|
Well, I was able to paint up 90% of my 2mm Russian army over the weekend in about 2 hours: They all still need basing/etc. of course. I think it was great to get a pair of armies (in a very objective sense) complete within a reasonable timescale, but I don't think they're a patch at all on my Pendraken 10mm figures. I think I'll use these to test-drive the Absolute Emperor/DBN/Lasalle rules and decide which system I'm going to orient myself around, and then replace with 10mm figures in due course. Having leafed through Lasalle I wasn't quite prepared for the depth, after a steady diet of DBx/AE/OHW!
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I vaguely remember there being some bullshit in some games about the Soviets doing everything "one step up" and that always applying to everything regardless of what step you were playing at to deny Soviet players fun toys. Flames of War definitely did this (and might still).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 13:37
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Well, I was able to paint up 90% of my 2mm Russian army over the weekend in about 2 hours: Looking good! As for Lasalle, it helps to keep in your head that Momentum is the lifeblood of the system IMHO. It's hard to fully be prepared for how it plays out until you're in the thick of it. Your first turns might well feel like "what is this, I can do whatever I want and momentum flows like honey from the sky". Then a few turns later, you'll tear your hair out over why the %&#¤% you lack the momentum to put out both the emergencies on your left and right flank this turn. There's also a lot of devils in the details regarding how you build your brigades, several smaller ones vs a few big ones has both pros and cons as for spending momentum once you get into the danger zone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 14:30
|
|
|
How do you like the Army Painter SpeedPaints? Is reactivation nearly as big an issue as the internet would make you think?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
Springfield Fatts posted:How do you like the Army Painter SpeedPaints? Is reactivation nearly as big an issue as the internet would make you think? I can't speak for this guy but when I tried them, it was pretty bad. 2.0 is coming out though to address it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
Springfield Fatts posted:How do you like the Army Painter SpeedPaints? Is reactivation nearly as big an issue as the internet would make you think? Overblown really, I only noticed it when trying to paint the white sashes on my ECW stuff, which would leech some of the underlying colour if the speedpaint coat below was heavy - this reduces as the paint cures (hours rather than minutes). On the other hand I didn't get it when painting the white on my 2mm nappie flags or trousers, so must vary shade-by-shade? Honestly the benefit of being able to shade/basecoat/highlight in one pass was worth the price of entry, you just have to have some kind of cursory 'colour up to the lines' rather than splash it over everything. Reactivation is handy for highlights if you're into that - I used a fiery orange dappled onto the upward faces of my ECW red coated dudes and it blended excellently. lilljonas posted:As for Lasalle... I'm going to give it a shot with a pretty straight-up-and-down scenario a few times to get used to things first, I'll post pictures - but I'm a tiny bit worried about the complexity of interaction compared to DBN/AE - but I guess that's just a learning curve with a new ruleset that isn't explicitly 'quick-play'. i.e. the systems seem to be fairly simple but combined they feel like they're generating some exponential complexity that my brain can't yet grok.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
Anarcho-Commissar posted:Flames of War definitely did this (and might still). They do, and it's really incredibly annoying as a Soviet player, especially because they "make up" for the basic units being way bigger by giving them terrible stats, like tanks having half the range of their German counterparts. And for the ones that are the same size, everyone else gets their full strength platoon and up units based on what they had on paper, but the Soviets get "oh well they took lots of losses lol" as an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
Absolute Emperor has a short series of training scenarios which up the complexity of the game to introduce different components, I've played the first two - they involve the french on the high ground attempting to capture the town at the crossroads. A scene from the 1st Battle of Sadivir:  There is alot to love about this system - even with the vanilla rules there is tons of flavour with the emergency forming of squares, impetuous cavalry charges, the ebb and flow and simultaneous combat. I like the way formations are handled, they are set at the start of a move and are mostly elective, but required to fit through gaps for moving/charging - which forces some interesting choices. I like the use of d6 bonuses and penalties in combat and HTH but the book seriously needs a quick reference sheet (available on the facebook page apparently). The transitory