Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 70 total)
  • Author
  • I know how daunting starting a big project can be. All will be well, I’m sure. It’s just a matter of not getting distracted by other things.

    My own, two thirds done

    Your plan is a good one. Your results so far should be encouraging. Stick with it and good luck.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: The Garigliano 1503 #68170

    AAR part 2.


    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Battle of Abu Klea (Sudan) pt 2 #25078

    Excellent. I’ve got to say, there are only two colonial periods I’ve ever wanted to do and this is one of them. Keep ’em coming.



    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: New Austrian Cavalry for SYW #25002

    It’s unlikely for me. I’m away up to Scotland for a wargaming weekend next month to play in a League of Gentlemen Wargamers bash hosted by Charles Grant. I need to save the pennies for rail fares, hotels and the odd dram – you can only spend your pennies once, unfortunately!





    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: New Austrian Cavalry for SYW #24979

    Hi MGB,


    again thank you for your kind words. I plan on ‘in and out’ for Napoleonics. Just the Peninsular, perhaps 40 units a side for Anglo Portuguese, French and Spanish. I’ve started with an order for 50 or so units (Anglo Portuguese and French) also from Front Rank. I spent over £2000 (pre discount) with Alec last week and I’m now flat broke. No more figures for me this year, well maybe just a couple of……..



    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: New Austrian Cavalry for SYW #24967

    Hi Michael,


    Thanks. They are Front Rank figures.

    These are part of a soon to be finished (sometime later this year) Austrian army. The last of three armies (Austrian, Prussian and Russian) I’m collecting for this period. The Russians are finished, and the Prussians are just a few units shy of finished. I’ve just purchased the last units I need along with the start of a Napoleonic project, the latter will induce me to get these done ASAP so I can start something totally new. To show they do get played with……….

    Here are is a shot of the finished Russian army:

    The Russians fighting most of the Prussian army at a Zorndorf demo game

    And most of the Austrians (done so far) fighting in a recent  Chotusitz game

    Hope you like.


    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Society of Ancients Battle Day – Hydaspes #22552

    Good to see a Piquet game was there. A superb rule system that captures the varying flavour and ability of different armies, not to mention built in fog of war.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: SYW book recommendation, please #21706

    Hi, here is the bibliography of the books on my shelves:

    I have yet to find a good general overview of the entire war, probably because it was so big – the real First World War?

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Do you have to make your own convention game? #11329

    Personally, I love to present self-made participation games at events. I tend to be a Rennaissance hobbyist as I build my own terrain, paint my own figures, write a lot of my own scenarios and even use my own rules. However, I see no reason to disapprove of someone who spends the money to buy what I make myself as long as he takes the trouble to present it as a good participation game at an event. Why this would be “poor form”, as the OP judges it, completely eludes me. After all, he does what someone hosting a participation game is supposed to do and that is making sure people have a good time, getting inspired to wargame and sharing his stuff with other people at the event to enjoy with him. Which is the essence of demo-ing in my opinion. The only frustration things like this might cause in me is that at some events professionally built tables (with which I mean tables usually built by -and with the resources of- wargaming companies) vie with club and individual projects for prizes for the best games. And unsurprisingly, usually win them. But then the poor form is accepting the prize, not hosting the game.

    I do a few demo games, and I paint my figures, do most of the terrain and do the scenarios. But I agree with Pijlie completely. This sounds like sour grapes from someone pipped to a prize of some kind. I would not knock anyone giving their time to promote the hobby. I don’t care what else they did for the game before hand. If they did loads then kudos to them, and most of us know who those people are. Professional stuff tends to look professional, and tends to be the standard the amateur aims for – it is aspirational, job done.



    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Early war-game books #9606

    The only ones I can think of are Wargames Through the Ages 3000 BC – 1500 AD and Battle Notes for Wargamers both by Featherstone. The first is sectioned into ‘army classed’ sub-periods including “Crusaders” and “Saracens”. The second has chapters on Poitiers and Barnet.

    Personally, although they make for a nostalgic  trip down memory lane, I think they are very outdated unless you play, and like, ‘old school’ wargames – which I don’t, because I played them whilst I was at school and I’ve moved on.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Painted Lances #9098

    Yes, one colour, or two colours as a “barber’s pole”, in livery colours if any, is a good choice. However some contemporary paintings also show lances in natural wood colour (= light ochre, not dark brown).

