Battle of Hastings (TtS!) 18mm WoFun
4 hours ago
Friday, January 1, 2010
Happy New Year!
I am writing, right now, my second post about the Napoleonic Renaissance... but while I type, for the time being, my best wishes to all of you for a fantastic 2010, filled with more and more new toys, nail-biting games, and hours of joyous painting!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
A Napoleonic Renaissance -- part I
Lack of postings for several weeks doesn't mean that wargaming activities have ground to halt -- quite the contrary! Juggling night feedings, diaper changes, a real life job and an equally real multitude of miniatures projects has been rewarding and challenging at the same time, and it resulted in blogging taking a back seat as more urgent tasks took precedence... but it is now time for an update!
Let's start by spending a word or two about the Napoleonic Renaissance that appears to be gaining some momentum, these days. True, the period has never really gone out of fashion: but for a few years I somewhat sensed it was stagnant, as far as generating new enthusiasm and energy in the hobby. Then, in a matter of months, if not weeks, we have been overwhelmed by several, very catchy products. Four new major rules have been released, and one fifth has been reissued in a new, expanded edition. I am talking about Foundry's Napoleon, Black Powder, Republic to Empire, Sam Mustafa's Lasalle, and TooFatLardies' Le Feu Sacre III ed.. As Mae West put it, "too much of a good thing is just wonderful"!
All these rules, for the most part (LFS being the exception), seem to share the same trend toward glossy, beautifully produced and printed rules booklet. The topic has been discussed ad nauseam in wargaming forum, and I will spare you to add my totally negligible opinion on the issue. The problem for this wargamer is that quality comes with a price, and at the average cost of $45-$50 per book I had to rethink what would have been my default course of action -- that is, go out and buy them all!
How to choose among so many offerings? Well, I look at the reviews. In recent weeks I have noticed the emergence of "playtesting vigilantes" on TMP, people ready to go out and clobber those dedicated gamers willing to share ASAP their opinions on a game, before conducting several playtests of the rules. I cannot stand these "vigilantes": yes, some playing mechanisms might make more sense after one game or two, but a lot of information -- the information we need to make an informed purchasing decision -- can be share just by reading the rules. I am grateful, therefore, to the people who did take the time to offer a peek into game mechanics, and an opinion about the rules. When considering a purchase, I usually focus on a few feature I deem important: scale of the game, how big a table the game requires (I need to accommodate my games on a 6'x4' space), how big the units must be (in the case of Napoleonic, my units are 12 miniatures based on four rectangular stands of three miniatures each), the sequence of play (I don't like IGO-UGO), how long it will take to play (I need to clear up in six-seven hours maximum), how many miniatures it will take for an average battle (I am a solo player and I cannot reasonably field more than 150-200 miniatures per side.) So, rather that rehearsing for zillionth time the basic of those reviews, which I bet many of you have already read, I'd rather offer some of my thoughts during my shopping decision-making process, with no pretence to be correct in my judgment, nor to be fully fair to the products in question.
NAPOLEON'S. I read good reviews about the book as an excellent introduction to the period, but nothing about the rules themselves really caught my attention. I am already an experienced Napoleonic player, so, while I welcome a product that will ease access into the genre for new players, I didn't feel compelled to add these particular rules to my collection. Thus, I passed on this item.
BLACK POWDER. Online reviews were consistent in stressing that these rules are for big units on a big table. That was an automatic NO for me. Other comments stressed the quality of the text, entertaining and tongue-in-cheek, with a soft "old school" feel. This was attractive to me, but not at $45+. Fortunately, Amazon is offering them for a fraction of their retail price, very much a mistake due to some confusion in regard of the currency. I could not say no at that price, even if I have to wait for the first week of February for delivery.
REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE. This set appears to belong to the family of detailed and process-oriented rules that were popular in the 1980s and 1990s: by what I read, I would associate some of their mechanisms to the tradition of Empire, Legacy of Glory, Valmy to Waterloo... I own all of these sets, that were read a lot and played not that much. Honestly, I do not have much appetite to add another one to my collection. Pass.
