can't find good color plates to figure out how to paint them. Can you help? Do you have Pinterest? If not get it, it's a treasure trove when it comes to finding source material for uniforms. Also look for their bearskin hats, the Spanish had some really snazzy bearskins.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:But it's for Team Yankee 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
One main feature of Napoleonic Spain is that it was an absolute horrorshow with regards to logistics. All sides eventually wore out a lot of uniforms and had to made do with what they could source locally, which seems to be a lot of brown cloth. So some French dragoons would wear brown jackets instead of green, and pretty much everyone had a wide mix of haphazard pants made of civilian cloth once their proper breeches were worn out. "Look at us, wearing our outragous pants."  There might be at least three almost complete uniforms in this picture. The Spanish army was a complete mess. Here's a good rundown of the many cycles of uniforms they went through, and a summary of the variations in different regiments: http://balagan.info/peninsular-war-painting-guide-spanish-infantry There are so many variations that you can probably pick and choose one you like. If you want to, there's a version that looks pretty much like the Austrian, with white jackets and breeches and different facing colours. It seems pretty popular among wargamers. It's the one on the first picture I posted, but you could skip the crazy pants if you want them to look more regular. But if you keep digging you'll find some really weird stuff. I mean, come on:  There's also a band of guerillas that was made up of loving bullfighters on horse with bullfighter clothes and lances. Spain! You're nuts! lilljonas fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Lol, love all of this. Thanks dudes. I do use pinterest but haven't hit it yet, thanks for the suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
muggins posted:Lol, love all of this. Thanks dudes. I do use pinterest but haven't hit it yet, thanks for the suggestion. That's a good avatar you have. (I've had avs off for about a year and just turned them back on)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:But it's for Team Yankee
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:
Looks great! Really like your Soviets. If my experience of helis in TY is anything to go by then I'm afraid they won't be spending much time on the table. Damned things get blasted off instantly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
I wasn't really satisfied with my skirmish line so I rebased them. This means that every battalion will contribute two small bases instead of one large to the brigade skirmish line. Originally I had placed four skirmishers on a single regular infantry base, but they were way too clumped together to look like proper skirmishers. Fish and Chimps fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Those look great! There is a really good looking game on Kickstarter right now called forager. I wanted to post a here for other goons to check out. Forager - Tabletop Napoleonic Skirmish Game - Stand to Games, via @Kickstarter https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1718486616/forager-tabletop-napoleonic-skirmish-game-stand-to
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Well, you had me at Napoleonic. Looks interesting. A starter set is only 6 dudes? If the rules are any good, this might be a great excuse to finally get some 28 mm dudes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 10:56
|
|
|
 It is completed. The base is just begun though. I love Vallejos pumice resin
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:It is completed. The base is just begun though. I love Vallejos pumice resin Add some panel line wash and that HIND will really pop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Add some panel line wash and that HIND will really pop. way ahead of you buddy and I added more teeth I've just gotta wait several hours for the base to dry so I can paint and base it up so I can justify posting another picture
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:way ahead of you buddy and I added more teeth 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Is Flames of War pretty much dead in the water? I checked in on their site and 4th edition still seems limited to "the North Africa edition." I remember some problems with the new rules, and switching from pewter to bendy plastic infantry, but after that it's just dropped off the radar. Meanwhile over at Pendraken, disappointment with shortcomings in BKC3's army lists, prompted them to replace everyone's book with a corrected edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Mostly finished my Easy Company, just some detailing and decal work to do. The little helmet spade marking decals are really too small to work with and I ended up just freehanding blobs for that and the officer/NCO helmet stripes which is fine at tabletop distances.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