    Yep, newly made. Would you trust an old one? Lances are probably a bit like conkers

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Painted Lances #9043

    In 1495, they were certainly painted in Italy. At Fornovo in 1495 Comines says the Italian men-at-arms

    “casting away their light lances, which lay thick on the ground – but they are good for little, being hollow and light and weighing no more than a javelin, though they are prettily painted.”

    I’m guessing that they would have been the striped “barber’s pole” style. From the tone of Comines, I’m guessing the French lances were plain. Personally, I paint all of mine because they look nice – painter’s poetic licence.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Thought I'd put a Crusades post up #8276

    Last part of solo testing is done. A report, with pics and some interesting conclusions is in.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Thought I'd put a Crusades post up #8097

    A report is in


    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: A Crusades game for Fiasco next month #7829

    An update on the scenario plan:

    I’m now getting down to formulating the special rules to help the scenario run. Harran is a complex battle to model, and how much should one try to steer the progress of a game anyway? Now there’s a question.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Thought I'd put a Crusades post up #7824

    If you go to my blog I’ll send you a copy of both. My email address is in the side bar.

    I’ve just done a blog post on my initial ideas for special, Harran specific rules to help game this scenario and give the game a ‘Harran-feel’. I’ll be solo testing the scenario this week and I’ll post another link to the AA report as soon it goes up. As it’s a solo affair I’ll have time to take some (hopefully) pretty pictures to go with it – some close ups of paint chipping melees, perhaps.

    Best Regards, etc.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: A Crusades game for Fiasco next month #7102

    Drop by, and say hi, if you do.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Thought I'd put a Crusades post up #6199

    Well, I’ve decided, that due to other commitments on my time this year, Harran will be the Ilkley Lads’ game at Fiasco this year. Looknig back, we’ve done it before but this time it is going to look a lot different . If you go to Fiasco this year give me a tap on the shoulder, and say WW – it seems we are the best kept secret in town. I’ll keep you updated as to how the game will work on this thread.


    James and the Ilkley Lads

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Latest 'hot' period? #6175

    I think it is because 18C uniforms are easier to paint. The period lends itself to ‘rigid formation’ war gaming very well. The period had much smaller battles (on the whole) that are, unlike many Napoleonic battles, within the scope of a war gamer’s dreams. 18th C war game pedants are still able to laugh at themselves rather than those who MIGHT know less than they do. Tricornes are very funny head wear – everyone wore them, everyone was game for a laugh. Discipline was very, very strict (I need an emoticon for this).

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Artillery crew separated from main weapon #5457

    As far as I’m aware crews either tried to get their gun out or destroy it.  They would not become infantry squads except in the most rudimentary self defence way. These guys are trained technicians. It is acceptable for them to preserve themselves for a higher purpose = they would be ‘evacuated’ if possible.

    This kind of question is the reason I stay away from ‘skirmish’ games.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: The infamy of Leif Sigursen (a Viking skirmish) #5444

    Patrice, that’s especially effective water you have there – what is it?

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Which are your favorite 18th century figures #5313

    28mm Seven Years War –

    Austrians – Crusader and Front Rank, good clean war games figures. I’d use Front Rank for the cavalry. Infantry, I wouldn’t mind a mix (not in the same unit).

    Prussians – Foundry and Front Rank, Foundry infantry have very little equipment to paint and are well proportioned. You have to be careful with some of the Foundry cavalry command packs so I’d use Front Rank, especially for dragoons.

    Russians – Foundry, the infantry without coats are a dream because you can paint them with a roller.

    Brits and French – Front Rank, don’t own any but I’ve painted loads for commissions, especially French.

    Otherwise, if I were to start again, Fife and Drum have a certain amount of style and I’m seeing, by the number of painting commissions I’m getting, that I’m not the only one who thinks so.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: ECW Rule Recommendations / Warnings ??? #5288

    I’m not going to recommend a rule set as such because rules are horses for courses. I found, the biggest issue for me was how I wanted to do the pike and shot. Should they be a single unit that fights as a single entity and runs as a single entity with factors for different ratios of pike and shot, or should it be a unit of pike with separate sub units of shot all fighting as individual units? I think this is the major rub with any set of rules for this period and you usually start at one end of the spectrum, gradually move to the other then, regardless of which end you started, go back in the opposite direction until it sends you bonkers. I eventually gave up and did the Italian Wars instead!

