Forum Replies Created
Thank you for the replies guys. I think I will mount them just four to a base and give them an irregular formation (except for the Guard cossacks. I think I will just mount them like light cavalry, with six guys in two ranks, since I would guess that they were more disciplined than other units of cossacks).
I cut my bases by hand out of sheets of ply. I’m not sure I know how to draw an oval let alone cut one out with a Stanley knife!
Thanks for the update. I think your page is great and I love the way it is organised. I’ve always found the Russians to be the most daunting of the major Napoleonic armies when it comes to uniform research (which explains why I have got so many of them lying around unpainted). The details on the early hussars is much appreciated: the army of Suvorov is on the to do list.
I don’t like Biblical either. Half the book doesn’t get a look in. It should be Old Testament (which isn’t any better but may be more accurate).
I think you are right about the rationale behind it but frankly it has always struck me as pretty nonsensical. I flat out don’t believe that anyone capable of sculpting a miniature is unable to tell where the top of the head of a figure is just because that figure is wearing a hat.
I also can’t see why anyone would measure a figure from anywhere other than from the bottom of the feet to the top of the head.
Personally, I think a lot of it is down to the vanity of certain sculptors and manufacturers. They want to be able to claim that their figures are more detailed than the competition and they hate to admit that the main reason for this is that their figures are a heck of a lot bigger.
The one I find it hardest to get my head around is GHQ. They pride themselves on making accurate 1/285th vehicles and then they match them up with infantry that are massively out of scale. And apparently the reason they do this is that it allows them to make the infantry more detailed. If they want to do that why not just make the tanks bigger as well?
It beats me why figure manufacturers are so chary about revealing the actual size of their miniatures. It drives me crazy when I see 18mm figures advertised as 15mm (Blue Moon I am looking at you). And the notion that you can measure the height of a man by only going as far as his eyes has always struck me as so ridiculous that I am amazed that anyone ever dreamed it up.
I’m a huge fan of Firefly and was really looking forward to this one. The game looks great. The components are very nice. But the actual game play leaves a lot to be desired. There is virtually no player interaction and having played it once I don’t think I could be bothered to ever play it again.
On an associated topic, I’ve also got the Serenity RPG, and though I have never played it I still think it was worth the purchase price just for the section which teaches you how to swear in Chinese.
That really is a very nice looking model. The finished effect is great.
The length of the coat tails hadn’t occurred to me but of course you are right. If you want some more variation, Thoroughbred also make marines (also with short-tailed coats unfortunately) that I think would be compatible with Minifigs.
Have you considered using British Napoleonic marines? They wear round hats and I think in 15mm would be indistinguishable from flank company line infantry (they have shoulder wings so to use them for centre companies you would need to file these off). The Minifigs ones are very nice. They come in three poses – advancing, firing and kneeling firing – plus three command figures so would give a fair amount of variation for a skirmish game.
Sometimes I don’t reply to posts because I don’t really have much to say, and posting just to say I like it seems pointless. On other forums, people have been accused of posting such things just to increase their post count, which makes me even more wary of posting just to say “I agree”. I would be interested to hear why other people have voted no, though.</div>
I do know what you mean about not always replying to posts because it is sometimes hard to think of anything worthwhile to say. I often admire the pictures of newly-painted figures that people post but I rarely say anything because just writing “good job” seems a bit pointless. And I suppose being able to press ‘like’ would allow people to give some kind of feedback in these instances. However, it wouldn’t be possible to restrict it to this kind of usage and soon you will find that when a discussion/argument starts people will start ‘liking’ posts by people they agree with. And then things start to get pretty stupid very quickly.
I know how you feel Mike; I often end up arguing with my alter egos.
I voted no because I can’t really see the point in a ‘like’ feature. If you like a post why not take the trouble to tell the poster that you like it? You could even go crazy and tell him why you like it. You never know, you might even end up having a conversation.
I don’t like ‘likes’.
In fact, I hate, loathe and despise them.
And do we really want a league table of the most liked posts (which will inevitably become a league table of the most liked posters)?
Great report and some lovely pictures. I really enjoyed reading that. I’m starting to really look forward to your re-fight of the whole battle. Among your group what is the betting on who is going to win?
PS. Hougoumont and the Violets sound more indie rock than jazz funk to me (but definitely third-rate).
Thanks for the replies everyone. It seems, considering the combination of weaker wine and smaller glasses, Wellington was indeed being reasonably abstemious. And of course I should have taken into account that in a British officers’ mess you can drink enough to fell an ox and still be considered “reasonably abstemious”.
