Hey all been intrigued by flames of war and seriously thinking of buying a few models or at least the starter kit and giving it a go. I also recently won a destroyed Sherman tank in a painting comp and am eagerly looking forward to painting it.

That being said, I'd be inclined to deviate substantially from the proscribed historical paint jobs and army colors and come up with something totally different. Like maybe paint my Sherman fire engine red or something else experimental and weird.

What I'm wondering is will there be a high degree of...oh how shall I put this...historical snobbery...amongst gamers?

I mean ultimately if I spend the money to paint my toy soldiers how I want them, that's my business. I just don't know anyone who plays it, and I was wondering what the community is like. There's a store in my city where the game has started to become popular and I've seen a game or two in action and everyone looked very serious and older than me (40-50). Not sure if this game attracts big time history buffs or something like that.

As you'll see if you read these threads, games like FoW attract players who are totally into the historical issues. Some of them will be pedantic to the point of obsessiveness, and will spend the game lecturing you on tiny points of detail (and in some cases will still actually be wrong). So your red tanks will undoubtably attract some criticism. And it is a historical game, even if it plays a bit fast and loose with the details, so it's probably a bit provocative to do something that extreme. I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect FoW models to bear at least some resemblance to what they were meant to represent. If it's just a case of using the wrong shade of green for olive drab, or painting 1944 Panzers grey instead of dark yellow, then I don't think that should be a big deal.

Would sir prefer the pink?

I say go for it - your models your choice and if historical obsessives have a fit ask them to prove there were no red shermans...

Reaver83 wrote:I say go for it - your models your choice and if historical obsessives have a fit ask them to prove there were no red shermans...

This^

There are people who like it was said before will point out every wrong detail, colour, vehicle mark etc etc, these people I like to call TFG. I personally like the historical aspect of these games so I like to research a unit see how it operated, what it's TO&E's are/where, and go from there.

I would say though there are you models do what you want honestly, but don't be suprised if you get a few WTF looks from 'snobby elitests'. I personally find the draw of accuracy one of the plus's but to each there own. =o]

Reaver83 wrote:I say go for it - your models your choice and if historical obsessives have a fit ask them to prove there were no red shermans...

...and be prepared to be asked to prove there were red Shermans.

By definition, its a historical game, thus the models tend to be in there historical colours. My personal view is that as you are recreating a real war, one in which people in living memory died, its no harm to pay a little respect and do things right. But they are your models, so do as you like.

Of course there were pink Spitfires used in WW2 by the photo-recon units in Africa.

I agree with Big P. It is a game based on Histoty not your imationation. Stick to fantasy or sci fi gaming if you want to spread your wings on color selection. Are there paint police that will throw you into the klink for using wrong colors. No, but expect a lot of WTF looks from people. Now if they start gettiong into your grill about it that wrong, they are your models after all, but expect to have your paint job pointed out as wrong on a regular basis.

Or do 1945 German armour, which is historical and can be mostly red. History is satisfied, you get to use the red paint.

My LGS related the story of a local player who painted his tanks pink and fielded the Pink Panthers.

I wouldn't play you.................

Wow.

My colours are correct, but I deviated away from the standard camo pattern on my LW Panthers.

In the end the models are yours. It'd doesn't matter if other gamers like them ,as long as you like them

Devieating from a camo pattern is one thing, in the field lots of camo patterns devieated from "standard". But to totaly devieate from historical reality is another thing all together. I agree they are your models and you are free to paint them how you wish. Just be forewarned that you will face some ridecule and people who wont deal with you at all.

Would I walk away from a game over it? Probably not. Would you be the absolute last person I would play? Most definatly. It showa a lack of knowledge of history and the reasons for the colors chosen in the real world. That leads to a thinking, rightly or wrongly, a lock of knowledge of the game system used to model historical events.

This discussion raised another question in my mind. What about people who just paint poorly? It might be less noticable in WWII historics, but in the fantasy and sci-fi games, I've seen some truely horrible paint jobs. Would you rather play against well painted, but historically inaccurate figures, or against a horrible attempt at historical correctness?

To be frankly honest you might find a few players here and there who'd have a problem with it. A large thing that attracts player's to the game is that it is history, and you'll see alot of history buffs (including myself) creating armies and are quite glad to see their imagination run wild in the miniature battlefield.

However, that being said, FoW is growing in popularity, and quite quickly I might add, and this is happening for many reasons. The main reason however is Games workshop with their,
1. Insane prices
2. Lack of care for Fan base
3. Selling Marinehammer (Opposed to what we thought warhammer 40k was.)
4. Broken rule sets for updated armies (Spam IG and BA need I say more?)

Those four mentioned are the main reasons I got into FoW, and I feel I've been seeing quite a few of 40k players making the switch because of same said reasons, so I think we're going to be seeing a lot of interesting army patterns (hell, modern Russian camo on ww2 Russian (IE the blue and white) would look sick!).

So I say, go at it! Have fun!

I once refused to play one guy who painted the stripes on his aerials too far from the end. Some people just take the piss.

George Spiggott wrote:I once refused to play one guy who painted the stripes on his aerials too far from the end. Some people just take the piss.

Oh my..

Avrik_Shasla wrote:To be frankly honest you might find a few players here and there who'd have a problem with it. A large thing that attracts player's to the game is that it is history, and you'll see alot of history buffs (including myself) creating armies and are quite glad to see their imagination run wild in the miniature battlefield.

However, that being said, FoW is growing in popularity, and quite quickly I might add, and this is happening for many reasons. The main reason however is Games workshop with their,
1. Insane prices
2. Lack of care for Fan base
3. Selling Marinehammer (Opposed to what we thought warhammer 40k was.)
4. Broken rule sets for updated armies (Spam IG and BA need I say more?)

Those four mentioned are the main reasons I got into FoW, and I feel I've been seeing quite a few of 40k players making the switch because of same said reasons, so I think we're going to be seeing a lot of interesting army patterns (hell, modern Russian camo on ww2 Russian (IE the blue and white) would look sick!).

So I say, go at it! Have fun!

These are close to the reasons why I left Warhammer 40k for Flames of War, but I don't think the perfusion of peoples own color chooses for armies will be scene in FoW with this growing player base. I think mainly because there are already pre-determined "right" colors for everything, unlike in fantasy or sci-fi games, which many people will follow.

Personally, I feel it is a sign of respect to those who fought in the war paint the tanks and uniforms in the colors they actually were, and not purple or bright red because the painter thinks it looks cool. Saying this, I would still play someone with an army painted in this manor, but they would likely be my last choose of opponent, as others have said.

I think the painting of an army in colors that are obviously non-historic may give the impression that the painter cares nothing about history to some players.

General Seric wrote:

These are close to the reasons why I left Warhammer 40k for Flames of War, but I don't think the perfusion of peoples own color chooses for armies will be scene in FoW with this growing player base. I think mainly because there are already pre-determined "right" colors for everything, unlike in fantasy or sci-fi games, which many people will follow.

Personally, I feel it is a sign of respect to those who fought in the war paint the tanks and uniforms in the colors they actually were, and not purple or bright red because the painter thinks it looks cool. Saying this, I would still play someone with an army painted in this manor, but they would likely be my last choose of opponent, as others have said.

I think the painting of an army in colors that are obviously non-historic may give the impression that the painter cares nothing about history to some players.

I have to salute you on your reasoning for painting your armies appropriately and that is why my Early war Germans I try to paint as meticulous and correctly as I can. I suppose on that note I would not have the same thought process in my opponent, mainly due to the fact that if I saw a twelve year old or even fourteen year old boy playing Flames of War, I'd be happy just to see that someone of that age is taking interest in WW2 instead of "SPHESS MAHREENS!" Haha

Ifurita wrote:This discussion raised another question in my mind. What about people who just paint poorly? It might be less noticable in WWII historics, but in the fantasy and sci-fi games, I've seen some truely horrible paint jobs. Would you rather play against well painted, but historically inaccurate figures, or against a horrible attempt at historical correctness?

Poor paint jobs that are an attempt at historical accuracy are at least a paint job. Not everyone is Golden Demon quality. Im sure not. I have a hard enough time finding time to get paint on models. But a total disregard for what colors are supposed to be on things, no matter how nicely done, is not an excuse.

Even when I played 40k I did not play or not play based on a poor/exellent paint job. I suppose it may just be my age, but if you are going to claim that I am fighting against a German army during WW2 I expect certian colors to be used. I am not so much a stickler for "correct" time frame. +/- 6 months on date of use is ok with me. I know people who wont play others unles they know month and year and anything outside that time frame is a no-no. I dont want my PzII going against JS3, that is out of bounds, but if my Panther is an A or D vs the same JS3 im ok with that.

Went to a convention recently, there was a FOW comp, saw a German eastern front army vs a Brit desert force.

Takes all sorts I suppose.

If someone turned up at my club and asked to do that, I'd say "No thanks"

Aldramelech wrote:Went to a convention recently, there was a FOW comp, saw a German eastern front army vs a Brit desert force.

Takes all sorts I suppose.

If someone turned up at my club and asked to do that, I'd say "No thanks"

Just out of curiosity, I'm curious what exactly your objection is. I mean, are you opposed to playing out any non-historical matchups? If someone shows up with Late War Americans and wants to play a match against your (hypothetical) Late War Russians, would you say no based solely upon the fact that those forces never faced each other? Or are you unhappy with people taking a bunch of models painted for one theater and using them to represent a force in another theater, for example if I took some US Airborne forces painted for Normandy and used them to play a Mid War game (I mean there were US paratroopers in Mid War battles, they just look slightly different, you even use the same models to represent them in FoW). Just trying to get a handle on the level of accuracy people typically look for.

I have to be honest, I'm with Rooneg on this one. I've never understood going to extremes, at the end of the day it's model soldiers.

Equally I don't understand Historical Re-enactment, watching some 21st fat-boy in an 82nd Airborne uniform isn't only an anathema to me, but it's a gross insult to the fitness and combat prowess, sacrifice and integrity of a unit that had to train damn hard to be awarded their uniforms, rank and insignia. It cheapen's the war and the sacrifice.

I had a long discussion with an American Officer buddy about this whilst I was in Iraq and he agreed. He actually said something odd that has stuck with me for a long time. "Do you think after we are old men and gone, future generations will build Cardboard towers, and fly model planes into them. Then half will be in Middle Eastern Dress, the other half coalition and then they will shoot at each other with blank firing Ak47's and M4".

I laughed so hard I nearly passed kidney.

mwnciboo wrote:I had a long discussion with an American Officer buddy about this whilst I was in Iraq and he agreed. He actually said something odd that has stuck with me for a long time. "Do you think after we are old men and gone, future generations will build Cardboard towers, and fly model planes into them. Then half will be in Middle Eastern Dress, the other half coalition and then they will shoot at each other with blank firing Ak47's and M4".

No it's much more likely that they'll be forgotten entirely. When was the last time you saw Korean war or Spanish Civil war reinactors? There's no joy in that but I believe it will be true.

@ Aldramelech: Are you being ironic?

George Spiggott wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:I had a long discussion with an American Officer buddy about this whilst I was in Iraq and he agreed. He actually said something odd that has stuck with me for a long time. "Do you think after we are old men and gone, future generations will build Cardboard towers, and fly model planes into them. Then half will be in Middle Eastern Dress, the other half coalition and then they will shoot at each other with blank firing Ak47's and M4".

No it's much more likely that they'll be forgotten entirely. When was the last time you saw Korean war or Spanish Civil war reinactors? There's no joy in that but I believe it will be true.

@ Aldramelech: Are you being ironic?

Nope.

Clash of culture I suppose. A lot of you guys are ex GW types and play in shops, you hang around in the shop and if someone comes in with an army and wants a game you play them. Many of you play in comps and quite a few of you are always looking for the perfect list for that, witness the huge amount of "Will this army be competitive" threads here.

This is anathema to me.

I am the product of the good old fashioned Historical Wargames Club. In this environment history is King, games are planed in meticulous detail and have nothing to do with "will this work" but rather "was that there". Now we play "fun" games too, I'm doing armies for SAGA atm and nobody could accuse that of being a serious historical game but when we do play "historical" it had damned well better be right. Flames of war is not the best set of rules for WW2 by any stretch of the imagination, but the basic system is quick to play in an evening and easy to transport, we tend to ignore the lists and points values and play with realistic forces. Balanced? Maybe not from a comp point of view but far more fun and satisfying from our point of view.

To the typical Historical club wargaming is about recreating history and the history is as important as the game, we are not a small group and there are thousands of traditional groups just like us all over the country and after 25 years of historical gaming I can say with some experience that someone with bright red tanks wouldn't be popular at many of them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rooneg wrote:

Aldramelech wrote:Went to a convention recently, there was a FOW comp, saw a German eastern front army vs a Brit desert force.

Takes all sorts I suppose.

If someone turned up at my club and asked to do that, I'd say "No thanks"

Just out of curiosity, I'm curious what exactly your objection is. I mean, are you opposed to playing out any non-historical matchups? If someone shows up with Late War Americans and wants to play a match against your (hypothetical) Late War Russians, would you say no based solely upon the fact that those forces never faced each other? Or are you unhappy with people taking a bunch of models painted for one theater and using them to represent a force in another theater, for example if I took some US Airborne forces painted for Normandy and used them to play a Mid War game (I mean there were US paratroopers in Mid War battles, they just look slightly different, you even use the same models to represent them in FoW). Just trying to get a handle on the level of accuracy people typically look for.

No I would not play late war American vs late war Russian, but again we have the culture thing, people do not just turn up with random armies to a club setting, things are far more organised and planed in the club environment. And when I say planned I'm not just talking about the game itself for that night, I'm talking about people sitting down and planning what to buy for a particular period in co-operation with other members of the group, so this wouldn't happen. The group would decide on the period to be played and people would buy the appropriate army's for it.