    Personally, I think I liked the one unit with a ratio most because I liked fighting battles with 12 to 20 regiments a side, and infantry sub unit games tripled the number of infantry elements and slowed the game too much. I also know of very few instances where part of a regiment did much different from the rest – so they essentially fight or run as one unit. It also meant that I could create units with a generic ratio of pike and shot then label it with its ‘actual’ ratio as required for the scenario – I’m not a big fan of counting heads.

    The rest of the period is pretty straight forward, IMHO.

    BTW, as you are in the process of collecting, please take a look at this link. Why just do units for the King or Parliament? They could be painted for both, or even the TYW.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: For Simon #5110

    Rome is absolutely worth the visit. I was there in May. One of the best city breaks I’ve ever taken. I think May is a good month to go – about 20C was good for walking around all day and the crowds were manageable at most historical sites (though the line for the Vatican still took about two hours).

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: 18th century big battles #5092

    I think we are in the same ball park.

    This Zorndorf game had 1600 figures (from memory, roughly 700 Prussians Vs 900 Russians) and one player per side. The table was 14 x 6. It took about 7 playing hours, over two show days, for the two players, plus myself (umpire, extra hands to move stuff, and punter fielder) to fight to a satisfactory conclusion. I call this a big game. A gigantic game would be much bigger. This size of game is usually great fun. I used to think that a bigger game was always going to be a better one; now I think that games have an optimum size and this is at the upper end of that. Funnily enough, I think that more players often make games worse. I think that three or four per side is the absolute limit and two is optimum – more than that and the game tends to go at snails pace, one or two players get stuck with a boring table sector and, for some reason, simple discussions can become arguments (because you can’t please all of the people all of the time?).


    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: 18th century big battles #5085

    Torgau. The depth of the deployment makes this battle almost impossible to do in 28mm.

    My experience of gigantic battles is quite limited but, the gigantic ones I’ve played in have tended to become a bit tedious. Big battles, with one or two thousand figures, have been great, but the truly huge ones (more than 2000 figures, biggest 3500+) have just become pointless, overcrowded, painfully slow slogging matches. I’m not sure why that is. All, with only one exception, have been 28mm affairs.

    What, BTW, is your definition of gigantic?

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: For Simon #4963

    Wow Simon, you lucky git. How did you get your missus to go for that. I tried, but mine was having none of it, I had to settle for a trip to Rome. Tell me, what time of year was that? It looks pretty green. Blimey, that really is a defile by the lake isn’t it. Hannibal, my hero, but even I might have seen the possibilities of an ambush here.

    Yes, much is made of the spurs in which H. hid his troops. I wonder how much the terrain has changed? I bet not much. It was a pretty wild area then – not that many people – so I can’t imagine that the land was required for farming. Very much ‘fringe’ areas for farming on the hills.

    And yes, if I do it again I will have more trees. I have more now but, I might need even more. Any excuse for buying more trees is a good one (my missus doesn’t see the need, and would just like to see them more widely spaced!). Thanks, I’m going to show her this picture and say that it was you who sent it to me!

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Society of Ancients article previews #4924

    Looks like a good edition.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Thought I'd put a Crusades post up #4860

    Ager Sanguinis are available as a download from the Piquet Yahoo group’s file section, or you can drop me an email and I’ll send you them. Go to my blog, my email address is in the side bar.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: FIW- introductory book(s)? #4720

    I only have a few books on the FIW (not my period), but the best two I have (both still in print) are Crucible of War – The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America 1754 – 1766 by Fred Anderson. This is a pretty comprehensive one volume history that covers the war in an 800+ page paperback. It is a solid history and it was, from memory, well reviewed. The other is a big boys Osprey – indeed it is published by Osprey and seems to contain a fare few Osprey plates from their other books – it is called Empires Collide – The French Indian War 1754 – 63. Again it is in paperback (270+ pages) and covers the war in what I can only call a ‘toilet reading’ way. It isn’t comprehensive, but like all Ospreys it is an easy way in with lots of short, sharp well illustrated chapters – I liked it.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #4572

    For years, I used the 2 x 2 foot static grass tiles by TSS for my base board. There was the static grassed green side, of course, but I painted and stippled the blank side in household emulsion to do a ‘desert arid terrain’.