LASALLE. These rules are authored by Sam Mustafa, of Grande Armee fame. Regardless of some minor disagreements I may have with those, I strongly believe that everything Sam writes is well worth attention, and the price of the publication. Thus, I ordered and already read this excellent book, and I am very satisfied with the choice. There are some very intriguing concepts in this piece. The sequence of play is IGO-UGO, but with a twist. The size of the game is right, and the rules almost perfectly fit my basing scheme (but they are flexible enough to accommodate for almost every major basing scheme out there.) Other features are unusual for a Napoleonic game. The author tried to work out a compromise for rules that would please the traditional Napoleonic grognard, while appealing at the same time to the tournament crowd. For full disclosure, I have to confess I am not a tournament player, and I am actually very opposed to the whole tournament scene and culture. That said, cuique suum; and I would acknowledge that Sam's compromise is indeed very witty. Nothing prevents you to play Lasalle as a purely "historical" game, and nothing prevents you to play it in competitive settings; yet, Lasalle avoids all the silliness of army lists and points that, to my eyes, mar tournament rules. Instead, Lasalle introduces basic armies, standardized but historically plausible, that in turn can be beef up with additional units (think of them as "assets" in the modern jargon) for the game that are both balanced yet make historical sense.
LE FEU SACRE. This is the outlier, as a game that refrains from the bells and whistles of a glossy publication and it is distributed in PDF for a very reasonable $12. The reason why I bought it is that i have greatly enjoyed some other rules and game from TooFatLardies: I Ain't Been Shot Mum, If The Lord Spares Us, Troops Weapons & Tactics,Rock the Casbah, B'Maso. Thus far, I only had the opportunity for a quick read, and I noticed that LFS seems to be a more rigorous and detailed game than many of its TFL more free-wheeling predecessors. Nonetheless, some of the ideas are interesting, and there will soon be the opportunity to play test it.
TO SUM UP Here I am, sitting on my couch surrounded by two new Napoleonic games, Lasalle and Le Feu Sacre, and with a third on its way, Black Powder; on the shelf in front of me, some other classics from my collection: my favorite ever, Piquet - Les Grognards; two strong runner-ups, Grande Armee and Napoleon's Battles (the AH miniature game, a classic in itself)... you would wonder, something must be brewing into my napoleonic plans and projects... and this is indeed the case! For which, though, you will have to wait for the next post (I promise, it will come soon!)
Let's start by spending a word or two about the Napoleonic Renaissance that appears to be gaining some momentum, these days. True, the period has never really gone out of fashion: but for a few years I somewhat sensed it was stagnant, as far as generating new enthusiasm and energy in the hobby. Then, in a matter of months, if not weeks, we have been overwhelmed by several, very catchy products. Four new major rules have been released, and one fifth has been reissued in a new, expanded edition. I am talking about Foundry's Napoleon, Black Powder, Republic to Empire, Sam Mustafa's Lasalle, and TooFatLardies' Le Feu Sacre III ed.. As Mae West put it, "too much of a good thing is just wonderful"!
All these rules, for the most part (LFS being the exception), seem to share the same trend toward glossy, beautifully produced and printed rules booklet. The topic has been discussed ad nauseam in wargaming forum, and I will spare you to add my totally negligible opinion on the issue. The problem for this wargamer is that quality comes with a price, and at the average cost of $45-$50 per book I had to rethink what would have been my default course of action -- that is, go out and buy them all!
How to choose among so many offerings? Well, I look at the reviews. In recent weeks I have noticed the emergence of "playtesting vigilantes" on TMP, people ready to go out and clobber those dedicated gamers willing to share ASAP their opinions on a game, before conducting several playtests of the rules. I cannot stand these "vigilantes": yes, some playing mechanisms might make more sense after one game or two, but a lot of information -- the information we need to make an informed purchasing decision -- can be share just by reading the rules. I am grateful, therefore, to the people who did take the time to offer a peek into game mechanics, and an opinion about the rules. When considering a purchase, I usually focus on a few feature I deem important: scale of the game, how big a table the game requires (I need to accommodate my games on a 6'x4' space), how big the units must be (in the case of Napoleonic, my units are 12 miniatures based on four rectangular stands of three miniatures each), the sequence of play (I don't like IGO-UGO), how long it will take to play (I need to clear up in six-seven hours maximum), how many miniatures it will take for an average battle (I am a solo player and I cannot reasonably field more than 150-200 miniatures per side.) So, rather that rehearsing for zillionth time the basic of those reviews, which I bet many of you have already read, I'd rather offer some of my thoughts during my shopping decision-making process, with no pretence to be correct in my judgment, nor to be fully fair to the products in question.
