Forum Replies Created
Thanks for looking!
Thanks for posting! That game looked good.
Always glad to hear about 6mm fantasy. Even if I have rules that I tend to use to exclusion of others, I am very interested in hearing about other rules, as I am about figure manufacturers that I don’t have figures from.
Every so often I like to give my 6mm Hordes of the Things armies an airing. I like using double or triple sized armies for 6mm. Some of my 6mm armies are Baccus ancients armies with fantasy additions, but I have a few Baccus fantasy armies. Some of the Irregular Miniatures 6mm stuff does well, but I don’t see their line of battle troops as being compatible with Baccus. Sometimes large creatures from 10mm lines can be useful.
Have to admit that I was a bit naughty and voted ‘No’. In fact, as far as I can see, it does work.
I am 47 years old and my vision sucks. It is no harder painting 3mm figs than it is, say, painting belts on 28 mm figs. Like everything in minis, it is a question of tecnique and not one of eagle eye sight and rock steady hands. Paint for effect, not detail. That is the key.
Firstly, congratulations on your age. If I can remember that far back, 47 was a good age to be.
You might find that you are preaching to the converted with regards to some of the people responding to this thread. I find painting small figures very much easier than large figures, so I concur. No experience of 3mm figures but with 6mm I find the basing sometimes more important than the fine details of painting. For instance, I re-based my 6mm Polybian Roman hastati and princeps on 40mm by 20mm bases, with 2 ranks of 4 hastati on the right at the front of the base. On the left I put 2 ranks of 4 princeps to the back of the base. Even people with worse vision than myself can see what they are at more than playing distance.
Not a very good picture, but perhaps you can see what I am getting at?
O8’s 3mm figures are about 200 percent more detailed and recognizeable than Irregular’s 2mm figs.
Somehow, I find that easy to believe.
My only experience with the Irregular Miniatures 2mm figures has been to paint (and use) some of their figures as markers for my ancient naval game. Unfortunately, I have only seen pictures of these 3mm figures. However, it looks to me as if there is more relatively easily visible detail on the 3mm figures.
The smaller the figure, in general, the easier the paint job, assuming that you don’t try and paint what you can’t see when playing. On the other hand, vision tends to change as you get older, so maybe it might be some of the younger wargamers going for them.
These MM 3mm figures look very good to me. I will be interested to see what other troops become available in that figures size.
Smaller figure sizes allow you to give the impression of reasonably large troop formations on reasonably small bases. It looks to me as if you could base any type of ancient unit (including chariots and elephants) on 20mm deep bases. In my opinion, armies tend to look better on similar sized bases, particularly in the smaller scales.
I started wargaming in 6mm (ECW, then ancients) before getting some 25mm figures for skirmishing, then going into 15mm because there were more potential opponents and the range of armies available was far wider. Now, I tend to use my 6mm ancients for ‘Big Battle DBA’ (DBA with 36 bases per side) and my 15mm armies for normal, 12 bases per side DBA. I try to keep to recommended base depths for my 15mm armies, but tend to simplify things with my 6mm armies.
I tend to agree with a lot of the above comments.
Photographs give you an idea of what to expect if you are not already familiar with the product. Painted can be very good, as can unpainted, undercoated or treated with a dark wash. Lack of photos are likely to deter me from buying.
The ability to order online makes things a lot easier. I don’t say that I won’t order from a company without online ordering facilities, but the lack does tend to deter me, and make me think carefully whether I *REALLY* want what I am considering ordering.
Some clarity on postage rates for people outside the UK is extremely desirable for me.
I would be very wary of dealing with a company that I didn’t know extremely well that didn’t have appropriate contact details (physical address and telephone number).
I don’t do Facebook or Twitter, and don’t want to. If a Facebook page is the only site, as far as I am concerned, there isn’t one that I can access.
Thanks, Glenn. Sorry I didn’t reply earlier; I have been away from home and Internet for a couple of weeks, visiting relatives.
The militia seem to be the hardest ones to sort out.
I use something very close to the Polemos format for my Napoleonic armies (60x30mm bases, usually 2 lines of infantry or one of cavalry). I do use 60mm wide by quite deep for the artillery, though. The rules that I use have artillery with the same base width as other units. I used to use 60x30mm bases for artillery, but found that I tended to be tempted to manoevre infantry and cavalry units immediately behind artillery, which seemed unrealistic.
How about Warrior Miniatures?
Metal figures that are about £1 per foot figure:
Hmm… Quite an interesting thread. Because I don’t often look on the ACW board, I missed it.
The armies of the day seemed to go for display rather than practicality. I suppose that psychological and morale factors were important.