    Works just fine. You can see both sides of the tiles in the pic below. It also shows the green side squexed for Commands and Colors. These days, I use a big green rattle can sprayed snooker baize for my ‘normal’ green table because it makes doing big hills easier.



    My whoring and daubing:

    Twenty a side sounds about right for a good evenings gaming. Nice models you have there and they’ll look the business.

    I agree about the price. I’ve been rather lucky in that I picked up my first few dozen on a BOGOF with a fat 50% discount  on top. At the time I think that made them £1.25 each. Since then I’ve picked them up at shows and on ebay. Wargames Illustrated chipped in with a dozen painted triremes for a photo shoot for a Peloponesian War at my place a couple of years ago. Now, all told, I have about 100 of the little bleeders but a few more with fives with corvus wouldn’t go amiss.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: The Tricorne Wars #4119

    Looks like you have a great set up there. What size table do you get into the space?  Actually, what is the room? If you don’t mind me asking.

    My whoring and daubing:

    What? The French win? Please, spare me the details.

    Sounds like great fun you’re having.



    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: If you go down to the woods today M&T AAA V2 #4104

    I’m unfamiliar with Struggle for New France. The thing I like about GMT’s Wilderness War is the card driven element. This would nicely take care of all the ‘historical events’, reinforcements, etc.  I’ve done two Punic Wars campaigns using Hannibal Rome Vs Carthage, which has a similar mechanism, with some success.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: If you go down to the woods today M&T AAA V2 #4060

    Slightly off brief, but have you guys ever used GMTs “Wilderness War” as the basis of a miniatures game? If so, how did it work?

    I keep thinking this would be a very good, campaignable mini-sub-period for my SYW interests.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: 28mm Goths #3970

    Very nice. Thanks for sharing.

    My whoring and daubing:

    I would presume that it would be similar to the earlier mix with tanks concentrated by type into companies (presumably to ease the resupply of ammunition and spares) and types of companies divided as equally as possible between battalions. Certainly, all of the orbats I’ve seen showing the composition of two battalion regiments show the breakdown of one battalion and a note saying ‘same as other battalion’ on the other. Unfortunately the latest I have is for May 42, and for the desert at that.

    Having said that, earlier in the war (DAK 41), when the mix was Mk IIs, IIIs & IVs all of the III and IV companies had a platoon of Mk IIs. As soon as the IIs were lost (they were not replaced) they became companies solely of either IIIs or IVs mixed two to one in each battalion. The IIs, BTW, were used to screen flanks whilst they lasted (not long).

    However it was done, from earlier form, it is probable that both battalions would be relatively equal in hitting power.

    It’s not what you want, but I hope it helps.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Thought I'd put a Crusades post up #3958

    I wrote a set called Ager Sanguinis for Miniature Wargames. They were published in issue 309. They proved to be quite popular (the issue sold out). They are available as a free download, as a simple MS Word document, from the files section of the Piquet Yahoo group.

    Or you can go to my blog,  see below, and email me – my email address is in the side bar – and I’ll send you a copy.

    My whoring and daubing:

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #3957

    Thanks, guys.

    Anyone looking to buy ships for this period should take a look at the 1:600 scale ships by Xyston and Skytrex (there may be other manufacturers). The ones above are Xyston. I have found that ancient sea battles require quite large models because:

    1. They visually aid keeping track of what is happening – especially in big battles.
    2. They are physically easier to grab in the pell mell of an ancient naval melee – to move them without  nudging and accidentally moving other ships.
    3. With size comes painting detail – there isn’t much to a galley to work with in smaller scales.

    Alternatively, if I were to do it in a smaller scale, I would base three smaller vessels (1:1200?) on a single base. This would help with 1 & 2 above, but the saving in cost and painting time hardly makes it worth while.

    You’ll also notice that I use a lot of counters (mostly beads) in my naval games. This is because I never use roster / damage sheets. In a battle where one player is fighting up to forty ships a time it is MUCH quicker, and things like hull damage don’t get forgotten, if all the information is on the table in front of you.


    My whoring and daubing:

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 70 total)