Rick Priestley On Painting Standards

In a June post regarding wargames magazines I mentioned (in rather rude terms) my views on what I consider the excessively high standards to which some wargames figures are painted these days. I thought it worth highlighting that none other than Rick Priestley has been writing about the same thing in Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy magazine. Many thanks to the producers of WSS for making this particular piece of writing available online.

A worried man.

The article is an excellent one and well worth reading. As you might expect, whilst Rick seems to have some doubts about how things are going, he is much more positive and circumspect than myself. But what is one to think when a wargamer with Rick's high standards ends up writing "now I sometimes despair of picking up the paintbrush and showing the results to my fellow gamers"? Sad indeed. 

Rick's insider's view informs us of a major reason for the trend in wargaming figures that are just too good. I wrote in my post that "dedicated figure painters have much to answer for", blaming hobbyists for the tendency. Rick indicates that commercial pressures must bear much of the blame (assuming you believe 'blame' is the right word). It seems launching and sustaining new and existing ranges can only be done if the figures are shown as individual subjects painted to the highest possible professional standard, regardless of how much it might cost. 

The barrage of such images online and in magazines inevitably buttresses the view that this is the standard we must all strive for. To anyone who holds that view, my response is, balderdash. But make your own mind up. To this end, I recommend this blog post, which is a good one, although I tend to disagree with it. Certainly, if Mr Priestley is having doubts (even polite ones), I think we have confirmation that this is a subject worth airing. And I would like to encourage as many gamers as possible to ignore the deviation into 'miniature works of art' and to paint their figures to what is often called 'a good wargames standard'. And be proud of it. Let the producers of over-painted and over-costly figures be the ones to despair. 

Block painters of the world unite!

Back From Hols

So, just returned from a very satisfactory 2 weeks off work, consisting of a few days around Exmoor with the lady wife, then a week on the Union Canal in Scotland en famille. The latter included an evening at the Edinburgh Tattoo, which was as good as ever.

Thanks to Steve J I had a number of back issues of Wargames Illustrated to pass the time, as you can see below. Despite my occasional caustic comments on the corporate nature of this publication, I have to admit that some very readable articles continue to be published therein.

The man behind the bullshit relaxes on the afterdeck of his (rented) narrowboat

And here's an idea...

Of course, the above bit of fluff will hardly constitute a satisfying post for the discerning wargamers who frequent this blog. So, let me pass on an idea that occurred to me whilst reading an article on hidden movement in one of said magazines. In a post from 2009 I mentioned my use of the old-fashioned idea of a curtain across the middle of the wargames table, to create a 'hidden' set up which gives a bit of interest to a basic encounter game. Further thought suggested that not only the armies but the terrain as well could receive the same treatment. 

So set up your curtain across the middle of a bare playing surface, allocate forces and a selection of terrain to each side, then each player can set up their own side of the table independently. This represents not only ignorance of your enemy's deployment, but also the frequent situation where the countryside on your opponent's side of the hill is a mystery to you as well. 

Now I admit I have not tried this out yet, but it would seem to be a way to give interest to a simple encounter game. If players have a selection of both units and terrain to choose from, they can indulge in the task of making a terrain that suits both the force balance they have selected as well as their tactical intentions for the game ahead. Of course, they may have a nasty surprise when their opponent's choices are revealed. 

Let me know what you think.

The Seven Years War - Number Crunching

"Look, just bugger off. We're trying to concentrate here."

Trying to work out how well our rules create games that might approximate to real events is one of the central conundrums of wargaming. Of course it gets harder the further back in history we go, as the stream of film, photos, statistics and written records thins out and then disappears.

A rare chance to check out my own rules occurred this week whilst I was reading Christopher Duffy's The Military Experience In The Age Of Reason. On page 209 he briefly tackles the problem of how many bullets might have been fired for each death caused to the enemy. There was enough there for me to take things forward and see how my own rules squared up to historical reality.