NAPOLEON'S. I read good reviews about the book as an excellent introduction to the period, but nothing about the rules themselves really caught my attention. I am already an experienced Napoleonic player, so, while I welcome a product that will ease access into the genre for new players, I didn't feel compelled to add these particular rules to my collection. Thus, I passed on this item.
BLACK POWDER. Online reviews were consistent in stressing that these rules are for big units on a big table. That was an automatic NO for me. Other comments stressed the quality of the text, entertaining and tongue-in-cheek, with a soft "old school" feel. This was attractive to me, but not at $45+. Fortunately, Amazon is offering them for a fraction of their retail price, very much a mistake due to some confusion in regard of the currency. I could not say no at that price, even if I have to wait for the first week of February for delivery.
REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE. This set appears to belong to the family of detailed and process-oriented rules that were popular in the 1980s and 1990s: by what I read, I would associate some of their mechanisms to the tradition of Empire, Legacy of Glory, Valmy to Waterloo... I own all of these sets, that were read a lot and played not that much. Honestly, I do not have much appetite to add another one to my collection. Pass.
LASALLE. These rules are authored by Sam Mustafa, of Grande Armee fame. Regardless of some minor disagreements I may have with those, I strongly believe that everything Sam writes is well worth attention, and the price of the publication. Thus, I ordered and already read this excellent book, and I am very satisfied with the choice. There are some very intriguing concepts in this piece. The sequence of play is IGO-UGO, but with a twist. The size of the game is right, and the rules almost perfectly fit my basing scheme (but they are flexible enough to accommodate for almost every major basing scheme out there.) Other features are unusual for a Napoleonic game. The author tried to work out a compromise for rules that would please the traditional Napoleonic grognard, while appealing at the same time to the tournament crowd. For full disclosure, I have to confess I am not a tournament player, and I am actually very opposed to the whole tournament scene and culture. That said, cuique suum; and I would acknowledge that Sam's compromise is indeed very witty. Nothing prevents you to play Lasalle as a purely "historical" game, and nothing prevents you to play it in competitive settings; yet, Lasalle avoids all the silliness of army lists and points that, to my eyes, mar tournament rules. Instead, Lasalle introduces basic armies, standardized but historically plausible, that in turn can be beef up with additional units (think of them as "assets" in the modern jargon) for the game that are both balanced yet make historical sense.
LE FEU SACRE. This is the outlier, as a game that refrains from the bells and whistles of a glossy publication and it is distributed in PDF for a very reasonable $12. The reason why I bought it is that i have greatly enjoyed some other rules and game from TooFatLardies: I Ain't Been Shot Mum, If The Lord Spares Us, Troops Weapons & Tactics,Rock the Casbah, B'Maso. Thus far, I only had the opportunity for a quick read, and I noticed that LFS seems to be a more rigorous and detailed game than many of its TFL more free-wheeling predecessors. Nonetheless, some of the ideas are interesting, and there will soon be the opportunity to play test it.
TO SUM UP Here I am, sitting on my couch surrounded by two new Napoleonic games, Lasalle and Le Feu Sacre, and with a third on its way, Black Powder; on the shelf in front of me, some other classics from my collection: my favorite ever, Piquet - Les Grognards; two strong runner-ups, Grande Armee and Napoleon's Battles (the AH miniature game, a classic in itself)... you would wonder, something must be brewing into my napoleonic plans and projects... and this is indeed the case! For which, though, you will have to wait for the next post (I promise, it will come soon!)