You do have a valid point about painting the uniforms, though. That is one reason why 6mm (which doesn’t look quite so bad if things are not absolutely perfect) appeals to me for some periods.
Lovely. I have an interest in 6mm fantasy (although most of my HotT armies are 15mm or 28mm), and I particularly enjoyed those pictures.
[snip]I suppose you could use Barker’s Horse, Foot & Guns, but they’re a bit of a mess now that he’s listened to all the ‘advice’ from his fans. They’re free at his website here http://phil-barker.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.html
Thanks for the link. Had lost it, after a bit of a computer disaster last year.
Just had a quick gander at the rules. At 37 pages (without the army lists) I get the impression that it is closer to DBM or DBR than my preferred, simpler rules.
EDIT, possibly of interest to the original poster: I might have a quick look at the Humberside Extensions:
(They are a little way down the page.)
I may go back to DBA some day. Maybe not and all my 15mm armies sit in the same boxes these past 12 years.
You would have a choice at the moment, if you were to do that.
The latest currently published official version of DBA is 2.2. For some time, version 3 has been officially very close to being published, and indeed, might be published very soon. From what I have seen on the Fanaticus website, and also from my impression of an early draft of version 3, DBA version 3 seems to be very different from earlier versions. A lot of American players have done some house rules/line edits for version 2.2 and called it ‘2.2+’. (I believe that many members of ‘WADBAG’ – Washington Area DBA Gamers – were heavily involved in the 2.2+ project.) So now, there are people who play 2.2, 2.2+ and version 3.
I have heard of groups who still prefer the original DBA 1.0 or 1.1. To be honest, there is quite a lot to be said for those versions, although I do like the army lists for the version 2/2.1/2.2/2.2+.
My personal preference is for 2.2+, but others will differ.
Thanks for posting the pictures; I enjoyed seeing them. ‘Flintloque’ is one of those games that I haven’t tried, not sure whether I would like or not, but like reading about and seeing pictures of. (It also has the advantage of upsetting some serious Napoleonic wargamers. )
Thanks, 3rd95th. Bookmarked. I have not been able to get on the Internet much in the last few days, otherwise I would have thanked you before.
Do people think we need a Naval Wargaming Board? After all, Napoleonic naval games don’t really ift in with ‘Horse and Musket’.
In my opinion, Napoleonic naval wargames fit rather better with the rest of the Napoleonic period than with either Salamis or Midway.
One question I would ask (and answer) is: ‘Does wargaming, for instance, naval battles of the First Punic War have more in common with WW2 Naval actions than with ancient land battles?’ I suggest that naval wargaming covers an awful lot of different periods, and that periods where there is a possibility of naval wargaming are very different from each other. In my opinion, naval wargaming topics are best included on the board that is relevant for the period.
I have some interest in ancient naval wargaming. I also have an interest in ancient land wargaming. I am more likely to notice topics on ancient naval warfare on the ancients board than in a separate naval wargaming board. Conversely, if I start a topic on ancient naval battles, I am less likely to bore someone silly on the ancients board than if I post it on the board where most ancient wargamers will miss it, and a lot of the people using it are more likely to want to recreate the Battle of Midway than the effect of not allowing the hulls of triremes to dry out frequently enough.
Completely mad! Don’t know why I liked it. Thank you.
Must admit that I prefer games that are easy to learn and easy to play, so long as the results have some kind of credibility. If I can find a new victim to try wargaming, it means that they have a sporting chance to have some success, and hence probably enjoy their early experiences. For instance, one of the people that I played with out here wasn’t really a wargamer, but because he played computer games, knew not to do things like push forward units without supporting them, so could do well with wargames with simple rules.
I remember, quite a few years ago, one of the people that I played DBR with (when DBR was first edition) tried a very well-respected, detailed set of Renaissance rules with some other members of the local club. Whereas we used to get 2 or 3 small DBA games in per night, they didn’t even get into combat.
Do you typically utilise an umpire/games master?
No, I am lucky if I can get an opponent.
Do you tend to play games with one regular opponent regularly?
Solo, at the moment.
How long do your games typically last or want them to last?
Not more than about an hour. If I do get an opponent, then the games I play might take less than that, but the solo play mechanism makes the games take longer.
Do you utilise a campaign system and generate battles in that way?
Do you design scenarios regularly?
Do you pick armies from an army list up an agreed point maximum for an ensuing battle and then pick or dice for terrain just before playing?
If the particular rules use points (for instance, HotT or DBN). DBA for instance has just army lists, sometimes with some options.
Do you typically utilise free rules, scenarios and, army lists?