Getting Down And Dirty

Apparently, after the battles of Mollwitz and Chotusitz, Frederick instigated an investigation to try and discover how effective his troop's fire had been. A gentleman writing in 1756 used the figures to estimate that around 650,000 rounds were fired at Chotusitz, resulting in about 2,500 deaths, 'and as many wounded'.

This gives a figure of 260 rounds expended per death. According to Duffy, this is in the same ballpark as figures arrived at for a number of other 18th century battles, although the examples Duffy gives are for some of the lesser known actions rather than the main battles of the SYW. Looking up Chotusitz online, it is easy to discover that the total Austrian casualties in that battle (killed, wounded, prisoners, missing) were around 7,000. In round numbers, this gives about 100 rounds per casualty. As Duffy explains, this ratio would be reduced by an allowance for casualties produced by artillery and cavalry, but increased by the fact that a good proportion of the rounds expended were not actually fired but quite likely simply discarded by the soldiers. We can already see that this whole 'investigation' is a very rough and ready process. However, let's continue.

And so to my own rules. I designate a turn length of up to 10 minutes (which seems to be the fashion these days. Those old 2 minute turns seem to have gone for good). As I'm not saying a turn is exactly 10 minutes, let's assume that an infantry battalion which is firing does so for an average of 5 minutes in a turn. So 600 guys fire 3 rounds a minute, making 9,000 rounds heading the enemy's way during 5 minutes. Using 100 bullets per casualty gives us an average of 90 casualties per turn. This would give 180 casualties (nearly a third of a typical enemy battalion) in 2 turns, and 270 casualties (nearly half a battalion) in 3 turns.

I found this generally reassuring. Firefights using my rules are generally resolved, at least temporarily, in 2 or 3 turns (retreating units may rally later). Whilst it was not uncommon for battalions to suffer more than 50% casualties in hard fought battles, even when winning, I am reasonably happy that a third or half casualties would be enough to take most battalions out of the fight for a bit, if not permanently.

Now of course the various assumptions and estimations used in arriving at these figures may well be inaccurate, or may have varied from situation to situation. There's not much we can do about the inaccuracy, except perhaps devote a lifetime of research to the surviving primary sources. As for the variety, I am prepared to let the dice and modifiers take care of that. At least my rules didn't seem to be wildly at variance with these particular calculations.

The Old Moving And Firing Problem

Following the example of Black Powder, I have left out a negative modifier for moving and firing in my rules until now. However, prompted by this post on Ross Mac's outstanding 'Battlegame of the Month' blog, I have decided to relent. My original decision was based on,

1. Simplicity. One less modifier, and more importantly no need to remember who's moved and who hasn't.

2. Encouraging aggression. I found that knowing your fire would likely be less effective than the standing enemy you were attacking made players (me included) reluctant to close to musket range. This is, I believe, a main reason the modifier doesn't appear in Black Powder.

Nevertheless, I find I can no longer ignore the rather obvious conclusion that the fire of moving units would be less effective than those not moving. Therefore a -1 modifier for moving and firing now appears in my rules.

As for aggression, players will have to behave more 'realistically', and gain advantage in an attack by artillery preparation and/or by arranging to outnumber the defending troops in one way or another, even if this means counting a first line as expendable.

In Black Powder, I have also succumbed in the area of moving and firing, by accepting a house rule developed by other players based on one of the special rules introduced in the Last Argument Of Kings supplement. My rule reads as follows,

'Infantry deduct 1 firing dice if they move twice, and 2 firing dice if they move 3 times.'

I give Prussian infantry an advantage by only making them deduct 1 dice if moving 3 times, with no deduction for moving twice. I suppose for really poor infantry (Reichsarmee for example) you could disallow firing completely if moving more than once. 

For any Black Powder players reading this blog, this set of house rules posted by Bill5549 on his blog are well worth your attention.

I'll Be Back
I wish I could promise some real wargames action on this blog in the near future, but spare time for proper battles is limited at the moment. The wargaming world will, however, be relieved to know that I have ordered some new deciduous trees to take the place of the lumps of lichen on sticks I have been using for the past 20 years or more. So the battlefields might look a bit better when they finally feature again on this blog.

