Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First off, I love the idea of a greyscale army. I might do my IG that way now.

Here is how I see it, historically accurate paint is preferable but not manditory, unless you are actually trying to recreate a specific battle. However there aren't actually any game systems that I know of that actually lend themselves to recreating specific battles because the games are written to balanced, where as actual warfair is very rarely, if ever, balanced. (And when it is, it isn't. Looking at you 'Nam)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
First off, I love the idea of a greyscale army. I might do my IG that way now.

Here is how I see it, historically accurate paint is preferable but not manditory, unless you are actually trying to recreate a specific battle. However there aren't actually any game systems that I know of that actually lend themselves to recreating specific battles because the games are written to balanced, where as actual warfair is very rarely, if ever, balanced. (And when it is, it isn't. Looking at you 'Nam)

Wargames dont have to be 'balanced' in terms of points.

Use of scenario objectives does that... I play plenty of rules that aint 'balanced' and shouldnt be... Such as ones for Vietnam.

Big P wrote:
Wargames dont have to be 'balanced' in terms of points.

Use of scenario objectives does that... I play plenty of rules that aint 'balanced' and shouldnt be... Such as ones for Vietnam.

Too true. Far too many people hung up on points values out there, a sad inheritance from the evil empire I guess...................

Lets say that you are going to play an assault river crossing, in most sets of historical rules that are not the work of fiction FOW are, the attacking force should be a fair amount bigger then the defender if you want a decent game.

Most historical games are games of fiction. At best they are an abstract representation of an actual battle. Though most of the time they are a completely fictional battle involving fictional forces in a fictional location. And even those that strive to be like a historical battle almost always instantly deviate from it-- as the point largely is to find out "what if" a different approach were to be taken (such as the player being the commander rather than the historical commander).

Point systems can be a useful tool, but they can also get in the way. For those who have primarily gone with point systems and built armies from army lists, leaving point systems behind can be a difficult transition.

A local scale model & railroad store that sells historical miniatures used to have a demo game of the Normandy beach landings (Operation Overlord). The game assumes the eventual victory of the allies in actually landing. The allied player has unlimited forces. As things die, they can be brought back on a new landing boat. Or held if the attacker wants to wait for another wave. The game used some very fast play rules and after the player took the beach, they'd switch sides and fight the battle again.

It was a fantastic exercise for those who were only familiar with point system based approaches. The store moved a while back and doesn't have the space to have the game set up all the time, but they still run it at their mini-convention events.

 Aldramelech wrote:

Big P wrote:
Wargames dont have to be 'balanced' in terms of points.

Use of scenario objectives does that... I play plenty of rules that aint 'balanced' and shouldnt be... Such as ones for Vietnam.

Too true. Far too many people hung up on points values out there, a sad inheritance from the evil empire I guess...................

Lets say that you are going to play an assault river crossing, in most sets of historical rules that are not the work of fiction FOW are, the attacking force should be a fair amount bigger then the defender if you want a decent game.

I'm okay with playing an unbalanced points mission as long as it becomes easier for the player with less points to achieve his objectives, even if his objectives are survive x turns or kill y amount of opponent's points. No one* wants to play as the guy that has less stuff on the field (and a greater chance of being blown away or having his army run in fear) and still have to complete just as difficult objectives.

And the Evil Empire even has a mission in WHFB where the defender has less points and simply has to survive the game, or take out a quarter of the enemy's army to be considered the victor of the match, so even the evil empire gets it right occasionally.


* - Obviously there are die hard players that want to faithfully represent a battle, and are even willing to play on the losing side. Unless I'm in the middle of a reenactment, that doesn't sound very fun to me.

I picked up a Warlord Stug at Overlord earlier in the year after playing too much World of Tanks and painted it up white, pink and blue and loved doing it, because I like breaking out of the conventional and it put a smile on my face to see a badass WW2 tank painted up crazily. It's given me a taste for it and I'm going to do more of it once I decide what vehicles to do. Thing is, I don't really game much and no-one around me plays Bolt Action so it's not an issue whether anyone else would play against it, but I would have no problem painting against wacky paintjob armies.