Difficult to answer. I frequently use free adaptions of commercial rules that still need a copy of the commercial rules. For instance, I use the ‘2.2+’ modifications for DBA 2.2. I also use DBA RRR for English Civil War and other pike and shot games. (I used to use DBR.)
Are you willing to try anything at least once even if their is a cost associated?
No. I have to bear in mind cost, likely cost to enjoyment ratio, whether the playing area is convenient, any effort necessary to paint new figures or re-base old ones, for instance. I tend to go for rules that seem similar to those that I know I like. When my financial circumstances allowed me a larger wargaming budget, I had several disappointments with rules that I bought. I tend to be cautious about buying new rules these days.
Or regardless of cost, do you read blurbs, reviews and other info first before making a decision as to whether or not to give them a try?
Definitely. I like to see third-party reviews, if possible.28/08/2014 at 05:31 in reply to: What figures / kit / model would you buy if you had a time machine. #6093
I would get some more 15mm North European Bronze Age figures that I think were done by Falcon Figures. I did buy a DBA army (although with not all options) when they were produced by Chariot Miniatures. That was my first 15mm army, so I have a lot of affection for it. I wouldn’t mind getting the missing options, and perhaps another similar army to paint slightly differently to act as another act as another opponent for them.
Previously, all my armies were 6mm, with some 25mm figures that I used for skirmishing.
Many thanks, Dhauser. Link bookmarked.
Neal and Dhauser,
Thank you very much for your replies!
I am intending to use my Peninsular War British as the foundation of the British, with Canadian Militia and Native Americans added. All my Peninsular War British figures have stove-pipe shakos. This makes me want to choose the US-Canadian border in the early part of the war.
Don’t believe that I have significant numbers of unpainted British, so I will have to buy new figures for the Americans. It doesn’t matter whether I get figures with Belgic or stove-pipe shakos when I do my order to Baccus 6mm. (If I end up buying too any figures with Belgic shakos I can always increase the number of early Peninsular War Portuguese.)
It always amuses me that some army level games quote the ‘Skraelings’ as an opponent for the Vikings/Norse. For a skirmish game, that would be so, no problem. However, the idea of thousands of Vikings battling thousands of ‘Skraelings’ belongs either in alternative history or fantasy.
By the way, I like the figures, although I have no idea whether or not they are accurate.
Thanks. I have a feeling that large bases (with lots of figures) are becoming more popular generally. To me, they make much more sense than individual basing.
I am not too fond of having too many boards; I think that the level of compartmentalism that this site has is about right.
If there are a lot of topics started on the old west, then it might be useful. However, I don’t think that you can have a board for every possible war or period of interest. For instance, one of my ‘wouldn’t it be nice to have a go at’ periods is the War of 1812, but I am sure that there wouldn’t sufficient interest to justify a board for that. If I wanted to pick people’s brains on the War of 1812, I could either ask on the Napoleonic Board, or the General Horse and Musket Board.
I like them a lot, although I don’t think that I will be doing any more 28mm for the time being.
Thanks for the link to your website. I bookmarked it because I notice that you have some witches in 15mm.
Very nice painting.
Just as a matter of interest, what size bases do you use, and what rules do you tend to use them for?
It might be easier if you specified what kinds of features of rules you liked. For instance, I would suggest the ‘RRR’ adaptions for DBA. On the other hand, if a variation of DBA is not your cup of tea, then that suggestion might be mildly irritating for you.
I used to play DBR for my ECW games. DBR is more complex and detailed than DBA, but a little less complex than either DBM or DBMM. I liked it; it was a breath of fresh air after playing ‘Forlorn Hope’ with the adaptions for 6mm figures that were recommended by the authors at that time. Ironically, when I last played Forlorn Hope, I used 25mm individually based figures with some use of movement trays, which is what it was written for, and it was a reasonable game. Those adaptions for 6mm made Forlorn Hope a much worse game. I suppose that the message is that Forlorn Hope is a good choice if you like casualty removal of individual figures, whereas if you prefer element based games, DBR might well satisfy.
I never meant to stop playing DBR, it is just that someone did some different troop types and army lists for DBA, and called it ‘DBA RRR’. DBA is one of my favourite games, so I found DBA RRR easier and quicker to play than DBR. All of a sudden I realised that I hadn’t played DBR for a couple of years, but I had had several sessions of DBA RRR.
DBA RRR is a free download from the FADBAG Yahoo Group. You will also need a set of DBA 2.2 rules to play a game. I love it, but it is DBA with different troop types and army lists.
I just hope that wargamers who are also railway modellers think carefully before they submit any suggestions….
I’ll get my coat.
Thanks for that. I am looking at cobbling together a set of fantasy/Early Medieval army level rules, but it might be a little while (a long while more likely) before I have anything to show.