My group is actually fairly laid back compared to some, try turning up at some clubs with Napoleonic French Hussars with the wrong coloured shako cords

Aldramelech wrote:Nope.

Clash of culture I suppose. A lot of you guys are ex GW types and play in shops, you hang around in the shop and if someone comes in with an army and wants a game you play them. Many of you play in comps and quite a few of you are always looking for the perfect list for that, witness the huge amount of "Will this army be competitive" threads here.

Right, so it's actually FoW's 'pick up game' that is anathema to you. I think you could probably come up with something decent for a 'what if the Western Allies and the Soviet Union fall out over Turkey' scenario that would put the two armies you describe in conflict with each other.

I'm rather a fan of coming up with ad-hoc reasons to fight in Flames of War. It's all part of the fun. I used to do the same thing back when I played 40k. Each to their own.

I guess as long as everyone is in synch regarding expectations, then you're all good.

Ifurita wrote:I guess as long as everyone is in synch regarding expectations, then you're all good.

As with almost everything in life communication is key, make shore everyone involved knows the game plan before hand.

Aldramelech wrote:Went to a convention recently, there was a FOW comp, saw a German eastern front army vs a Brit desert force.

Takes all sorts I suppose.

If someone turned up at my club and asked to do that, I'd say "No thanks"

I probably wouldn't be too bothered with that (maybe the army in the East fought its way down to Egypt?), but I would always prefer something more like a historical match-up. I would anticipate that that sort of thing will increasingly become the norm in FoW if it continues to grow in poularity. And you'll see the same issues that plague WH40k, as people bring the attitudes from that game to FoW. For instance, I bet there is already an imbalance in favour of German armies, and (if it doesn't happen already) you'll see games with the Germans on both sides.

I got into WH40k from historical wargaming, and have always struggled with the things that many players do. The major issue for me has always been the disregard for the background and miniatures that (to me) are the essential reasons for playing a tabletop wargame rather than a boardgame or something more abstract. In the case of FoW, it seems to me that if someone don't care enough about the historical background and appearance of the models to make them look at least vaguely correct, then they're probably playing the wrong game.

I know that World War Two was a real event with real people dying, but some of the attitudes displayed here sound a lot like snobbery to me. In the end this is a game of plastic men and anybody getting worked up over it needs to look themselves in the eye and ask why a grown man/woman or even a teenager is at all upset by how somebody painted a bunch of models. Being a grognard who slaves over exact paint schemes and decals isn't doing anybody any favors.

I was considering getting into this game once college stops draining all my spare cash, but if the community near me has people like Aldramelech I'll pass. I'd much rather not spend money on a hobby that will force me to rub elbows with history snobs.

Just as well then because I'd rather not rub shoulders with people who don't take the hobby seriously. A large part of historical wargaming for the vast majority of historical gamers is, wait for it................ HISTORY.

If history is not your thing, if your not interested in researching your chosen period and getting your miniatures right then I would suggest 40k, Warmachine, Secrets of the Third Reich and the host of many fine games out there that allow your imagination run riot.

I spend alot of money and time on my hobby and so do the people I game with and we expect certain standards at our club.

I don't play against people with unpainted figures either, so now you can call me a painting snob as well if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Aldramelech wrote:Just as well then because I'd rather not rub shoulders with people who don't take the hobby seriously.

I have never said this before on Dakka but GTFO of here. It's a hobby, you are not a soldier and I wouldn't recommend it. There is difference between playing with models, and dressing up like a mentally ill person that has found a costume box, and then getting another bunch of similiarly wierd people to dress up and then pretend you are back in time fighting a conflict. That is very mental and I cannot take that seriously.

You can dress it up as History, but 99% of population will think you are crazy. It's one thing being extra's in a film or a professional group for films its another just to run off into the woods and run around like a bunch of nutters. Imagine what a third party from another country would make of it?

I remember at my University, I walked down through the Campus on a Saturday and was accosted by a Medieval Dress guy with a Claymore demanding I pay him for passage. I told him "To get F*thed", he looked crestfallen and he was later arrested by armed Police when Campus security spotted him harassing people.

WTF are you on about matey??????????

I don't dress up as anything, I'm a historical wargamer, how does that involve me dressing up and running around in woods?

And as to "you are not a Soldier" how would you know?

To quote President Merkin Muffley: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

I think Aldramelech is just stating the position in his gaming group, while mwnciboo takes a more relaxed approach. Aldramelech's position isn't unusual in historical gaming, so it's a fair warning for the OP about what they might encounter, while mwnciboo's position probably reflects a fairly common approach. As I said in my last post, I can see issues for this game as it expands in popularity -as most of you know, the arguments between the competitive gamers and the 'fluff' gamers in WH40k are as heated as ever.

Tailgunner wrote:To quote President Merkin Muffley: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

Aldramelech's position isn't unusual in historical gaming

I would go further then that and say that it is the norm, we are legion

My problem mwnciboo post is that for some strange reason he seems to think I'm an historical re-enactor, which I can assure you I am most certainly not! I think he is under the mistaken impression that I was responding to his tirade against re-enactors when in fact I was responding to George Spiggott's question "Are you being Ironic".

Most historical gamers regard serious re-enactors as odd balls too.

As to the statement "You are not a Soldier" he's right, I'm not but how would he know. I am in fact an ex Soldier and my group counts among its members several other ex servicemen as well as two serving Royal Marines.

I love history, its my major in college and i plan on teaching it when i get done. Having said that, historical wargaming has no intrest for me if it has to be well historical. The way i read this Aldramelech is that the historical clubs have to be 100% true to history. To me that isnt fun, you already know the result of the battle, seeing as there can be no deviations or it isnt historical. Granted im interested in FoW and my paint job will be accurate, but lucky for me my FLGS isnt a historical club, where it seems your not playing a game, but reenacting a battle with minitures.

I have to admit that I am historical re-enactor (mostly 15th century and occasionally WW2, but WW2 here is more state financed - blank rounds, gasoline etc.). I also do play 40K. Does this make me a weirdo type of person?

This is what we did last summer.
http://youtu.be/PY7Q2vZNsB0

I'm going to have to agree with Aldramelech here. While I may not have a problem seeing Americans and Brits duking it out in the middle of the Russian steppes, I'll personally try to avoid that kind of situation. Most of my FoW games have been played with the D-Day supplements. I also have 2 armies - British and German - so I can play either side. And the Germans are especially useful since they can be used on either front in Late War.

The same thing goes for historical accuracy with paintjobs. Go ahead and paint your Shermans red with flames, or pink with little bow ties. But don't get offended when people chose to question your paintjob, or outright refuse to play against you.

Reaver83 wrote:I say go for it - your models your choice and if historical obsessives have a fit ask them to prove there were no red shermans...

I'm with him... I say there are yours and you paint them however you want.... If it annoys some "history" person, then oh well. Not to mention, if you were in a tourney for it, and the red and pink tanks annoyed them enough, they would probably mess up at something.... consider it a psi-op. he he he

caledoneus wrote:

Reaver83 wrote:I say go for it - your models your choice and if historical obsessives have a fit ask them to prove there were no red shermans...

I'm with him... I say there are yours and you paint them however you want.... If it annoys some "history" person, then oh well. Not to mention, if you were in a tourney for it, and the red and pink tanks annoyed them enough, they would probably mess up at something.... consider it a psi-op. he he he

Sorry, but that's the kind of '****you mentality that crept into WH40k some years ago, and which WH40k players seem to be bringing to FoW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CainTheHunter wrote:I have to admit that I am historical re-enactor (mostly 15th century and occasionally WW2, but WW2 here is more state financed - blank rounds, gasoline etc.). I also do play 40K. Does this make me a weirdo type of person?

Probably. Which one were you? I dunno - it's a very thin line between playing with toy soldiers depicting SS men and dressing up as them. I'd rather not cross it myself, but you guys obviously put some effort into doing it 'properly'. Right down to executing prisoners...

Realistically, I think games should be inclusive, which puts me int he mind of 'allowing' extreme paint jobs.

However, on the other hand, there is something to be said for being true to the 'feel' of a game. This is wildly different by game, of course.

40k is somewhat 'anything goes' but there are limits. For example, a Rhino painted with variations on rennasaince art is definitely in the 40k feel, especially if it's converted to have Imperial elements (the emperor, space marines, bolters, whatever) involved. 40k is very open, with little importance placed on camo (even for IG, there's room for units in 'parade dress' designed to motivate the troops more than stay stealthy).

On the other hand, a Rhino with Nascar-inspired paint jobs might be a little harder to pull off. Corporate entities are minimalized in the setting, so blatant advertising seems a bit odd. However, this kind of paint scheme might work for some other Sci-Fi settings, maybe some factions of Infinity.

back to Flames of War, I'd consider anything based off real-world historical to be valid, and there's a lot of room to stretch that around.... FoW has a pretty big 'What If?' feel going as-is, I see no reason to discriminate against real world paint schemes taken through a couple more evolutions. This is, after all, the same war that gave us the Dazzle camouflage (albeit for ships, not tanks).

Do I really need to state my preference?

I despair at the day when FOW 'codexes' are regarded as historical research data.

Historical wargaming does generally find a home with those who have a leaning in that direction. I lectured on Military History for a while so for me the history side is as important as anything else, thus I try to get things as right as I can within my own limitations.

Historical wargaming is obviously historical... It would be fantasy otherwise. This doesnt mean that the engagements are all based upon fact, and I have great interest in counter-factual and fictional gaming within a historical setting - Hence my Cold War 1984 project and my Cold War 1946 games. But the vehicles in use in those two imaginary settings are painted as per their historical counterpart. In the same way, some of my Seven Years War French occasionally show up supporting the filthy Yanks in the AWI. They may have slightly less than upto date fashions for their coats but they look the part. Their is always a compremise to be reached... Red Baron style Shermans not included.

While their are plenty of anal types, most historical wargamers are fairly laid back (as is Aldramlech who isnt as much a Grognard as he likes to make out) but part of the joy for them is the historical element of the game and its something the 40k rejects will just have to get used too... We have been around longer than any GW games Im afraid.

However I do have different marks of Panther dependant on the theatre, unit and part of the war I am portraying in a game because;

A - I want it to look right

B - I love the historical research and the satisfaction of modelling an actual vehicle

C - Im getting to be a bit of a rivet-counting anal in my middle age.

To be honest I was pretty much 'Historical' when I used to play 40k and would try to build armies that match the background not the points lists.

All that said...


Turn up with red Shermans and my club, and I'd tell ye to feck off.

Just as well then because I'd rather not rub shoulders with people who don't take the hobby seriously. A large part of historical wargaming for the vast majority of historical gamers is, wait for it................ HISTORY.

If history is not your thing, if your not interested in researching your chosen period and getting your miniatures right then I would suggest 40k, Warmachine, Secrets of the Third Reich and the host of many fine games out there that allow your imagination run riot.

I spend alot of money and time on my hobby and so do the people I game with and we expect certain standards at our club.

I don't play against people with unpainted figures either, so now you can call me a painting snob as well if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Take the stick out of your behind and see that there's nothing to take seriously. I've spent as much or more time and money on things like my gaming systems and games, and Magic Cards and I didn't take them seriously. Do you know why I didn't take them seriously? Well because the're hobbies, designed to take up time and money in exchange for having fun. I have enough to get serious about when I look at my bank account and the bills each month or when I'm studying for an exam, I don't need some neckbeard leaning over the table and checking tiny badges on my fake soldiers when I try to get in a game.

As for research that isn't it either. It's easy to be a google or wikipedia hero these days or to find some pre-done unit histories and OoB's for the most common units anyway. So if people do something major ahistoric they might find it *gasp* to be more fun that way.

On the money front I know a ton of gamers who've shelled out for consoles, games, accessories, and online subscriptions who don't take games seriously. Some do, but they tend to be the types who think they can be the next big thing in e-sports or try hards who live in their parents basements. In Magic the serious types tend to be the grognards who won't talk about anything else even when you overtly try to change the subject. No I don't care what battle honors your fake soldiers have, get them on the table so we can roll dice and play a game.

Your snobbery knows no bounds. How do you expect to grow the hobby if somebody can't buy some models and get a starter game in before they listen for tips on painting and where to find the paints that best match their chosen unit? Heaven forbid they do their homework and buy a paint that they think will match but is a few shades off, the shock to your poor eyes might cause a dizzy spell!

In short, see a doctor about that stick and remember that it's just a game.

Tailgunner wrote: Probably. Which one were you? I dunno - it's a very thin line between playing with toy soldiers depicting SS men and dressing up as them. I'd rather not cross it myself, but you guys obviously put some effort into doing it 'properly'. Right down to executing prisoners...

I am in the RKKA I am putting together Germans in FoW for some kind of balance

You crack me up P

As usual just what I wanted to say but alot better.

Do I really need to state my preference?

I despair at the day when FOW 'codexes' are regarded as historical research data.

Historical wargaming does generally find a home with those who have a leaning in that direction. I lectured on Military History for a while so for me the history side is as important as anything else, thus I try to get things as right as I can within my own limitations.

Historical wargaming is obviously historical... It would be fantasy otherwise. This doesnt mean that the engagements are all based upon fact, and I have great interest in counter-factual and fictional gaming within a historical setting - Hence my Cold War 1984 project and my Cold War 1946 games. But the vehicles in use in those two imaginary settings are painted as per their historical counterpart. In the same way, some of my Seven Years War French occasionally show up supporting the filthy Yanks in the AWI. They may have slightly less than upto date fashions for their coats but they look the part. Their is always a compremise to be reached... Red Baron style Shermans not included.

While their are plenty of anal types, most historical wargamers are fairly laid back (as is Aldramlech who isnt as much a Grognard as he likes to make out) but part of the joy for them is the historical element of the game and its something the 40k rejects will just have to get used too... We have been around longer than any GW games Im afraid.

