Sadurian Mike

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #183789
    Sadurian Mike
    Participant

    The horses from the Perry WotR range are great. You can use them with the optional plate barding or without, and it is relatively easy to add the distinctive ‘skirt’ sometimes seen on the heavy horse barding.

    For the figures themselves, have a look at the Wargames Foundry range; “Pike and Shot: Early 16th Century Renaissance”. The human figures are good, a little stiff in pose but nice figures. I do not use the Foundry metal horses because they look too small for heavy cavalry, instead changing them for the Perry plastic horses. If you contact Foundry, they may be able to do you a deal on the riders alone – it never hurts to ask!

    EDIT: I forgot to mention the most obvious choice! The Assault Group do a range of cavalry in their Renaissance ranges. You can buy them with or without the horses, so mounting the TAG figures onto Perry horses is easy.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Sadurian Mike.
    #183760
    Sadurian Mike
    Participant

    You can buy English Tudor miniatures from The Assault Group. The English, Tudor figures are suitable for Henry VIII’s battles (1509-1547), Mary’s reign, and the earlier part of Elizabeth’s reign. The later English, Stuart figures are suited for the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign (1558-1603) with some crossover, of course. I assume that you are aware that the very early Tudor period is covered by the Wars of the Roses ranges, and you can mix a few of these figures into your Early Tudor regiments to show men wearing their grandfather’s full plate armour. They would be more seriously outdated by the later Elizabethan period, however.

    Bear in mind also that English armies at this time (Henry especially) used plenty of foreign mercenaries, so figures from other ranges can be used to create these units. A regiment of the ubiquitous Landsknechts, for example. would fit right in.

    #182313
    Sadurian Mike
    Participant

    There are as many terrain tips out there as there are gamers, so you need to find what works for you. Remember also that what works in photos of tables doesn’t necessarily work in gaming. An example is creating cornfields with door mats or ‘teddy bear fur’. It looks spectacular until you start putting units onto it, at which point you generally have units floating above the field in their hoverbelts. Similarly, that lovingly-crafted hillside with clinging vegetation and scree slope looks amazing until you try to position figures on it, and see them tumble away for lack of horizontal standing space.

    My point is that you must choose between practicality and aesthetics, and find the point between them that you are comfortable with. That should be your starting point for buying or creating terrain, and you will probably have some rather workmanlike pieces until you manage to collect alternatives.

    On that note; cheap and easy hedgerows can be made by cutting green scouring pads, sticking a small base to them and dragging a highlight colour or two over the hedge or sticking on some scatter. They are remarkably effective.

    (Not my hedges, but included for illustration).

    #181490
    Sadurian Mike
    Participant

    Thanks CtG,

    I suspect that I’ll be keeping the points cost but allowing Closing Fire, the extra range and adding the +1 Morale Save for the Longbow targets. All subject to convincing my opponents, of course. I like your idea of overhead fire, but will probably just assume that the figure scale represents a few ranks of archers lobbing arrows over the front ranks.

    As for campaigns; it is likely that I’ll end up collecting and painting both Henry’s army and their opponents, then searching for suitable victims opponents and presenting them with a fait accompli. The advantage is twofold: I get to buy and paint more toys, and I get to dictate the match-up. With this in mind, I’ll probably go for Scottish, French, and/or Italian. Whether or not I actually finish anything is another matter. I have far too many rulesets for which I am trying to recruit and paint armies. For me, most of the joy is in the modelling and painting, the actual gaming is simply added polish.

    #181197
    Sadurian Mike
    Participant

    My opinion is certainly not an official call, but might I throw in my own thoughts?

    • If your opponent disagrees with the change to the ruleset you propose then he is at liberty to say no. Tinkering with rules is fine, but only so long as both players agree to the alterations.
    • Historically, minefields were sited in depth because their value is, and was, nuisance and delay to any enemy advance. The longer the delay, the more effective the minefield.
    • Minefields in a 6″x 6″ cover a 6″ frontage, your proposal doubles this frontage. That is quite a significant change if you are not also proposing lessening the minefield’s effect (see below).
    • The depth of the minefield is linked to the effect it has on passing through it. Halving the depth would seriously reduce the effectiveness of the minefield on units passing through, and also make clearing it much easier, something that you would need to cater for. To reduce the argument to a ridiculous level purely for illustration, a minefield one mine deep would hardly be an obstacle at all because men could simply hop over it, and clearing the mines to make a safe path would mean removing just one or two mines.

     

    #181196
    Sadurian Mike
    Participant

    As IO has suggested, not everyone washes their figures.

    Personally, I do when ever I remember. Remember that the figure you hold in your eager paw has been in a mould coated with a mould-release agent, then prised out and packed by hand in (sorry, Warlord, the same goes for all commercial figures and models) an undoubtedly dusty small factory setting. There will be dust and other particulates in the air, plus the grease from the hands of the packers (to say nothing of whatever they had for lunch). Then you pick it up with your fingers and add to the mix whatever is on your own fingers.

    Now the amount of dirt and grease is small, and in many cases it will be insignificant. However, by taking a few minutes to wash the figure and leave it to dry, you are eliminating one more potential source of defect when you apply glue and/or coat the miniature in its new undercoat. The result will be undercoat or glue that has the maximum chance to adhere firmly.

    #180589
    Sadurian Mike
    Participant

    A bow question.

    Some units in the earlier period (Italian Wars) get the option to replace their arquebuses with crossbows for 0 points (pp98-99), but English Tudor longbowmen pay an extra 1 point per Shooting Value ‘pip’ for their bows (18″ range costs 2 points per pip instead of 1 point for 12″) (p.115).

    According to p201 and the summary chart on p202, Crossbows and bows (which I assume includes longbows) should cost 2 points per Shooting Value ‘pip’ as they have an 18″ range, whereas the arquebus has a 12″ range and the unit cost is 1 point per Shooting Value ‘pip’. This despite bows and crossbows being unable to offer Closing Fire (because bows are… what?… slower to load?..?).

    So, unless I am misreading or misinterpreting this, arquebus units swapping to crossbows are getting for free what costs English Tudor bowmen 2 points per unit. Is this valid? What makes it especially galling is that bow hits attract a +1 to their target’s Morale Save, whereas crossbows do not.

    As someone currently painting up an Early Tudor English Army (looking at an army of Henry VIII), the issue of the cost of bow units is particularly pertinent, and something that I imagine most armies of the period covered by the P&S rules would never encounter. I could just ignore the extra points (it is only 2 points per longbow unit, after all), or (better still) give longbows the ability to offer Closing Fire. However, I’d prefer to discover the thinking behind the original calculations. After all, there may be a cunning reasoning that I am not seeing.

    #180585
    Sadurian Mike
    Participant

    Hi, I’m Mike (aka Sadurian Mike), a member of the old forum back in the day. I’m a contemporary military historian by training and education, currently working as a civilian contractor to the MoD. I have interests in most periods, although Late Medieval/Early Modern (what used to be called the Renaissance) and C20th are my particular areas of focus.

    I’m into wargaming as much for the painting and research as for the actual gaming, and would much rather play a ruleset that feels historically correct and reflects the period than one that ‘gives a fun game’.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)