Heft versus Cheapness...

...and a few other random thoughts.

Visitors may have noticed the absence of battle reports on this blog of late. The sad fact is that I'm now working away from home for 5 days each week, and this combined with the enervating effect of the recent heat wave has meant time and motivation for 'real' wargames has been limited. In these circumstances, the value of developing my DBA wargaming has become apparent. These rules give absorbing games using real toy soldiers, but with super-quick setup and clear away times, as well as limited impact on what the rest of the family is doing. 

I have however been managing a bit of painting and model making. This has triggered the following reflections...

Zvezda vs Skytrex (and others)

Most of my German tanks and transport vehicles for Poland 1939 are from the Skytrex 1:100th 'Command Decision' range. A lovely catalogue of vehicles: comprehensive, nicely proportioned, accurate and well moulded in white metal. They are certainly a bit pricier than most, but generally worth it, although some prominent wargamers seem to disagree. I've felt no great temptation to explore other ranges, but recently a few models from the Zvezda catalogue suitable for Poland have appeared, and I couldn't resist trying them out considering the ridiculously low prices. See pics below.

Skytrex Panzer II on the left. Zvezda on the right.
Although a little smaller, the Zvezda model fits in OK on the wargames table

Zvezda ZIS-5 on left, True North Miniatures Polski-Fiat 621 on right.
Not the same vehicle, but very similar if you're not too fussy.

Zvezda ZIS-5 poses with a pair of Skytrex Kfz 15s.

Regarding the Kfz15s, I have a picture book on the Polish campaign called September Storm, which I highly recommend. Lots of interesting photos with very useful captions. The Horch kfz15 features strongly amongst the illustrations, and was obviously a useful and well-used vehicle. Hence my desire to field a couple, which will find a place in a recce or motorcycle formation. The photos below give a flavour of the vehicle in action. Top one definitely Poland, lower one location unknown.

Which brings me to the Zvezda Sdkfz 251 Ausf.A kit. Although sold as an Ausf.B, the shape of the front armour plate and the unshielded mg on a crane mount reveal it to be an Ausf.A. The image below comes from the excellent Spotting Round website, which I thoroughly recommend.

Less than 3 quid? Bargain!

This is currently the only Ausf.A available in 15mm, and this was the version used in Poland. So why didn't I buy some? Well, I already had 3 kits from Parkfield Miniatures, bought some years ago from a line that was about to be discontinued. At that time, the Parkfield kits were themselves the only Ausf.As in 15mm. After around 2 years in my modest lead hillock, I finally got around to completing one:

Not the best model in the world, but in fairness to Parkfield Miniatures this was a very old kit that
 they were about to discontinue on the grounds of it not being up to their usual high standards.
When made up it's OK for the wargames table. Crew had to be added.

Now, to finally address the point made in the title of this post, what the Parkfield model lacks in finish it makes up for in terms of heft. Yes, it's heavy, man. Those crew figures are standing on a good, solid block of metal which is very satisfying to move around the table, and which stays where it's put in the heat of combat. The problem with those Zvezda kits is that they weigh nothing, and are easily flicked aside by a wayward hand or waggling extending ruler. That's one reason why I like the Skytrex kits - apart from the fact that they're usually better models than much of the opposition, they're all possessed of the kind of heft only white metal gives you. Don't underestimate the value of this quality if you've only ever used plastic kits: especially if you're a bit of a sad git like me. Thumping these guys on the table gives you the feeling you really are advancing with a Panzer Division. 

As for the Zvezda models, what everyone says about them is true - they go together nicely, are well produced and provide you with accurate if fairly basic models.

The Sdkfz251 in Poland, 1939

Now I know most WW2 gamers these days are obsessed with Normandy 1944 or Eastern Front 1943, so for the record I will confirm that some 251s were used in Poland in 1939. For example, I understand that about a company's worth were issued to 1st Panzer Division, who usually had the pick of the latest/best kit in the early war period. In all, I believe around 68 were issued for the campaign as a whole, some as command vehicles. The images below were found on this Polish language site. 