However I do have different marks of Panther dependant on the theatre, unit and part of the war I am portraying in a game because;

A - I want it to look right

B - I love the historical research and the satisfaction of modelling an actual vehicle

C - Im getting to be a bit of a rivet-counting anal in my middle age.

To be honest I was pretty much 'Historical' when I used to play 40k and would try to build armies that match the background not the points lists.

All that said...


Turn up with red Shermans and my club, and I'd tell ye to feck off.

I respect the effort you put into the hobby, your AAR's are wonderful, but somebody painting their tanks red isn't some vast affront to history, it's somebody who wanted their models to stand out on the table.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Just as well then because I'd rather not rub shoulders with people who don't take the hobby seriously. A large part of historical wargaming for the vast majority of historical gamers is, wait for it................ HISTORY.

If history is not your thing, if your not interested in researching your chosen period and getting your miniatures right then I would suggest 40k, Warmachine, Secrets of the Third Reich and the host of many fine games out there that allow your imagination run riot.

I spend alot of money and time on my hobby and so do the people I game with and we expect certain standards at our club.

I don't play against people with unpainted figures either, so now you can call me a painting snob as well if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Take the stick out of your behind and see that there's nothing to take seriously. I've spent as much or more time and money on things like my gaming systems and games, and Magic Cards and I didn't take them seriously. Do you know why I didn't take them seriously? Well because the're hobbies, designed to take up time and money in exchange for having fun. I have enough to get serious about when I look at my bank account and the bills each month or when I'm studying for an exam, I don't need some neckbeard leaning over the table and checking tiny badges on my fake soldiers when I try to get in a game.

As for research that isn't it either. It's easy to be a google or wikipedia hero these days or to find some pre-done unit histories and OoB's for the most common units anyway. So if people do something major ahistoric they might find it *gasp* to be more fun that way.

On the money front I know a ton of gamers who've shelled out for consoles, games, accessories, and online subscriptions who don't take games seriously. Some do, but they tend to be the types who think they can be the next big thing in e-sports or try hards who live in their parents basements. In Magic the serious types tend to be the grognards who won't talk about anything else even when you overtly try to change the subject. No I don't care what battle honors your fake soldiers have, get them on the table so we can roll dice and play a game.

Your snobbery knows no bounds. How do you expect to grow the hobby if somebody can't buy some models and get a starter game in before they listen for tips on painting and where to find the paints that best match their chosen unit? Heaven forbid they do their homework and buy a paint that they think will match but is a few shades off, the shock to your poor eyes might cause a dizzy spell!

In short, see a doctor about that stick and remember that it's just a game.

Did that go as well as you hoped?

Aldramelech wrote:Did that go as well as you hoped?

I didn't hope for anything. I typed that while I sipped some tea and ate breakfast and I'll forget all about this when I'm in class in less than an hour.

I think I would have more of a problem with the "wrong shade of green" person we can encounter.

Personally I'll try my best but to get it right but if my Paras gaiters are wrong and someone wants to complain about it they will get short shrift from me.

I would view red tanks as only slightly above unpainted models (at least you could imagine they were red-oxide straight off the production line ). I wouldn't refuse a game in either case (seems rather churlish if you are somewhere looking for a game anyway), but I would have a definite preference for something painted.

Obviously there are different norms for tournament and organised club environments. Personally I'm a bit too relaxed (read forgetful!) to get all bent out of shape on the details, especially when you consider that half the time there seems to be conflicting information on allot of the issues discussed anyway!

If you follow this line of thought you get into the realms of August 1944 forces vs October 1944 forces, that’s a level of detail I just don’t have time for, figuratively or literally.

notprop wrote: If you follow this line of thought you get into the realms of August 1944 forces vs October 1944 forces, that’s a level of detail I just don’t have time for, figuratively or literally.

And we could speak in terms of money as well .

Canadian 5th wrote:

Aldramelech wrote:Did that go as well as you hoped?

I didn't hope for anything. I typed that while I sipped some tea and ate breakfast and I'll forget all about this when I'm in class in less than an hour.

Good for you son. Of course you have made yourself look like a complete tw*t, but nevermind. Myself and Big P have said exactley the same thing and yet I have a stick up my arse but you respect him?

Your a bit of a nob arn't ya

Aaahh... But I said it with wit and irony.

You just hit them over the head with how we feel... I preferred your approach to be honest.


Worng shade of green feckers are even worse... Cant stand them. If you aint gonna match your paint to the correct RAL paint chip samples then whats the point in playing?

Whats really ironic is that I did have to ban a guy from our club last year...

Because he was too historical and uber-anal. Was a bit win at all costs too, and a little angry when he didnt... No good for the atmos.

My point is that just cos you want to be anally historically accurate, it dont make you a knob-jockey. They exist in all templates. Plenty of 40k gamers have that personality type sown up... But there are also plenty who are normal, decent chaps, just like most historical gamers.

I will welcome anyone in to our club for a game, as long as you respect other peoples toys, have a good sense of humour and wiil try any game once. If you are an arse, you wont last.

Same goes for red Shermans... Though Im more likely to steal them and return them repainted in the correct colours the following week out of frustration!

Ifurita wrote:This discussion raised another question in my mind. What about people who just paint poorly? It might be less noticable in WWII historics, but in the fantasy and sci-fi games, I've seen some truely horrible paint jobs. Would you rather play against well painted, but historically inaccurate figures, or against a horrible attempt at historical correctness?

The problem here is that nearly anybody can paint a historical scheme to a reasoanble extent. I mean, for nearly all tanks it can be base + wash + dry brush.

These are 15mm models with a lot of texture. There is little reason to have them painted too horribly.

there is a subset of people who seem to find some of the basic elements of this hobby pure anathema. "Why should I base my models?" "why should i paint them?" Why should i assemble them at all?" "Why should i do anything remotely related to WW2 in a WW2 game?" Granted they don't all occur in the same people (I hope), but I do wonder how some of them ever get into this in the first place. "A game or collection of games that consists mostly of things I hate to do? feth yeah, I'm IN!"
Is it the pretty dice or something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And i mean the WHOLE 'hobby', not just FOW/WW2...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:I once refused to play one guy who painted the stripes on his aerials too far from the end. Some people just take the piss.

You're just peevish because you never mastered 'stripes'.

Big P wrote:Aaahh... But I said it with wit and irony.

You just hit them over the head with how we feel... I preferred your approach to be honest.


Worng shade of green feckers are even worse... Cant stand them. If you aint gonna match your paint to the correct RAL paint chip samples then whats the point in playing?

Whats really ironic is that I did have to ban a guy from our club last year...

Because he was too historical and uber-anal. Was a bit win at all costs too, and a little angry when he didnt... No good for the atmos.

My point is that just cos you want to be anally historically accurate, it dont make you a knob-jockey. They exist in all templates. Plenty of 40k gamers have that personality type sown up... But there are also plenty who are normal, decent chaps, just like most historical gamers.

I will welcome anyone in to our club for a game, as long as you respect other peoples toys, have a good sense of humour and wiil try any game once. If you are an arse, you wont last.

Same goes for red Shermans... Though Im more likely to steal them and return them repainted in the correct colours the following week out of frustration!

Subtlety never was my strong point

Holy cow, some of you guys are making me reconsider getting into FoW. If the general FoW crowd is as uptight as some of you, like Aldramelech, I may just forget about FoW. I want NO part in a game in which the players won't play a game with you unless you models are painted right and are from the correct time period. That just sounds like hell.

_Tim?

War's hell son.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Holy cow, some of you guys are making me reconsider getting into FoW. If the general FoW crowd is as uptight as some of you, like Aldramelech, I may just forget about FoW. I want NO part in a game in which the players won't play a game with you unless you models are painted right and are from the correct time period. That just sounds like hell.

_Tim?

As with any new game, evaluate the group you will most likely be playing with. What are the norms of the group? Will they let you participate in any of their games so that you can learn the rules before you buy? At the end of the day, everyone just wants to have fun (I think), though everyone has a slightly different standard of what is fun.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Holy cow, some of you guys are making me reconsider getting into FoW. If the general FoW crowd is as uptight as some of you, like Aldramelech, I may just forget about FoW. I want NO part in a game in which the players won't play a game with you unless you models are painted right and are from the correct time period. That just sounds like hell.

_Tim?

FOW players, in my experience, are all over the map.

You need to understand the context of a poster's experience before thinking that it will be similar to yours. Aldramelech is a member of a club, where it sounds like there are no tournaments, or even casual "pick up" games, but rather planned and negotiated games.

FOW tournaments do try to run as Axis v. Allies, but you need to pair people up.

That said, it's a historical game, and people tend to take the history somewhat seriously.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Holy cow, some of you guys are making me reconsider getting into FoW. If the general FoW crowd is as uptight as some of you, like Aldramelech, I may just forget about FoW. I want NO part in a game in which the players won't play a game with you unless you models are painted right and are from the correct time period. That just sounds like hell.

_Tim?

"Time Period" is fairly well pinned down by the EW/MW/LW system. Generally the forces used are broadly from the right period. The dispute appears to be more about "Theater", and generally its not very hard to think of a reason why two forces might face each other, even "blue on blue". (No WW2 army ever went on a training exercise?)

Me, I use 15mm WW2 as an ongoing research tool, so I like to at least try to get stuff as close as possible.

As Polonius sad, welcome to historical wargaming. There are certain... well, I guess the word is 'expectations' of people when getting into historicals. One of those is that, most of the time, you'll paint your miniatures with as much historical correctness as you can. My Redcoats should have red coats (unless they're green... or blue... or, well, you get the idea), and my Shermans (or, more correctly, my Cromwells) should be a shade of olive drab.

Historicals guys are definitly "hobbyists," not simply "gamers."

I think you'd get less flack if you painted an army as an alternate history force that still was grounded in reality. Nobody is going to paint tanks in bright, heraldric colors. But if you painted shermans in urban camo as a hypothetical city assault formation, less people are going to be offended.

Nah... I'd still be outraged.

Well wow, I had no idea this would erupt into the quasi-flame war it has! I think after reading this you've helped me decide which side of the flames of war fence I'll be on. And that's as far from the FoW side as I can get.

Good luck with your hobby and more power to you all, but I can see its not the hobby for me.

Cave_Dweller wrote:Well wow, I had no idea this would erupt into the quasi-flame war it has! I think after reading this you've helped me decide which side of the flames of war fence I'll be on. And that's as far from the FoW side as I can get.

Good luck with your hobby and more power to you all, but I can see its not the hobby for me.

I think that's wise.

If you consider expecting a historical army to painted at least somewhat realistically too much historical snobbery, you'd be better served by another game.

Isnt FoW a wargame set in a historic setting? Meaning its going to push fun and balance over realism?

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Isnt FoW a wargame set in a historic setting? Meaning its going to push fun and balance over realism?

The true grognards could debate this with ferocity, but I'll attempt to answer this.

The game mechanics, meaning the rules for moving, shooting, assaulting, etc. all favor playability and balance in lieu of realism.

The rules for army composition, however, are pretty firmly rooted in history.

Most touranments favor historical match-ups (axis vs. allies).

From what I've seen, actualy historical companies can be built easily and simply from the lists.

So, while the actual details of how, say, a bazooka would perform against a Flak 88 on a turntable might be hazy in favor of ease of play, the game is pretty firmly rooted in it's historical setting.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Holy cow, some of you guys are making me reconsider getting into FoW. If the general FoW crowd is as uptight as some of you, like Aldramelech, I may just forget about FoW. I want NO part in a game in which the players won't play a game with you unless you models are painted right and are from the correct time period. That just sounds like hell.

_Tim?

It really comes down to how the people in your area are. I am part of a wargaming club with a focus on FoW and other historicals, (note: not a Historical Wargaming club, people in the club just mainly play historical wargames) and can say that no one in the club is as, I guess "historically conscious", as Big P and Aldramelech, we play more of the point based pick up type games than historically accurate scenarios.

I have played historically accurate scenarios run by the club, which were fun, but I also enjoy the impromptu pick up game between points based forces. Most of the people in the club are actually in their 40s or 50s (most not the former GW types), and some even are pretty anal about historical accuracy with their own armies, but they are still willing to play a quick game with whoever is around, (even blue on blue, my Italians have likely faced Germans more times than Allies!) while also playing prepared scenarios when arranged.

Overall look into the community in your area, they could vary anywhere from former GW players with IG Russians, or historical nuts who will not play you over the color shade of your tanks stowage! or ideally, somewhere in between.

I go to a club with a fair mix of historical gamers and fantasy/sci-fi gamers and I've never encountered anyone there or anywhere else that got up tight about what is, not history but little more than period colouring in.

I'd say keep it in the feel of the game.

Since this is historical, try to have your paint schemes look like what an army of the time would use, but you don't have to adhere to strict paint schemes. Lighter, darker shades of green, camouflage patterns that are ahistorical but still look appropriate, etc. All would be fine to me so long as it fits.

It's not that I'd have a problem with the act of painting a Tiger pink, blue, or whatever. It's rather I have to wonder about why you're playing this historical game and ignoring the history aspect.

Part of the reason we play games overall is the miniature diorama aspect, and having miniatures that fit in together on the table is part of that. It can be very satisfying to look at a well made table and the two armies laid out on it.

I won't stop anyone from painting how they want, nor would that stop me from playing with them, but I will question their judgement. I mean, wargaming is a social game, and the majority of people or groups that would get into FoW have at least some base in history. They may not be history buffs or grognards, but those people enjoy some part of the historical aspect. Thus, to respect the group you play with, try and be a little close to history.

George Spiggott wrote:I go to a club with a fair mix of historical gamers and fantasy/sci-fi gamers and I've never encountered anyone there or anywhere else that got up tight about what is, not history but little more than period colouring in.

Not been many places in the historical side of the hobby then?