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Marlburian infantry units in review
Today I finally managed to spend a few hours to fix some final details on my Marlburian armies, and I also had the opportunity to take some long-due photos of the final results of, literally, months of work. I am very pleased by how things are shaping up in this project. of course, I would have liked to proceed faster, but overall I cannot complain. Life has been busy, really busy: and yet, I have succeeded in bringing several units to the table -- literally.
Right now, the bulk of my Marlburian forces are in two armies: the one of the Elector of Palatinate, and one French. ideally, I will probably develop an imagine-nation narrative when the time to deploy them will come, but for the time being I am glad to keep them both relatively historical.
For the Palatinate forces, I also manage to paint a commander, maybe the Elector himself. You cans ee him here, all smiles after a full staisfactory review of his troops. These are 15mm Edition Brokaw miniatures.
Thus far, I have completed five Palatinate regiments, based on 12 miniatures per regiment: IR Bettendorf and IR Rehbinder (blue coat with red cuffs); IR Haxthousen and IR Westerwald-Dillendurg (blue coat, green cuffs); IR Saxe-Meiningen (red coat, green cuffs.) Here the five units:
For the time being, only one Palatinate cavalry regiment has been completed, RR Hochkirk, while two other cavalry units are in the pipeline, one dragoons and one cuirassiers (the Gendarmes de Venningen.) Here's Hochkirk's cavalrymen:
The French units have been completed in a more free-wheeling, unsystematic manner. Thus far, I count four "regular" infantry regiments: Normandie, Piedmont, Perche, Enghien. In addition, there are two Irish units, Abermarle and Donnington, and one Swiss, Stuppa, plus some Spanish grenadiers (you can see them in the background in the second picture below, or here for a close-up during painting.)
What will be next? There are some items with very high priority. I need cavalry for the French; two units of dragoons are about to hit the workbench, and eventually one more of mounted musketeers. As I mentioned, there are two cavalry units for Electoral Palatinate that are almost completed, and I am considering an additional couple of Imperial cuirassiers. Then, I need artillery -- something is in the pipeline, but I need to hurry up... So, yes, still a lot of work is waiting for me. But, nonetheless, some very sweet progress as well!
Right now, the bulk of my Marlburian forces are in two armies: the one of the Elector of Palatinate, and one French. ideally, I will probably develop an imagine-nation narrative when the time to deploy them will come, but for the time being I am glad to keep them both relatively historical.
For the Palatinate forces, I also manage to paint a commander, maybe the Elector himself. You cans ee him here, all smiles after a full staisfactory review of his troops. These are 15mm Edition Brokaw miniatures.
Thus far, I have completed five Palatinate regiments, based on 12 miniatures per regiment: IR Bettendorf and IR Rehbinder (blue coat with red cuffs); IR Haxthousen and IR Westerwald-Dillendurg (blue coat, green cuffs); IR Saxe-Meiningen (red coat, green cuffs.) Here the five units:
For the time being, only one Palatinate cavalry regiment has been completed, RR Hochkirk, while two other cavalry units are in the pipeline, one dragoons and one cuirassiers (the Gendarmes de Venningen.) Here's Hochkirk's cavalrymen:
The French units have been completed in a more free-wheeling, unsystematic manner. Thus far, I count four "regular" infantry regiments: Normandie, Piedmont, Perche, Enghien. In addition, there are two Irish units, Abermarle and Donnington, and one Swiss, Stuppa, plus some Spanish grenadiers (you can see them in the background in the second picture below, or here for a close-up during painting.)
What will be next? There are some items with very high priority. I need cavalry for the French; two units of dragoons are about to hit the workbench, and eventually one more of mounted musketeers. As I mentioned, there are two cavalry units for Electoral Palatinate that are almost completed, and I am considering an additional couple of Imperial cuirassiers. Then, I need artillery -- something is in the pipeline, but I need to hurry up... So, yes, still a lot of work is waiting for me. But, nonetheless, some very sweet progress as well!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Naval teaser!
