Forum Replies Created
FYI these have sold, thanks!
Ok, I will stick with the 0.4 for now. My first practical application with be vehicles for my 10mm Korea project, and I will focus on printing an M26 Pershing until I get it the best that I can. I am going to use the 1:200 vehicles on Thingieverse, but scale it up by 133%.
Follow on question… is it better to do scaling in your slicer (I have installed Cura) or to load the STL to something like Tinkercad and rescale it?
I think they work best with 28mm, here are some examples from stuff I have made, pictures may not be the best but will help with the size. Also, there is a link on the blog posting above that takes you to the Hirst Arts site and will give you exact dimensions.
Let me know if this helps.
These look great! Thank you for sharing. I really like the technicals.
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/19/12/2019 at 20:33 in reply to: WW2 East Front 6mm solo game on small table on blog #128312
In the double blind Crossfire game I played in back in September, each player had 3-5 units, and it made everyone appropriately conservative. For my Eastern Front Project, each player will drive a Brigade / Kampfgruppe with 6-8 elements.
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/19/12/2019 at 14:31 in reply to: WW2 East Front 6mm solo game on small table on blog #128295
This looks really good! I like the small game with the small unit count. I think for tactical games we tend to give each player too many units. When you have only 8 you are a bit more careful about throwing them away in fruitless attacks!
@Martin I don’t even have the stupid thing yet, and I am already trying to use it for ridiculous applications. I will probably stick with laser cut MDF bases.
Once I get up and running, I am going to do some controlled experiments with slicer setting and scaling using a M-26 Pershing tank, so I can do apples to apples comparisons.
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/18/12/2019 at 20:42 in reply to: It's here! Napoleon's Armee du Nord of 1815 in 6mm #128260
Wow, looks great! I want to throw my hat in the ring as well and congratulate you.
I think part of it is my camera. In retrospect I would maybe double the number of figures. I am going to Ann labels and I hope players will be so busy with the double blind aspect, they won’t notice.
I figured. I have a new hammer with the 3D printer, ergo I will make every problem a nail…
Thomaston: I think it would be too fragile and needs a robust base. It actually works well for me, as my 6mm figures are on 3mm thick bases. You could probably shave some of that height off, though in the software of your choice.
McKinstry: They were printed on a Makerbot Replicator+, I am not sure what the setting where. I gave the Librarians my thumb drive,m told her how many copies I wanted and she did the slicer part. There is a little whispy string you can see that I’ll need to clip off when I get around to painting them, but not too much. I am getting a Crealty Ender 3 Pro, At least one other member of this forum (John) is using it successfully.
The SLA printers are getting really cheap and seem to have exceptionally high quality, like the Anycubic Photon.
The quality of the prints is amazing. But, I decided to go with the FDM printer as my first as it seems much easier to operate, less mess, and I intend to mostly do terrain. Really looking forward to that, as I like to use smaller-scale miniatures and being able to scale and edit terrain to match my figures and base sizes is going to be a game-changer. For example, my first project is going to be a trench system for my Pendraken 10mm WW1 troops that are based on 40mm x 20mm bases.
As I get more proficient, though, I can foresee investing in a SLA Printer like the one listed above. As I game 28mm Pulp and Colonials and small scale 10mm / 6mm/ 3mm for everything else, I will primarily be doing terrain and custom markers, player aids, etc. and not figures.
We’ll see how it goes, I’ll keep my blog up to date and you guys updated here.
Nathaniel: I actually did LOL! You need a ton of rail fences for AWI in South Carolina and the thought of doing it in angel hair pasta was shall we say daunting…
Looks great! Keep us updated on your progress, I shall keenly follow.
They are Baccus. They are some great castings, do NOT judge them by my paint job! I order them direct from the UK to the US and they are usually here in a week, here is a link: https://www.baccus6mm.com/catalogue/AmericanWarofIndependenceAWIAmericanRevolution/
I was going to try and make them out of pasta noodle by hand, you are right, this is much better!
Outstanding! I shall consume this with relish.
