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.

I think you are both talking at cross purposes and probably actually agree if you are talking about the same instances.

There is a big sliding scale, a big area of grey, between the wrong shade of khaki (the classic comment here is how many rivets!) and having WW2 troops running around in Humvees.

I've played a lot of historical games over the years, with people who are seriously into it. I don't know of anyone who would have a problem with the former. Most would probably have a problem with the latter if it was done for anything other messing around.

In terms of 'fun', kind of thing seems to crop up a lot in the 40k/Fantasy forums, where there is the unhealthy combination of a poor balancing system in a game and it relies on players to moderate themselves. If I place several mega-powerful units on the table, which I know having looked across the table my opponent has zero chance of destroying, where would be the 'fun' for the person I am playing (or for myself for that matter? Although I realise some people seem to enjoy curb-stomping an opponent who stands know chance of winning)? It's only a game, but it's also a social compact between two people to have a few hours doing something they enjoy, it's not a solo, private experience.

Extrapolating this to the historical setting, if your opponent expects you to conform to certain principles when bringing your force to the table, then isn't being a bit selfish not to do so? The caveat here of course is the environment in which you are playing and what they expect. So much for me about historical gaming is creating the setting; the stinking dark age hamlets, the quaint villages of Normandy. The overall experience is that much more powerful if you don't have Oliphants trampling over those huts or an Abrams smashing through the village post office

 Maniac_nmt wrote:
Bolt Action will take a few things to get used to as a 40k player.

1. Pinning is a markedly different mechanic that anything in 40k. It can result in units being 'destroyed' without actually dying. It also makes it harder to accomplish your plans.

2. Random activations - The dice cup is a fantastic way to keep the flow of the game from being I go/ You go. Games can change radically due to the order dice are drawn.

3. Overwatch is an action. If you want a unit to attack the foe you can, but you aren't doing anything else.

4. Officers are not heroes. They cannot hold off the horde solo. They are key for morale tests, like they should be. Don't expect a Lt. to blow through squad after squad of foes.

Weird War/Historical Accuracy depends on your foe. Historical gamers can be a cranky and cantankerous lot but most are still gamers.

My Lt. for my Americans is Captain America, using his movie costume.





Stay mostly true and you should be fine. A few vintage/retro nods will in all probability be smiled at and welcomed.

Awesome. 10/10

My group is doing Bolt Action with 1/72 scale figures and vehicles. Best way to go for a dirt cheap solution.

Vehicles from Pegasus, Armourfast, and Plastic Soldier will make you happier than the highly detailed fiddly-bits type models from Tamiya, Revell, Italeri, Dragon or any other a
"art" model model company.

 Pacific wrote:
I think you are both talking at cross purposes and probably actually agree if you are talking about the same instances.

I think you'll find that I just asked Announcement to clarify where he [edit: apologies - she] was coming from. I'l count the rivets and agonise over colour schemes on my own models (which, as a result, tend to remain in various stages of incompleteness), but don't expect others to do the same. And when someone fields models that are painted to a reasonable standard, and basically have the right colours etc, I'm fine with that (even if the Panzers are grey when they should be dark yellow); I'm just happy to see painted models.

Extrapolating this to the historical setting, if your opponent expects you to conform to certain principles when bringing your force to the table, then isn't being a bit selfish not to do so? The caveat here of course is the environment in which you are playing and what they expect. So much for me about historical gaming is creating the setting; the stinking dark age hamlets, the quaint villages of Normandy. The overall experience is that much more powerful if you don't have Oliphants trampling over those huts or an Abrams smashing through the village post office

It's even more powerful if the Panzers hiding in those quaint Normandy villages are in some semblance of a 3-colour scheme, and the British tanks crawling cautiously up the road towards them are painted something approximating dark green or even khaki. It comes back to why we play war-games using miniatures and not abstract playing counters. It's presumably because we care (at least to some extent) about what the game looks like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xraytango wrote:
My group is doing Bolt Action with 1/72 scale figures and vehicles. Best way to go for a dirt cheap solution.
Vehicles from Pegasus, Armourfast, and Plastic Soldier will make you happier than the highly detailed fiddly-bits type models from Tamiya, Revell, Italeri, Dragon or any other a "art" model model company.