Hmm...dappled shade.

Hang on a minute. No shadows on the road. That looks like a two colour scheme.

IMHO, no doubt about it. That strong central dark stripe is obviously a shadow, but this photo and the picture above are the clearest evidence I have seen for the two colour grey/brown scheme in Poland. And applied on what must have been brand new vehicles as well.

These look all grey, but a nice atmospheric shot which shows tarpaulin covers in use.

So there we are. Not only can you field 251s in 1939, you can paint them in a 2 colour camouflage scheme as well. Nice.

Parting Shot

Those Zvezda ZIS-5s will be of particular interest to FoW customers left high and dry when the 'Battlefront' Polish range was curtailed. There are currently no infantry transports available in this range, and no vehicles to tow those anti-tank guns and artillery either. It just goes to show that the age-old problem of the incomplete range is not solved by having corporate players in the wargaming market. True North Miniatures can still supply Lazik staff cars and Polski-Fiat trucks, which are acceptable if not great. The Praga truck produced by QRF Models is also an historically correct vehicle for Polish forces, but again it is a distinctly average model.  

So come on Battlefront. I know I've been critical of you in the past. Now prove me wrong and bring on those Polish soft skins!

Free And Online!

Just a heads up for the latest issue of Warning Order (no.35), which is now available online. A thoroughly interesting issue, I hope you'll agree. Please spread the word - wider recognition of this long-standing project is needed for it to continue and (hopefully) grow and develop.

And by the way, those DBA armies arrived in the post, and were just as nice in real life as in the photos (see post below). A real treat to unpack them and set them out. Very little damage enroute - just some straightening of javelins required. There was even time to squeeze in a first game with my old friend Paul, between the various weekend jobs that always crop up. A tantalising glimpse was obtained of the tactical options that will need to be considered in future games. DBA appears to be a small game with a big playabilty factor. Assuming playability is actually a word.

DBA - Coming To A Blog Near You...

1. A Long-Expected Email

Today the very lovely Neil Parsons of Mount and Blade sent me an email announcing my DBA armies were ready. He included photos so I could confirm I was happy with his efforts (which I was). Now I only have to wait a few days for delivery, but here's what I'm getting:

Early Imperial Romans (II/56 from the army lists). I'm particularly loving those blue auxiliaries.
The figures in the background on a temporary card base are to man my camp (see below).

Ancient British (II/53 from the lists). A general in a chariot - what more do you want?

Total cost for both armies, including 15mm figures from Essex Miniatures, painting, basing and all postage, £127.26. Which is a pretty good deal as far as I'm concerned. Neil charges 52p to paint a foot figure, and 92p to paint a cavalry figure. I think the photos speak for themselves - the standard is excellent and I hope to be using Mount and Blade again.

2. Camping It Up

Deciding I should do at least some work towards my new period, I have put together the required 2 camps. For the Romans a good old marching camp seemed to be the best bet. Now of course, a bit of Polyfilla and some cocktail sticks can produce you one for practically no cost if you want to spend the time. Predictably, I quickly started looking for commercially produced models. My favourite was a nice little product from Long Range Logisics. This was inexpensive and had the right proportions - 100mm x 60mm is my favoured size as it allows a Light Horse element to be easily accommodated. Unfortunately the purchase process informed me the item was a Special Order and wasn't currently available. Two emails to LRL produced no reply. Sale lost. LRL derive their name from being located in Thailand. Delivery times can be lengthy by current standards, but they have an interesting range of products. I hope you have more luck with them than I did if you deal with them.

