Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 55 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    People get a bit too serious about these details – lots of years have shown me it’s best to go for the ‘enjoy’ factor rather than the ‘total accuracy’ factor.  My fading memory tells me that the Lorica Segmentata was mainly a western thing, that the eastern legions may not have adopted them, and that the main reason was that the Celts were the only metal workers able to  make decent Segmentata – true or not, good story. I once painted up a unit of hoplites as Hollywood Greeks – used them  as Carians – black armour and helmet – looks good.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Charles Grant – books and figures #142363
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Same Harry Pearson. He gradually dropped out of the hobby and I managed to acquire most of his figures, starting with the Grant Ancients then finally the rest.His blog has had no updates for a few years but is worth going through to look at a lot of figures, battles and info – I actually printed off all his blogs and have them bound using a thermal printer.

    http://parumpugna.blogspot.com/ is his blog – well worth a look!

    My own blog, https://easterngarrison.blogspot.com/ , mainly covers Garrison and Early Minifigs Ancients (plus a lot of other stuff) – for an overview of the posts might be worth checking Reviews on the Labels list – if you have any interest in wargames figures of the late 60s/early 70s you should find something of interest 🙂

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Charles Grant – books and figures #142357
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Yes, some of the bases are that colour… the bases themselves vary. I have rebased some figures, I know that Harry Pearson (who had the collection before me) rebased some, others may be the original bases. I suspect (no evidence) that the bluish bases are original.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Stripping enamel paint from miniatures. #126861
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Another vote for Dettol – doesn’t always work but the best option I’ve found so far.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: A man walks into a bookshshop….. #124387
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    The advantage of old age is that I’ve got a lot of books like this 🙂

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Other Hobbys? #123410
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Mainly related – antiquarian books, history. Like the painting/modelling aspects as much as wargaming, for example carving lousy models out of balsa! Also reading horror/sci fi books.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Is Scratch-Building a Part of Your Gaming Hobby #122773
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant
    in reply to: speaking of pteryges… #98144
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    I think there’s a few things worth considering.

    Firstly, they were used by a lot of different peoples – Greeks, Persians, Etruscans, Romans, probably early Carthaginians. It is unlikely that they all made them the same way.

    Secondly, they were used over a period of several hundred years.  Again, that would cause differences in manufacture.

    Thirdly, they were often used by people with different access to money – a richer Greek  could afford  better quality armour than someone who only just made it into the hoplite class.

    Fourthly, they may have been worn for different purposes. Thus a Roman soldier in the First Century AD might wear then for protection, a Roman general in the Fourth Century might have considered them as  a fashion accessory.

    There are probably other things I’ve missed but that lot will do. Even in the same army I think it likely that different people might have them  made of different materials with different visual and defensive properties depending on the materials available to those individuals.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: When did the Horse and Musket Period end? #93148
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    When a period ‘really’ starts/ends is usually both imprecise and arbitrary – the date is there for the convenience of people for particular purposes. It’s an artifact that helps us (or should be). Take ones with ‘real’ defined dates – did WW2 start in 1939? For the Chinese and Japanese it could be said to have started earlier, for the US later.  For convenience we say 1939-45… but it is just that. Convenience. Someone could post a wargame set in 1947 on a WW2 board because it used WW2 weapons and tactics – but it isn’t WW2! So if someone is looking up post-WW2 guess where they WON’T look… a WW2 board. Unless that board has been defined as, for example, warfare between 1937 and 1950. With something as imprecise as ‘Horse and Musket’ a logical but arbitrary endpoint is useful to avoid confusion in this area and for that purpose.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: When did the Horse and Musket Period end? #92982
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    OK, so next point – where does this lead for me?

    It started when I was floundering as where to place something in the 1880s-1890s. It didn’t, not even in passing, occur to me to look in the Horse and Musket Board… But if the Horse and Musket Board had been ,for example, called ‘Horse and Musket 1700-1900’ I would have said ‘not one of the specialist areas, therefore it goes in the General  Horse and Musket Board.’ Lkewise, other historical periods could also be dated – Ancients, perhaps up to 1066, Medieval from 1067 to… whenever (I know of 3 separate definitions for the end of the Medieval period!), Renaissance as ‘Renaissance xxxx-1699’ and then Modern as ‘Modern 1901-date’.

    Please… I’m not suggesting or voting for any particular dates, just that a defined set of dates would be easily set up and beneficial. After all, Medieval could be end of the fall of the Western Roman Empire… doesn’t matter, as long as there is a definition (clarification?) as far as TWW Boards are concerned.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: When did the Horse and Musket Period end? #92980
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Interesting viewpoints so far – we have something like a 200 year period with a 50 year spread as to when people think it ended!

    Rob Young

    in reply to: German army 1901 – colour plates #92911
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    My spelling is – sorry Michael, didn’t notice Nichael until after pressing post button.

