/hwg/ - Historical Wargames General

File: 1stBearFlag.svg.png (39KB, 1280x832px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1280x832px

>Wargaming Compendium
http://www.mediafire.com/download/cghxf3475qy46aq/Wargaming+Compendium.pdf
>Saga
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/alj31go19tmpm/SAGA
>Black Powder
http://www.mediafire.com/download/o5x6blwoczojmfr/Black+Powder.pdf
>Bolt Action
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/n7jmdnlv1n0ju/Bolt_Action
>Hail Caesar
https://mega.nz/#F!s9xTTDpQ!CasEjRETeqZsJ5LOzYrJdg
>Warhammer Ancient battles 2.0
http://www.mediafire.com/download/uttov32riixm9b0/Warhammer+Ancient+Battles+2E.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/ta7aj1erh7sap1t/Warhammer+Ancient+Battles+-+Armies+of+Antiquity+v2.pdf
>Warmaster Ancients
http://www.mediafire.com/download/cifld8bl3uy2i5g/Warmaster+Ancients.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/3emyvka11bnna1b/Warmaster+Ancient+Armies.pdf
>Advanced Squad Leader
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/d9x0dbxrpjg48/Advanced_Squad_Leader
>Impetus
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/28i9gevqws518/Impetus
>Ronin
http://www.mediafire.com/download/m8xke04pc3hne2k/Ronin.pdf
>Battleground WWII
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/cb83cg7ays4l1/Battleground_WWII
>By Fire And Sword
https://mega.co.nz/#!jxgCWTYD!FCp52DAqIUc-EM-TsRsWv7fB92nJ3kkzKsNcD_urI5Q
>Modelling & painting guides
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/7b5027l7oaz05/Modelling_%26_Painting_Guides
>Twilight 2000/2013 RPG
https://mega.co.nz/#F!C9sQhbwb!NVnD4jvUn5inOrPJIAkBhA
>Phoenix Command RPG
https://mega.co.nz/#F!b5tgXRwa!mzelRNrKPjiT8gP7VrS-Jw
>Next War (GMT)
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/eupungrg93xgb/Next_War
>Battlegroup
https://mega.nz/#F!SolyxarJ!GUg6zWBStfznr6BvYedghQ

Desired scans :
Black Powder supplements
Rank and File supplements
Harpoon 3 & 4 supplements
Hail Caesar! Late Antiquity to Early Medieval Army List
Force on Force supplements
Hind Commander
At Close Quarters
War and Conquest
Germany Strikes!
Bolt Action: Empire in Flames

File: Bataille_de_Marengo.jpg (242KB, 1280x948px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1280x948px

14th of June in military history:

1216 – First Barons' War: Prince Louis of France captures the city of Winchester and soon conquers over half of the Kingdom of England.
1285 – Second Mongol invasion of Vietnam: Forces led by Prince Trần Quang Khải destroy most of the invading Mongol naval fleet in a battle at Chuong Duong.
1287 – Kublai Khan defeats the traditionalist Borjigin princes in East Mongolia and Manchuria.
1381 – Richard II of England meets leaders of Peasants' Revolt on Blackheath. The Tower of London is stormed by rebels who enter without resistance.
1645 – English Civil War: Battle of Naseby – Royalist forces are beaten by Parliamentarian soldiers.
1667 – The Raid on the Medway by the Dutch fleet in the Second Anglo-Dutch War ends.
1775 – American Revolutionary War: the Continental Army is established by the Continental Congress, marking the birth of the United States Army.
1800 – Bonaparte defeats the Austrians at the Battle of Marengo in Northern Italy and re-conquers Italy.
1807 – The Grande Armée defeats the Russian Army at the Battle of Friedland in Poland ending the War of the Fourth Coalition.
1830 – Beginning of the French colonization of Algeria: 34,000 French soldiers begin their invasion of Algiers.
1846 – Bear Flag Revolt begins – Anglo settlers in Sonoma, California, start a rebellion against Mexico and proclaim the California Republic.
1863 – American Civil War: Second Battle of Winchester – a Union garrison is defeated by the Army of Northern Virginia in the Shenandoah Valley town of Winchester, Virginia.
1944 – World War II: After several failed attempts, the British Army abandons its plan to capture the German-occupied town of Caen.
1945 – World War II: Filipino troops liberate the Ilocos Sur and start the Battle of Bessang Pass in Northern Luzon.
1982 – Falklands War: Argentine forces in the capital Stanley conditionally surrender to British forces.