Turning to the obvious alternative of Baueda, I quickly found their own Roman Marching Camp, which was unfortunately 40mm x 120mm, but looked fine. To cut a long story short it was purchased, assembled and painted, with the result shown below:

The log barrier is left loose to give more flexibility should the camp come under attack - its removal allows a Light Horse element to occupy the camp snugly. The model is about twice the cost of the LRL one, and comes as a kit of 9 parts. A good bit of sanding and filing is required to get a reasonable fit of parts, which I feel should not really be needed with state of the art production techniques. Nevertheless I am quite satisfied with the result.

Baueda had the right models for my Ancient British camp as well. I purchased a Thatched Straw Hut along with a Camp Cooking set. The hut might be a bit late in period, and I had to scratch off the medieval shield resting against its side, but the result is again pleasing enough. In this case the models were cast to a very good standard. I based the assembled bits and pieces on a 100mm x 60mm rectangle of mounting board.

The group of sacks and pots in the foreground are loose.
Removing them creates a space for occupying elements, enemy or friendly.

So now I await the arrival of the figures through the post, following which gaming will commence. I'll be sure to keep you informed.

In Praise Of Wargames Magazines

I'm sure I'm not the only wargamer who has wondered whether wargames magazines are still relevant in the age of the internet. We can all keep our fingers on the pulse of the hobby quite happily by using our computers, tablets and phones. I was always surprised that the hobby could support 4 commercial magazines, and even though that number is now 3 I still find it fairly remarkable to see them in W H Smith's, jostling for attention amongst Classic Tractors and Woodworking Monthly.

Wargames Illustrated is easy to resist: its glossy corporate world feels alien to me. Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy and Miniature Wargames are much more homely. I picked up the latest copy of each of these recently (WSS 66, MW 362), and was quickly reminded how relevant and useful magazines can be. They remain the main source of considered and extended writing on our hobby, conveying ideas from some of the sharpest wargames minds around. Their photos and graphics (especially the maps) are consistently excellent. Even the articles I don't really like tell me something about my own prejudices, and can sometimes surprise me with an interesting map or tip. 

As for the internet, there are far too many trivial posts and comments out there that contribute very little to our hobby, and which fail to communicate very much in terms of ideas or inspiration. Indeed, some forum posters seem to have quite a lot of trouble spelling words properly and grasping the basics of punctuation, let alone having anything worth saying. Far too many blogs make do with battle reports featuring no maps or scenario outlines, thus giving no idea of what's going on, and support this thin fare with a series of badly lit and/or out of focus photos.

There are, of course, many notable exceptions to this sad trend: blogs which are worth revisiting time and again, and wonderful information sites like Kronoskaf SYW or the PIBWL Military Site (that deals with the Polish forces of 1939). And then there are the sites of the various manufacturers and sellers, which of course are always worth trawling. Nevertheless, it seems to me that a lot of wargamers dabbling on the net (me included) are going to have to raise their game before the magazines feel the threat. 

So let's see what the latest WSS and MW got me thinking about.

Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy 66
For me, it's a problem that 2 out of 3 of the wargames magazines use 'themed' issues. As soon as I see that the theme is of no particular interest to me, I'm reluctant to buy the issue. WSS 66 had Gettysburg as its theme. I nearly walked away, but then, reflecting that the ACW at least counted as horse and musket, I flipped through the content. Hmm... some interesting looking battle maps linked to a series of Gettysburg refights. And a couple of interesting looking comment columns. I'm glad I took the plunge and bought a copy.

Regular readers of this blog will know I'm always after scenario ideas, and the Gettysburg articles were an excellent source. Check out these 2 maps for example:

Reproduced with the kind permission of WSS magazine. Copyright remains with the magazine.

Reproduced with the kind permission of WSS magazine. Copyright remains with the magazine.