Personally I would find it hard to play against red germans, but there isnt a rule in any rulebook saying that you cant paint germans red, however isnt the fact that so many people play fantasy and sci-fi so they can paint there troops any colour they want

WarMill wrote:I picked up a Warlord Stug at Overlord earlier in the year after playing too much World of Tanks and painted it up white, pink and blue and loved doing it, because I like breaking out of the conventional and it put a smile on my face to see a badass WW2 tank painted up crazily. It's given me a taste for it and I'm going to do more of it once I decide what vehicles to do. Thing is, I don't really game much and no-one around me plays Bolt Action so it's not an issue whether anyone else would play against it, but I would have no problem painting against wacky paintjob armies.

That is awesome. Love the peace sign.

FenWulf29 wrote:Personally I would find it hard to play against red germans, but there isnt a rule in any rulebook saying that you cant paint germans red, however isnt the fact that so many people play fantasy and sci-fi so they can paint there troops any colour they want

No it isn't a fact. I play games i find enjoyable. I play sci-fi games because i love sci-fi not because I can paint them fire engine red.

Germans don't come in red?

Oh really......

Wrong Eagle!

...and the less said about his waffenfarbe the better... Plus I think the red is the wrong RAL colour.

And thus we are able to discover in our midst those who take it a bit too far.

 notprop wrote:
And thus we are able to discover in our midst those who take it a bit too far.

Just as planned

 notprop wrote:
And thus we are able to discover in our midst those who take it a bit too far.

Think you can never take it too far until you're dressed in that Napoleon costume (complete with army hidden inside your jacked), shouting at your soldiers and scaring the people in the apartment underneath yours

 Pacific wrote:

 notprop wrote:
And thus we are able to discover in our midst those who take it a bit too far.

Think you can never take it too far until you're dressed in that Napoleon costume (complete with army hidden inside your jacked), shouting at your soldiers and scaring the people in the apartment underneath yours

Speaking from experience are we?????

Big P wrote:
Hope your terrain is greyscale too!

Well, I haven't really made much (any?) terrain yet. Apparently pure black static grass is hard to find too. :(

 Goremaul wrote:

Big P wrote:
Hope your terrain is greyscale too!

Well, I haven't really made much (any?) terrain yet. Apparently pure black static grass is hard to find too. :(

http://www.war-world.co.uk/www.war-world.co.uk/info.php?p=2&pid=3807533&ack=9

i want pics

I... I think you are my hero.

That's awesome! Thanks! Now just to take some decent pics...

 Goremaul wrote:
I... I think you are my hero.

That is so going into my signature,


Are there any other thoughts to the topic at hand??

Hmm.. only that I would like to add a more positive slant to things here. I find there is a certain kind of (really nerdy!) pleasure in getting a historically based army just right.. the way I would relate it to a 40k gamer and the like is if you had a Pre-Heresy marine army, and went through the kind of details of making the right shoulder pad type, bolter, correct trim on the armour etc. Most people will just see it as 'marines', but occasionally you will meet someone who recognises what you have done, and you get a nod, a grin and a complementary comment about it the effort you have made.

With historicals times this by ten, because obviously being based on fact there is that possibility of much more depth and detail in terms of the historical accounts of things. Having the correct gun barrel on a Panzer IV, or a squadron marking of a particular famous unit. Of arranging a unit of Romans in the correct formation and armed with pilum rather than gladius for that particular period.. A big thing for me with historical things is reading about the battles that took place, and re-creating as accurately as possible a particular force. If my opponent does the same, and we re-create a particular battle to come up with a what if scenario.. well, I have to say for me it's one of the highlights of the wargaming and miniature hobby.

I suppose ultimately there is nothing to stop you painting or modelling whatever within the historical context. But, like playing with unpainted miniatures or on poorly laid out terrain, it just a dimension less to what you are doing. Perfectly serviceable, and of course you can still have fun, but there are different degrees of enjoyment and I would say almost without exception most would want to play with those who have gone the extra mile if given the opportunity.