impact of damage (being halted or disordered) and the permanent attrition (which degrades troop quality over time) is also pretty inspired. Orders are defined upfront at the start of the game and cost elan to change. Elan is a finite resource for rerolls, order changes, etc. but also your army's overall morale which when depleted causes you to lose the game. A corps on a defend order, for example, must not move the corps commander away from the defended area/terrain, and thus the entire corps is anchored in place by his command radius. In comparison, a corps on attack order cannot move any of their units backwards at all voluntarily? I guess it makes sense and we're talking about large bodies of troops and the introduction of some friction in the command and control aspects, but I've not encountered it in that way before. The only major issue I have with the rules is the tiny command radius - with 3-5 units per corps, but a command radius which is essentially equal to the width of one unit in line formation, it results in lots of traffic jams and I've heard the system described as a 'knife fight in a phone booth' with the limits of command forcing units into odd formations and rendering obvious strategic objectives impossible. Ultimately I like the rules, but I need to spend more time with it. Here's the next shot: Daybreak on the 3rd Battle of Sadivir: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
Late war soviets have "hero" force options almost on par with other nations skill/size/point-wise but it's because everybody else was killed so every squad or vehicle is it's own platoon. Za Stalina!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:Late war soviets have "hero" force options almost on par with other nations skill/size/point-wise but it's because everybody else was killed so every squad or vehicle is it's own platoon. It's very dumb. They should just make the "hero" units the actual units, call the companies platoons and leave it at that. Nobody else has to make believe they're playing a company-sized regiment because 75% of the force got shot by the commissar or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
I mean we could talk for days about how badly Battlefront screws over Soviet forces in Flames.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 08:12
|
|
|
And we have! In this very thread!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 12:41
|
|
|
Time is a flat circle when it comes to wargames writers trashing the Soviet Union
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 13:21
|
|
|
Endman posted:It's very dumb. They should just make the "hero" units the actual units, call the companies platoons and leave it at that. Nobody else has to make believe they're playing a company-sized regiment because 75% of the force got shot by the commissar or something. This IS how a lot of the Soviet army worked in 1944-45. That is, allowing their infantry to fall below TO&E strength but keeping as much support as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
Cessna posted:This IS how a lot of the Soviet army worked in 1944-45. That is, allowing their infantry to fall below TO&E strength but keeping as much support as possible. Sure, the same thing happened to the Wehrmacht all all the time, the difference is that they get to take their full strength units by default, only the Soviets get this weird caveat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
Probably because idiots read German propaganda and filter it through Cold War movies
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Probably because idiots read German propaganda and filter it through Cold War movies Absolutely! And honestly that was a fine excuse 30 loving years ago, but at this point it's just lazy bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 12:44
|
|
|
Endman posted:Sure, the same thing happened to the Wehrmacht all all the time, the difference is that they get to take their full strength units by default, only the Soviets get this weird caveat. In the 4e books you can pick a "full strength" or an "under strength with full support" unit as the core of your force. There are no other restrictions, it's not a weird caveat. Please don't make me defend FoW, ffs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
Cessna posted:In the 4e books you can pick a "full strength" or an "under strength with full support" unit as the core of your force. There are no other restrictions, it's not a weird caveat. It’s a weird caveat that in order to take veteran units you’re taking under strength “Hero” companies rather than platoons. Every other nation in the game represents its veteran units at full strength. Gameplay wise it doesn’t matter that much, sure, but the way things are presented to the player are important, and there’s a definite bias towards showing the Soviets as the only nation that has to “make do” with under strength units while the Veteran SS Super Panzer Murder Platoon is always somehow at its full strength. I wonder why
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 00:07
|
|
|
78 years of lovely historiography is hard to overcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