I think if I was starting from scratch I might have done the same thing, as 1/72 is the scale I started with many years ago. However, it was the (then) new 28mm plastic vehicles that Warlord began to produce that lured me into Bolt Action, and I find the larger scale a bit easier to work with now my eyes aren't what they were I do look enviously at the range of 1/72 vehicles that's now available. However, the thing about 28mm is that Warlord/Italeri and Rubicon Models are now turning out an increasing number of plastic vehicles which are intended principally for wargaming, so they're nothing like as fiddly and time-consuming as what you describe as "art" models. Leave off the more fragile bits, and they're very robust models.

Yeah, I like the stuff that Warlord and Rubicon are sending down the pipe, especially the Opel trucks!

Believe it or not I'm not against 28mm, I actually started a 28mm WWII project but I was/am using Crusader/Artizan figures.

It just so happens everyone else already had 1/72, so I made the shift.

It's all good

The only thing about "leaving off the fiddly bits" is that you still have to build the treads. I like that the purpose-built gaming vehicles have much more simple assembly when it comes to that part.

 Pacific wrote:
I think you are both talking at cross purposes and probably actually agree if you are talking about the same instances.

I think you might very well be right about that.

 Tailgunner wrote:

I think you'll find that I just asked Announcement to clarify where he was coming from. I'l count the rivets and agonise over colour schemes on my own models (which, as a result, tend to remain in various stages of incompleteness), but don't expect others to do the same. And when someone fields models that are painted to a reasonable standard, and basically have the right colours etc, I'm fine with that (even if the Panzers are grey when they should be dark yellow); I'm just happy to see painted models.

Right, and I agree with you there. I lied a little bit in my previous post - prior to painting my Brits I very quickly looked up the Artizan painting guide for WWII uniforms and picked my paints based on that list, but that is the extent of research I've done into the subject. The learned are able to tell that I didn't paint my minis correctly, but they look WWII-y enough for me and everyone I've played with.

When I say "fun is more important than historical accuracy" I'm talking about situations like some guy in a Facebook group I'm a member of who painted a tank pink because his daughter wanted it that way. If a pink tank can recruit another player, then I'm all for it! Being a stickler about historical accuracy can come later when the new player has settled in with the game a bit.

All in all I guess it's just a matter of finding what your own limits are and going with it. I'm all for pink tanks as a way to recruit more players (and particularly female players, I'm really the only female historical gamer I know of so far), but I'm also glad there are guys out there who care about the overall look and feel of the game in addition to the game itself, since I, too, enjoy looking at a tabletop with awesome scenery and little dudes who are painted convincingly to whichever era they belong to. I'll play people with pink tanks - but will probably expect that they use colors that are convincingly WWII-y when they mature as players of the game.

Announcement wrote:
All in all I guess it's just a matter of finding what your own limits are and going with it. I'm all for pink tanks as a way to recruit more players (and particularly female players, I'm really the only female historical gamer I know of so far), but I'm also glad there are guys out there who care about the overall look and feel of the game in addition to the game itself, since I, too, enjoy looking at a tabletop with awesome scenery and little dudes who are painted convincingly to whichever era they belong to. I'll play people with pink tanks - but will probably expect that they use colors that are convincingly WWII-y when they mature as players of the game.

There were in fact pink tanks - some British armour in North Africa was painted 'desert pink'. The precise colour is a subject of debate, but there's your entry point for anyone who finds drab colours off-putting...

I dont think any tanks were painted 'desert pink' per se, and the infamous SAS 'Pink Panther' was post-war of course.

Though Caunter is a madly colourful scheme... It could have contained a pink tone possibly as it had several local variations.

But the LRDG did have some wild and lurid schemes. The story goes that for the first batch of vehicles they raided local Egyptian shops and workshops for paint. From memoirs they seem to have been painted in a pattern of bright pink, sky blue, sand yellow and lime green.

And dont forget the pink Spitfire...



For me, I like to do stuff thats reasonably accurate. Its why I just blew €65 on a new book for my latest project... But I think thats because my other 'hobby' is military history, particuarly WW2 so it all feeds the same hobby desire in a way.

Other people can do what they like... Just not on my table!

Big P wrote:
I dont think any tanks were painted 'desert pink' per se, and the infamous SAS 'Pink Panther' was post-war of course.

Big P - it was called Desert Pink No.Z.I. and once sources describes it as a warm sandy pink. Apparently the actual shade depended on how it was mixed, as it was produced locally. The point is that pink tanks (even if the pink may have been closer to a flesh colour and not bubblegum pink) are doable.