Yup, going to do it with two identical tables, a hex grid to make it easier for them to be identical and speed play, and stripped down rules focusing on recconaisance.
My inspiration is a game I played in back in September: http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/2019/10/southern-front-report-2019.html
I am now enamored with double blind games
I have a rough draft of the rules, but am trying to get the painting done first and then concentrate on experimenting with rules. Here are some notes: https://guards-tank-brigade.blogspot.com/
I am also pondering an alternate version that is single blind and uses TFL style blinds for big multiplayer games.
I will also post a how to for my screen between the tables, my wife has some awesome ideas.
Looks really good and I love the big bases!
Thanks at my current rate I hope to have everything ready for playtesting in January.
The recon units are on 20mm circles, as I have a ton of those. I also mount individual trucks on 15mm circles, but they just act a logistics markers and don’t move around.
These look great! Thank you for sharing, I did not know they existed.
Thanks David! Prod Mr. Clarke and tell him to get his priorities straight! They should align with my priorities! A lot of folks will be very happy to get their hands on this.
And because I am a weirdo, I will be playing at roughly 1:1 Figure to man scale in 3mm…
I am really looking forward to these! If I understand correctly, it will be 1 base = 1 squad, but you will maneuver platoons and command at the company level, correct?
I wanted to, but I could not press gang enough players. I might run it again, if so I will recruit you for the role!
Ok, I am in! Cannot wait to get my mitts on it!
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/26/10/2019 at 15:49 in reply to: WW2 Assault Guns at operational / tactical level, opinions? #125254
I am going to experiment with several approaches I think and that will be one of them. My vision is to have very basic rules as my focus is on umpired, double-blind games with a lot of players contributing command friction. So out fo the box, I think I will ignore the differences.
In the Optional rules, I will have something that takes into account particularly nasty high-velocity guns (besides greater range) and something to differentiate turretless vehicles. The players can plus in those if they want.
I will be following this with interest, I like your mechanics.
Shameless plug… I did a conversion of the Tank on Tank WW2 boardgame rules. A bit higher level, but if you like to tinker it is a good set of rules to start with, the rules are available here.
You can find some of my sporadic battle reports here
They are written for hexes like the original, but you could easily use the mechanics for non-hex tables.
I am also a fan of Nordic Weasel’s Brigade Commander and Company Commander. There is also Cold War Commander and Fistful of Tows 3. I have not played either, but have read them and heard good things about them online.
What would you like to command? A company, battalion, or Brigade?
Good luck with your project!
This has gotten a LOT ore attention than I expected. I will try to get some troops on the table this weekend (even if the Krauts are unpainted) just to try out mechanics and see how they work.
Thank you! It has taken kind of a back burner, but I will probably dust it off again at some point. I just really like FT-17 ever since I was a kid.
I may redo “Warfare in the Age of Poirot” and update it with of the mechanisms from my Eastern Front Project (and of course both are heavily influenced by Tank on Tank and Brigade Commander, imitation being the sincerest for of flattery and all that)
A good old fashioned SALUTE report called in over a PRC-77! I am thinking about being able to play the games three ways:
- Multiple players at a convention, full double blind(gotta be FAST)
- Spotting is probabilistic rolled by the umpire, but you are fully spotted when spotted
- You “disappear” of you drop out of line of sight
- You do not know the effects of your attacks until you render an opponent combat ineffective
- Multiple players, more sedate “club” game
- Spotting is probabilistic rolled by the umpire, but when a unit is spotted, it may just come back as a blind, either Infantry or Vehicles, no size either so it could be an armored car platoon or two companies of T-34’s.
- You can shoot at blinds but do not know the outcome
- You “disappear” if you drop out of line of sight
- Multiple Players or Face to face, semi-blind
- Units are represented by Blinds until spotted, blinds are numbered on the bottom, units assigned to blinds
- May have some dummy blinds
- A blind can be anything from a recon patrol up to 2 companies, so there is still a bit of uncertainty
- When an opponent tries to spot one of your blinds, he rolls and you tell him the result. (If you cannot trust the people you game with, get different people to game with)
Thoughts? Great discussion. Just about every way this runs needs or benefits from an Umpire, but frankly I think I like running games better than playing almost.
