Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Deleted User
MemberAB: you’re talking about acrylic model paints, right?
Your problem might be that you haven’t mixed the paint correctly. The two components of the paint (pigment & polymer emulsion) easily separate & can need intensive stirring. The Army Painter brand is very prone to this as is some Vallejo colours but both are worth the effort to stir correctly. A few shakes isn’t enough.
This is one solution:
Another is to simply put a ball bearing in the bottle which aids in the mixing process when shaken vigorously.
donald
MemberHmm. Shouldn’t it get darker the closer you get to the water?
Maybe.
I don’t have a lot of experience with bogs etc. My first thought was something bright green but I remembered the peat bogs on my island (Lewis) & looked into it. Many are ‘anerobic’ ie lack of oxygen & some fairly strong chemical compounds from rotting vegetation so I thought I’d do something looking a bit dead. The pools are brown: peaty. I thought they’d be a focus for dead vegetation: hence the ring of dead grass etc.Of course I could be totally wrong…..
donald
MemberYou game, don’t you Gunfreak?
Maybe start the other way around. Pick out some (obviously small) Napoleonic clash & paint figures for the game.
Say; the Coa.
http://www.peninsularwar.org/coa.htm
This gives you motivation to create the needed figures.
Hey, before you know it, you’ll be painting for Leipzig/Battle of the Nations.
donald
MemberNice & cheap: now that’s an unbeatable combination.
donald
MemberYes very good donald, it comes from where? There are some who think that the Trojan Horse was a war machine … But I prefer the giant wooden horse offered as an offering to Poseidon … If anyone knows where to find the Redoubt Trojan horse (Redoubt no longer sells the Trojan horse)in picture on the GrandManner site, let me know, thank you.
Monolith Designs…..my computer wouldn’t allow me to access their Home Page (“threat detected”) so I don’t know if it’s available. But you could make it. The only challenge would be the head. I think if you carved it from some high-density foam, it would be achievable.
I may well give it a go.
donald
MemberLook what I found:
I might try to scratch build something like this.
donald
MemberWell, as The Man himself remarked, “morale is to whatever, like three to one or something”. The French had a long winning streak and belief in Napoleon among the troops never seemed to flag. How one models something like that, though…
Well, Thaddeus, you can but would you want to?
A few years ago, our annual Show game was Ligny, 1815.
For some unfathomable & ill-concieved reason, we decided to make it nearly impossible for the Prussians to win by giving the French numbers & quality far in excess of their opponents. It ended up very much like the historical battle. Blucher got chewed up but not destroyed. The game looked lovely but was as boring to game as watching ice melt. It lacked, shall we say, dramatic tension as over two days the game progressed to its inevitable conclusion.
That’s why for gaming reasons, I think you need to be very careful with conceding factors to one side or the other. History may be one thing but gaming can be another.
donald (BTW love the hat).
MemberThey very well may have thought that they were superior, but they weren’t.
Hi, Glenn, French superiority? : I’m here to be convinced either way!
I especially have no trouble with the bit quoted. I really hesitate to equate sport with war but (taking a deep breath), self-belief, warranted or not, can win matches.
However, I can’t really argue with your “certainly unknown” comment. My idle speculation should be taken for what it’s worth.
regards, donald
MemberCome to think more soberly about the topic, the French should get +3 because of their bricoles.
I am shocked, shocked I say to see the “B” word appear in this august forum. I would horsewhip you sir, if I had a horse.
donald
MemberMichael Asher, in his ‘Khartoum’, wrote: “All military activity is decided more by cultural attitudes than logic.”
This was in reference to the Khalifa at Omdurman. Probably a bit simplistic but I’ve been mulling over it for the last few days & wonder if it can be applied to the Napoleonic situation.
Napoleon used to rattle on about “his star”. Certainly there was, in the Glory years, a sense amongst the French that they would usually triumph, of their innate superiority. Did this cultural attitude generally impel them for that final effort that often won a hard fought battle? Is French superiority more of a morale-thing than anything else? And when it crumbles, nothing can save them?
donald
MemberDonald, those pictures look spectacular!
Thanks, Tim. My two pals & I put an effort into the annual Show game.
The big (long & wide) table is a treat I very much look forward to.
donald
MemberPhil, we run a “mega-game” at our local Train & Hobby Show each year. We like to go for two Gazillion points a side but do try to make the large space work for us unlike our usual games with far fewer figures, on a much smaller table & with a lot less time!.
