Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 121 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: WARLORD GAMES 25% PRICE INCREASE #130576
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Don’t buy anything Warlord makes, very rarely buy 28mm figures so impact on me – NIL.

    Prices always go up, sometimes a bit at a time and other times in big lumps. I can afford what I need and I doubt that many people will be unable to access the hobby because of the cost. There are  many aspects of wargaming that do not require expensive, big-brand figures or specialised genre models – those remain accessible to a wide range of disposable income.

     

     

    in reply to: How long do you… #129516
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    My group has been wargaming for so long that we have stuff from a huge range of periods so switching between them is a regular thing . We do often stick with the same rules for a period for a while but not always. I’m working on 4 rule sets at the moment, about average for me.

     

    in reply to: The IJN of 1905 #128606
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    I can confirm that the 1/2400th ships from WTJ have significantly more detail than these models but many still need mast(s) to be added separately. They are quite delicate though and errors in the printing and/or damage in handling/transit do seem to happen. They are pretty expensive though.

     

     

    in reply to: Painting and Building Spaces #128447
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    I’ve got a large room (3.6×5.5m) plus some storage space in two other rooms. I have to share the room with a tumble drier and all my DIY & gardening tools but, with storage round the walls I only have room for a 1.6×1.2m table which doubles as my workbench. With only two of us now in quite a generously proportioned 3 bed house I’m lucky to have that much but I’m expected to store stuff there when the family visit and both grandsons want be in Grandad’s ‘playroom’ too.

     

     

    in reply to: Forum Drop Down #128149
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Works for me (though I’d never have seen it if you hadn’t asked about it) on an ancient Windows 7 setup.

     

     

    in reply to: Ancient Ships #126994
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    I see no reason why a merchant such as those illustrated by Mike above couldn’t carry a few oars but I’m not so sure that ancient economics worked the same as modern shipping trade. Do we know enough about how trade worked in a moneyless economy ? We have a pretty good idea of some aspects for the larger civilisations but not down to the details. Was there even a wage economy ? Were trading ships joint enterprises sailed by the ‘owners’ ?

    We don’t really know for sure and simply assuming that economics worked the same then is making an unsupportable assumption – with all the potential misinterpretation that brings with it.

     

    in reply to: Ancient Ships #126991
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Mike – yes, I’d be happy that those were reasonably representative of what I have read was possible. I might dispute a few details but mostly they tally with what I have read for merchant types right into the classical era. I think the top one might be a large vessel by contemporary standards and have doubts about decked over holds so early but OK.

    In the images at the link the bottom one is a Roman grain ship, much too sophisticated for 1500-1200 BC.

    The top one may have the right hull shape but the rigging is too complex, the main mast is too tall and the bowsprit is not evident that early – and ditch the cabin and probably the overall deck  …  but the hull look OK !!

     

     

     

    in reply to: Ancient Ships #126990
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    OK Mike, thanks for that, always better to be talking about the original and not an interpretation.

    It looks like the builders of the MM model got either the bow & stern mixed up or someone put the oarsmen in the wrong way round.

    If those are oarsmen on the original then they look very strange to me, no part of a normal rowing stroke has the arms & oars in that relative position but it doesn’t look quite right for paddlers either. The paddlers are the best interpretation because they can’t possibly be oarsmen unless you just assume the artist got it completely wrong.

    Looking at the lower ship, the stern ‘thing’ seems to be a solid piece pivoted near the steering oar and with two rope ladders or similar holding it up. My best guess is that it is a loading ramp that can be let down to a beach for easy access to the deck.

     

    in reply to: Ancient Ships #126971
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    In the safe waters off the Med coast of modern Turkey a slow bulk trader such as you show would be a common trade vessel.

    In the Black sea or even the Aegean saving money may not have saved your ship or its cargo from the galleys of the Myceneans or other ‘Sea Peoples’.

    As I said in my earlier post, many rowed craft were multipurpose and long distance trade in valuable commodities (usually in relatively small quantities) would be more likely to be carried in a galley, using sail when it could and oars when it needed to.

    Compare the armed East Indiamen of later times with the deep hulled merchant bulk carriers with a popgun or two on deck. You’d happily take the former into pirate infested waters but not the latter. It is the same idea, just a lot earlier in time.