File: scan5a.jpg (727KB, 2000x1356px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 2000x1356px

It is 371 years since the Battle of Naseby, a pivotal moment of the English Civil War. Prior to the battle there was no obvious indication that either Parliament nor the Royalists had any obvious military advantage over the other. However, the overwhelming defeat of the Royalists ended this and almost certainly doomed Charles I.

By May 1645, Charles had marched a large Royalist force north to attack a Parliamentarian force that was besieging Chester. News of the Royalists march north, led to a retreat by the Parliamentarian force commanded by Sir William Brereton. This took away from Charles an opportunity to demonstrate to Parliament the military superiority of the Royalist army. However, Charles was very keen to do this and he therefore decided to turn south and besiege the Parliamentarian town of Leicester. An attack on Leicester was, in fact, easy from the Royalist’s point of view. While it may have sent out a supposedly clear message to Fairfax, based in Oxford, about the strength and professionalism of the Royalists, it was a message that was clouded. The Royalists attacked Leicester with 12,000 men while there were only 2,000 defenders. The town’s defences lasted just three hours when the attack came on May 30th.

Boosted by this victory, Charles now targeted Oxford – his old capital now being besieged by Fairfax. Given the choice of continuing to besiege Oxford or taking on the advancing Royalists, Fairfax chose the latter. On June 3rd, Fairfax moved his men away from Oxford to confront the king.

Charles had faced dissent among the senior commanders in the Royalist force. Many Royalists felt that their cause would be better served if they moved north, defeated the Scots and then moved back south to tackle Fairfax. However, to Charles Oxford had a certain symbolism and he overruled any dissention. It is highly likely that he had got an exaggerated view of his army’s strength after the ease of his victory at Leicester.

File: Naseby_Map_BG_Correct.jpg (253KB, 600x452px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 600x452px

>>47771684
Fairfax was an astute military man and he knew that Parliament's recently formed New Model Army was not yet as effective as he wanted it to be. He was acutely aware that he needed support to enhance the strength of the men he commanded. Cromwell was still in East Anglia. He, along with Charles, waited for support to arrive. However, Fairfax’s support was nearer and Cromwell and his men joined him on June 13th whereas the Royalist support had to come from Wales and Somerset. Neither arrived by the time Naseby was fought.

Realising the weakness of their position, Charles decided to move north of Daventry. However, Parliamentary scouts tracked their every move. On the night of June 13th, Charles decided that any continuing move would play into the hands of Parliament who could pick-off his rear markers with ease. Prince Rupert had no desire to attack the New Model Army but a Royal Council of War overruled him. With an inflated opinion as to the military prowess of the Royalist Army, Charles decided that an attack was his best move. The battle was fought on June 14th. Parliament's forces were 13,500 strong (6,000 horse, 7,000 foot, 1,000 dragoons and 11 guns); the Royalists numbered 7,400 (4,100 horse and 3,300 foot).

Before the battle started, the New Model Army set itself up on a ridge overlooking Naseby. However, Cromwell ordered the army off of this ridge as he decided that it was too good a position and not even an incompetent military commander like Charles would attack such a position. He moved the army back to Naseby village – some 1.5 miles away.

The two armies faced one another barely ½ a mile apart. Cromwell’s horsemen were on the fight flank of Parliament’s force and he could call on 3,500 men. Opposing him were the horsemen of Marmaduke Langdale. On the left flank for Parliament were the horsemen of Henry Ireton and opposing him were the horse of Princes Rupert and Maurice. Between both sets of horsemen on both sides were the infantry.

File: NASEBY 024.jpg (581KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 1600x1200px

>>47771695
The battle started at 10.00 when Rupert attacked Ireton. His men crashed through with some ease but rather than attack Parliament’s infantry formations that were easily open to a cavalry flank attack, Rupert decided to move on to Naseby and attack a baggage wagon there. While this mistake would not have led to any difference in the final outcome, it could have made the battle a lot more difficult for Fairfax.