I think that Irregular Miniatures do packs for cavemen v. mammoths as one alternative, and Victorian explorers v. either mammoths or small dinosaurs for Tusk. There are also a couple of extensions to the Tusk rules for 15mm figures, Tusk 2 and Tusk 3, that give more options.
Tusk in 15mm interests me because MY Miniatures do stuff in 15mm for the Ice Age. On the other hand, 6mm would be easier to paint. Decisions, decisions….
<span style=”font-family: andale mono,times;”>From what I can see in the Irregular Miniatures 15mm Tusk page, you have a variety of options. There is a ‘Caveman Pack’, with cavemen, dogs, 3 adult and one baby mammoth. They do the ‘Sir Harry Pack’, with “Victorian adventurers in The Land that Time (can be supplied with mammoths or slightly undersize dinosaurs)!”. Then there are the options for ‘Tusk 2’ and ‘Tusk 3’.</span>
<span style=”font-family: andale mono,times;”>Must admit that both the 6mm and 15mm options sound interesting to me. On the other hand, MY Miniatures do some Ice Age animals in 15mm that you can use with their Inuit range that you might be able to include.</span>
Must admit that I have always fancied having a go at Tusk. Never tried any of the Irregular Miniatures rules, but they don’t seem expensive. The next time I feel like doing an order to IR, I might add Tusk and some figures on. If I didn’t like Tusk, I am sure that I could use the figures in HotT some time.
Edit: I know that they do figures for it in both 6mm and 15mm, but I would probably go for 15mm figures.
Thank you for the article. I enjoyed reading it.
Must admit that I know very little about North American warfare of the 18th Century. I have a hankering to do something set in North America (probably American War of Independence, or the War of 1812), and could do with building up my background knowledge, including what happened earlier.
Thanks George, I will browse the Pendraken website later. I have a feeling that when I did an army in 10mm for a shared project we used Pendraken, but that would be a few years ago.
Thanks as well for the link to the blog. Some really nice armies there. It is clear that you get more details than with 6mm that are noticeable at normal viewing and playing distance. On the other hand, they don’t need as fancy a paint job as 15mm figures do.
6mm aren’t too bad to paint – I usually find it harder to do bigger figures because each figure needs more detail. On the other hand, there is limited choice, and figures from different manufactures don’t often go together well. My favourite manufacturer of 6mm tends to sell his stuff in packs that are too large to be economic, if you are using rules that use small armies.
Thanks for posting, they look great.
Interestingly enough, I had started to think about 10mm figures for periods that I haven’t yet started, so these are particularly interesting for me. I have had thoughts about doing Tudor armies, but had only considered 15mm.
Although I like larger figures as well, I do like small figures, and find them easier and quicker to paint. My first armies were ECW in 6mm, although I later went more towards 15mm, and even 25mm.
If you happened to mention which firm made those figures, it would not go amiss.
Probably not what you want, but Peter Pig do garden gnomes in 15mm:
Some of the Baccus Miniatures fantasy ranges, the elves, for instance, have the infantry on the same kind of strip that they use for psiloi, that is in-line so that you have to snip them apart and base them individually. Don’t get too excited though – in my opinion the Baccus fantasy ranges are limited and neglected; it is a pity that they haven’t put a little more effort into them.
That said, I actually prefer troops that should be in line to be shoulder-to-shoulder. It makes basing them a lot easier.
Oh, the character packs tend to be for individual basing as well. You could also try character packs in the some of the historical ranges, such as the ‘Viking Luminaries and Loonies’ pack.
Hordes of the Things for me. I like DBA as well, so HotT was a natural choice to go for for my forays into fantasy wargaming. One of the things I found is good with it is the ‘Arthurian’ period (based upon Bernard Cornwall’s Warlord Trilogy). HotT feels to me as if the scale is a bit smaller than DBA in terms of representing army numbers, plus you can have heroes and magicians, for instance.
I play DBA. I tried DBM, but found it difficult to learn on my own. I tried DBA to learn some of the concepts, and found I liked it better. Later, DBMM came out, and although I was fairly sure that I was playing it reasonably correctly, I found that I could play the same armies quicker and with more fun.
When I started with DBA, it was version 1.1. Nowadays, I tend play the ‘+’ unofficial amendments to version 2.2. Although I will try version 3 when it is published, I am unlikely to take to it. (I tried an earlier draft of version 3 and didn’t like the new movements.)
Why do I like DBA? It is easy to teach new wargamers, the games don’t take a lot of space, you don’t need big armies so you can paint appropriate enemies as well, and the games are quick, and often exciting. I can get several games in in one session.