    Can’t comment on what may or may not have been done on a fantasy world, outside my scope I’m afraid.

     

     

    in reply to: Ancient Ships #126964
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Mike – No, it is at the bow of the ship in the model as it is crewed by oarsmen who face the stern.

    In the computer image (of what looks to be an interpretation of the same idea) propulsion is by paddles – and very inefficient ones at that.

    My only thought is that it is a misinterpreted boarding ladder – which is sometimes shown on early vase paintings in roughly that position.

    Any link to the image they are taken from ? I’d be interested in seeing the original.

     

     

    in reply to: Ancient Ships #126957
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    If that is so, and I’m not disputing that it could well be, it has been misinterpreted. To be honest, there have been some pretty vicious rows in academia over the ages about how to interpret images of ships. The ‘ram’ may be an extension of the keel timber rather than a separate item – but even that would make for big problems in shaping the other timbers around it to keep water out.

    There is no doubt that some images on pre-classical pottery show something like the later rams but, from what has been so far found from the very limited shipwrecks of the Trojan war era, the hulls would not have been strong enough to cope with the stress of ramming. I’d have to admit that there are a lot of theories about the early ships that are yet to be proved or disproved – evidence is short so it wouldn’t be all that unreasonable to accept some of them if that is what you fancy.

     

    in reply to: Ancient Ships #126954
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    The top image is reasonable, the MM ship is just silly – a ram fitted there would either break off on impact or break the prow timbers. It isn’t known for sure that these Egyptian ships were seagoing.

    Bronze rams are definitely no earlier than the classical period and even wooden rams are considered unlikely as early as the Mycenaean age. A ‘pointed’ hull is considered a possibility but its purpose was more likely to be strengthening the bow or for better rowing qualities. Advances in ship construction appear to have taken place early in the classical era that make the ram feasible and lead to the development of progressively larger ships.

     

    in reply to: Ancient Ships #126948
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Most early ships used both oar & sail (some used paddles rather than oars) but I’m not sure what you mean by pre-COG so can’t be much more specific than that. Part of the problem is that searches for ships of the pre-classical era (Trojan Wars, Mycenaean etc) often show galleys of the classical era because many people think they are the same.

    Trading vessels were often multifunctional, used as warships or raiders/pirates as the need arose (or opportunity presented itself). Bulk traders would be broader in beam and would operate under sail whenever possible as their smaller crew made rowing hard work and slow. Pre-classical smaller ships might be 20-30 oars and crews of no more than 30-50 all told, larger ones not all that much larger with crews 60-100 and 40-50 oars.

    I’ll see if I can find reasonable images on the ‘net but I tend to use books more than the net for that area of interest. I’m a bit snowed under at the moment but I’ll see if I can scan some stuff and e-mail it to you sometime over the weekend.

    Tony of TTT

     

    in reply to: Tiny Languedoc #125332
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Nice work. Quite a coincidence, I’ve just done some of the same regiment in 10mm (Pendraken) but for the French & Indian wars.

    Tony of TTT

     

     

    in reply to: Napoleon sat on his bum at Waterloo!!! #124833
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    I gather that sitting wasn’t very comfortable for Boney by that time – he suffered with piles.

    Sorry can’t help otherwise, don’t do that scale & don’t do plastic.

     

     

     

    in reply to: More 6mm figures & buildings for sale #123463
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Hi Phil

    I don’t know who the manufacturer is as they are being sold on behalf of a
    mate and he got them in a trade some years back. They are nice, crisp
    castings a bit like Timecast in the style of the detail but I don’t think
    they are their’s.

    There are also two rural farm worker’s houses and 4 barn/general farm
    buildings.

    Tony of TTT

     

    in reply to: The most players #123443
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Measuring by last year’s sales doesn’t tell you anything about the numbers playing. I have figures bought 30 years ago that get played with regularly and I haven’t bought anything for that period since.

    I’d suspect the ‘survey’ from ICV covers only those using proprietary games and similar systems, wargames rules where you have the choice of many manufactures almost certainly don’t even get a look in. I know we have arguments about what is and isn’t REALLY wargaming but this type of  organisation is clear about what it includes and it won’t be independent wargamers using a variety of printed or home grown rules with figures collected and painted from a wide range of manufacturers to play historical, fantasy & sci-fi games. I’ll bet they don’t even consider most of the figure suppliers to be part of the same industry.