For instance at this year’s game, the Romans held the centre whilst they Carthaginians had an army at each end of the table. Terrain made an all out assault difficult. Both Cartho players co-ordinated their moves (communication was possible) in order to outmanoeuvre the Roman players. In the end, the two Punic forces were able to link up to create a Minor Victory. The only part of the table not occupied by figures that had purpose was at my end….& I needed the space in case the Romans came off their slope to smash me in detail before my colleague was able to pin, unbalance, confuse & ultimately march most of his army past the Romans.
See here:
In this game, like most of the mega games, we do try, as you suggest, to fight end to end. But not always.
Last year’s game was SYW. The French held one long side of the very long table. My Prussian opponents needed to dislodge us, which they did with a classic Frederician oblique order attack. Truly, you could not have envisaged it working as well as it did in history….but you needed the long space to pull it off.
donald
MemberI’m interested to know what rule mechanisms anyone is using to simulate ambush (the Mahdists’ most potent weapon).
We’ve tried the standard marking on a map with discovery based on proximity: it works but is a bit awkward. I’m keen to use markers, both dummy & real. One of our little group thinks them too obvious. I’ve also seen a system of random entry points that looks good in that the A-Es don’t know where to expect the next attack but it may be a bit too random.
Any other ideas?
donald
MemberCan I bring up game balance? As every game we’ve had so far is scenario based, any notion of finely balanced forces is irrelevant yet I’m still struggling to achieve a rough parity between my Anglo-Egyptians & Mahdists. It seems to me to be a bit less than a 1:2 ratio. This is far closer than the rule book suggests.
We haven’t really had a lot of games yet so maybe it’s just because the British players (mainly me) are a bit useless. I’m also wondering if this is because of the various rule mods I’ve put in.
Interestingly, it seems in the first part of the historical conflict, the Mahdists weren’t always that superior in numbers. Indeed, Osman Digna’s Bejas may have been outnumbered on occasion.
donald
MemberMy envy whilst looking at such nice models is large. My ability to create such is small.
donald
MemberAgainst my initial judgement, I’ve come to like “toolbox” rules. You get to put your stamp on the rules without the burden of writing the thing from scratch.
BTW WI evidently had an article by Mr Mersey on rule tweaks:
http://www.warandpeacegames.com.au/Wargames_Illustrated_349_p/wgi-349.htm
I don’t get WI so I missed out…..
donald
Member@ Nathaniel: I like your ammo rules & will try them out with a AZW game in the near future. Thank you.
As for facing: we simply couldn’t like the ‘no facing’ of the rules as they stand. This is in part because we’re playing larger games than intended by the author. Thus, we have several “tweaks” designed to give units fronts, flanks & rears.
* Interpenetration of units through friendly & unfriendly units is impossible unless retreating.
*Units will move in straight lines with up to 2 wheels allowed per turn. A 180 degree turn before or after moving will cost 2 inches of the unit’s movement allocation. A unit cannot charge an enemy in its rear.
* Firing will be allowed at a 45 degree angle of the front face of the unit firing (except for Volley fire which will remain straight ahead)
*Units charged on flank or rear will melee with their attackers on a ‘6’, using half their figure strength (rounding down).
I don’t expect these to suit everyone (or even anyone!).
donald
MemberThanks, Glenn. One very interesting idea I picked up some years ago (from Dave Hollins, I think) was Napoleon’s usual superiority in intelligence gathering. Apart from the usually competent battlefield scouting, he evidently had a network of spies across much of Europe that gave him information on anything from numbers to battle plans. Indeed, one French agent was actually appointed to be head of the Austrian intelligence agency.
If you have a glimmer as to who you are facing & what they intend, you have a real chance at victory. Even in the Waterloo campaign, Napoleon had a fair understanding of his enemies’ plans whilst his early manoeuvres were kept opaque.
It’s easy enough to model your thoughts & this on a wargames’ table. More & better troops & the ability to deploy second will give a French army an historical superiority.
donald
MemberI have missed Napoleonic discussions. It’s nice to have them back.
donald
MemberIt’s understandable, probably therapeutic & definitely amusing to dwell on the peccadilloes of certain other wargaming sites but, with no criticism intended, perhaps it would be better to move on & focus on the future of TWW?
I think we’re agreed it’s an OK place but how to maintain & even grow it? I’m more than content to leave moderation in the hands of Mike & any minions he may recruit to help him. So what can I do?
Above all, be an active, positive & (dare I say) valuable member of the community. I think the more of us who contribute, the better.
Nothing is immutable. I think I should suggest change but also live with any decisions made to the contrary. For example, I think there should be more boards. Not a ridiculous number but some needed ones eg Colonial. If the moderator decides otherwise I should not go into a huff.