Life chez DestoFante has not been limited to sleepless nights and changing diapers! Wargaming time, in all honesty, has been minimal, as you might guess; but we had a few progress, about which I hope to update you soon in thorough manner. For the time being, just a teaser -- a naval teaser! Here a few WWI British warships just christened early tonight. These models are 1/6000 Figurehead, representing four Weymouth-class (Town-class) light cruisers, namely HMS Weymouth, HMS Dartmouth, HMS Falmouth, and HMS Yarmouth, and three Devonshire-class armoured cruisers: HMS Devonshire, HMS Hampshire, and HMS Carnarvon.
I hope to have the time to get back online soon with some pictures of my finally completed Marlburian units!
I hope to have the time to get back online soon with some pictures of my finally completed Marlburian units!
Friday, September 11, 2009
9/11
Having spent most of the day with my boss and professional colleagues sharing our recollections from this day eight years ago, I now find comfort in sitting back, serving myself a glass of wine, relaxing if possible, and thinking about this very same day, only three century ago.
Thanks to Grimsby for the reminder!
Thanks to Grimsby for the reminder!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Look who is here!
DestoFante Jr. was born at 12:20pm on August 30th!
Mom and son have been doing very well in the first 10 days, and maybe the day is not too far that the sleepless dad will retrieve brushes and paints from the closet and resume "normal" wargaming activities. In the meanwhile, this little angel is keeping us busy almost around the clock!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
I dipped, and almost regretted...
I decided to dip... and I went close to a complete disaster.
First, a quick overview of my dipping technique, which is actually not a real "dip", as I use a brush to apply the Minwax Polyshade finish to my miniatures. I normally use a fairly large, cheap brush, and two types of Polyshade, one called "Antique Walnut", with a more reddish-brownish tint, which usually works great for red-clad miniatures, and the other with a blackish color, called "Tudor Satin", which works great for miniatures painted in gray and white as main color.
So, today I headed to the roof deck, armed with all the necessary to engage in a nice session. First I applied the Tudor Satin to the Spanish grenadiers, a Palatine regiment, and the French Piedmont and Normandie. So far, so good. But I didn't stir the Tudor Satin can much before applying the dip, so it came out as a relative "light" layer. When I moved to work to the Swiss and the Irish/Palatinate units, I made sure to stir more robustly the Antique Walnut, and... gee! It came out thick and dark brown, and covered everything, from bayonets to the white and yellow trim on the hat. I had to sweat quite a bit to thin the dip, and to remove as much of it as possible from the areas whose color I wanted to keep more vivid. And as I was working in this crucial cleaning action... the brush broke off! I was able to fix it on the fly, and to complete the cleaning/finishing strokes -- I just had to be very careful with the brush.
Photos will follow soon. For the time being, let me articulate the lessons of the day:
a. make sure the brush is in good condition; if it is, take a second one with me nonetheless, just in case;
b. use a smaller brush: it will make my work slower, but it will ensure I have better control of the amount of finish I apply to the miniatures;
c. try not to put any dip on the hats and the bayonets;
d. give the dip a few minutes to sit down, or stir more gently at the beginning. Go for a ligher mix. These are War of Spanish Succession figures, not colonial natives, duh!
Bottom line. The Swiss and the Palatinate/Irish came out a little darker than I would have preferred, but they are still nice. Normandie, Piedmont, Palatinate, and Spanish grenadiers look great. The day was saved!
First, a quick overview of my dipping technique, which is actually not a real "dip", as I use a brush to apply the Minwax Polyshade finish to my miniatures. I normally use a fairly large, cheap brush, and two types of Polyshade, one called "Antique Walnut", with a more reddish-brownish tint, which usually works great for red-clad miniatures, and the other with a blackish color, called "Tudor Satin", which works great for miniatures painted in gray and white as main color.
So, today I headed to the roof deck, armed with all the necessary to engage in a nice session. First I applied the Tudor Satin to the Spanish grenadiers, a Palatine regiment, and the French Piedmont and Normandie. So far, so good. But I didn't stir the Tudor Satin can much before applying the dip, so it came out as a relative "light" layer. When I moved to work to the Swiss and the Irish/Palatinate units, I made sure to stir more robustly the Antique Walnut, and... gee! It came out thick and dark brown, and covered everything, from bayonets to the white and yellow trim on the hat. I had to sweat quite a bit to thin the dip, and to remove as much of it as possible from the areas whose color I wanted to keep more vivid. And as I was working in this crucial cleaning action... the brush broke off! I was able to fix it on the fly, and to complete the cleaning/finishing strokes -- I just had to be very careful with the brush.