It is, and I know I get unreasonably mad about it. Blame it on having postgrad history brain 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
Sorry to keep prattling on about Absolute Emperor, but having played it three times now, I feel like I'm at the stage where I can form a proper opinion. It has some interesting concepts but I think the game is just a bit too claustrophobic. There is a very limited command radius for each corps, and the strict limitation on what tactical options you may choose based on the order type (attack/defend/hold/etc.) means you have lots of units jostling for pixel-scale position and formation right up against each other in the middle of a larger board, i.e.: Each unit is based on a 1x1" , the command radius has been extended to 5" in this shot (an additional 25% over standard) and yet every unit is in a rectangle about 10" wide and 14" tall. After playing the 3rd Battle of Sadivir using the AE ruleset, I replaced all the units back in position and played again using the OHW H&M rules posted by Springfield Fatts. In about a quarter of the time and a bit more fun, I obtained the same game result - the Russians despite heavy losses were able to rout the French at the gates of Sadivir. The extra detail afforded by AE over OHW is significant, but not more enjoyable nor did it yield greater fidelity. Of course, the last test is to play the same battle using DBN rules... Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Feb 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Sorry to keep prattling on about Absolute Emperor, but having played it three times now, I feel like I'm at the stage where I can form a proper opinion. It has some interesting concepts but I think the game is just a bit too claustrophobic. There is a very limited command radius for each corps, and the strict limitation on what tactical options you may choose based on the order type (attack/defend/hold/etc.) means you have lots of units jostling for pixel-scale position and formation right up against each other in the middle of a larger board, i.e.: I like your approach of playing the same battle in different rules, it really gives a more comparative and honest view of how the games direct the events on the table.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 23:14
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:I like your approach of playing the same battle in different rules, it really gives a more comparative and honest view of how the games direct the events on the table.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Sorry to keep prattling on about Absolute Emperor, I mean let’s be honest it’s probably a lot better for the thread than me endlessly relitigating Flames of War’s historical biases Plus I’m a big fan of people posting their games ITT
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
I am fighting the 'Rona but wanted to also chime in and say hell yeah just post
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
I've never settled on a Napoleonic ruleset so any insight into the various options is valuable to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 05:11
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Sorry to keep prattling on about Absolute Emperor, Please keep posting, this is quality content. Has anyone had any luck encouraging people who are used to the paradigm of tournament-games, into attempting scenario play?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 08:25
|
|
|
Which system do you refer to by DBN ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
I'm glad it's making for decent reading. I've not really been an active poster on SA for a few years and the lack of feedback you get built into other platforms is throwing me a bit.Tias posted:Which system do you refer to by DBN ? De bellus napoleonicus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6kWUHsB5nw It’s a standalone DBx game and the guy is really nice. The salient change is mostly new unit types to reflect napoleonic era combat, but there's also an attrition system where units have the capacity to take three hits. I will put up my own battle report of it soon! Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Feb 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
I've ordered the last few Pendraken ECW 10mm figures required to finish my Royalist force which should bring me to four units of pike & shot, four units of trotters, two guns, two officers and a general. Really not too bad for £50! I think before dropping any cash on 10mm Napoleonics or even something bizarre like Ancients (I'm reading Adrian Goldsworthy's account of the three Punic wars in "Fall of Carthage"), I need to get a couple of games of DBN and Lasalle under my belt. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Feb 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 09:45
|
|
|
Can I get recommendations for cheapest Napoleonic-WW1 3D models, especially sub-10mm ? TiaSouthern Heel posted:
Thanks, looking forward to it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 12:32
|
|
|