I wouldn't have an issue.. But prefer historically close, I'm not so much a stickler that ill look at someone and complain that their 1941 Germans aren't the right color field grey. That's just silly. As long as they are Germans fine. Now in regards to red colored Germans.. Definitely no problems. I've often wanted to do an army that for each side that simulated red force vs blue force. In that I mean every model on the red side is red only and the same concept for blue. That desire is based on that history channels show where the guy busts open what looks to be a war game table and one force is blue the other is red.. I forget what it's called but I thought it'd be neat to simulate that on the table!

I would be interested to know if the OP ran their demo game, and if the bright colours did catch the eye and act as a conversation piece in the way intended.

Also I find it odd that 'historical' gamers have a reputation for button counting. As in my experience it is the exact opposite - it being the fanstasy and sci-fi crowd who are anal about such matters.

 Pacific wrote:

However, a big part of the appeal of historicals is the accurate representation (to some degree) of what those units and battlefields actually looked like. And it's why historical battlefields often have such care and attention lavished on them, contrast with the masses of grey plastic, sometimes even un-built battlefields of the 41st millenium that you tend to see. If you are trying to attract players with bright colours (with that kind of extreme example), and the players find that to be a necessary element and draw to the game, then I have to say they are probably not ready for historical stuff yet and need to stick with fantasy/sci-fi.

Excuse me?

Lord Castellan wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

However, a big part of the appeal of historicals is the accurate representation (to some degree) of what those units and battlefields actually looked like. And it's why historical battlefields often have such care and attention lavished on them, contrast with the masses of grey plastic, sometimes even un-built battlefields of the 41st millenium that you tend to see. If you are trying to attract players with bright colours (with that kind of extreme example), and the players find that to be a necessary element and draw to the game, then I have to say they are probably not ready for historical stuff yet and need to stick with fantasy/sci-fi.

Excuse me?

Read Pacific's post a little closer. He says 'bright colours (with that kind of extreme example)', i.e., painting his Germans in camo that one would find only plastered onto a CoD player's gun. I think it's safe to assume he's not talking about older period where uniforms/outfits could be a bit more colorful.

Part of the appeal of Napoleonics is the varied and bright uniforms. It's actually really astounding how over the top some of their uniforms were.

Camo or drab uniforms only really became important when the advent of the shell casing dramatically increased the lethality of firearms and not being seen began to mean the difference between being dead and alive.

There are loads of historical armies in bright colours for those who want them and loads in drab for those who want them.

Pacific wrote:Hmm.. only that I would like to add a more positive slant to things here. I find there is a certain kind of (really nerdy!) pleasure in getting a historically based army just right.. the way I would relate it to a 40k gamer and the like is if you had a Pre-Heresy marine army, and went through the kind of details of making the right shoulder pad type, bolter, correct trim on the armour etc. Most people will just see it as 'marines', but occasionally you will meet someone who recognises what you have done, and you get a nod, a grin and a complementary comment about it the effort you have made.

With historicals times this by ten, because obviously being based on fact there is that possibility of much more depth and detail in terms of the historical accounts of things. Having the correct gun barrel on a Panzer IV, or a squadron marking of a particular famous unit. Of arranging a unit of Romans in the correct formation and armed with pilum rather than gladius for that particular period.. A big thing for me with historical things is reading about the battles that took place, and re-creating as accurately as possible a particular force. If my opponent does the same, and we re-create a particular battle to come up with a what if scenario.. well, I have to say for me it's one of the highlights of the wargaming and miniature hobby.

I suppose ultimately there is nothing to stop you painting or modelling whatever within the historical context. But, like playing with unpainted miniatures or on poorly laid out terrain, it just a dimension less to what you are doing. Perfectly serviceable, and of course you can still have fun, but there are different degrees of enjoyment and I would say almost without exception most would want to play with those who have gone the extra mile if given the opportunity.

Thank you for your thoughts. I would have replied sooner but real life happens.

Warsmith262 wrote:I wouldn't have an issue.. But prefer historically close, I'm not so much a stickler that ill look at someone and complain that their 1941 Germans aren't the right color field grey. That's just silly. As long as they are Germans fine. Now in regards to red colored Germans.. Definitely no problems. I've often wanted to do an army that for each side that simulated red force vs blue force. In that I mean every model on the red side is red only and the same concept for blue. That desire is based on that history channels show where the guy busts open what looks to be a war game table and one force is blue the other is red.. I forget what it's called but I thought it'd be neat to simulate that on the table!