On the right flank, Langdale attacked Cromwell at the same time as Rupert attacked Ireton. However, in this case, Cromwell easily defeated Langdale’s men thus exposing the King’s infantry to attack. Cromwell duly attacked but kept men in reserve as an insurance. It was this attack on the right flank of the Royalists infantry that doomed Charles to defeat. Without any form of firm leadership, the Royalist infantry broke up. It did succeed in pushing back Parliament’s first line of infantry, but whether this was a pre-planned move to further suck Royalist infantry into a Parliamentarian pincer movement is open to discussion. Whether it was or not, the Royalist force was open to cavalry attack on both flanks while having to fight Parliament’s infantry force in front of it. Surrender was the only real option.

Historians see the overwhelming success of the New Model Army at Naseby as the time when Charles lost the English Civil War. It was a defeat that he never recovered from. Ironically the battle started with the success of Prince Rupert but this could not be followed up. Rupert had perfected the tactic of a very speedy cavalry attack and even at Naseby this worked. If Langdale had been equally successful on the other flank the battle could have turned in favour of the Royalists. The Royalist force lost over 1,000 men while the New Model Army lost about 200.

Naseby is one of the pike-and-shot classics, and an essential for any wargaming fan of the era.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/nts747a3u33nd/English_Civil_War

File: IMG_0832.jpg (368KB, 1600x1286px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1600x1286px

TinyTanks is back!

>After a bit of a hiatus on the 3mm gaming front lately, I finally had an opportunity last night to get some minis on the table for a game with my buddy John. This time I got out my Desert terrain for some Arab-Israeli War action. I consulted my AIW scenario book From Golan to Sinai from Clash of Arms Games and found a scenario that would fit the bill.

>The Scenario is "Botzer" from the 1973 Yom Kippur War, pitting an Egyptian Armoured Brigade trying to make a breakthrough along the shores of the Great Bitter Lake against two Israeli Armoured Battalions. Nothing too complex - lots of tanks, a little bit of infantry on the Egyptian side and pretty much no artillery or air (the Egyptians had their Infantry battalion's mortars, but they hardly count...). An old fashioned tank punch-up!!

>>47771684

>Prior to the battle there was no obvious indication that either Parliament nor the Royalists had any obvious military advantage over the other.

Sorry, anon (great going with the write-ups, btw) but this one just triggered me.

Naseby was just a final nail in the King Charles' coffin: Marston Moor was the pivotal moment in the Civil War. Kinda like Antietam or Leipzig. IMHO, anyway.

Has anyone actually played Chevauchee? I've heard a lot of negative shit about it, but no-one's posted any AARs or batreps etc.

>>47775192
There was some AARs a couple of threads back about some Italian streetfightan'.

Pike and shotte or fire and sword, any impressions?

>>47775458
I would also like to ask you guys about the Pike and shotte models. How is the quality?

>>47775192
I played it when it was still in beta. Posted a pretty lenght commentary on it back then. It needed some work but was fun and I had a great time.

>>47771706

what minis are these?

>>47775458
>Pike and shotte or fire and sword, any impressions?
>>47775458
>I would also like to ask you guys about the Pike and shotte models. How is the quality?
No-one knows?

File: waitabitlongerfam.jpg (80KB, 633x479px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 633x479px

>>47775889

>>47775911
Sorry, but I am pumped. I would like to get impressions of both systems (if possible) and get some models. It's been a while (since blood bowl) I have been interested in these type of games.

>>47775959
Go out and exlore for yourself I'd say. Plenty of reviews online, tho By Fire and Sword looks a bit too constrained for me with all the restrictions. Plus small unit sizes...

Iunno, I'd go with Pike and Shotte with 10mm figures.