moths posted:Is Flames of War pretty much dead in the water? I checked in on their site and 4th edition still seems limited to "the North Africa edition." It's appeared to have had an incredibly anemic uptake. At present there's two lists for it covering british and german armoured (and not all of the old lists for them both, either); the US are coming out with a book that actually features both leg infantry and armour but it's also come alongside confirmation several options in the old game (and options that were there historically) simply won't be making appearances. It doesn't help the "conversion guides" to EW and LW are bandaid solutions at best and, as the rules have changed massively but nothing's been recosted, are giving some insane results that're damaging people's faith in the system to function well even with intended lists. It doesn't help that the rules have a lot of holes and weirdness in them, but I honestly don't think that's the problem; people play games with slightly dodgy rules all the time. I think the issue is that there's barely any lists for the part of the game that is mostly functional (and they'll explicitly be ignoring some stuff post-revamp) and that the place where there are most of the lists, including (dare I say) the periods people tend to actually play, balance and gameplay is shot to hell. The very low release tempo is also likely to be a factor; it's six months on and we're only now seeing a second wave of their core product.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Flames of war is the one historical game in my area that is always always active. You'll see medieval historical games here and there but FOW is huge here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
That's a pretty bleak situation. These all sound like problems that a new edition is supposed to fix, not create.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
How important is it that historical games keep getting updates anyway? I actively play in x-wing tournaments and by the very nature of Disney it'll need constant releases. But isn't there a point after which there's no more stuff to make for a historical game? World of tanks and warships has been releasing paper projects for forever and it's just rehashed designs with tweaks here and there. Aside from the BatChat 25t, long live that beautiful tank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:How important is it that historical games keep getting updates anyway? I actively play in x-wing tournaments and by the very nature of Disney it'll need constant releases. But isn't there a point after which there's no more stuff to make for a historical game? World of tanks and warships has been releasing paper projects for forever and it's just rehashed designs with tweaks here and there. Aside from the BatChat 25t, long live that beautiful tank. Historical games have two reasons to release stuff: either to add lists, scenarios, special campaign rules and such, or to rehaul the basic rules into a new edition, fixing stuff. Depending on how granular your want to go and your rules allow, you could probably release new lists for a conflict like WW2 forever ("This list for British commandos is different, because it's to represent the Twin Pimples Raid, so unlike the normal list you get Australian engineers as well" and so on).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Most companies have it good, since they only release miniatures or only the rules. When you do both, you have to hope that people will be buying more of your stuff in that you're not just riding on old grogs forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Historical games have two reasons to release stuff: either to add lists, scenarios, special campaign rules and such, or to rehaul the basic rules into a new edition, fixing stuff. Ah yeah I can see that. Isn't that what those magazine scenarios are for? Or do they only do those supplements for ASL and the like?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
I wonder why Battlefront immediately turned into total assholes for 4e. Though I dunno if they can top Pendraken's "no rules for minis we don't manufacture".
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
When you run out of history, you cal always do ever more implausible "what-if"s? Warlord veered into this hard with Konflikt '47, and comparatively more lightly with stuff like the Operation Sealion campaign book, along with models representing BUF 5th columnists and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
moths posted:That's a pretty bleak situation. These all sound like problems that a new edition is supposed to fix, not create. I strongly suspect that they were intending to simplify the game and use FAQs and "don't try and break the game" logic to protect against any wonkiness that created, to draw in younger gamers who're coming off more recent WW2 games and media who don't have interest in grognardy games (which, in fairness, FoW sometimes dipped into). I'm not really sure they did the best thing there, but their audience IS apparently very old, and worse, probably already have all the armies they're going to get because chill la chill is entirely correct that you eventually run out of war barring alt history or different eras (though why they never went to alt history I'll never know; plenty to be done there). But, still, issues were stuff like "When Blitz Move says you haven't moved and that this lets you shoot with halted RoF, does this also allow you to be gone-to-ground?", and "It says artillery resolves otherwise like normal shooting; this probably shouldn't include the long-range penalty to hit and armour penetration but RAW it does". By the standards of Games Everyone Plays these clearly aren't insurmountable issues, since tons of popular games have stuff that needs to be patched and do fine with errata. I suspect the thing that's caused such anemic uptake is that there's loads of poo poo that people used to love that's just not in the game at all in any realistic sense anymore. The game currently consists of two new style lists, which is about four of the old ones, and most of those are missing tons of options because they were too niche for the new mass-market FoW; at present, as just one example, British infantry* aren't in the game. Eastern Front isn't at all. Americans are only entering the desert six months after launch. I'm a strong proponent of the