I've always enjoyed history as a subject, and this exploration of historical gaming has continued to reveal a depth and richness which has me feeling decidedly ambivalent about fantasy and sci-fi. A long time ago the foreword of a book I was reading said something like "Thank you to ___ for showing me that history is just stories with dates". It resounded with me greatly, and the complexity of historical events and their different interpretations feels much richer than something invented: What could be more heroic than one view of the stand of Sparta and their allies against the Persians? What more surprising than Hannibal's elephants over the Alps? More sad than the final whimper of the Byzantine Empire, so far from its height? When you can find more schadenfreude than in Napoleon's advance on Moscow? Or terror than the advance of the British tanks at the Somme? Is it really neccesary to describe the 'Siege of Terra' when one can talk of Leningrad, Jerusalem or Vienna? Why would you go to the trouble of buying and building armies of proprietary figures, whose formations, tactics, equipment, etc. only exist inside one game's paradigm? It seems to be copying a drawing, rather than drawing from life. I know they're all metal dollies and I'm not precious about it - just thinking out loud. Anyway, that's my TED Talk. PS. I'm aware of course of exceptions, but in the context of this discussion I think we can all agree that war-games authors are unlikely to be producers of the genre-bridging epics like Lord of the Rings or Dune.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
I dunno I like Star Trek.  Like, we know ridiculously little about how premodern warfare even worked. What happened at Crecy and why and even where the battle was fought is an ongoing argument. There might be nuance in studying that, but as a thing to game the Battle of the Five Kings is just as arbitrary as the Battle of Five Armies. Siivola fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Feb 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 14:15
|
|
|
Siivola posted:I dunno I like Star Trek. The other thing to remember is that when it comes to warfare, history is generally written by the winners. A lot of what used to get cited as accurate historical fact regarding historical military conflicts has often been later revealed to be distorted, or even completely made up, by the people who have a vested interest in making the losers look bad. It's really only been in the last 50-60 years or so that people have had the ability to see military action from thousands of miles away in the comfort of their own homes without a filter (beyond maybe a newsreader's commentary), as opposed to even something like WW2 or Korea where wartime footage of the time was only generally presented to the viewing public for propaganda purposes. Viewed in that light, there's often just as much made-up fiction surrounding even something as recent as Stalingrad or D-Day as there is with a WH40k or Middle Earth battle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
TBH this is part of the cycle of historicals. Any minute now you'll decide to run an "imagi-Nations" campaign and then suddenly you'll find yourself one Dragon away from Westeros.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:TBH this is part of the cycle of historicals. Any minute now you'll decide to run an "imagi-Nations" campaign and then suddenly you'll find yourself one Dragon away from Westeros. There is something incredibly endearing about Tony Bath running aboriginal forces alongside Greek and Persians and colonial western european powers. I did consider running black orcs (swordsmen), orc spearmen (pikes) and goblin archers (muskets) as an opposing force to my ECW royalists to see if it would encourage my recalcitrant IRL opponent but I guess there's no hope...
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
What are my options for Pike and Shot gaming? Besides Pike and Shotte I mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
Beerdeer posted:What are my options for Pike and Shot gaming? Besides Pike and Shotte I mean. Tercio was neat, not sure if it's OOP now? We started collecting 15mm armies for it at the club, but then it fizzled out as the player rooting for it the most never ended up painting his part of the armies. :P Furioso is geared towards the very early part of the period afaik, think Italian Wars. By Fire and Sword? I've not played that much P&S, we're looking at making a renaissance hack of Lasalle 2 for our Italian Wars games. But those are the ones I've heard of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Beerdeer posted:What are my options for Pike and Shot gaming? Besides Pike and Shotte I mean. Pikeman's Lament is a fun, playable set of skirmish level (i.e., 50 models per side or less) rules that covers the era. They're based on Lion Rampant. If you can track down a copy of Warhammer English Civil War I'd recommend it. It's based on earlier editions of Warhammer Fantasy, and it turns out that if you strip out the monsters and magic the core of the Warhammer rules are quite sound for the era. lilljonas posted:By Fire and Sword? An excellent game if you can find someone interested in it. They're about to release a new edition (2nd) soon, so maybe wait until that drops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 16:10
|
|