>>47775577

Warlords P&S range has a lot of cheap plastics, they're on the old side (6 years or more?) but roughly equivalent to metal ranges from what I can tell. I don't own any yet but when I start my TYW armies intend to build them around the WLG plastics

My verdict is get a box and see, caliver books has the best discounts I've yet found on warlord figs (I think it's 25ish usd for a box of Infantry) and free shipping

As far as rules go I haven't tried any yet

File: 13459493_10154248066556369_1888961333_n (1).jpg (57KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x720px

Finished painting a small band of Condottiere for miscellaneous medieval mayhem. The smallest formation in a free company was the lance, a five man team with mixed weaponry. I've painted up a mounted lance and two foot lances.

File: Russian-gunners_2778231b.jpg (54KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 620x388px

Anyone seen "of the Lord spares is" converted for eastern front (WW1)?

Alternatively recommend a ruleset of similar scope for 6-10mm minis?

>>47778451
Check the TooFatLardies excellent 'Play the Game' compilation of a bunch of articles on WWI stuff for that game.

Alternatively try their other WWI game, Through the Mud and the Blood, which definitely has an Eastern Front expansion.

I also know we have all the TtMatB pdfs in our archive because I was the one who posted them.

>>47777421

Looks pretty badass, Perry right?

File: DSC_0066[1].jpg (344KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1600x1071px

First match at the club for ages lads, had exams and assignments to do instead. A bit of ACW which was good fun, got put with the confederates which is good, they have the catchier songs.

I got my first hit ever with an artillery shell, have terrible luck with that. Uses 'exploding dice', so you roll to hit and then roll for casualties if successful.

Batrep up at Camp Cromwell on Blogspot.

File: pnj2Zr.jpg (60KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x480px

>>47778615
Thanks, I'll look at those.

>>47780088
Timecast buildings?

>>47778451
>>47781970
As anon suggested what you want is "From Empire To Revolution", the Eastern Front expansion to Mud and Blood. But you - and anyone interested in WW1 wargaming - should definitely checkout out the "Play The Game" omnibus as well.

>>47780585
Yup! WOTR light cavalry and the mercenaries box, with some HYW archers for good measure.

File: vietnam_us.jpg (112KB, 960x712px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 960x712px

Well, I finished college and got my degree, so now I can focus on wargames a bit more. Finished basing of the platoon HQ and weapons section for my Vietnam War US army.

>>47783201
Focus on getting a job/any paying employment ASAP. Any gap looks bad on your resume. Unless it's volunteer heart surgery in Kazakhstan etc.

>>47784278
fuck off let him have a break

File: vietnam_us_1.jpg (31KB, 495x206px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 495x206px

>>47783201
...aaaand the rest of the platoon.

>>47784278
I'm going to MSc in September. Last two semesters were bloody intense.

>>47784271
why post this every single thread?

>>47784285
>>47784298
Evening, shitposter-kun!

>>47784320
Im the secondd guy Im just not sure why the same picture of the same board is in every thread?

>>47784327
Well, to be honest, it's not a bad pic. Plus you gotta bump the thread somehow.

File: esci us vietnam.jpg (201KB, 587x355px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 587x355px

>>47784295
>>47783201
It's the ESCI dudes, great stuff, I remember these. Got to love Rambo in the corner there.

>>47784363
That picture wasn't in the previous thread either, although the board was. Shitposter-kun's eyesight is as bad as his English.

>>47784368
Thanks. In case I can put my hands on a Pegasus box, I'll make a platoon of marines too. Now it'll be time to build my two M113s and Sheridans...

>>47784381
I remember the long flying stands, but didn't remember the pic exactly.

At least we can say we have a dedicated shitposter.

File: Vietnam War North Vietnamese Vietcong Esci Revell Italeri 1-72 figures.jpg (73KB, 600x371px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x371px

>>47784388
>Thanks. In case I can put my hands on a Pegasus box, I'll make a platoon of marines too. Now it'll be time to build my two M113s and Sheridans...
But what about the neighbours, anon? Who are your grunts going to shoot at? I always like this box, it had a few guys with floppy hats and scarfs that made great Khmer Rouge/Pathet Lao fighters.

>>47784388
Im not shitposter-kun, I didnt mean to come off as rudde I didnt realise it was a new picture

>>47784403
I got three boxes of those too I'll start soon. I'll probably need to grab a few IMEX Korean War boxes too for SMGs, machine guns and so forth. Really great figures, the two Vietnam War sets from Esci are both good. My only problem is the lack of grenade launchers and too much M60 machine guns in the US set. Other than that, perfect.