I voted to keep the reviews to the relevant areas. To be honest I already think there are too many subsections to click through. I hardly ever look at the general boards because there seem to be so many of them. (However, when the vote goes against me – and it looks like it will – I promise I won’t stomp off taking all my toys with me).
It turns out there was a Renault Dauphine but sadly it wasn’t a First World War tank and didn’t look especially like a dolphin. On the plus side, looking this up means that I now know why the heir to the throne of France was called the Dolphin; apparently it is all down to the coat of arms:
I checked out their website and I really like the look of some of their mounted figures. There’s something about their horses I really like.
Damn! That’s really disappointing. For one thing it means that the French in the First World War weren’t as whimsical as I had hoped. And secondly it means I am seeing ornamental fish where there are none.
Thanks Shandy. That is definitely them. I’ve never really checked Museum’s stuff out. Maybe I should give them another look.
That’s a great battle report. It really makes me want to give Maurice a go. I never used to fancy the idea of using cards in a miniatures game but the way that played out makes me think I really should give it a try.
Nice-lookign game as well.
I read the book when I was young and it inspired me to buy Carthaginians as my first ancient army. Unfortunately, I bought the figures sight unseen from an advert in the back of Military Modelling and when I unboxed them and saw what Peter Laing figures looked like in the flesh I was truly disappointed and the project never got off the ground. However, I think it is a great idea for a fantasy campaign and I look forward to reading about your progress. I would have thought you could use any ancient rules and your biggest consideration would be how to rate the Zulu-style tribes.
You could email them and see if they will accept other forms of payment. I find them very pleasant to deal with and they have been in the business a long time so they will be used to dealing with non-electronic payment.
Jonathan’s webpage really is a wonderful resource if you are attempting to paint Russians. I used to find the subject almost totally impenetrable but with his well-laid out charts I now find it much less daunting.
Jonathan, I hope you don’t mind but I have added a hot link direct to your page: Russian Facings of the Napoleonic Era
Bandit, the details you are looking for are in the first table. The colour for buttons and mitre plates is shown in the first column on the left as the background colour to the names of the regiments.
Yes, it is still Paul and Theresa Bailey running The Keep. I don’t know them personally but they are far-and-away my favourite people to buy from over the internet. They still sell WRG and Minifigs (though in the case of Minifigs at least I believe they are selling off old stock and no longer get any new stock in). I’ve never been to their shop but it sounds like the kind of place I would love.
Thanks for the replies everyone. I shall check out all the sources suggested. I’ve just started reading ‘The Destruction of Lord Raglan’ by Christopher Hibbert and have got as far as his description of the Battle of Alma. Judging from his account I think wargames rules will need to take into account the short-sightedness (literal rather than figurative for a change) of the British officers. One general, who can barely see the end of his nose but who is too vain to wear glasses, allows the troops of his brigade to become confused with those supporting his flank because he can’t see where they are going; another orders his troops to form square, seemingly on the basis that since he can’t see any cavalry there must be some just beyond his field of vision.
Incidentally, the impulse for me to embark on my Crimean adventure came from the fine folk at Keep Wargaming. They run an internet/mail order service that is second to none and currently are selling Crimean War Minifigs for considerably less than list price. Their postage charges are also remarkably reasonable. I’ve bought loads of stuff off them over the past couple of years so I feel I should give them a plug. Their eBay store can be found here: Keep Wargaming
Thanks Connard/Not Connard,
I’ve downloaded the rules and will give them a read this evening (but I am already a fan of the fact that measurements are in feet and inches – none of this new-fangled centimetres malarky). I’ve also checked out the websites you recommended. You are right about the Victorian Wars forum, you can almost hear them harrumphing from behind their walrus moustaches. I searched for information on British organisation in the Crimea and this was the first exchange I came across: http://www.victorianwars.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7454 Still, I will try to find the nerve to stick my head above the parapet and ask a few questions since, as you say, they do seem to know what they are talking about.
I was thinking of putting Black Powder on my list for Santa so this gives me another reason. I also thought I’d give Neil Thomas’s 19th Century rules a look. Does anyone know if they include information on organisation?
The cords were yellow and black in alternate bands (like the body of a honey bee). For officers the cords were gold and black except for field officers who had all gold cords. (Taken from ‘The Austro-Hungarian Army 1798-1814’ by W.J. Rawkins.)