    And NCS – I agree, don’t want thousands of Boards. But I’ll do a misquote of Phil Barker. Years ago people complained that a lot of other peoples rules were shorter. He commented that most weren’t shorter, just incomplete. I refer back to my ‘balance’ comment earlier – and it’s something that is worthy of discussion, though not really on this thread.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: German army 1901 – colour plates #92906
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Actually, with your permission Nichael, there possibly is a need to answer ‘TWW has run into the ‘my thread on xxxx subject is so important that I want a new board for it, lest anyone miss this perfect pearl of information’ thing again.’  – as the one who started the thread that has to be aimed at me.  I’m trying to see in my posts where I did any of those things. ‘my thread on xxxx subject is so important’ – no, it’s a thread of apparent interest to a few people who would like it in the most appropriate place to view – with a number of people (including yourself Michael) making positive comments, and ‘that I want a new board for it’ – no,  but have suggested greater clarity with the subject matter – actually, my comment ‘if that was changed to ’18th/19th Century including Napoleonic and ACW’ ‘ would fit ‘The Age of the Big Battalions board covers 200 years of horse and musket FFS, there’s not even a separate Napoleonics board. How do they manage?’ – so not sure what the actual gripe is? (Incidentally, LAF have more Board headings than there are here. )

    And reasonable discussion doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with you – reasonable discussion is about how you say it, not your own viewpoint.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: German army 1901 – colour plates #92905
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Mostly?

     

    Rob Young

    in reply to: German army 1901 – colour plates #92822
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    And… just put the Austro-Hungarian army 1880-1900 on Pages – so not sure where to post it here – I’ll put the link on this thread but obviously most people won’t be looking here for Austro-Hungarians!

    https://easterngarrison.blogspot.com/p/austro-hungarian-army-1880-1900-colour.html

    Rob Young

    in reply to: German army 1901 – colour plates #92806
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    That is an issue – balance. What is a suitable number of boards? If not enough boards, then things are liable to be shoehorned into somewhere they don’t fit. Or just not posted. There is one board here – ’18th Century American Civil War General Horse and Musket Napoleonic’ – how messy is that?  A mix of generic and specific – if that was changed to ’18th/19th Century including Napoleonic and ACW’  – that would fit Victorian – and I would look there for up to 1900 period – but not when it seems to be for Horse and Musket… difficult, I think it would probably be considered a minor problem not really worth looking at at the moment, but perhaps at some stage a renaming  of some boards and looking at need rather than having things a bit haphazard?

    Rob Young

    in reply to: German army 1901 – colour plates #92801
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Probably both… Certainly, I don’t look at WW1. Likewise, don’t think really general topic – but people doing a War of the Worlds type scenario would use the various nationalities in Victorian unifoms so I think this is the nearest relevant Board. Certainly Victorian SciFi is a lot more relevant that WW1.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Alternate history. #92313
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Pascal, QT are now owned by Wargames Design Workshop so might be worth getting in touch with them:

    http://wargamesdesignworkshop.co.uk/index.asp?t=about

    Rob

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Argentine organisation, Falklands War #66457
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    That’s fine with me – it’s a useful resource and I just feel Tango gets a bad press but does do some good. This is one where I feel he did.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: 1/72 ? #66390
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Remember a few posts ago I mentioned people on ebay listing 20mm as 28mm?

    Not quite that, but Airfix Confederates as 25mm comes pretty close.

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/22-Confederate-Infantry-marching-ACW-25mm-painted-wargame-soldier-Airfix-plasic-/292171661508?hash=item4406c9c0c4:g:6tQAAOSw-YVXmPvM

    ’22 Confederate Infantry marching ACW, 25mm painted wargame soldier Airfix plasic’

    They’re made of a now obsolete material called plasic.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: The Lovecraftian town of Newhaven #65636
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant
    in reply to: The Lovecraftian town of Newhaven #65631
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Probably be a month or so before I get round to doing much with it – quite simply, it tends to take a time to set up so is there for a while. Trouble is, it’s the same space I need for Ancients battles and casting! At the moment I’m doig casting and it’s going a lot slower than I intended.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: 1/72 ? #65531
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    The market manipulation idea isn’t new. It was widely thought at the time that Minifigs started calling figures 25mm to tie people into their ranges. Making figures slightly bigger by Hinchliffe  was thought to be a marketing ploy, Lamming started making theirs bigger simply because Bill liked the look of bigger figures – he told me that he carved his masters out of brass; if so then bigger figures would also have been easier!

    Rob Young

    in reply to: 1/72 ? #65512
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    I’m mainly metal (Garrison Miniatures, ranges retired 2014 but blog https://easterngarrison.blogspot.co.uk/ ) – point is simple, if everyone followed the criteria, then that criteria doesn’t need to be listed. Example, if you produce a set of draughts, you don’t need to say one side is black, the other white.  If everyone did 1/72nd scale as 1″=6′ and did 6′ figures 1″/25mm tall – you have no need to list in the review how tall the figures are. There would be size variations to allow for the different heights of people, but any equipment – weapons, webbing, etc – would be exactly the same size whatever the manufacturer. Likewise, if listed as 1/76th – that would be enough.