>>47784407
It happens. Plus sometimes the best intentions look like shitposting thanks to those dedicated to the cause.

>>47784295
In that case enjoy your tiny manz.

File: 76eaylp.jpg (40KB, 691x426px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 691x426px

>>47784295

File: sc220925.jpg (365KB, 2000x1061px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 2000x1061px

>>47784403
>Vietnameses
hehe

File: DSCF7705.jpg (2MB, 3988x1658px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3988x1658px

>>47784588
Got you covered, senpai.

>>47784599
>I hate these Vietnameses to pieces!

File: ApnowM79-2.jpg (330KB, 1920x816px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1920x816px

>>47784601
I see Roach. Do you have the skills to tigerstripe his blooper?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f96p-IhcZhQ

>>47784632
Haven't seen the movie yet (shame on me), but I believe I can.

Thanks for the idea. Elhiem has minis from the movie I plan on getting.

>>47784605
I loled. That probably means I'm old as hell, huh?

>>47781367
> The Rebs get into the whorehouse. The Union attack on the left, but are beaten off.

But wait I thought you said the Reb-

Ooooohhhh.

>>47777421
I'm sure they look great, but the picture is quite poor.

I only mention it as you put a backdrop up so must have made some effort, so I hope you don't take offense. If you make sure the figures are on a white base (more paper?) and the background fills the screen it will help. If you struggle with blur, setting the timer so you don't have to push the button as you take it might help.

File: Battle of the Thames.jpg (23KB, 480x308px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x308px

I found this rather amusing, not really /hwg/ related.

File: Naval Thunder Battleship Row.jpg (47KB, 993x372px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 993x372px

>>47786263
Why not? Many people here plays navy wargames

>>47786324
I imagine he means because it happened today in London.

>>47786507
What happened?

>>47786612
Farage and the Brexit Fishermen had a showdown with Geldoff and the Bremain squadron and had a bit of a shouting match on the Thames. I think they may have even lightly bumped ships a little too.

>>47786664
[insert Cpt. America: Civil War meme here]

>>47786664
Harpoon mod when?

File: drawing007.jpg (120KB, 996x888px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 996x888px

>>47783201
>>47784295


Looks excellent. Love the basing.

>>47786722
Thanks!

File: TOYOTA.jpg (34KB, 540x449px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 540x449px

I might need to go out and hunt for a Hot Wheels for my 1:72 insurgents.

File: 1265390121119.jpg (101KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 750x600px

>>47787334

>all the Abrams has to do is button up
>why does it not?

are there any osprey scans regarding the Italian or Austro-Hungarian WW1 Navies?

Or the navies of the ACW beyond 'Monitor and Merrimack'?

>>47790296

>navies of the ACW

The North had one. The South didn't. That's about it.

>>47790431

perhaps not a sizeable ocean-going navy. But they had quite a lot of ironclads and converted paddle-steamers which I was particularly interested in- some of them 'armoured' with bales of cotton

File: 1393204978181.png (2MB, 1318x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1318x2048px

Just picked up the Chevauchee fantasy supplement and figured I'd run a campaign AAR for the thread using the quest stuff.

Our "protagonist" is an Almohad necromancer called Daud and a coterie of the undead and dispossessed collected from Angevin and French territories.

Daud’s father was a Moorish sorcerer expelled from the Almohad court for practicing the black art of necromancy. He fled the court with a number of priceless artifacts including the mummified corpse of a legendary prince and his wargear. Once the old Emir had passed, the sorcerer tasked his son with returning the artifacts to the court, in an attempt to curry favour with the new administration. The journey would take them across the Iberian peninsula to the heart of the Moroccan deserts.

>>47793310
Just ran Turn 1:
Random Encounter; Encamped vs Non-Human Raiding Party
On the eve of setting out, in the foothills of the Pyrenees, the adventurers and their baggage are set upon by an Orcish raiding party.

The orcs are routed, but Reeve and Damon are taken out of action during the battle.

Reeve receives a moderate wound (11 days recovery time) but thanks to Daud’s medical expertise, the recovery time is significantly reduced.