Even my colouring in with my 4 year old is historically accurate, much to her annoyance. So there.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Holy cow, some of you guys are making me reconsider getting into FoW. If the general FoW crowd is as uptight as some of you, like Aldramelech, I may just forget about FoW. I want NO part in a game in which the players won't play a game with you unless you models are painted right and are from the correct time period. That just sounds like hell.

_Tim?

If you want to label me as "uptight" thats up to you but would you turn up to play golf with a cricket bat? Would you play tennis with a badminton racket?

I'm pretty sure I've explained the wargames club concept here before, but just for you "shop" types...................

There are members of our club who do not own a single figure, not a one. One on one games are unusual, most games played are large games with 2-4 players a side and are arranged in advance, there are no "pick up games". At some point during our Wednesday night meeting we discuss what will happen next week and ensure that enough games are organised to accommodate everyone with at least one game that has spare capacity to fit in anybody that might turn up or the open game as we call it.

Any figures used have to be painted, there is no rule on standard and our members collections range from very good to not that good at all. it is not unusual for members to undertake a "Project" and a good example of this is my own SAGA project. I have got the rules, dice sets and 4 armies, and I will put on SAGA games for others to play whilst I umpire, I haven't actually played the damn game yet, despite spending £500 on it, Ive been to busy providing a game for others to play.

This means that some weeks I don't have to take anything to the club because I'm playing somone else's game. This system works well, people get to try before they buy, new players get to experience a whole range of different games (and we play everything), there is no situation where you don't play because you haven't painted anything because you can always play with some else's stuff.

Now a problem that can occur is that a small minority can end up doing all the work and put on the majority of games, this is why people are encouraged to paint armies and put on games. But as I have said we do have one or two members who never do and probably never will but that's life and they contribute in other ways.

Now in our club and you will find in most others, we are very like minded indivduals, we share similar interests and are all passionate about history, this is HISTORICAL gaming, its all about history, the clues in the title.

If you want to hang around in a shop all day on the off chance you might get a game at some time with someone approximating a human being only to find out he's painted all his tanks bright red, I applaud your spirit of adventure, I'll stick to my way thanks and if that makes me uptight with a stick up my arse, well I'm happy with that too.

Aldramelech,

I didnt know you was in my club!

Agree wit it all... An unpainted figure has never tounch any of our tables and never will.

It is heresy.

Your lot should come over for a game.

We can play 40k with all unpainted figures for the craic!

My body rebels at the thought of all the Guiness.............

Popping over for a game of KGN is already on the bucket list

Big P wrote:Same goes for red Shermans... Though Im more likely to steal them and return them repainted in the correct colours the following week out of frustration!

Lies, i've seen pic's of your painting pile and 'to do' stuff. You have enough on your plate without painting other peoples models (unless it was commission money is always good)

We haven't got enough players/money to ensure that every match-up is historically accurate. If we waited, then nobody would ever get to play. (OR thinking about it, only two people would ever get a game, because they both have LW Russian Front Armies.

Also, we spend far more time discussing HOW we achieved X or Y painted effect than we ever do discussing whether the Das Reich Armoured Artillery had dunkelgelb and green stripes, or dunkelgelb and green patches. A historical anomaly tends to spark a friendly historical debate (which is good) rather than a priggish refusal to play (which is pointless.)

The lack of milk for tea however... grrrr

Theres a BIG difference between interpretation of German camo and a bright red Sherman!

Aldramelech wrote:Theres a BIG difference between interpretation of German camo and a bright red Sherman!

At last!

@Aldramelech, if history is so important, how do you deviate from it in a game? Honestly I get the impression your club gets together and refights a battle, and playing exactally as the battle went. Or is it you just use the forces at the battle and play "what if" to see if the battle could have gone different.

History is important as its the setting.

If you divorce the setting from the game it ceases to be historical.

We play plenty of games based on historical actions, some as refights using the units original starting positions, others where we start with our own deployments.

We recently refought Brawners Farm, using the actual starting positions for the units, and my Confederates, though taking heavy losses, did better than in reality and forced the Union troops from the field.

Interestingly in a refight of Arnhem a few years back, it went almost the same as reality, until an unfortunate mortar strike took out several key British commanders and the push into Arnhem was halted before it had managed to reach the bridge. A few years later we refought Arnhem and I changed the drop plan, but only in a feasible way that was possible at the time (though with hindsight) to drop twice on the first day of the battle. This made such a huge difference that virtually the entire 1st Airborne moved en-masse on the evening of the first day and secured positions around the bridge in such numbers that the German players were unable to dislodge them before XXX Corps arrived.

Historical based scenario play allows you to refight actions as they were, containing the troops there on the day and in the positions they had, but with your own tactical decisions.

But it can also be used to test counter-factual theories regarding differing deployments and events to see how things can be changed.

But I also have as much fun playing points games using KGN (never have and never will play FOW) so I dont mind... as long as your tanks are the right shade of green.

Clearly the 2nd option, this is Wargaming, If it was the first it wouldn't be a game would it?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:We haven't got enough players/money to ensure that every match-up is historically accurate. If we waited, then nobody would ever get to play. (OR thinking about it, only two people would ever get a game, because they both have LW Russian Front Armies.

Also, we spend far more time discussing HOW we achieved X or Y painted effect than we ever do discussing whether the Das Reich Armoured Artillery had dunkelgelb and green stripes, or dunkelgelb and green patches. A historical anomaly tends to spark a friendly historical debate (which is good) rather than a priggish refusal to play (which is pointless.)

The lack of milk for tea however... grrrr

This.

Right now, in my club, we are a "dwindling GW, increasing "others"" pattern. My preference to play red vs blue FoW is satisfied because I'm the only German player to date. Zany, I know. It's like finding a unicorn. We do have one other Axis player, but he has Italians and no one, other than myself, has enough of anything to stretch into mid war. So some of the guys play him with thier LW against MW. I finally had to point out that Carro Vs. IS-2 isn't exactly "fair".

I've also managed to point out to the Italian player that with a few targeted purchases he has enough Americans to play Nisei.

So, if red Shermans driven by orks showed up, we would most likely play him. We would also belittle him merclessly for his color blindness.

Aldramelech wrote:Just as well then because I'd rather not rub shoulders with people who don't take the hobby seriously. A large part of historical wargaming for the vast majority of historical gamers is, wait for it................ HISTORY.

If history is not your thing, if your not interested in researching your chosen period and getting your miniatures right then I would suggest 40k, Warmachine, Secrets of the Third Reich and the host of many fine games out there that allow your imagination run riot.

I spend alot of money and time on my hobby and so do the people I game with and we expect certain standards at our club.

I don't play against people with unpainted figures either, so now you can call me a painting snob as well if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And this months NO-prize goes to you.
I guess you would never play in our league of basement dwellers.When we play at one of our houses,it is also a social event.We grill food,drink beer and all of that good stuff.We are in it to play first and devlop new tactics.Sorry if we buy to much stuff and do not have time to paint it or mess with the little fidgity bits.some just do not have the time to paint every day.But that attitude is ok because with what you just said we probably would not play ant games with you.As for not being serious,Every one of are players is a former Servicemen.3 rd cav.,1 st infantry,101st airborne, and 173rd/82 Airborne. on the historcal lists,blame Battle front.
But we are all seriuos gamers.It is that we are not a group of grown men who hang out in hobby shops or ones that do the tourny scene.
trust me we are some pretty good players,some of us have beaten top players in the tourny scene in our area,but mostly Blood bowl.

"Being historical" seems to be a moving target.

OK, you've got a specific segment of D-Day planned out. Great. 300 infantry and a few dozen tanks and scenery built up and painted. However, you're OK with the commanders making different tactical decisions from the historical record, though, so you're not truly completely historical...

The above is something of a reductio ad absurdum argument, I admit... But wargames are by definition "What If?" scenarios to some point. I can see wanting to keep to a certain level of plausibility. In FoW, sticking within the eras makes sense, for example. I can also see sticking to things that at least could have happened, but that is (of course) a very subjective term. I wouldn't personally want to see a FoW done int he full over-the-top pseudo-religious style that works great for Imperial 40k, but I'd be OK with a lot of things. Then again, I don't actually play FoW.

I think I saw a reference somewhere to fresh-from-the-factory tanks from various nations coming in a sort of primer read lead paint color being used in battles a few times.

Aldramelech wrote:Theres a BIG difference between interpretation of German camo and a bright red Sherman!

Indeed there is. But you weren't complaining about Bright red Shermans, you were bemoaning pick-up games that happen to face off forces that might be friendlies, or from differing theaters during the same time period.. As I said, without some degree of flexibility, we would never get any games at all.

(In case nobody noticed, i already gave a solution for how to field red tanks without upsetting anyone... )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Balance wrote:"Being historical" seems to be a moving target.

OK, you've got a specific segment of D-Day planned out. Great. 300 infantry and a few dozen tanks and scenery built up and painted. However, you're OK with the commanders making different tactical decisions from the historical record, though, so you're not truly completely historical...

The above is something of a reductio ad absurdum argument, I admit... But wargames are by definition "What If?" scenarios to some point. I can see wanting to keep to a certain level of plausibility. In FoW, sticking within the eras makes sense, for example. I can also see sticking to things that at least could have happened, but that is (of course) a very subjective term. I wouldn't personally want to see a FoW done int he full over-the-top pseudo-religious style that works great for Imperial 40k, but I'd be OK with a lot of things. Then again, I don't actually play FoW.

I think I saw a reference somewhere to fresh-from-the-factory tanks from various nations coming in a sort of primer read lead paint color being used in battles a few times.

That would be the "Red Panthers" and the like, based on the German use of protective red primer on every surface. Sometimes they sprayed a bit of camo over the top, sometimes they didn't.

Well here is one for everybody,strict historical vs. friendly games. Here is one of my examples,My Vanilla Germans from Fortress Europe vs. Hells highway USA Airborne.

Italian campaign Germans vs;. Late war Netherlands campaign USA paras.
next is going to be series of what if games.example Pattons 3rd Army vs. the Soviets.

The other is going to be a series of island hopping in the north sea and Scandanavian isles.

As someone who's done extensive research on three FOW armies at this point (EW French, E/MW Panzers, & M/LW Finns), put in hours of modeling, and even longer periods of painting; I'd like to say that I'd NEVER, EVER get on someone else's case for having the "wrong" army in FOW, let alone color scheme.

To those new players reading this - do not take comments such as Aldramelech's as gospel, there are few FOW players who feel the game MUST always adher to history 100% (in fact, I'd question someone's grasp of historical accuracy who truly believes the FOW rules, especially army lists, accurately reflect reality). I've played both casually and in tournaments and have never encountered an attitude such as his, especially since he comes off as such a smarmy pr*ck.

It's a game - which means unless both players make the exact same choices as historical commanders, unless all units perform the exact same actions, and unless no dice rolls are made to reflect successes, losses, and casualties - it's not 100% historically accurate. Wargames have always had a certain "What If?" quality to them and FOW is the apeothesis of this genre.

As far as camouflage/color schemes go, even if you read some of the most respected historians on WW2, you will find that there is never 100% agreement on what the "true" schemes were. The biggest problem is that there are few, if any, true color photos from this time period, especially in the EW period, so the schemes we have now are really just a matter of informed guesswork, pieced together from color pics, surviving examples, and survivor accounts. Add to this the fact that many camo schemes were applied by units in the field and there are huge amounts of variations, even within the widely accepted schemes.

Having played many other, more comprehensive historical wargames, anyone who's approaching FOW as an entirely historically accurate ruleset needs to put their toy soldiers away and go back to reading Stephen Ambrose.

Actually the only tanks to leave factories unpainted were those produced in Leningrad during the seige.

I have yet to see any evidence of any German vehicle leaving a factory solely in red primer.

For the late war period German patterns were factory applied to set patterns. You can actually use these patterns to tell which factory produced the tank... So actually, a great deal of historical research has gone into providing a comprehensive amount of detail on WW2 paint schemes.

One thing that annoys me, more than anything else is the daft ascertion that if you are serious about history you are a 'smarmy prick'.

I love history. I taught War Studies at uni for several years. I want to do my hobby my way, so feck off and leave me to it. How I play doesnt effect anyone else, and my gaming friends play the same way so we are all happy... If odd coloured tanks give you the jollies, go for it, but I dont see why I should be expected to change my standerds.

This thread is starting to annoy me! Apologies.



Read Stephen Ambrose?

Oh please at least pick an author that doesnt let the truth get in the way of a good story... He may have some decent primary testimony but Im on the fence when it comes to how accurate it all is.Try Zetterling's statistical analysis in 'Normandy 1944' or M. Doublers book on US Army ETO Combat Effectiveness 'Closing with the Enemy' or Zamulin's 'Demolishing the Myth' for real historical work.

Ambrose is like saying 'Saving Private Ryan' is factual... It may look and sound pretty good, but they both have their faults.

I wouldn't have any problem playing a casual pickup game with someone who decided to use fire engine red shermans, though anybody who does deserves a little razzing as I'd see their paint job primarily as an attempt to troll FoW gamers . I'm not a stickler for super accurate or superb paint jobs (e.g. no way am I painting German gaiters separate colors from boots) so I could care less if someone took a little license with historical camo, you want to use your 1943 Shermans in a 1944 game? Use a slightly different green then OD for U.S. tanks? Is your dunklegelb a bit on the yellow side?None of those situations would bother me in the slightest.

On the other hand, I'd feel it'd be perfectly justified if they received a poor painting score in a tournament and/or making them use different models for a big game where it was asked of everyone to bring in painted models. I think in both of those settings a certain aesthetic is expected. One of the reasons I plan big battles with my friends so far in advance (this applies to 40k too) is so we can all have our models painted by the time the day arrives.