    The answer is ‘we don’t know’ and probably will never be able to be certain. Probably GW type fantasy/Sci-Fi is the most played but does that count as a single ‘period’ or not ?

    Also, for most of us, I suspect the answer is ‘who gives a damn’.

     

     

     

    in reply to: Asset Drop Discovery Box Review #123322
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    The one thing I don’t like about buying paints and brushes is surprises. In my experience they are usually bad ones. I’ll continue to buy what I know works for me, thank you.

    Obviously this one is not aimed at historical wargamers but I can’t see the point of even those that I’ve seen that are.

     

    in reply to: A Nostalgic Rules Review #121908
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    The ‘logarithmic’ casualty tables were scaled so that casualties doubled every so many rows or columns ( I think it was 5 rows in the Ancients rules) and the values between were on a logarithmic scale to make each the same proportional increase. Nothing to do with logarithmic distance scales.

    I do remember a WW2 set by Bish Izwazko (I’m sure I’ve spelled that wrong so apologies) that used log scales for shooting distances – I always thought it wrong. It sounds like a clever idea but simply distorts the relationship between movement distances and range.

     

    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    For me the worst change was the deterioration of the quality of bristle used in W&N Series 7 brushes after the French firm bought them. The miniature brushes are still better for me than any others I have found but no longer last as well or retain their shape as well as they did 30 odd years ago when I started to use them. Longer haired brushes seem to be less affected.

     

    in reply to: Minis compatable with Ogre #120246
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    I appreciate what people are saying about scale but these are fictional vehicles – even knowing the scale doesn’t tell you the size because the original doesn’t exist to measure. Hence why I have been trying to find actual sizes for the models.

    I don’t have any of the older metal minis for Ogre so can’t tell if the sizes of the new plastics have changed or not from those but they don’t seem all that internally consistent to me (e.g. the GEV seems too small & the howitzer too large compared to the Heavy Tank).

    Looking from an historical gamer’s perspective at the Sci-Fi ranges I have found or been pointed to they don’t seem to be as close to each other in size as historicals would be but they do seem to be consistent within each range. That is not unreasonable but make it less than easy trying to pick stuff from various ranges unless you can see them at shows or the website gives sizes (which some do, but not many).

    With help I’m getting there but it didn’t need to be that difficult – why not tell a potential customer the size of your products. How hard would that be ?

    Tony of TTT

     

    Mr Average – is the grid on your mat half inch squares ?

    in reply to: Minis compatable with Ogre #120217
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Mr Average

    We all have our tastes and the Ogre plastics are not particularly consistent in size anyway. What I didn’t particularly want was anything too ‘Gothic’ (which mostly haven’t a trace of real Gothic in them at all), or Hollywood weird – fine in their place but just not what I wanted.

    No problem with doing a bit of modification but I don’t have the pile of bits that Sci-Fi enthusiasts have probably built up over the years and getting the bits can prove to be just as expensive as buying the whole thing. This isn’t a major new direction for me, just an amusing sideline that I’m hoping might interest my grandson as he gets a bit older. I find Ogre sits nicely on the fence of being a good game with good visuals and controllable complication.

    If I get nowhere with the other options I’ll certainly consider Vanguard. At the moment I’m just waiting to hear from some of the firms you mentioned in the last post.

    Thanks for the help, I’d never heard of some of these companies without it.

    Tony of TTT

     

    in reply to: Minis compatable with Ogre #120191
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Thanks Mr Average

    I have seen Brigade Models & GZG and have some samples. A bit too small really but plan is to use some for transports where the size matters less.

    AA – I’m sure that I checked out that range but it is possible that the site has changed since I did and that info wasn’t there last time I looked. The superheavies may work. I’m not a SF/Fantasy gamer so £8 for one tank seems extortionate but it seems about the going rate.

    Vanguard only seem to stock a few items of Microworld, as you predicted, the other stuff doesn’t fit with Ogre.

    I’ll look into the others later today.