Damon receives a permanent injury (21 days recovery time) from an Orcish battle-axe, severing one of his feet. Once the stump has been cauterized, a makeshift prosthetic formed from a sturdy boot allow him to hobble around as best he can.

Group morale increases by 1 despite the casualties.

Daud uses an ancient incantation to return two of the deceased Orcs from the grave, to bolster the strength of the party.

After scouting the lay of the land ahead, Little discovers the group of Castilian questors laying in wait at the mouth of a mountain pass.

Little swipes some pies from the windowsill of an empty farmhouse, increasing the group’s morale by 1.

The group elects to spend 8 days encamped, unwilling to advance into an ambush. +1 morale. Reeve’s injury time is reduced to 3 days and Damon’s reduces to 13 days.

A passing merchants sells Wolfe a shield charm.

Not a bad start, all things considered. A couple of bad injury rolls mitigated by relatively low injury time.

Has anyone ever played "They Come Unseen"?

File: CSSALA-Sheppard-large.jpg (83KB, 600x392px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x392px

>>47790296
>Or the navies of the ACW beyond 'Monitor and Merrimack'?

I have a bunch of Vanguards on various non-ironclad vessels that'll I will upload for you later, anon. Got a great one on the CSS Alabama too.

>any osprey scans regarding the Italian or Austro-Hungarian WW1 Navies?

There's one on the Austrians, I'll add that later as well.

>>47790431

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Confederate_States_Navy

>>47796070
Not the requester, but muchly appreciated!

File: img_6385.jpg (239KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1600x1200px

>>47796678
>>47790296
The naval part of the ACW is an important element of it, with the North's blockade of the South being one of their main strategic goals. You have the introduction of ironclads and the rapid development of steam technology, with battles occurring on sleepy rivers or the Atlantic coast. It's well supported wargaming-wise and has a small but dedicated following. We have a few more relevant Ospreys and two games (Anaconda and River Wars) in the ACW folder.

Confederate Raider:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/fu7tcrhrr7mdzfp/Osprey+-+NVA+064+-+Confederate+Raider+1861-65.pdf

Confederate Blockade Runner:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/d6nzb99dvl0qtut/Osprey+-+NVA+092+-+Confederate+Blockade+Runner+1861-65.pdf

Confederate Submarines and Torpedo Vessels:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/0rif6mafo125twq/Osprey+-+NVA+103+-+Confederate+Submarines+%26+Torpedo+Vessels+1861-65.pdf

CSS Alabama bs USS Kearsarge:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/2bnt619zsfhfi1s/Osprey+-+DUE+040+-+CSS+Alabama+vs+USS+Kearsarge+1864.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAarxcIAjzk

Mississippi River Gunboats of the ACW:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/bbwx3zlmiq3c5jr/Osprey+-+NVA+049+-+Mississippi+River+Gunboats+of+the+ACW+1861-65.pdf

Union River Ironclad:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/4mx12u2p4imcv5q/Osprey+-+NVA+056+-+Union+River+Ironclad+1861-65.pdf

The Adriatic in WW1 is pretty darn obscure, I can't find anything on the Italians, but there is this:

Austro-Hungarian Battleships:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/w9v44pgpdbo3srz/Osprey+-+NVA+193+-+Austro-Hungarian+Battleships+1914-18.pdf

File: 1.jpg (655KB, 1546x1159px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 1546x1159px

>>47799548
Glorious combined arms

>>47793683
Pies increase moral immidiately

>>47800941
This is also true of life in general.

File: CSS-Shenandoah-Photo-Feb,-1865-Melbourne-743997.jpg (209KB, 1249x954px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1249x954px

>>47800991
>>47800941
Truer words were never spoken.

>>47798342
Very much appreciate those! Gonna grab them all!

Folks, any experience with this?

http://www.wargamevault.com/product/154432/FIRE-TEAM-VIETNAM-Units-the-Vietcong

Quite frankly it caught my attention while I was browsing for Viet-cong organization. Seems like a fun small game, but thought I'd ask here first.