My hobby is wargaming, not reading wargames’ forums. However, I value TWW and wish it well.
donald
MemberI think it is a mistake to include a bias favouring a particular nation in order to try achieve historical results. I think the job of the rules is to cause the players to use historically appropriate tactics and then leave it to the dice to decide how well the troops behave in battle. The winner should be the player who makes better use of his troops and who gets the luck of the dice.
I understand your viewpoint & indeed I do have enjoyable games where both Napoleonic armies are mirror images of each other & it is down to the player’s skill. On other occasions, I find it a challenge to have games (& not just Napoleonic) where the two sides have different strengths & weaknesses & the skill is to capitalise on the former & minimise the latter.
A more non-controversial example of this might be a Russian army with Cossacks. The French had little or nothing to match such troops. It is up to the French commander to take steps to curtail the impact of Cossacks on their flank or in their rear eg a strong mobile reserve saved for just this purpose. I could add that a late war French army will tend to have more & heavier artillery than a Low Countries Anglo-Dutch force. Is this bias?
I am cautious in having the wargame tail wagging the historical dog instead of the other way around but it’s where I always end up: on the tabletop.
Giving the French a plausible & hopefully historical but not overwhelming advantage can create the sort of challenge for a Russian/Austrian/Prussian player that will make for an exhilarating game.
donald
MemberYou also rightly raise the question of what level am I talking about. For example, the a French company/battalion/brigade/division/corps/army: were they all “superior”? I would suggest that at times, they could be.
I remain to be convinced by this, particularly at the lower levels. Are there particular years you were thinking of?
Before 1809, you could make a case.
donald
MemberFirstly, thank you for your response. Appreciated.
I hope I am not being too forward in suggesting there’s a note of ennui in your post? Understandable, given so many discussions about topics like this, elsewhere. I am trying to cut through the BS though. Truly.
I certainly don’t ascribe to the Empire rules-standard response to French superiority of a blanket +1. Apart from anything else, an inevitable French victory would produce a dull wargame! Indeed you rightly point out anomalies to French superiority. It would indeed be foolish to see the Napoleonic period as an unbroken line of glorious victories ended with a catastrophic defeat. However, the French more often than not were victorious in the period. 60%?
You also rightly raise the question of what level am I talking about. For example, the a French company/battalion/brigade/division/corps/army: were they all “superior”? I would suggest that at times, they could be.
But let’s get back to gaming specifically. Are there factors that the French should have an edge with? There are possibly a few but I’d like to suggest leadership. I do not suggest an inherent French command ability but I believe there were more French generals killed than in generals of other nationalities. This suggests a greater desire to lead from the front. I could suggest there might have been greater possibility of immediate reward (or punishment!) in the French system to stimulate this. So in wargames’ terms could you justify a more direct & responsive mid level leadership?
So: to ‘General d’Armee’ which is distinguished by the number of ADCs allocated who are needed to facilitate tactical decisions. If it is possible that the French *might* gain an advantage here is this accurate/defensible?
BTW I am very happy to have you poke holes in my reasoning. This is *not* a topic I’d bring up on AF.
donald
Membera forum being no better than the amount of traffic and the quality of posts.
There is a forum not a million miles from here that was noteworthy for “possessing” a number of highly knowledgeable members in a range of periods. They have now mostly all gone. Indeed, apart from the Colonial era where the VAG & several of his cronies still attend & the AWI board where there is still a degree of expertise, consulting Google is now a better option.
TWW is not currently at that exalted state but definitely is getting there. I’ll admit my “geekiness” in that I relish a discussion over my favourite periods.
Napoleonics anyone?
I am thankful that I can be indulged here & treated to some informed opinions.
donald
MemberI just use lichen for mine, but I’m sure any old dried out looking shrubbery is fine.
Each to his own taste, of course, but I find lichen to be too insubstantial.
Here’s my first 4 bases:
donald
MemberI keep reading the thread title as Hannibal at the fjords, which would be a really good title for a Carthaginian vs Viking battle report…
How about “Cannibal at the Ford’s” which would indicate an unfortunate dinner guest at the home of the prominent auto-maker.
donald
MemberWhat an interesting OP!
You know this site, Breton?
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/index.htm
I have some of these (& you’re going to hate me because they’re 20mm):
http://www.irregularminiatures.co.uk/indexes/20mmindex.htm
(click on Biblicals; photograph at top)
My Mycenaean army is one of my favourites.
donald
MemberI tried FOG 1 but didn’t care for it.
Neither did I for quite a while!
FoG *can* be a grinding game until everything unravels quickly (but wasn’t that what often happened in Ancient warfare?).
However, I’ve found in several games, using tactics such as provoking charges from Impact infantry breaks up a battleline & reveals vulnerable flanks etc.