    Tony of TTT

     

     

    in reply to: Minis compatable with Ogre #120163
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Hi Thaddeus

    I’ve e-mailed Plasmablast to ask for the lengths of their vehicles on your advice so that I can decide which ones would work best for me. They do look quite good so it is all about size.

    I have read your article and the only stuff I can find in the UK are Irregular (mostly too small) & Scotia (not a style I like & probably too small). The Geo-Hex vehicles may be the same as the old range from GZG of which a few survive in current ranges. I’ve painted some of these for a client and a few would be usable as smaller units and transports but parts of the range have no pictures so can’t tell what they are.

    Just have to wait and see what I get back from Plasmablast.

     

    Tony of TTT

     

     

    in reply to: Minis compatable with Ogre #120136
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Thaddeus : There are quite a few unit types that are not done in the new plastic sets and the latest KS only has two larger Ogres, none of the smaller Ogres or  Transports, Heavy & Missile GEV, Light Howz, Mobile CP or specialist infantry. Alternatives are useful to distinguish different factions and because I can’t find a UK source for Set 2 so I’d like some more SHvy, Mobile howitzers, & GEV PC.

    I was quite specific in what I was looking for so why offer an alternative solution ?

    Stephen : Most of the on-line mentions of proxies for Ogre stuff are from years back and almost all of the stuff is out of production. I’ve spent a fair bit of time following up some threads and not yet found anything that is still available. Definitely true that some current 6mm ranges will fill some of the gaps but most historical ranges are too small and many of the sci-fi ranges are just too whacky to work and others don’t give any idea of sizes – hence this query.

    Second-hand stuff seems to come up very rarely on E-bay in the UK and importing stuff from US is cost prohibitive.

    Tony of TTT

     

    in reply to: Minis compatable with Ogre #120100
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    I’m not at all familiar with any other 6mm Sci-Fi range so comparisons with ‘heroic’ 6mm means nothing to me.

    Zandris do give the sizes and the mobile Howz looks good, the others are too small.

    Microworld games only seem to be available in the US and excessive shipping makes those inaccessible. Not sure that I’m prepared to pay $40+ plus shipping for one Ogre.

    Doe you have any sizes for the Plasmablast stuff ?

    Thanks to you both for the good ideas so far, could just do with some specifics like sizes.

    Tony of TTT

     

     

     

     

    in reply to: Minis compatable with Ogre #120096
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    What size are those Plasmablast tanks ? If the other stuff is 3mm they look a bit small to be compatible with the Ogre minis.

     

     

     

    in reply to: Napoleonic flat figures auction #117936
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    27.5% buyers fee !!!

    And people say that E-bay is expensive.

     

     

    in reply to: Joy of 6… #117367
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Will it be you at the show Stephan ?

    If so I’ll bring along those 6mm WSS left-over bits if you are interested.

    Tony of TTT

     

    in reply to: What makes a good wargaming magazine? #117366
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    About the only time I ever bought wargaming magazines on anything like a regular basis was during the years when I had little time to do any painting or gaming. That was MANY years ago and, since then, all I have seen has been hand-me-downs from a mate who did get them regularly. I never found the time spent reading articles worthwhile compared to time spent DOING something.

    Pictures rarely interest me except for reference purposes and I find the usual ‘wargamer porn’ that litters rules and magazines a major turn-off. Much of this is probably due to me doing small scales so the 28mm stuff on display is irrelevant to my gaming.

    In the past I found variants of common rules or small articles presenting a rule set (or often just a framework) of an unusual period or campaign interesting. I liked terrain modelling articles but had no interest in painting ones, I have my own techniques and don’t intend to change – old dogs don’t like new tricks. Uniform references were useful, as were in depth articles about rarely seen campaigns – so much of that is now covered in books or good on-line sources I’d never even think of looking in a mag for it.

    It would be a pity to see wargaming mags continue in their decline as many people still get a lot out of them but I can’t predict any way in which I’d be likely to buy one again.

     

    in reply to: Joy of 6… #117347
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Two of us coming over the Pennines

    First year that I’ve been able to make it so looking forward to it. Looks like some good games on show this year too.

    Tony of TTT

     

     

    in reply to: More 6mm figures & buildings for sale #114745
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Hi ‘Fred’

    I’ve found a few bits unpainted but I do have some painted stuff too.