Conversely, to all the 40k players in the thread, though I know it's not a perfect analogy, how do you feel about marine players who jump around from flavor of the month chapter to flavor of the month chapter but always have the same paint scheme on their miniatures? For example, someone who runs a Vulkan list (painted as Ultramarines), then switches over to Dark Angels because they like the deathwing, then to Blood Angels because the new codex came out, then over to Grey Knights when that codex dropped, all using the same figures and the same paint scheme? How about if someone attempted to pass off unconverted chaos marines as normal marines in a tournament? Again, these aren't perfect analogies but I think any grumbling caused by either of these hypotheticals is rooted in the same aesthetic expectations that makes historical gamers not too keen on the idea of facing off against fire engine red shermans.

Big P wrote:Actually the only tanks to leave factories unpainted were those produced in Leningrad during the seige.

I have yet to see any evidence of any German vehicle leaving a factory solely in red primer.

For the late war period German patterns were factory applied to set patterns. You can actually use these patterns to tell which factory produced the tank... So actually, a great deal of historical research has gone into providing a comprehensive amount of detail on WW2 paint schemes.

One thing that annoys me, more than anything else is the daft ascertion that if you are serious about history you are a 'smarmy prick'.

Re-read my post instead of cherry-picking statements out of context.

As I said, even with historical research, there is no camo scheme that can be 100% verified. Even factory applied RAL specifications are not 100% accurate as the post-war RAL system is not 100% correct. Look at the Early War Panzer Grey & Brown scheme presented in the Blitzkrieg book as the prefect example of how hard camo schemes are to get 100% correct - until Jentz and Doyle's research it was widely believed that this scheme was gone by the time of the French campaign, yet they showed it was still widely used. History is a science and our understanding of it constantly changes when presented with new evidence.

Also, I never said being true to history means you're a smarmy pr*ck. I've put a lot of effort and research into my armies and I'm proud of it. That doesn't make me (or anyone else interested in doing so) a pr*ck.

Now, if I went around telling other gamers what they did was "wrong", hemming and hawing about how the color was wrong, or their OOB is incorrect, etc. and how I'd never play them - presenting myself as somehow "more true to history" or somehow smarter than them - that would make me a pr*ck.

Read Stephen Ambrose?

Oh please at least pick an author that doesnt let the truth get in the way of a good story... He may have some decent primary testimony but Im on the fence when it comes to how accurate it all is.Try Zetterling's statistical analysis in 'Normandy 1944' or M. Doublers book on US Army ETO Combat Effectiveness 'Closing with the Enemy' or Zamulin's 'Demolishing the Myth' for real historical work.

Ambrose is like saying 'Saving Private Ryan' is factual... It may look and sound pretty good, but they both have their faults.

FOW and his work are on the same par when it comes to historical accuracy. As you said "He may have some decent primary testimony but Im on the fence when it comes to how accurate it all is."

Hence my earlier statement of "'I'd question someone's grasp of historical accuracy who truly believes the FOW rules, especially army lists, accurately reflect reality"

ancientsociety wrote:It's a game - which means unless both players make the exact same choices as historical commanders, unless all units perform the exact same actions, and unless no dice rolls are made to reflect successes, losses, and casualties - it's not 100% historically accurate. Wargames have always had a certain "What If?" quality to them and FOW is the apeothesis of this genre.

Thank you... A more succinct version of what I was trying to say.


I think all wargames have their 'overachievers' and for FoW, those that really heavily focus on researching and painting details would be in that group. It's to be appreciated, but I wouldn't let arguing over details get int he way of enjoying the game. If you're in that set, take pride that your force* is 100% correctly painted (until a new source comes along and shows that you got the buttons the wrong cover, or have one too many tanks than the 'real' force could have had...) but don't give up a fun game because another player does something you don't like.

*Maybe this is ym gaming pet peeve, but I dislike the term 'army' for the forces seen in most tabletop games that are usually a much smaller unit. I guess the default for FoW would be a Company?

Big P wrote:Not been many places in the historical side of the hobby then?

Even my colouring in with my 4 year old is historically accurate, much to her annoyance. So there.

If there's definitely a place for red (or blue or rainbow) Shermans it's when you're 4. What you're describing is just obsessive hyper-realism.

Interesting that Ambrose got brought up, since Saving Private Ryan doesn't feature any red tanks but instead lots of correct period clothing and paint schemes it must therefore be HISTORY yes? What about the Downton Abbey TV series? Was that HISTORY? Visually It all looks right but is it HISTORY or just period drama?

Just out of interest if a game was set up with an accurate recreation of forces, terrain and conflict outcomes. Say a diceless system with a GM deciding outcomes based upon historical debate (let us also say that time was not a factor) but the troops used were painted abstracted primary colours? What if it units were represented by blocks of wood with unit markings on them? Would you turn your nose up at it?

What about a WWII fighter game that used replicas of the WWII period fighter command aircraft markers? What if they were cast in polished brass or stainless steel? Still an anathema?



Imagine the above was a wargame? Nobody wants to play with these cheezo stained pimply 40k youths right? Using models for Spanish civil war Me109s? Get out of here, cheapskate loser!

'Correct' paint schemes are a tool for making historical wargames look like interactive dioramas they're not the definition of what is, or is not, HISTORY.

Big P wrote:Actually the only tanks to leave factories unpainted were those produced in Leningrad during the seige.

I have yet to see any evidence of any German vehicle leaving a factory solely in red primer.

For the late war period German patterns were factory applied to set patterns. You can actually use these patterns to tell which factory produced the tank... So actually, a great deal of historical research has gone into providing a comprehensive amount of detail on WW2 paint schemes.

Again an interesting surmise (source?), but I'm hesitant to accept that the ONLY armor that came in "red" came from Leningrad, mostly because I have a stack of Fine-scale modelling magazines in my bathroom as tall as my own son, from a variety of publishers, from about 20 years of modelling, and there are many great examples of mostly red German armor . If there was ever a group that could truly rivet-count in extremis, its fine scale modelers. Literally rivet-by-rivet. Can i really accept that the Ultimate Grognards could all be wrong so badly and not receive a single argument? Can I accept that the Ultimate Grognards would let such an epic mistake roll past without comment? I mean these are the people who will fight for months over the exact shades involved in 'caunter', and the dates of its use to the nearest week. But none of them argue about a "wrong" red German tank?

That is an episode of Hoarders I don't relish seeing...the therapist confronting the Horder about the stack of 20 year modeling mags in the bathroom taller than his children.

"Tragically, it appears that, while in the midst of grabbing the march 86 ed discussing riveted periscope covers on the KV-1 and KV-2, everyting from early 1991 fell down ontop of him, smashing his brain stem. He went out like Elvis with his pants around his ankles and apparently not enough fiber in his diet."

George Spiggott wrote:

Big P wrote:Not been many places in the historical side of the hobby then?

Even my colouring in with my 4 year old is historically accurate, much to her annoyance. So there.

If there's definitely a place for red (or blue or rainbow) Shermans it's when you're 4. What you're describing is just obsessive hyper-realism.

Interesting that Ambrose got brought up, since Saving Private Ryan doesn't feature any red tanks but instead lots of correct period clothing and paint schemes it must therefore be HISTORY yes? What about the Downton Abbey TV series? Was that HISTORY? Visually It all looks right but is it HISTORY or just period drama?

Just out of interest if a game was set up with an accurate recreation of forces, terrain and conflict outcomes. Say a diceless system with a GM deciding outcomes based upon historical debate (let us also say that time was not a factor) but the troops used were painted abstracted primary colours? What if it units were represented by blocks of wood with unit markings on them? Would you turn your nose up at it?

What about a WWII fighter game that used replicas of the WWII period fighter command aircraft markers? What if they were cast in polished brass or stainless steel? Still an anathema?




Imagine the above was a wargame? Nobody wants to play with these cheezo stained pimply 40k youths right? Using models for Spanish civil war Me109s? Get out of here, cheapskate loser!

'Correct' paint schemes are a tool for making historical wargames look like interactive dioramas they're not the definition of what is, or is not, HISTORY.

I think you hit in right on here, and to be honest, I myself was raised in an environment where my Father ate, slept, and gak WW2. I never really got into WW2 in the manner that he had always done (reading books and watching documentaries and researching), until I stumbled upon Flames of War. I love it, I love everything that has to do with WW2 and if I can find a magazine or book, or a game that has to deal with that time period my hands are all over it searching for a price tag.

When it comes to this debate, would I be slightly annoyed? Possibly, but if it looked nice I wouldn't care, infact if it were a great looking army I'd probably fall in love with it whether it was realistically painted or not. I can tell you right now, a gakky painted army or an army which is not painted at all pisses me off far more than any made up scheme could.

Shotgun wrote:That is an episode of Hoarders I don't relish seeing...the therapist confronting the Horder about the stack of 20 year modeling mags in the bathroom taller than his children.

"Tragically, it appears that, while in the midst of grabbing the march 86 ed discussing riveted periscope covers on the KV-1 and KV-2, everyting from early 1991 fell down ontop of him, smashing his brain stem. He went out like Elvis with his pants around his ankles and apparently not enough fiber in his diet."

I should stress its my youngest son, not the 14yr old. Otherwise yes, that's probably exactly how I will meet my end, because the stack isn't getting any smaller. Its just a matter of which stack will get me first: The scale modelling one or the Wargaming one...

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Big P wrote:Actually the only tanks to leave factories unpainted were those produced in Leningrad during the seige.

I have yet to see any evidence of any German vehicle leaving a factory solely in red primer.

For the late war period German patterns were factory applied to set patterns. You can actually use these patterns to tell which factory produced the tank... So actually, a great deal of historical research has gone into providing a comprehensive amount of detail on WW2 paint schemes.

Again an interesting surmise (source?), but I'm hesitant to accept that the ONLY armor that came in "red" came from Leningrad, mostly because I have a stack of Fine-scale modelling magazines in my bathroom as tall as my own son, from a variety of publishers, from about 20 years of modelling, and there are many great examples of mostly red German armor . If there was ever a group that could truly rivet-count in extremis, its fine scale modelers. Literally rivet-by-rivet. Can i really accept that the Ultimate Grognards could all be wrong so badly and not receive a single argument? Can I accept that the Ultimate Grognards would let such an epic mistake roll past without comment? I mean these are the people who will fight for months over the exact shades involved in 'caunter', and the dates of its use to the nearest week. But none of them argue about a "wrong" red German tank?

Check out the 'Duel in the Mist' series of books, these detail Panthers by their factory prescribed camo scheme. I would warrant that it may well have only been late model Panther Gs that got factory applied Ambush scheme on a proscribed pattern but its not one of my areas of in depth knowledge. The whole debate on blurred edge versus hard edge patterns goes over my head...

Ambush Camouflage (Hinterhalt-Tarnung): August 1944 – In order to achieve a more standardized pattern, camouflage paint began to be applied at the factory.

The German paints could vary wildly before then as they were supplied in paste format to be mixed with petrol for application. This gave wild variation and when crews used water instead the paint faded quicker and wore off very quickly. Some units did try to give their vehicles uniformal patterns though this seems to have been in a minority of cases and only when performed by the Werkstatte crews.

I never said the Leningrad tanks were red... They were, but from rust not red oxide primer.

The Germans did use the red oxide as part of a camo scheme but I have never seen any evidence to suggest they used it on its own. I have seen Panthers with replacement barrels still in the plain red oxide though. This seems to bear out that surmisation;

September 1944 - Tanks were left in the red primer (Oxidrot RAL 3009) with no base coat and only limited camouflage of olive-green and/or red-brown (Olivgrün & Rotbraun) applied at the factory. By the end of October 1944, this was expanded to include dark yellow, olive green and red brown (Dunkelgelb, Olivgrün and Rotbraun) applied in limited amounts over the red primer. Dark grey (Dunkelgrau) could be used instead of dark yellow (Dunkelgelb) if yellow was unavailable (there is no evidence that dark grey was ever used in this manner).

However, in December 1944 a further order was issued;

December 1944 – Vehicles were to be painted with a base coat of olive green (Olivgrün) with a hard-edged pattern of red brown (Rotbraun) and dark yellow (Dunkelgelb).

If you want more detail on the use of red oxide;

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1289496305/Question+about+parts+painted+in+red+primer+on+German+AFVs-


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:

Big P wrote:

Even my colouring in with my 4 year old is historically accurate, much to her annoyance. So there.

If there's definitely a place for red (or blue or rainbow) Shermans it's when you're 4. What you're describing is just obsessive hyper-realism.

Please tell me you noted the sarcasm?

Big P wrote:Please tell me you noted the sarcasm?

It works better if you try to describe an unlikely scene that is at odds with your on-line persona.

All I saw was this...



...stuck to your fridge door, with "by Little P, age 4 and a half" written in the bottom corner.

Big P wrote:History is important as its the setting.

If you divorce the setting from the game it ceases to be historical.

We play plenty of games based on historical actions, some as refights using the units original starting positions, others where we start with our own deployments.

We recently refought Brawners Farm, using the actual starting positions for the units, and my Confederates, though taking heavy losses, did better than in reality and forced the Union troops from the field.

Interestingly in a refight of Arnhem a few years back, it went almost the same as reality, until an unfortunate mortar strike took out several key British commanders and the push into Arnhem was halted before it had managed to reach the bridge. A few years later we refought Arnhem and I changed the drop plan, but only in a feasible way that was possible at the time (though with hindsight) to drop twice on the first day of the battle. This made such a huge difference that virtually the entire 1st Airborne moved en-masse on the evening of the first day and secured positions around the bridge in such numbers that the German players were unable to dislodge them before XXX Corps arrived.

Historical based scenario play allows you to refight actions as they were, containing the troops there on the day and in the positions they had, but with your own tactical decisions.

But it can also be used to test counter-factual theories regarding differing deployments and events to see how things can be changed.

But I also have as much fun playing points games using KGN (never have and never will play FOW) so I dont mind... as long as your tanks are the right shade of green.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ancientsociety wrote:As someone who's done extensive research on three FOW armies at this point (EW French, E/MW Panzers, & M/LW Finns), put in hours of modeling, and even longer periods of painting; I'd like to say that I'd NEVER, EVER get on someone else's case for having the "wrong" army in FOW, let alone color scheme.