Jonathan, this is a wonderful resource and I really appreciate your efforts. Of all the Napoleonic armies the Russians are the ones I find most daunting to paint because if find the uniform details so confusing. In fact, I’ve got hundreds of undercoated Russians hidden away in drawers waiting for me to take the plunge but I keep putting it off because I am convinced I will get some detail or other wrong. Having your charts to refer to makes me think I might actually make a start . . .
I’ve checked in Keith Over’s ‘Flags and Standards of the Napoleonic Wars’ and he says that the decree (made in 1808 but not fully implemented until 1811) that reduced the number of eagles to one per regiment, to be carried by the first battalion, affected the Guard in the same way as it affected the line. So in theory the second battalion wouldn’t have had an eagle or a flag. However, I suppose it is possible that they still carried some sort of battalion flag.
I’ve often wondered why the Austrians didn’t have guard units. Pretty much everyone else seems to have felt the need for them. Maybe Thaddeus is right and the Hapsburgs felt safe enough without them. After all, who in their right mind is going to try to assassinate an Austrian Archduke?
It is fascinating stuff. I wonder what Portarlington was up to in Brussels that prevented him from rejoining his regiment? Since the “brilliant exploits” that his regiment performed didn’t take place until the afternoon he must have arrived very late at the battlefield.
I’m definitely going to paint a figure to represent the unfortunate Earl. I now just have to decide on which figure to use. In their old 2nd gen line, Minifigs made a command set specifically for the 23rd Light Dragoons, wearing the uniform worn in the Rocco painting above. It includes an officer who appears to be wearing the unlikely combination of an hussar dolman and a cocked hat so I wonder if this is meant to represent Portarlington?
It seems odd to me as well that he was not able to take command of his regiment. However, I haven’t been able to find out at what time he reached the battlefield. According to Adkin’s Waterloo Companion, the 18th Hussars, whom he joined and fought with as a trooper, were based at the extreme east of the Allied line. They seem to have been a bit cut-off from the action and Adkin says “the men sat on the wet ground unable to see what was happening under the dense clouds of smoke to the south-west.” They didn’t get into action until the evening, when they were moved to the centre to take part in the attacks on the retreating enemy. Haythornthwaite in Uniforms of Waterloo says Portarlington “served with great bravery” and had his horse shot from under him.
The 23rd, meanwhile, had been engaged in supporting the infantry squares against the French cavalry assaults in the late afternoon. Maybe Portarlington arrived too late to join them in action or perhaps he just couldn’t find them in the confusion of the battlefield?
Here is Keith Rocco’s painting of the 23rd in action against French cuirassiers and Dutch lancers. He appears to have favoured tradition over probability and depicted them in the pre-1812 uniform when the likelihood is that they would have been wearing the post-1812 uniform with crimson facings.
I’d go for WWII myself. I always think of the Spanish Civil War as being part of the ‘long Second World War’.27/09/2014 at 10:35 in reply to: What figures / kit / model would you buy if you had a time machine. #9516
“Venusboy3 wrote Definitely the old Minifigs ‘Valley of Four Winds’ figures… I’ve got some but want more.” They were a nice range of figures I remember reading several “Michael Moorcock” at that time and the figures reminded me of the descriptions of some of the evil orcs etc..
For me it was Minifigs Aureola Rococo figures that reminded me of Moorcock. This is one of the High Elves from that range:
I thought the Aureola Rococo figures were nice but not quite as inspiring as the Valley of the Four Winds figures, which for me were works of art. I think these figures deserve to be on display in art galleries around the world:
The original post appears at the top of each new page (I guess so you can see what the topic was originally about if it has wandered around the houses a bit).
I haven’t heard of Minden Games before but they’ve got some really interesting-looking stuff. (Not sure about the idea of playing in a coffee house or pub though.)
The discussion about Simulation v Beer & Pretzels on the Napoleonic Boards has been interesting and probably would be of interest to people who aren’t into Napoleonics. But I don’t think that means a dedicated board for Game Design needs to be created. Surely, on a wargaming website, the place to discuss topics of general interest to wargamers is right here on the general board?
Personally, I am interested in most topics to do with wargaming and having to click through endless boards and sub-boards makes topics harder to find rather than easier. I would find the General Board far more user-friendly if all the sub-boards went and everything was gathered on a single board.
I’m in favour of one fewer; I don’t approve of one less (or one more for that matter).