Go for it! I think 3mm is the best way to get realistic looking ranges and unit spacing on a reasonably sized table. And given he troop densities, a slugfest is probably appropriate. Share pictures as you go!
Thank guys! I am with you Vincent, more than enough German names. I think Steve’s Balagan was planning on using “Deep Battle” at one time, so I will tentatively go with “Guards Tank Corps”
I remember an old Sam Mustafa article in MWAN where ne named a fictional set fo Napoeonic Rules “The Glory of Glory.”
I am planning on two identical tables, side by side, divided by a PVC pipe frame curtain. The hexes should help make sure they are identical. It will rely heavily on an umpire, but I think I will also do a version for face to face games with blinds and see how that goes. I figure with enough players, I can get command friction even without double-blind.
In my head, I am seeing maybe 3 – 4 players per side, each with a Brigade / Kampfgruppe / Regiment of 6 – 9 maneuver elements. Maybe an overall commander that controls the artillery, allocates Tank Corps / Division assets and dispenses logistics support, which will be fairly abstract.
I am aiming to have something to try on the table with just a few players in about 6 – 8 weeks.
I am thinking about calling it “Deep Battle” as there are enough German named rules out there. but I am open to suggestions. Anything you guys can think of that reflects a focus on tactical reconnaissance and command friction?
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/21/10/2019 at 18:36 in reply to: WW2 Assault Guns at operational / tactical level, opinions? #124902
WOW! this is great info and discussion, guys. Thanks for all the feedback. I am still mulling it over. I am leaning towards the “Ignore the differences” path given the scale. I post to my blog about the new project here: http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/2019/10/new-project-putting-6-x-6-challenge-on.html
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/18/10/2019 at 20:17 in reply to: WW2 Assault Guns at operational / tactical level, opinions? #124736
Thanks John, you have given me something to chew on, I am leaning towards that option. It is the siren call of past experience going back to Panzer Blitz that is holding me back, but that is probably the best approach. Plus I cannot digest Assault Guns not being able to move with infantry and, well, assault. It is kind of like that weird thing in Panzer Blitz where it was better to attack a position with a Rifle unit than SMG, and the rifle unit had a higher defense and was more likely to survive a turn in the open after being dropped off.
I have not gotten to play testing yet, so I expect a lot of changes, but right now:
- Moving and attacking is allowed
- Attacks are simultaneous
- But… enemies that are unspotted and fire on you cannot be targeted that turn, so in effect get a free shot at you as you blunder into their field of fire and you are considered “tactically disadvantaged” and are easier to damage.
I am assuming that everyone is moving tactically in whatever manner their doctrine calls for, as you mention, so movement rates are fairly slow. I assume that units are taking time to pause and fire. I could add some sort of transit mode I suppose, but that seems to be adding complexity for no benefit. As a double blind game, I am hoping that it will naturally reward good use of recon assets (both for reconnaissance and for screening) and punish blundering about and driving into Ivan’s fire sack.
Will probably be a while before I get it on the table with live people, so I expect to have to make a lot of adjustments then. No rules survive contact with players.
Keep the ideas coming!
I don’t think I have commented yet, but great stuff, Jack! Fascinating reports and coupled with my recent visit to USS Yorktown CV-10, I’d be very tempted. Will give your rules a spins sometime next year once I can get my head out of the Eastern Front.
It is worth the trip, a lot of games in a lot of periods with just a great bunch of guys.
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/18/09/2019 at 00:55 in reply to: Should I do Lee's Legion or Washington's Dragoons? #122582
Thanks Kyote, I got stuck… needed a nudge in one direction or the other. thanks, guys!
Yes, very much so, especially for things like trees. Buildings I will usually purchase, except I have also been known to do a lot of paper / foamboard buildings downloaded from Wargame Vault (as seen here)
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/17/09/2019 at 00:36 in reply to: Should I do Lee's Legion or Washington's Dragoons? #122485
Ok, sold! Washington it is.
- Multiple players at a convention, full double blind(gotta be FAST)