Red vs blue. Interesting twist.... hmmm.....

marielle wrote:I would be interested to know if the OP ran their demo game, and if the bright colours did catch the eye and act as a conversation piece in the way intended.

Also I find it odd that 'historical' gamers have a reputation for button counting. As in my experience it is the exact opposite - it being the fanstasy and sci-fi crowd who are anal about such matters.

Actually I just recently gotten the demo kit I will be using and I have been dealing with life issues and such. I am currently working on a demo board to use in store. I am about 33% done with it. please read my next reply.

infinite_array wrote:

Lord Castellan wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

However, a big part of the appeal of historicals is the accurate representation (to some degree) of what those units and battlefields actually looked like. And it's why historical battlefields often have such care and attention lavished on them, contrast with the masses of grey plastic, sometimes even un-built battlefields of the 41st millenium that you tend to see. If you are trying to attract players with bright colours (with that kind of extreme example), and the players find that to be a necessary element and draw to the game, then I have to say they are probably not ready for historical stuff yet and need to stick with fantasy/sci-fi.

Excuse me?

Read Pacific's post a little closer. He says 'bright colours (with that kind of extreme example)', i.e., painting his Germans in camo that one would find only plastered onto a CoD player's gun. I think it's safe to assume he's not talking about older period where uniforms/outfits could be a bit more colorful.

See the thing is I said red camo and everyone automatically assumes I want to paint my Germans like Blood Angels or like fire trucks or like (insert bright red object here). There are many hues of red. Thanks to a fellow gamer I have come across some camo that has red-brown(reddish brown I guess would be more accurate) in it. I could easily tweak it to a darker red without too much fuss.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Part of the appeal of Napoleonics is the varied and bright uniforms. It's actually really astounding how over the top some of their uniforms were.

Camo or drab uniforms only really became important when the advent of the shell casing dramatically increased the lethality of firearms and not being seen began to mean the difference between being dead and alive.

There are loads of historical armies in bright colours for those who want them and loads in drab for those who want them.

True and again I am not looking for rainbow armies. I am playing a WWII game. I just happen to like red of almost any hue. (light red aka pink i am looking at you.)

 notprop wrote:
Germans don't come in red?

Oh really......

His eagle is wrong for a Allegemeine SS uniform, he has weird shoulder boards for a primarily dress uniform, his pockets are just wrong (A classic nazi black uniform would have a scalloped pocket flap and the stitching wouldn't be as obvious) and it looks like he sewed the silver NCO tress that goes on the collar on his sleeve. Then again, the Germans never had a man with no skin and a red skull running around so my "Criticism" means feth all.

More to the point, paint them as you want. As long as you are a good opponent and provide good times I will enjoy our game. I may paint my own soviets as accurately as possible but that doesn't give me permission to moan about how everyone else gets theirs wrong. Heck, official images of Bolt Action germans don't get the uniform right. They're too grey and I remember seeing images of them with entire squads with silver lining to their collars.

I think i would rather play against a tin boy than a badly inaccurate painted army.

It's hard for me to understand how someone could be interested in wargames set in a particular period of history yet have no intention to stick to that period in terms of style. With any visual cues masked by bright colors, what will be left to identify the game as being ww2 based? Might as well cut out a piece of paper and write 'tank' on it and field that as my command tiger. This may sound like an exaggeration but to me it would be very similar in terms of impact on the overal enjoyability of a game.

To me, immersion is everything. It makes the difference between yawn and yay.

I don't care for armies to be 'accurate' for a particular unit, year, season or front. As long as the style in which they are painted matches the ww2 era in a general way that will do for me. It needs to be able to inspire a ww2 vibe.

I for one don't care what color you paint your minis, as long as they look reasonable. Like, if they look like something that belongs on a WW2 battlefield than I'll take it (so if it's the right shade of colors for the field, greens and browns or tans). IF you painted your Germans bright pink....I may say something, but it won't stop me from playing you. Easier targets for my Russians