There’s also the use of ambushes & flank marches for such & light cavalry are such fun if you can get them some space. Really, it’s a game where manoeuvre pays off.
At any rate if you tell me there’s several much better Ancients’ rule sets out there, I’d not argue. We have lots of time invested in FoG & it works well enough.
donald
MemberLooks like a great way to spend a couple of days! What rules were you using, and how did they handle a battle of this size?
We are always ready to talk to the passing crowd. We’re the only wargame in a train & hobby show & very few have even heard of historical wargaming. However, interest is huge & we spend more time talking than playing so it’s really a one day game.
We use Field of Glory/2. Initially vastly popular, they seem “on the nose” for many gamers now. I find once you have the hang of them, they produce a challenging tactical game that more or less matches my view of Ancient warfare.
donald
MemberI’m even happier with the jacket on the figures. The old Zouave type jacket appears be active army reserve at the time, but the further away from their supply bases the older kit probably still got use.
Thanks for your help & interest.
donald
MemberFound this site this afternoon…… https://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/1883-egyptian-government-army-under-the-hicks-expedition/
Thank you.
I delved further from your hint & found these:
http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/1876-till-1908-ottoman-cavalry/
White jacket blue breeches:
https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e3-bbc5-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99
MemberNot being a fan of some of the Strelets figures,
Some are definitely unusable. Many shape up surprisingly well with a decent paint job. The exaggerated sculpting holds washes well & make highlighting quite easy.
Their latest efforts are very good eg:
http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/review.aspx?id=941
….none of this helps me much with Egyptian cavalry though.
donald
MemberIs there a wargamer who *hasn’t* tweaked a rule set?
Blitz Krieg Commander: you get an automatic command roll for the first move in any turn. It’s too frustrating to get your turn &, complements of a poor dice roll, get to do nothing. Certainly you can still lose command on your second move.
The Men Who Would Be Kings: I didn’t like the chaos of any unit can move & shoot in any direction so I gave both native & colonial units simple facing rules.
Field of Glory: chariots & cavalry who are missile armed don’t get the – modifier for firing to the rear. That’s what they were trained for!
Etc.
donald
MemberHa, Les! Would you believe I found that You tube vid about an hour ago?
Some good tips: not least using a silver paint pen to “colour in” the top of the tracks.
donald
MemberAs for the train, I suggest that it might need a bit of modification if it’s American outline to fit the Sudan?
The engine I bought, with a recommendation from the knowledgeable stall holder, looks not unlike this:
It’s been garishly painted red & yellow! but I think a black mat paint job with dry brushing to show dust should do?
It’s HO gauge which I think is 1/76 scale. My figures are 1/72 so I think that suggests, if not entirely represents, a narrow gauge.
donald
donald
MemberYou’d think a manufacturer could only do himself good by, sanely, addressing questions on gaming forums when asked about his products. You might be wrong.
I believe Sam Mustafa gave up on forums after being hounded with negative comment by people, who in all likelihood, didn’t even own his various rule sets. I can testify to his forbearance for quite a time.
However, if you’re willing to risk harassment, more power to you……..though posting on a properly moderated forum such as TWW would obviously be a solution.
If I was a manufacturer who had quirky, possibly offensive viewpoints (Go, Rangers!) & wanted to post about wargaming topics, I’d use a nom de plume such as “Ochoin” to hide my professional identity.
(Got you all wondering who I might actually be. No one of any importance as it so turns out).
donald
31/07/2017 at 20:29 in reply to: Why Missiles (e.g. Katyusha, Nebelwerfer)? Plus Other Questions #68959MemberI hesitate to add to the expert answers given but I wonder if we shouldn’t throw in the morale-shaking ability of rockets?
I believe they had an unearthly noise all of their own: the German things weren’t nicknamed “Moaning Minnies” for nothing. Terror would surely inhibit your ability to fight. As good wargamers, we are all aware that killing your enemy is only secondary to driving him to flee or stop fighting.
donald
MemberDepends on what they say, doesn’t it?
Not mentioning any other forums but if someone writes, just for an argument, offensive drivel, it’s more likely I wouldn’t send them my hard earned cash.
I think that by & large silence might be a wise course for at least some manufacturers.
donald
MemberMemberSo in other words, there’s a kind of strategic level spotting thing (plus other factors) going on as well as players trying out-deploy opponents? Many rule sets gloss over the reasoning behind initial deployment. Interesting.Yes. I’m trying not to preach about FoG which has its detractors (& its faults!). But it often has its heart in the right place & the deployment rules offer an hors d’oeuvre to the main course that is the battle. I’m sure other rule sets are at least as creative.
donald
-
AuthorPosts
[/url]
[/url]
[/url]
[/url]
[/url]
[/url]