Photos will follow soon. For the time being, let me articulate the lessons of the day:
a. make sure the brush is in good condition; if it is, take a second one with me nonetheless, just in case;
b. use a smaller brush: it will make my work slower, but it will ensure I have better control of the amount of finish I apply to the miniatures;
c. try not to put any dip on the hats and the bayonets;
d. give the dip a few minutes to sit down, or stir more gently at the beginning. Go for a ligher mix. These are War of Spanish Succession figures, not colonial natives, duh!
Bottom line. The Swiss and the Palatinate/Irish came out a little darker than I would have preferred, but they are still nice. Normandie, Piedmont, Palatinate, and Spanish grenadiers look great. The day was saved!
Monday, August 24, 2009
More pic, and a question
[Apparently, blogspot is working again, and I can now continue the post abruptly interrupted a few minutes ago... make sure you read both this and the post immediately below in sequence!]
First, I want to share the pictures I promised when I posted the photos of the Milano grenadiers and the Piedmont and Normandie regiments earlier tonight.
The first picture shows the back side of the Stuppa men, followed by two close-ups of the Stuppa and Donnington officers. As you may notice, I am becoming more and more daring with the use of silver and brass on laces and uniforms, as well as on tin buttoms. Ehi, they look good to me, given than about one year ago I was still adamant in NOT wanting to paint XVIII century uniforms because "too complex and ornate"!
And now a question for you all, my friends.
Usually, I have come of the good habit to dip my miniatures before basing them. You may see some good example of my technique and final results here and here. But now, I confess to be torn. The dip may still provide a great effect on my infantrymen, but I am afraid that the dipping will partially cover my painting efforts, especially on the officers. So, I am almost tempted NOT to dip this time around. I need to think about this. Oh well... in the meanwhile, I can start some work on the cavalry. I have dragoons and cuirassiers waiting on the workbench!
First, I want to share the pictures I promised when I posted the photos of the Milano grenadiers and the Piedmont and Normandie regiments earlier tonight.
The first picture shows the back side of the Stuppa men, followed by two close-ups of the Stuppa and Donnington officers. As you may notice, I am becoming more and more daring with the use of silver and brass on laces and uniforms, as well as on tin buttoms. Ehi, they look good to me, given than about one year ago I was still adamant in NOT wanting to paint XVIII century uniforms because "too complex and ornate"!
And now a question for you all, my friends.
Usually, I have come of the good habit to dip my miniatures before basing them. You may see some good example of my technique and final results here and here. But now, I confess to be torn. The dip may still provide a great effect on my infantrymen, but I am afraid that the dipping will partially cover my painting efforts, especially on the officers. So, I am almost tempted NOT to dip this time around. I need to think about this. Oh well... in the meanwhile, I can start some work on the cavalry. I have dragoons and cuirassiers waiting on the workbench!
Still waiting... but making the wait productive
First and foremost: DestoFante Jr. is taking his time. He should have shown up eight days ago, but so far, nothing. Nada. Niente. So, after a few days of excitement and heightened expectations, we are settling into a not exactly comfortable routine. I cut back on my hours at the office to spend more quality time with Mrs. DestoFante, who by now is bored to death and over-stressed, and understandably so.
In the meanwhile, somebody gotta kill some time...
And so, I took the brushes off and I re-started my weekly routine of slow but steady progress. Actually, this couple of days were more satisfying than most, because I finally completed different units in my Marlburian project that have been on the workbench for quite some time.
First, a Spanish grenadier unit, Milan Regiment. You may remember a Santa-looking unit from a post a while ago, but you will appreciate the better style of the completed grenadiers now that painting is concluded. These are 15mm Spanish grenadier from the GFI/Minifigs range.
Next, also from my favorite 15mm range by GFI/Minifigs, two French units, Regiment Normandie and Regiment Piedmont. In order, you will first see an infantry from Normandie, followed by two from Piedmont.