To those new players reading this - do not take comments such as Aldramelech's as gospel, there are few FOW players who feel the game MUST always adher to history 100% (in fact, I'd question someone's grasp of historical accuracy who truly believes the FOW rules, especially army lists, accurately reflect reality). I've played both casually and in tournaments and have never encountered an attitude such as his, especially since he comes off as such a smarmy pr*ck.

It's a game - which means unless both players make the exact same choices as historical commanders, unless all units perform the exact same actions, and unless no dice rolls are made to reflect successes, losses, and casualties - it's not 100% historically accurate. Wargames have always had a certain "What If?" quality to them and FOW is the apeothesis of this genre.

As far as camouflage/color schemes go, even if you read some of the most respected historians on WW2, you will find that there is never 100% agreement on what the "true" schemes were. The biggest problem is that there are few, if any, true color photos from this time period, especially in the EW period, so the schemes we have now are really just a matter of informed guesswork, pieced together from color pics, surviving examples, and survivor accounts. Add to this the fact that many camo schemes were applied by units in the field and there are huge amounts of variations, even within the widely accepted schemes.

Having played many other, more comprehensive historical wargames, anyone who's approaching FOW as an entirely historically accurate ruleset needs to put their toy soldiers away and go back to reading Stephen Ambrose.

I think you best read the thread again, where have I said anything about FOW OOB's being accurate? I have in fact, on several occasions berated FOW lists on this forum as utter gak.
If you had read my earlier posts properly you would have noticed me saying that although we use FOW because it is convenient and quick to play, we tend to ignore BF's lists and points values and use forces that reflect reality rather then what BF would like you to buy more of.

You are correct, wargames are all about "what if?" But there is a big fu*king difference between what P describes above and early war Brits vs late war Soviets!

You can try and waffle all day long about correct camo colours matey, but what we're talking about here is "Is it OK to paint my Shermans BRIGHT RED" for gods sake.

And just for the record, I have never read a Stephen Ambrose book, pric*.

George Spiggott wrote:

Big P wrote:Please tell me you noted the sarcasm?

It works better if you try to describe an unlikely scene that is at odds with your on-line persona.

All I saw was this...



...stuck to your fridge door, with "by Little P, age 4 and a half" written in the bottom corner.

She tends to draw fairies and Princesses.

You would probably get on well with her... She likes painting tanks bright colours... Hence the pink T-72 I have on my desk that she did for my birthday.

Big P wrote:She tends to draw fairies and Princesses.

You would probably get on well with her... She likes painting tanks bright colours... Hence the pink T-72 I have on my desk that she did for my birthday.

I hope her fairies are historically accurate. Nurture that pink tank spirit in her, it could lead to this:

col. krazy kenny wrote:

Aldramelech wrote:Just as well then because I'd rather not rub shoulders with people who don't take the hobby seriously. A large part of historical wargaming for the vast majority of historical gamers is, wait for it................ HISTORY.

If history is not your thing, if your not interested in researching your chosen period and getting your miniatures right then I would suggest 40k, Warmachine, Secrets of the Third Reich and the host of many fine games out there that allow your imagination run riot.

I spend alot of money and time on my hobby and so do the people I game with and we expect certain standards at our club.

I don't play against people with unpainted figures either, so now you can call me a painting snob as well if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And this months NO-prize goes to you.
I guess you would never play in our league of basement dwellers.When we play at one of our houses,it is also a social event.We grill food,drink beer and all of that good stuff.We are in it to play first and devlop new tactics.Sorry if we buy to much stuff and do not have time to paint it or mess with the little fidgity bits.some just do not have the time to paint every day.But that attitude is ok because with what you just said we probably would not play ant games with you.As for not being serious,Every one of are players is a former Servicemen.3 rd cav.,1 st infantry,101st airborne, and 173rd/82 Airborne. on the historcal lists,blame Battle front.
But we are all seriuos gamers.It is that we are not a group of grown men who hang out in hobby shops or ones that do the tourny scene.
trust me we are some pretty good players,some of us have beaten top players in the tourny scene in our area,but mostly Blood bowl.

Were you drunk when you typed this? Whats your point?

Aldramelech wrote:
...we use FOW because it is convenient and quick to play, we tend to ignore BF's lists and points values and use forces that reflect reality rather then what BF would like you to buy more of.

You readily admit FOW isn't historically accurate yet still use it because you can't be bothered using a more realistic complex ruleset!?

Get off your high horse, for god's sake!

Aldramelech wrote:You are correct, wargames are all about "what if?" But there is a big fu*king difference between what P describes above and early war Brits vs late war Soviets!

I don't think myself or anyone else would honestly float the idea of any EW vs. LW force in even a casual game

Aldramelech wrote:You can try and waffle all day long about correct camo colours matey, but what we're talking about here is "Is it OK to paint my Shermans BRIGHT RED" for gods sake.

And just for the record, I have never read a Stephen Ambrose book, pric*.

Man, you seriously need to chill the out. For someone who's middle-aged, you come off as an immature teenager.

Big P wrote:You can try and waffle all day long about correct camo colours matey, but what we're talking about here is "Is it OK to paint my Shermans BRIGHT RED" for gods sake.

To be clear, the thread started with someone talking about painting Shermans bright red. It continued on exploring the details of what various people were looking for with regard to the level of historically accurate modeling required for their games.

As someone who's just getting started in FoW I actually found this to be really useful. It seems the answer is "opinions vary, ranging from 'make it as accurate as possible' on one end to 'as long as you've got paint on the miniatures' on the other. Most people seem to rest around the mid point leaning towards historically accurate, i.e. 'make an effort, this is a game in a historical setting after all'." So paint your Shermans red at your own risk, but if you show up with the wrong type of camo on your panzers it's unlikely to cause a scene. All of this varies depending on the exact group of people you intend to play with, so check around first.

I'm not the one calling people a smarmy pric* am I?

And your telling me to chill out? As for the rest of the bolloc*s you've just spat out................

I'm done with this, I've got figures to paint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rooneg wrote:

Big P wrote:You can try and waffle all day long about correct camo colours matey, but what we're talking about here is "Is it OK to paint my Shermans BRIGHT RED" for gods sake.

To be clear, the thread started with someone talking about painting Shermans bright red. It continued on exploring the details of what various people were looking for with regard to the level of historically accurate modeling required for their games.

As someone who's just getting started in FoW I actually found this to be really useful. It seems the answer is "opinions vary, ranging from 'make it as accurate as possible' on one end to 'as long as you've got paint on the miniatures' on the other. Most people seem to rest around the mid point leaning towards historically accurate, i.e. 'make an effort, this is a game in a historical setting after all'." So paint your Shermans red at your own risk, but if you show up with the wrong type of camo on your panzers it's unlikely to cause a scene. All of this varies depending on the exact group of people you intend to play with, so check around first.

Possibly the first sensible post in about 4 pages.

ancientsociety wrote:

Aldramelech wrote:You are correct, wargames are all about "what if?" But there is a big fu*king difference between what P describes above and early war Brits vs late war Soviets!

I don't think myself or anyone else would honestly float the idea of any EW vs. LW force in even a casual game

They were eastern front Germans vs desert Brits before Aldramelech mangled his own anecdote. Not even pick up players (with red tanks) will play early war vs late war. Just like nobody plays Wood Elves vs Space Marines.

I once had an idea for an early war panzerkompanie list made up entirely of Panzer IIs and 38(t)s that I could then use in late war as a panzersphah list. I never did it because the differences in tank models and different paint scheme for early and late war would have annoyed me. Of course if I painted them red they'd be equally wrong for both periods. ArbeitsSchu once had a similar idea about using M48 Pattons for a 'Battle of the Bulge' King Tiger force.

rooneg wrote:

Big P wrote:You can try and waffle all day long about correct camo colours matey, but what we're talking about here is "Is it OK to paint my Shermans BRIGHT RED" for gods sake.

To be clear, the thread started with someone talking about painting Shermans bright red. It continued on exploring the details of what various people were looking for with regard to the level of historically accurate modeling required for their games.

As someone who's just getting started in FoW I actually found this to be really useful. It seems the answer is "opinions vary, ranging from 'make it as accurate as possible' on one end to 'as long as you've got paint on the miniatures' on the other. Most people seem to rest around the mid point leaning towards historically accurate, i.e. 'make an effort, this is a game in a historical setting after all'." So paint your Shermans red at your own risk, but if you show up with the wrong type of camo on your panzers it's unlikely to cause a scene. All of this varies depending on the exact group of people you intend to play with, so check around first.

QFT, This is a nice summary of what the whole argument comes down to.

So can we just move on?

Well... I'm mostly interested in WH40K but I'm also a regular of a historical gaming group, and I have played a lot of different scenarios and ruleset and now I have my 15mm russian tank division... I'd like to say 2 things to the OP
-First.... FoW is a bad ruleset and it doesn't have historically accurate publications IMHO ( i repeat ... IMHO)...
I prefer Rapid Fire
-Second... Historical wargaming is very different from competitive GW, PP, SG etc. games... The focus of the game is to reenact some historical event and try to change the course of history... but we're still talking about an historical event...
- Third... this leads us to the consideration that very often in historical wargaming, accuracy and passion are much more important than competitiveness and accurate paintjobs are an important part of the game.... Hell... I really don't even understand the concept of FoW tournament... random armies clashing one against the other is something I really cannot link to my idea of historical wargaming...
So yes... If you show up with red shermans you will attract (justified IMHO) criticism, because in historical wargaming, competitive play simply cannot represent the whole hobby like in GW games, and most players will expect historical accuracy and realistic battles...

What an amusing spat.

The problem with the original question is sure you can paint the tank fire engine red, and if you want you can have a platoon of thracians, two bottle tops, and the fairy off the Christmas tree - after all the figures are only game tokens. But what does it really say about your attitude to your opponent?

The fact is, it's not experimental and weird to do what you suggest, it's just really rather silly.

Still well played you have provoked the argument you intended, so well done you...

George Spiggott wrote:Would sir prefer the pink?

flower power soviet style!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:Nah... I'd still be outraged.

I'm outraged at your outrage.

The one positive not been conjured up is have your force following historical accuracy reasonably well. If you want the Pink Smolensk Guards then just have another force. You can field that as a lark against those who are ok with that.

Problem solved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

Cave_Dweller wrote:Well wow, I had no idea this would erupt into the quasi-flame war it has! I think after reading this you've helped me decide which side of the flames of war fence I'll be on. And that's as far from the FoW side as I can get.

Good luck with your hobby and more power to you all, but I can see its not the hobby for me.

I think that's wise.

If you consider expecting a historical army to painted at least somewhat realistically too much historical snobbery, you'd be better served by another game.

,
Here's a Q, how historically accurate (meaning detailed) do you have to be? This Q is aimed at the FOW crowd.
I'm just getting into this. Things like insignia etc. on troops won't be possible. With my eyes I can barely tell a mortar guy from a PIAT guy (I think, maybe not even that, I'll find out tomorrow). So how detailed are we talking?

Aldramelech wrote:
Possibly the first sensible post in about 4 pages.

This was the first response to the OP's first post:

Tailgunner wrote:As you'll see if you read these threads, games like FoW attract players who are totally into the historical issues. Some of them will be pedantic to the point of obsessiveness, and will spend the game lecturing you on tiny points of detail (and in some cases will still actually be wrong). So your red tanks will undoubtably attract some criticism. And it is a historical game, even if it plays a bit fast and loose with the details, so it's probably a bit provocative to do something that extreme. I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect FoW models to bear at least some resemblance to what they were meant to represent. If it's just a case of using the wrong shade of green for olive drab, or painting 1944 Panzers grey instead of dark yellow, then I don't think that should be a big deal.

I think the problem isnt the idea but the ruleset.

OP, you need to target your armies at a game you would like to play. Be it 40K, FOW or plain shelf sitting.

Myself and my group are getting out of 40k in a big way, and i have always loved the idea of historical games(which is why i have been lurking here).

However my usual group wouldnt be seen dead playing historical, so i split the difference. Currently we are playing Tomorrows War.

And i wanted to do something different.

So i grabbed a few boxes of PSC, and some stuff from some other websites(eyeing off a pair of MAUSes) and am painting up an "out of time" german force. Now i am intentionally painting them like WW2 movie germans, mostly for dramatic purposes and due to thats what my friends will understand the easiest. As such i have been reading threads on this forum and intentionally doing the opposite of a lot of suggestions. Especially when they frame their suggestions with "Dont make the hollywood mistake of..."

So when i say i would totally play your red shermans in that context i mean it.

But there is no way i would insult a dedicated historical player by dumping down my gear on the table and demanding they let me play FoW with a force intentionally set up to contradict history.

Doubly so for my Nazi T-Rex

For reference my friends are playing Red Alert style soviets, Alien style Xenomorphs and Predator Predators. (i love 15mm)

Personally, if someone wants to be creative and push the envelope a bit, I'm not sure why they'd want to do it in a historical game rather than in one of the many science fiction or fantasy games that lend themselves perfectly to that sort of thing.

I'm all for being creative, but I don't really see the point of painting fire engine red Shermans in a historical game when you could just have fire engine red tanks in a Blood Angels army or something like that.

punkow wrote:Historical wargaming is very different from competitive GW, PP, SG etc. games... The focus of the game is to reenact some historical event and try to change the course of history... but we're still talking about an historical event...

I'm not sure where you get this idea.... there were tournaments, points systems etc for historical games long before any of these games systems were inventented....

George Spiggott wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Aldramelech wrote:You are correct, wargames are all about "what if?" But there is a big fu*king difference between what P describes above and early war Brits vs late war Soviets!

I don't think myself or anyone else would honestly float the idea of any EW vs. LW force in even a casual game

They were eastern front Germans vs desert Brits before Aldramelech mangled his own anecdote. Not even pick up players (with red tanks) will play early war vs late war. Just like nobody plays Wood Elves vs Space Marines.