idea that people who play games generally get used to them and work around the flaws, but for V4 nobody can. The game needed a "Forces" style book that'd let you get stuck in, but it didn't have that for some reason, so everyone's been left frustrated, waiting, and playing the broken bandaid patch that produces dumb results. It's no wonder everyone's so hesitant. *the british motor infantry are in, as escorts to the tanks, but it does something to illustrate exactly how few people were able to play the new rules "properly". spectralent fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Aug 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, so it's a bigger mess than I thought. That's a shame, I hope they get it in order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Pac-Manioc Root posted:When you run out of history, you cal always do ever more implausible "what-if"s? Apparently they're not going to be doing any more major campaigns for BA, since they were somewhat disappointed with the response to Sea Lion. Although I'm not sure whether that's the idea of big campaigns, or just doing alt-history campaign books. Which is kind of a shame, you could get some interesting ideas out of something like Operation Downfall or the proposed push into Norway if the Germans there had kept fighting. Hell, there's a couple of new minis options you could do to depict some of those potential units, like say, the Swedish, who apparently were going to liberate Denmark and join in on the fighting in Norway. Or how about the African-American airborne unit that could be deployed in a hypothetical Operation Downfall (since hte US was stretching its manpower and they were trained paratroopers). Kind of surprised they didn't do Operation Green as the followup to Sea Lion, since that was an actual proposed plan (if only as a proposal/possible deception). Plus you don't have to invent super-gliders, just have them successfully establish a bridgehead and start deploying units before the Irish & British can mobilise to stop them. Yvonmukluk fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Aug 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Sea Lion sounded like a fun idea, but scheduling it opposite the first exciting 40k event in a decade was unfortunate planning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
moths posted:Sea Lion sounded like a fun idea, but scheduling it opposite the first exciting 40k event in a decade was unfortunate planning. Yeah, I think that the thinking was to capitalise upon Dunkirk. I wodner if some people thought it was limited to a thematic campaign, kind of like Flames, where it would be specifically limited to early war Brits vs. Germans. Then again, maybe trying to have it be more thematic would have helped, at least laying out a bit more of a framework, as opposed to 'just fight wherever' approach they seem to have gone with. If they were to do a followup, I think Norway/Downfall would be a good idea. So you have clearly delineated theatres (both of which would allow for both Western Allies & USSR to fight the Axis without jumping through too many hoops), clear lines of advance (so if, say, the Western Allies are advancing up from Denmark/Sweden, while the Russians push in via Finland). But that would be pretty majorly ambitious, especially after the failure of Sea Lion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
The Pendraken BKC3 fiasco makes me ask how does Cold War Commander / Future War Commander hold up? I'm looking for a company scale game that's less abstract because where I'm at the people I will be playing with are new to wargaming and I don't want to overwhelm them with unit cards and artillery tables. For reference, Dirtside II was too much chit chasing for these dudes. Edit: VVVV Baccus Crusades range probably has what you're looking for. Springfield Fatts fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Source for desert medieval troops? I want to do a 6mm GoT House Martell army. There are plenty of suitable troops that are just missing desert attire,
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Isn't that mainly just using VBCW minis and plopping them into Bolt Action, though? I've bought every campaign book they've put out except for Sealion because it felt so limited. All the other campaign books had a wide variety of nations or time periods. Early war UK vs Early war Germany - but in England - isn't sufficiently weird enough for me to pay money for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
The sea lion books overall are decent but like, I feel that a lot of it is very British focused, of course, and I feel like maybe I gotta be British to be that into it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
goodness posted:Source for desert medieval troops? I want to do a 6mm GoT House Martell army. take your pick
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
I wrote up a batrep of a Black Powder game we played two years ago. I probably posted some pics here with the intention of writing it out in full later. https://tallhatsbadguns.wordpress.com/
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Fish and Chimps posted:I wrote up a batrep of a Black Powder game we played two years ago. I probably posted some pics here with the intention of writing it out in full later. You started a new blog? Cool!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:You started a new blog? Cool! I learned from the best 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Maybe I should start a blog! With warhams and historicals!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
I have been so disappointed in FoW 4. It just killed all interest in anything to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 09:59
|
|