There are some more pics from the two red-clad regiments that complete this batch, the Swiss Regiment Stuppa and the Irish Regiment Donnington. Apparently, my blogspot connection is running to some trouble tonight, so you will have to wait until tomorrow... believe, it is worth the wait, because I took some artistic dares in painting these units (especially the officers), and I am very proud of the results!
In the meanwhile, somebody gotta kill some time...
And so, I took the brushes off and I re-started my weekly routine of slow but steady progress. Actually, this couple of days were more satisfying than most, because I finally completed different units in my Marlburian project that have been on the workbench for quite some time.
First, a Spanish grenadier unit, Milan Regiment. You may remember a Santa-looking unit from a post a while ago, but you will appreciate the better style of the completed grenadiers now that painting is concluded. These are 15mm Spanish grenadier from the GFI/Minifigs range.
Next, also from my favorite 15mm range by GFI/Minifigs, two French units, Regiment Normandie and Regiment Piedmont. In order, you will first see an infantry from Normandie, followed by two from Piedmont.
There are some more pics from the two red-clad regiments that complete this batch, the Swiss Regiment Stuppa and the Irish Regiment Donnington. Apparently, my blogspot connection is running to some trouble tonight, so you will have to wait until tomorrow... believe, it is worth the wait, because I took some artistic dares in painting these units (especially the officers), and I am very proud of the results!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Dilemma
Every now and then I get trapped in some dilemma of sort about practical aspects of my wargaming projects, and that state of mind seems to drain energy from achieving further progress.
I stumbled on one of these blocks on a relatively minor issue concerning my Marlburian armies. Here's the problem: I am building my units in a modular fashion, so that, depending by the mood, the rules, or the battle, I will be able to deploy battalions or regiments with either 12 or 24 miniatures. Ideally, I would like to have all my infantry units made of 24 miniatures, but in a bout of realism, and taking into account the fact I live into an apartment and I play on a 6' by 4' table, I want to have the flexibility to opt for 12-miniature units. So far so good, as far as line infantry is concerned.
But what about grenadiers? I am fine with a 12-miniature grenadier unit; the problem is that a 24-miniature grenadier one looks... excessive, at least for the period (1700-1720.) Or isn't it? Am I wrong? I would feel comfortable with large grenadier units for later conflicts, like the Seven Years War: but what about this earlier age?
I am actually considering keeping all the Marlburian grenadiers in units of 12. They will be fine when deployed in a battle with other 12-miniature units, and they will still look OK when taking part in clashes with 24-miniature line infantry units (assuming that the whole idea of "line infantry" made any sense in this earlier period.) Or maybe I should sink myself in further readings about the period, and verify whether, historically, there is any ground to justify smaller count of men in grenadier units vs. regular infantry units.
On this problem, I got stuck: and no progress on my projects has been registered for a few weeks now.
I stumbled on one of these blocks on a relatively minor issue concerning my Marlburian armies. Here's the problem: I am building my units in a modular fashion, so that, depending by the mood, the rules, or the battle, I will be able to deploy battalions or regiments with either 12 or 24 miniatures. Ideally, I would like to have all my infantry units made of 24 miniatures, but in a bout of realism, and taking into account the fact I live into an apartment and I play on a 6' by 4' table, I want to have the flexibility to opt for 12-miniature units. So far so good, as far as line infantry is concerned.
But what about grenadiers? I am fine with a 12-miniature grenadier unit; the problem is that a 24-miniature grenadier one looks... excessive, at least for the period (1700-1720.) Or isn't it? Am I wrong? I would feel comfortable with large grenadier units for later conflicts, like the Seven Years War: but what about this earlier age?
I am actually considering keeping all the Marlburian grenadiers in units of 12. They will be fine when deployed in a battle with other 12-miniature units, and they will still look OK when taking part in clashes with 24-miniature line infantry units (assuming that the whole idea of "line infantry" made any sense in this earlier period.) Or maybe I should sink myself in further readings about the period, and verify whether, historically, there is any ground to justify smaller count of men in grenadier units vs. regular infantry units.
On this problem, I got stuck: and no progress on my projects has been registered for a few weeks now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