I have long held that real battles confirm the idea that lining up opposing forces on opposite sides of the table and just plunging forward is not only unimaginative but doesn't represent most actual battles. Here are 2 cases in point. The upper map shows a situation where one half of the blue army is deployed forward defending a wood and river line, whilst the other half is well to its rear on the table baseline, half overlapped by the forward troops. The grey attackers must cross the stream/river to get at the defenders. This is an interesting set up: I am thinking a square 6' x 6' table would emphasise the distance between the 2 halves of the defending force and make the deployment even more interesting. The lower map has the interest of the 2 opposing lines not being parallel. Indeed the angle between them is about 60˚, which will straight away make for a stimulating engagement involving some thinking by both sides and some absorbing manoeuvres. The waterways interrupting the Confederate battle line also add interest, as does the gap on the left of the Union line where the isolated Pennsylvanian brigade is deployed. Again, a square table might work well here.

As for those comment columns, WSS has managed to get some significant wargaming names to write regular pieces for them - namely Rick Priestley and Richard Clarke. Whilst I enjoyed reading these items, for me they were rather bland and forgettable: in the arena of 'think pieces', Miniature Wargames won hands down, in my opinion. Perhaps being a prominent figure in the hobby inhibits any tendency to be outspoken or controversial: another example of the dead hand of corporate wargaming.

Miniature Wargames 362
My attention in this magazine turned first to the 2 longish articles delving into wargaming concepts. I like a good read that makes me think about the hobby. William Haggart argued convincingly that rules writers need to include solid information about their design decisions and historical sources as part of their rules, and explain and justify why said rules came to be how they are. This would allow users to more accurately judge both the designer's intentions and whatever claims to historical accuracy are made. Such informative designer's notes would indeed be much more useful than the pages of fluff and potted history bloating recent rule sets. Then Tim Beresford argued in another article that excessively detailed painting might well be an enemy of actually getting some battles in, and that we should start with the terrain for our chosen period rather than the figures. He also commented more broadly on the need for proper planning of wargames projects, including a much needed blast against the senseless accumulation of lead mountains.

Both provided good reading, with ideas that stayed with you much more than the articles by the well known personalities in WSS. Unfortunately both the writers in MW took rather longer to make their points than was really necessary. Tim's article in particular was rather meandering and unfocused, a point picked up in this TMP thread. Oxford wargamer Dillon Browne showed the way to good writing in his charming piece on attending Salute 2013.

I was, however, much obliged to Tim for confirming what I have long thought - that dedicated figure painters have much to answer for. The move to anatomically incorrect and over-detailed figures was obviously made to please the painter's need for more detail: hence all those hands like shovels and rifles the size of bazookas, as well as all those bloody buttons that you just can't ignore. The emphasis on painting creates a distraction from the task in hand, which is of course to get some wargaming in.

Now, those who love painting are always writing articles that purport to pass on their 'secret' of producing wonderful figures in record time. Tamsin Piper had such an article in this very magazine. Unfortunately, amongst all the tips and wrinkles, one does not have to read between the lines of such articles very much to discover that the real 'secret' is to spend every waking hour painting figures, often with as much shading and general fiddling about as possible. Let me step into the ring here, then, and give my own painting tips. When a soldier's coat is to be painted 'prussian blue', choose a paint of that shade (like Vallejo 70965, which is helpfully called 'prussian blue') and apply it to the coat. Then move on to the next area. If this is to be painted white, paint it in white paint. Then, move on to the next area to be painted. You get the picture. In other words, when painting, stop f**king around. Or even better, get someone else to paint your figures for you. This is much more affordable if you avoid using crazy figure painters who charge £10 per foot figure for some pointless 'work of art'.

I think that disposes of figure painting enthusiasts. MW 362 also takes the trouble to include specific rules ideas in no less than 5 articles, such as the ECW campaign piece. This is excellent: even when the period is not your thing, rules ideas can be transferable and have a habit of sending one's mind off in useful tangents. To be fair to WSS, this magazine also has significant rules content in one of its articles, not to mention all the scenario specifics in the Gettysburg section.

What Was I Saying..?
Ah yes. My overall point here is that both magazines gave me a number of ideas and directions that are not that easy to find online. I will probably return to them over a number of days and weeks to come, and for me this represents good value.

Unfortunately, the next issue of WSS (67) appears to have 'warfare in feudal Japan' as its theme. Oh bugger...