I once had an idea for an early war panzerkompanie list made up entirely of Panzer IIs and 38(t)s that I could then use in late war as a panzersphah list. I never did it because the differences in tank models and different paint scheme for early and late war would have annoyed me. Of course if I painted them red they'd be equally wrong for both periods. ArbeitsSchu once had a similar idea about using M48 Pattons for a 'Battle of the Bulge' King Tiger force.

My Afrika Korps box contains at least one M3 half-track for much the same reason, and I still harbor a desire to do an Action Force Red Shadow German army...but then in these cases I'm not trying to be accurate to a historical force, but the Hollywood perception of one, which is still a form of accuracy.

I think it would be fun to wargame the Battle of the Bulge using M-47 Pattons as Tigers - as long as they were painted grey with big German crosses.

I'm just waiting for a "Bulge" release to do it. I'm also pondering a kitbash of some T-34s to make "Kelly's Heroes" Tigers.

I seem to recall a "Dad's Army" force doing the rounds a while back. I see no reason why representing a fictional fighting force should be an issue. FOW is basically the miniature version of 'Commando' and 'Battle' anyway so i see no real issue with fielding such things. Rule of Cool probably over-rides Historical Accuracy in cases like these.

I'm pretty sure the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were the real deal (though I await some Grognard controdicting that and pointing out that that model was not actually produced until 8.73 weeks after the scene was actually set therefore was historically incorrect, but forgiveable if taken as light-hearted entertainment under the right circumstances).

The Shemans were also Shermans, but the only red paint was from special rounds inspite of Moriartity's negative waves....man.

How about urban red camo?

notprop wrote:I'm pretty sure the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were the real deal (though I await some Grognard controdicting that and pointing out that that model was not actually produced until 8.73 weeks after the scene was actually set therefore was historically incorrect, but forgiveable if taken as light-hearted entertainment under the right circumstances).

I didn't think one had to be a grognard to know that the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were mock-ups based onT-34s. It was a very good conversion though (I love that film!) - so good that they did the same thing for Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. The only real Tiger I that is a runner is in the Bovington tank museum; it was captured in Tunisia, and lovingly restored fairly recently.

Tailgunner wrote:

notprop wrote:I'm pretty sure the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were the real deal (though I await some Grognard controdicting that and pointing out that that model was not actually produced until 8.73 weeks after the scene was actually set therefore was historically incorrect, but forgiveable if taken as light-hearted entertainment under the right circumstances).

I didn't think one had to be a grognard to know that the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were mock-ups based onT-34s. It was a very good conversion though (I love that film!) - so good that they did the same thing for Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. The only real Tiger I that is a runner is in the Bovington tank museum; it was captured in Tunisia, and lovingly restored fairly recently.

The Kellys Heroes (or The Greatest Film Ever Made as I call it) ones are indeed T-34s... The one in Saving Private Ryan was a T-55.

Bovington does have the only 'runner'... and I use that term in the loosest sense. Got to get inside the turret when they were doing the hull work back in the 90s.

Though a crowd in Russia have built a rather good replica.



Oh and can we give over quoting someone else and saying its me...

Tailgunner wrote:

notprop wrote:I'm pretty sure the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were the real deal (though I await some Grognard controdicting that and pointing out that that model was not actually produced until 8.73 weeks after the scene was actually set therefore was historically incorrect, but forgiveable if taken as light-hearted entertainment under the right circumstances).

I didn't think one had to be a grognard to know that the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were mock-ups based onT-34s. It was a very good conversion though (I love that film!) - so good that they did the same thing for Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. The only real Tiger I that is a runner is in the Bovington tank museum; it was captured in Tunisia, and lovingly restored fairly recently.

Damn grognards and their correct "facts".......mumble....grumble.

You learn something new everyday, a good conversion indeed to get past me and my non existent knowledge.

Well played Mr Eastwood, you win this time! [shakes fist at nothing in particular]

George Spiggott wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Aldramelech wrote:You are correct, wargames are all about "what if?" But there is a big fu*king difference between what P describes above and early war Brits vs late war Soviets!

I don't think myself or anyone else would honestly float the idea of any EW vs. LW force in even a casual game

They were eastern front Germans vs desert Brits before Aldramelech mangled his own anecdote. Not even pick up players (with red tanks) will play early war vs late war. Just like nobody plays Wood Elves vs Space Marines.

I once had an idea for an early war panzerkompanie list made up entirely of Panzer IIs and 38(t)s that I could then use in late war as a panzersphah list. I never did it because the differences in tank models and different paint scheme for early and late war would have annoyed me. Of course if I painted them red they'd be equally wrong for both periods. ArbeitsSchu once had a similar idea about using M48 Pattons for a 'Battle of the Bulge' King Tiger force.

Late war vs early war? What was I thinking? I mean that's totally stupid, as stupid as painting your Shermans red maybe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ancientsociety wrote:

Aldramelech wrote:
...we use FOW because it is convenient and quick to play, we tend to ignore BF's lists and points values and use forces that reflect reality rather then what BF would like you to buy more of.

You readily admit FOW isn't historically accurate yet still use it because you can't be bothered using a more realistic complex ruleset!?

Get off your high horse, for god's sake!

Aldramelech wrote:You are correct, wargames are all about "what if?" But there is a big fu*king difference between what P describes above and early war Brits vs late war Soviets!

I don't think myself or anyone else would honestly float the idea of any EW vs. LW force in even a casual game

Aldramelech wrote:You can try and waffle all day long about correct camo colours matey, but what we're talking about here is "Is it OK to paint my Shermans BRIGHT RED" for gods sake.

And just for the record, I have never read a Stephen Ambrose book, pric*.

Man, you seriously need to chill the out. For someone who's middle-aged, you come off as an immature teenager.

OOOO sneaking in edits after people have gone to bed? Very grown up............................

To answer your edit: Your just making gak up now ain't ya? Where do I say I can't be bothered to use a more historically accurate set of rules.
It has nothing to do with can't be bothered and everthing to do with physical time constraints smart arse...........

And as I've said above - LW vs EW? Blimey thats as stupid as painting a Sherman red, what was I thinking?

The Kellys Tigers are from the movie "Battle of Neretva", which was also filmed in Yugoslavia. It's got Yul Brynner in it, and its on my Amazon wish-list.

Aldramelech: Why are you going on about LW vs EW? Nobody suggested that? You yourself moaned about Desert Brits vs EF Germans.

I've not seen much deviation from historical color "palettes", but have seen variations on actually using those palettes. My british horde started in midwar Africa and I just have no interest in buying the same minis multiple times just to have them painted for the "right" theater. So my late war 2nd Household Cavalry force from Hell's Highway is fully painted in a desert sand color scheme, even those armored cars that were never used in the desert because I think the consistent look of the force is better than half desert armored cars and half green armored cars. Also since I really enjoy playing desert themed games my BAR is also painted in desert colors despite the fact I actually used it with Blitzkrieg first. Hehehehe...

My airborne, since they've had the same colors throughout are painted appropriately, or should I say "will" be painted appropriately when fully finished.

I do get the "these are my minis"! attitude some folks have and have no problems encouraging full color creativeity in fantasy and sci-fi based games, but in historical games the colors on the minis really help to effectively represent the period you are playing. Civil war battles would just feel weird between the puce and chartreuse as opposed to the blue and the gray. Of course if someone showed up with bright fire engine red tanks and told me clearly that they are playing list X with the mins used being the correct and identifiable minis from the list, I wouldn't really be bothered by it at all if we played a game or two as long as they were a fun opponent.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:[Damn grognards and their correct "facts".......mumble....grumble.

You learn something new everyday, a good conversion indeed to get past me and my non existent knowledge.

Well played Mr Eastwood, you win this time! [shakes fist at nothing in particular]

For me the litmus test is how quickly do I recognize the conversion. In Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers the rest of the vehicles were so well done that it took me a while to note that they were not actually full vehicles of the type shown. That, in my book, is more important than complete and totally accuracy. At the opposite end of the scale we have movies like The Battle of the Bulge where the patton tanks don't look anything like the german tanks they are supposed to be filling in for and that just ruins it for me when watching films based on history.

Skriker

ArbeitsSchu wrote:The Kellys Tigers are from the movie "Battle of Neretva", which was also filmed in Yugoslavia. It's got Yul Brynner in it, and its on my Amazon wish-list.

Aldramelech: Why are you going on about LW vs EW? Nobody suggested that? You yourself moaned about Desert Brits vs EF Germans.

I was being ironic


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skriker wrote:I've not seen much deviation from historical color "palettes", but have seen variations on actually using those palettes. My british horde started in midwar Africa and I just have no interest in buying the same minis multiple times just to have them painted for the "right" theater. So my late war 2nd Household Cavalry force from Hell's Highway is fully painted in a desert sand color scheme, even those armored cars that were never used in the desert because I think the consistent look of the force is better than half desert armored cars and half green armored cars. Also since I really enjoy playing desert themed games my BAR is also painted in desert colors despite the fact I actually used it with Blitzkrieg first. Hehehehe...

My airborne, since they've had the same colors throughout are painted appropriately, or should I say "will" be painted appropriately when fully finished.

I do get the "these are my minis"! attitude some folks have and have no problems encouraging full color creativeity in fantasy and sci-fi based games, but in historical games the colors on the minis really help to effectively represent the period you are playing. Civil war battles would just feel weird between the puce and chartreuse as opposed to the blue and the gray. Of course if someone showed up with bright fire engine red tanks and told me clearly that they are playing list X with the mins used being the correct and identifiable minis from the list, I wouldn't really be bothered by it at all if we played a game or two as long as they were a fun opponent.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:[Damn grognards and their correct "facts".......mumble....grumble.

You learn something new everyday, a good conversion indeed to get past me and my non existent knowledge.

Well played Mr Eastwood, you win this time! [shakes fist at nothing in particular]

For me the litmus test is how quickly do I recognize the conversion. In Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers the rest of the vehicles were so well done that it took me a while to note that they were not actually full vehicles of the type shown. That, in my book, is more important than complete and totally accuracy. At the opposite end of the scale we have movies like The Battle of the Bulge where the patton tanks don't look anything like the german tanks they are supposed to be filling in for and that just ruins it for me when watching films based on history.

Skriker

I like the Leopard 1 in a Bridge too far myself........................

Skriker wrote:For me the litmus test is how quickly do I recognize the conversion. In Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers the rest of the vehicles were so well done that it took me a while to note that they were not actually full vehicles of the type shown. That, in my book, is more important than complete and totally accuracy. At the opposite end of the scale we have movies like The Battle of the Bulge where the patton tanks don't look anything like the german tanks they are supposed to be filling in for and that just ruins it for me when watching films based on history.

That seems fair. In the case of the German AFVs for those movies, I just liked the fact that they'd clearly tried very hard to get them to look right, and largely pulled it off. Especially the Marder and StuG.

I think the Battle of the Bulge Pattons have a curious kind of kudos now. There's almost something admirable in the filmmakers' total disregard for historical accuracy, even though the 'Tigers' are the stars of the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:IThe Kellys Heroes (or The Greatest Film Ever Made as I call it) ones are indeed T-34s... The one in Saving Private Ryan was a T-55.

Evidently no answer is complete until you've weighed in

They were T-34s in SPR - you can tell from the wheel spacing and the tracks. There is apparently a Tiger I mock up built on a T-54/55 chassis which belongs to some re-enactors, but that seems to have been done privately.

Before the advent of CGI, the only way to get a full Tiger abteilung would be to fake it with something else, or build one out of T-34s. I just wish someone would start making WW2 movies using that technology, instead of farting about with a mismatch of whatever they had on the lot. MASS BATTLE!! It shouldn't be hard to actually carry that off. If one can animate a million Persians, ten thousand Greeks, or Orcs too numerous to count, one can animate a proper Tiger battalion.

There is a lot of CGI hardware in The Pacific. It doesn't always work, but when it does, it's very effective (some of the later amphibious landing sequences look very convincing). I'm sure someone will do something similar with Panzers at some point.

Tailgunner wrote:

Skriker wrote:For me the litmus test is how quickly do I recognize the conversion. In Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers the rest of the vehicles were so well done that it took me a while to note that they were not actually full vehicles of the type shown. That, in my book, is more important than complete and totally accuracy. At the opposite end of the scale we have movies like The Battle of the Bulge where the patton tanks don't look anything like the german tanks they are supposed to be filling in for and that just ruins it for me when watching films based on history.

That seems fair. In the case of the German AFVs for those movies, I just liked the fact that they'd clearly tried very hard to get them to look right, and largely pulled it off. Especially the Marder and StuG.

I think the Battle of the Bulge Pattons have a curious kind of kudos now. There's almost something admirable in the filmmakers' total disregard for historical accuracy, even though the 'Tigers' are the stars of the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:IThe Kellys Heroes (or The Greatest Film Ever Made as I call it) ones are indeed T-34s... The one in Saving Private Ryan was a T-55.

Evidently no answer is complete until you've weighed in

They were T-34s in SPR - you can tell from the wheel spacing and the tracks. There is apparently a Tiger I mock up built on a T-54/55 chassis which belongs to some re-enactors, but that seems to have been done privately.

T-55 tracks curve upwards at the front and back. Sprockets are that little bit higher up. T34 tracks sit much flatter.

I can better this one though: Its a mock-up of a Tiger built on a Russian tank...with the engine noise of another tank dubbed over the top, because then it sounds more like a Maybach engine. (If I recall correctly its a Chieftan, )

Here is your Red for your paint job.
Also if the Tanks were red,it would be red primer color.So the field units may paint them as seen fit.

I kind of wonder if the 'primer red' would actually be a tough scheme to pull off. Getting the right tone and feel without it looking either pink or too much like a modern car-style paint job...