    It isn’t though – because people aren’t following the same criteris, whatever they say.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: 1/72 ? #65509
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Well Tim bear in mind 2 points. Firstly, are particular figures being produced as toys or wargames figures? Plastic figures may be normally listed as 1/76th or 1/72nd, and you’ve actually quoted an example where a one listed as 1/72nd obviously isn’t. How many people – even wargamers – buy a box of figures in a toy shop after reading the reviews? Also, small scale manufacturers may be aimed for wargamers and be expected pay lip service to ‘reality’ – but how many do? And certainly on ebay I’ve seen 20mm figures listed as 28mm. And think about it – if everyone stuck to the same criteria regarding a given scale there would be no need for review sites to consider that aspect. Also, in metal I’ve seen 25mm figures being ‘rebranded’ as 28mm with no further changes – granted a few years ago, but then ‘modern’ ranges would ‘start’ as 28mm (or 32mm posing as 28mm).

    Regards

    Rob Young

    in reply to: 1/72 ? #65503
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Mathematical definitions and common useage are two different things. That’s the thing with language – words are defined by people, and different people are… different. So yes, in theory 1/76th and 1/72nd are/should be exact definitions. But define 15mm, 20mm, 25mm, 28mm in terms of figure scale…using the word scale as it is used in general useage. As 20mm figures got bigger, they reached the point where people started calling them 25mm. As 25mm figures got bigger the terms Old School 25mm and big 25mm started being used. Then it reached the stage where they were called 28mm – many of which measure about 32mm…

    People don’t get it wrong. They just redefine things to mean something different.

    Rob

    Rob Young

    in reply to: An attempt at 15mm sculpting #65433
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    I have a great deal of respect for people who can sculpt – I restrict myself to conversions!

    Rob Young

    in reply to: 1/72 ? #65432
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    One problem is that everyone has a different idea what a particular scale/size is.  Many years ago Minifigs defined 25mm as 1″ = 6′, ie 1/72nd. Airfix were listed as 1/76th – but look at the difference in sizes betweenearly ones like the Guards band and later figures. 1/72nd vehicles were the imported figures – and they were bigger than Airfix. These days, one person’s 20mm would be described by someone else as 25mm – and a third person would say 28mm! Yes, I have seen that kind of thing – usually when someone on ebay tries to fob 20mm figures as 28mm because they sell better!

    The Ancients figures I use are Garrison 20mm and early Minifigs 25mm. They are basically the same size. This is really because Garrison 20mm got taller and Minifigs more-or-less changed the rules by suddenly calling their figures 25mm as a sale ploy. I think. I would imagine that it helped tie people in to their figures and away from Airfix. So, really, it’s one of those annoying areas – has there ever really (ie, Old School often called ‘true’ 25mm as opposed to later 25mm) been set in stone figure scales outside the model railway world?

    I think we’re just a bunch of anarchists.

    Regards

    Rob

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Rules? #65178
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    DBA/HoTT variations – I play solo and each game has a different set of ‘extras’ to the basic rule set.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Figure ranges you wish were still available #64910
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Minifigs ‘S’ Range Ancients and the original telegraph poles PB Range. I dislike the later horses/figures,don’t like separate weapons/shields, and telegraph poles preferred because they don’t snap every time you look at them.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Image Test Topic #64887
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    The brief was to see if images could be uploaded – so naturally included a large image as one of my ‘tests’.

    Having said that, on my blog I usually aim for between 300 and 800 kb.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Image Test Topic #64868
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Both loaded slowly – and the Carians are down as about 1.4mb. The Guard cavalry are in the 300kb range.

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Image Test Topic #64867
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

     

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Favourite ancients army in your collection? #64417
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Drooling is good. I do it all the time. Although… thinking about it… ALL the time is probably not godd…

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Historical Accuracy of Vikings #64251
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Star Wars is more realistic and truer to history than Braveheart or the Patriot!

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Forum Etiquette #64190
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Strangely, currently got a case of someone taking previous private conversations onto my blog… so might soon be put in the position of saying ‘you have put these into the public domain so…’

    The person in question does use this forum, so…

    Rob Young

    in reply to: If You Were Starting a Range of Figures… #64129
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Wouldn’t be starting, just extending the 20mm Garrison Ancients ranges using professional sculptors to produce all the figures that were advertised in their 1972 lists  (but never produced) plus all the other figures I feel they ‘should’ have done. I’m doing my best but well aware of my limitations!

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Favourite ancients army in your collection? #64109
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

     

    Got it… I think

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Favourite ancients army in your collection? #64107
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    Talking about camels, I just like to get silly sometimes:

    https://easterngarrison.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/camels-again.html

    Must work out how to include pictures in the text…

     

    Rob Young

    in reply to: Why Ancients? #63821
    Rob youngRob young
    Participant

    What’s not toi like about chariots?

    And elephants.

    Hit a ‘stopped’ phase over last few days so… started painting another general’s chariot. It was the only thing to do.

    Rob Young

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 55 total)