    E-mail me at [email protected] and I’ll tell you in more detail what I’ve got.

    Tony of TTT

     

    in reply to: Figure Storage #113354
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Magnetic bases solve the problem with much less wasted space.

     

     

    in reply to: Bottom of the Barrel #112136
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    There are times when I think it would be great to be nearing the end of the last project I want to do. The problem is that might be either a dream situation or my worst nightmare.

    I am always having new ideas, new things I want to do, new ways of doing stuff I did years ago etc. etc. Most of the lead pile is the result of that and, yes, I do think I could bury 75% of it and never actually affect my enjoyment of the hobby – the problem is which 25% would I want to keep. I’m good at new ideas but lousy at making up my mind. I have sold stuff recently and it feels good to know I’ve now got space for new stuff – for a while.

    If I come to the end of the last project it will mean the ideas and the desire to do new stuff has gone – hence the nightmare.

     

     

    in reply to: How many at once? #111724
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    I’m certain that I couldn’t stick to a single period/genre at a time, my interests are too wide and I get distracted very easily. I have managed to get some projects completed to the stage of being able to play a range of games but, as others have said, ‘complete’ is a surprisingly flexible word, you can always add to a ‘complete’ army.

    Currently I probably have 4 ‘active’ projects plus terrain items that will be used for two others recently ‘completed’. Queuing up behind those are 4 more that I have at least some figures for and then plans (dreams ?) for about 3 more.

    I can handle that in the sense that they will all get some of my time over the next year or two and I will derive enjoyment from them beyond the planning and reading and thinking already done; which is actually my favourite bit.

    I know I haven’t finished my Medieval armies that I started buying 30 plus years ago but I don’t really care – I still go back and get them out, re-work the armies I’ll paint one day – and then put them away again. I enjoy that from time to time, not a problem for me.

    I’d feel a bit obsessive just doing one period.

     

     

    in reply to: Anybody know owt about Dinky toys??? #111396
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    Still got mine but never had any crew. Still have the box too so I’m pretty certain of that.

     

     

    in reply to: The Picts were they Celts ? #111230
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    The origin of ‘viking’ is much discussed but my preference is that it derives from ‘vik – ingas’ (or some similarly sounded words) ‘vik’ referring to bays (possibly the fjords ?) and ‘ingas’ a Germanic ending roughly meaning ‘people/folk of …’. I think the links to piracy refers more to the behaviour of the so named folk and is not the source of their name.

     

     

     

    in reply to: Design problems with river hexes #108472
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    We tried hexes, a mate was convinced he could make them work and they would be so much easier than measuring.

    After about a dozen attempts in various periods he gave up. This kind of problem came up in one form or another every time. If you solved one issue it caused another issue under difference circumstances and so on.

    I’ve never seen a system that is anywhere near the tactical level that doesn’t take abstractions of facing, moving and range beyond what I’m prepared to accept.

    Tony of TTT

     

    in reply to: Any advice on painting 3mm factories? #108410
    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    The resin warehouses turned out to be the worst of all the small scale scenery to paint. I tried base coats of good quality craft paint but the rough terrain just seemed to absorb it (obviously it didn’t but the textured surface made it cover very poorly. Eventually I just used Vallejo but I think most of them took 4 coats overall. The smaller factories needed 2 or 3 coats but most of the houses & smaller building seem to be managing with just 2 but all now using Vallejo.

    I used a mid grey primer but suspect these may have been better brush primed with Gesso.

    Tony

    Tiny Tin Troops

     

     

     

    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    As far as a good source, I can’t help, but it is possible to apply what is known about Dutch ships and consider what was likely.

    Dutch vessels needed to be low draught and so could not take the same weight of armament as a deeper draught ship. To some extent this is reflected in a smaller number of guns and guns of smaller calibre than contemporary French & English ships BUT the difference is not always that great. This must lead to a conclusion that the individual guns would have been at least as light and possibly lighter than English guns. The Dutch could afford the best quality guns and these were generally a bit lighter than the average.

    Conclusion seems to be that Dutch ships should have no lower a proportion of Drakes than English ones and possibly more (which is almost impossible seeing as the English have almost 100%) but would tend to have a lower shot weight overall for ships of similar numbers of guns.

     

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 121 total)