The SPR Tigers were indeed T34s, both are no more, they ended up at Bovington where both caught fire whilst being used at Tank Fest.

Aldramelech wrote:]Late war vs early war? What was I thinking? I mean that's totally stupid, as stupid as painting your Shermans red maybe?

No not as stupid, more stupid than painting your Shermans red.

The only time I might vary from the historical paint scheme would be for an army like the Hungarians or Romanians where some of their armour units have different paint schemes. Mt sense of aesthetics just scream that they must all use the same paint scheme. Good thing I stick to the western front

Ghaz wrote:The only time I might vary from the historical paint scheme would be for an army like the Hungarians or Romanians where some of their armour units have different paint schemes. Mt sense of aesthetics just scream that they must all use the same paint scheme. Good thing I stick to the western front

Do not feel bad,i am not the best painter. Tabletop at my best.
Also i cannot paint decent camo,so most of my German armor is painted grey.MAybe i should just stick with my Americans,everthing in olive drab.

Aldramelech wrote:The SPR Tigers were indeed T34s, both are no more, they ended up at Bovington where both caught fire whilst being used at Tank Fest.

That's a shame. I saw one them at Bovington a few years ago. I thought the other had been acquired by someone in the US.

I say go with what you want. Yes it is suppose to be a historical game, but why not do what you want with your mini's you bought and paid for.If no one plays you over a paint scheme they need to re think how they play a game. It is suppose to be a fun game not a complete retelling of history.
At one point the armed forces of any country could have been experimenting with any types of camo. The US tried to do the German/SS smock camo we are familiar with. It didnt work out to well cause MPs mistaken them for Germans and shot at them.

Disliking the idea of an utterly ahistorical scheme does not automatically translate to demanding that all battles be an accurate recreation of history down to the last brass button. Some of us are firmly in the camp of "You should at least try to do it 'right', but we aren't going to set you on fire if your Olive Drab is a bit less drab than it should be."

Lol if people refuse to play you because YOUR toy soldiers aren't painted to the standard or way they like. I wouldn't play them anyways for being smug about figures.

col. krazy kenny wrote:Do not feel bad,i am not the best painter. Tabletop at my best. Also i cannot paint decent camo,so most of my German armor is painted grey.MAybe i should just stick with my Americans,everthing in olive drab.

I think you missed my point. Its not about the skill level. I'm actually quite a good painter. Its like this article on painting Hungarians shows that Hungarian vehicles had a nice three-color camouflage scheme whereas equipment that they got from Germany was left Panzer Grey. I would do the entire army in the Hungarian camouflage even if historically it should be Panzer Grey.

ghostmaker wrote:I say go with what you want. Yes it is suppose to be a historical game, but why not do what you want with your mini's you bought and paid for.If no one plays you over a paint scheme they need to re think how they play a game. It is suppose to be a fun game not a complete retelling of history.
At one point the armed forces of any country could have been experimenting with any types of camo. The US tried to do the German/SS smock camo we are familiar with. It didnt work out to well cause MPs mistaken them for Germans and shot at them.

It isnt supposed to be a fun game. It is supposed to be a fun hobby, and hobbies really only work if everyone is on the same page. Yes you can get away with shenannigans, but only if the people you are playing against have the same expectations as yourself, and you should endeavour to make sure they have those expectations before you plonk the red shermans down, not after.

This is the problem i think i have with alot of people who dont paint their armies, or really fail to participate at all in any aspect before the game starts. The game is the end result. There are several expectations before you get that far, based on what hobby you are about to participate in, and it isnt a BAD THING that the Historical Wargaming Hobby requires some thought and historical accuracy regarding organisation and paint schemes. In fact for most it is the draw card.

If as you say they may have been experimenting with that camo, do some research, cite some sources and suddenly you are participating in the hobby.

Poppabear wrote:Lol if people refuse to play you because YOUR toy soldiers aren't painted to the standard or way they like. I wouldn't play them anyways for being smug about figures.

I believe the whole point of the mess of a thread was that different people have different expectations. If you where going to enter a model in golden demon would you just show up with it primed or bare metal? No of course not.

If you join a club ( not playing at flgs and looking for pick up games) who is into history like Pier's you are already in that mind set and this whole thread is pointless.


If I was going to play a huge game and take pics for say KGN or FOW , would you want to see red shermins? How would you like seeing pink and polka dot panzers in the rule books?

They are your toys do what you want with them, but in the end they are toys just don't be upset if someone doesn't like the way your play with your toys.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Disliking the idea of an utterly ahistorical scheme does not automatically translate to demanding that all battles be an accurate recreation of history down to the last brass button. Some of us are firmly in the camp of "You should at least try to do it 'right', but we aren't going to set you on fire if your Olive Drab is a bit less drab than it should be."

Well put.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GBL wrote:

ghostmaker wrote:I say go with what you want. Yes it is suppose to be a historical game, but why not do what you want with your mini's you bought and paid for.If no one plays you over a paint scheme they need to re think how they play a game. It is suppose to be a fun game not a complete retelling of history.
At one point the armed forces of any country could have been experimenting with any types of camo. The US tried to do the German/SS smock camo we are familiar with. It didnt work out to well cause MPs mistaken them for Germans and shot at them.

It isnt supposed to be a fun game. It is supposed to be a fun hobby, and hobbies really only work if everyone is on the same page. Yes you can get away with shenannigans, but only if the people you are playing against have the same expectations as yourself, and you should endeavour to make sure they have those expectations before you plonk the red shermans down, not after.

This is the problem i think i have with alot of people who dont paint their armies, or really fail to participate at all in any aspect before the game starts. The game is the end result. There are several expectations before you get that far, based on what hobby you are about to participate in, and it isnt a BAD THING that the Historical Wargaming Hobby requires some thought and historical accuracy regarding organisation and paint schemes. In fact for most it is the draw card.

If as you say they may have been experimenting with that camo, do some research, cite some sources and suddenly you are participating in the hobby.

Also well put.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Lol if people refuse to play you because YOUR toy soldiers aren't painted to the standard or way they like. I wouldn't play them anyways for being smug about figures.

I believe the whole point of the mess of a thread was that different people have different expectations. If you where going to enter a model in golden demon would you just show up with it primed or bare metal? No of course not.

If you join a club ( not playing at flgs and looking for pick up games) who is into history like Pier's you are already in that mind set and this whole thread is pointless.


If I was going to play a huge game and take pics for say KGN or FOW , would you want to see red shermins? How would you like seeing pink and polka dot panzers in the rule books?

They are your toys do what you want with them, but in the end they are toys just don't be upset if someone doesn't like the way your play with your toys.

QFT.

Speaking of red tanks...

That primer is top hole. I can't recall where I saw it, but I have a pic somewhere of a similar vehicle that has been through several hands, and the primer is the only bit that isn't knackered. I see no issue with a "Defence of Berlin" army with a heavy red presence, and rather enjoy the irony of the Red Army destroying the 'Red' army.

I think it is questionable whether more than a handful of Panzers went into battle in just the 'red' primer, but don't think it's a big deal. There are plenty of supposed 'facts' about WWII colour schemes that have been debunked over the years, and you'll always find exceptions to the supposed rule.

I guess my guess on the Red Primer was a good one.I just thought that from work experience with paint.I used to work for JOHN DEERE tractors and also Caterpillar tractors.The both of them have had stuff shipped out in primer red.Kinda funny with their colors being Green and Yellow!But that was for customers to repaint themselves as seen fit.

Tailgunner wrote:I think it is questionable whether more than a handful of Panzers went into battle in just the 'red' primer, but don't think it's a big deal. There are plenty of supposed 'facts' about WWII colour schemes that have been debunked over the years, and you'll always find exceptions to the supposed rule.

Granted. I've found that if you really want to justify something, there is almost always at least one example of any design/scheme/arrangement out there somewhere. Besides which how many tanks does one need to field in a FOW army? You can only fit about five Panthers in a 1750, and that seems like a very reasonable number to be just primered.

Cave_Dweller wrote:Hey all been intrigued by flames of war and seriously thinking of buying a few models or at least the starter kit and giving it a go. I also recently won a destroyed Sherman tank in a painting comp and am eagerly looking forward to painting it.

That being said, I'd be inclined to deviate substantially from the proscribed historical paint jobs and army colors and come up with something totally different. Like maybe paint my Sherman fire engine red or something else experimental and weird.

What I'm wondering is will there be a high degree of...oh how shall I put this...historical snobbery...amongst gamers?

I mean ultimately if I spend the money to paint my toy soldiers how I want them, that's my business. I just don't know anyone who plays it, and I was wondering what the community is like. There's a store in my city where the game has started to become popular and I've seen a game or two in action and everyone looked very serious and older than me (40-50). Not sure if this game attracts big time history buffs or something like that.

I once got a 1 hour lecture on Russian coat buttons because I had painted one less button on their coats than what they really had.

It depends who your group is.

There are obsessive historical gamers out there. Very very very obsessive. Though from my EXP. they generally avoid FoW for various reason. FoW groups are generally laid back... in comparison.

wow i really like this thread, it offers some interesting thoughts on historical accuracy vs freedom of choice.

So just to get some more opinions, a couple of friends and myself are doing an infantry aces campaign. I pitch up to play my friends germans - who's leading the - the Red Skull...

Comic version or movie version?

Reaver83 wrote:wow i really like this thread, it offers some interesting thoughts on historical accuracy vs freedom of choice.

So just to get some more opinions, a couple of friends and myself are doing an infantry aces campaign. I pitch up to play my friends germans - who's leading the - the Red Skull...

That sounds cool. Is there a miniature available or is it a custom job?

appears to be a head swap with i guess a 20mm skellie head

Well, as the dust settles I think we can all agree that everyone acted with civility and composure throughout this thread... Everyone involved has certainly covered themselves in glory

No I would not play late war American vs late war Russian, but again we have the culture thing, people do not just turn up with random armies to a club setting, things are far more organised and planed in the club environment. And when I say planned I'm not just talking about the game itself for that night, I'm talking about people sitting down and planning what to buy for a particular period in co-operation with other members of the group, so this wouldn't happen. The group would decide on the period to be played and people would buy the appropriate army's for it.

Maybe that's why 40k is easier to play - no one cares if its nids vs necrons but for WW2 americans vs french is a no-no!

A more accurate statement would be "Maybe thats why 40k is more suited to the FLGS/Pick up game enviroment"

I wouldn't say its easier to play, I haven't witnessed many games of 40k that didn't end in an argument.

Phototoxin wrote:

No I would not play late war American vs late war Russian, but again we have the culture thing, people do not just turn up with random armies to a club setting, things are far more organised and planed in the club environment. And when I say planned I'm not just talking about the game itself for that night, I'm talking about people sitting down and planning what to buy for a particular period in co-operation with other members of the group, so this wouldn't happen. The group would decide on the period to be played and people would buy the appropriate army's for it.

Maybe that's why 40k is easier to play - no one cares if its nids vs necrons but for WW2 americans vs french is a no-no!

I can think of plenty of justifications for why the French and the Americans might have a pop at each other. It doesn't take much imagination to think of a perfectly valid reason why two forces might be engaged.

Aldramelech wrote:A more accurate statement would be "Maybe thats why 40k is more suited to the FLGS/Pick up game enviroment"

I wouldn't say its easier to play, I haven't witnessed many games of 40k that didn't end in an argument.

This to be fair. When i used to play with particular players it was a potential nightmare. One of the reasons i stopped playing so much.

Phototoxin wrote:Maybe that's why 40k is easier to play - no one cares if its nids vs necrons but for WW2 americans vs french is a no-no!

Nothing wrong with Blue on Blue battles in FoW. In fact just yesterday my British 6th Airborne chaps cut to pieces 2 different US 3rd Armored forces and the actually founght Jerry when the Flemish SS took the field. Some people don't like playing any games except the opposing side, but that just isn't possible in a league setting. No one is going to sit out an entire league day just because no forces of one side or the other didn't show up. Remember one Sunday afternoon in our EW league where people showed up staggered to the point where we had Polish on Polish, French on French, German on German and British on British games all going simultaneously. Just happened to fall that way. For me not wanting to play a LW British or American armored list against LW Russian armor would be based more on the fact that the western front tanks were VERY outclassed by the eastern front tanks. It just isn't a lot of fun where pretty much every game your shots just continue to bounce off the enemy while your own tanks are popping all over the place. That is why I tend to play British Airborne in Late War, because dug in infantry and guns can get the job done nicely against heavy tanks.

It can sometimes be easier to arrange 40k games if you regularly deal with really anal historicals folks, but then you can get the same problem sometimes too when only Space Marine or IG players show up and someone gets the well space marines and IG are on the same side going.

Simple fact is as long as the players are amenable to playing a game it will be easy enough to have a reason for certain forces to face each other. IMNSHO just wanting to play a game is good enough for me.

Skriker

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

I can think of plenty of justifications for why the French and the Americans might have a pop at each other. It doesn't take much imagination to think of a perfectly valid reason why two forces might be engaged.

Maybe they didn't like it when the nameFrench Fries got replaced with 'Freedom Fries' -shrugs-

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

I can think of plenty of justifications for why the French and the Americans might have a pop at each other. It doesn't take much imagination to think of a perfectly valid reason why two forces might be engaged.

Maybe they didn't like it when the nameFrench Fries got replaced with 'Freedom Fries' -shrugs-

Or somebody wanted to buy a hamburger...

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

I can think of plenty of justifications for why the French and the Americans might have a pop at each other. It doesn't take much imagination to think of a perfectly valid reason why two forces might be engaged.

Maybe they didn't like it when the nameFrench Fries got replaced with 'Freedom Fries' -shrugs-

Or that whole "leaving the French premier in tears whilst his country gets slaughtered by Jerry" thing. I think that would piss me off.

All of my guns, vehicles and tanks are following the same pattern being painted dark grey (late war). So I'd say go for it. Make your own colored tanks and all