File: ARVN_M-24_Chaffee_4.jpg (98KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 720x480px

>>47801875
Looks like it could be a fun little game. Never heard of it before though

Painting some taliban. Mini has what appears to be an armour vest. I'm thinking it's most likely a PASGT in woodland, can anyone confirm?

>>47803448
If you take a pic and post it as well, it'd greatly help.

>>47803518
Can't grab a picture at the moment, but he's the middle one at this link.
https://www.elhiem.co.uk/ourshop/prod_3236352-TAL03n-Local-Afghan-Insurgents-with-AK47s.html
Pretty sure he's not wearing the shalwar kameez vest like the guy to the right as middle dudes vest appears to be bulkier. If you look at the shoulder there appears to be a noticeable "drop" from the vest to the arm, which isn't on the other guy with the traditional vest.

File: rhodesian-greys-scout-mounted-firing.jpg (36KB, 660x320px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 660x320px

>>47803448
What do the Saudis have access to?

>>47804452
Goats.

File: 1463610902314.jpg (139KB, 1280x839px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1280x839px

>>47793683
Turn 2:
Quest Battle; On the Road vs Rival Adventurers (Brotherhood of Santiago, Castilian knights)

After lurking in the heavily forested foothills for a week, Daud’s company takes a supposedly forgotten pass up into the heights. The Brotherhood of Santiago spring their trap as our heroes struggle up a narrow defile.

Despite having a numerical advantage, Daud’s company is scattered by charging horsemen and a vicious crossfire of steel-tipped bolts. Daud, Big Ears, Hooked Nose and Reeve make it to safety, Little and Large are taken out of action and Damon routs.

Little is knocked out but quickly recovers, Large receives a minor wound (7 days recovery time). Damon eventually limps back to camp later that night, reducing morale by 1.

Thankfully, the valiant rearguard action fought by the two Orc revenants killed several of the attacking knights, increasing the group’s morale by 1.

During his panicked detour, Damon discovered a switch-back goat trail continuing over the mountains. Travel time is reduced by 6 days, but the trail passes close to the lair of a family of man-eating ogres.

Daud loses his footing while traversing a network of perilous canyons, nearly falling to his death.

Big Ears stumbles across the remains of a human outpost on some forgotten cliff shelf, acquiring a rusty polearm from the dilapidated armoury.

Damon acquires a shirt of mail rings from the same armoury.

Travel time is reduced by a further 2 days. (34 days remaining.)

Despite getting their arse kicked by a superior foe and streaking up the mountain with their tails between their legs, our plucky band is doing pretty good. Morale is down to 2 points, but no serious injuries this time around, plus a short cut across the Pyrenees.

>>47805487
I'd paint the army before getting to the harem.

File: 28mm-African-Penises.png (900KB, 1200x904px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 1200x904px

New Xhosa sculpts from Perry.

>>47810031
>Basing tanks

Absolutely disgusting

>>47812006

Anyone know if they're still planning to make plastic Zulu War British?

Warlord's plastic Zulus are ok but their brits leave a lot to be desired

File: Zulu 2 003.jpg (276KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1600x1200px

>>47814415
>Zulu War British
EMPRESS
M
P
R
E
S
S

Does anyone know any suppliers for Check Your 6 Jet Age, from any period 1950-1970, classic jet era?

>>47813077
I plan to do that for my 1:72 stuffs. Based tanks have a certain appeal, plus handling them is much easier.

>>47815021
1:72 tanks handle fine though. They're like the perfect size for handling.
imo basing ruins immersion unless you plan to be playing on the same terrain all the time (like water with warships for example)

Tan desert squares with grass moving along a road underneath a tank just doesn't do it for me, nor does desert or grass on a snow battlefield, or any other mismatched combination. Not basing gives you more options, increases realism and is less work. I can understand for small scales like 3mm or 6mm, but even FoW at 15mm doesn't (usually) base tanks

File: BritKit2_zpsaa96b0d2.png (451KB, 640x392px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 640x392px

>>47815484
Not all of them handles that well desu. Tanks with lots of small parts, and my hated link-and-length tracks are vulnerable enough to consider basing, plus picking them up by their base is safer for me.

And erm...why would I use a tank painted for Normandy in the Battle of the Bulge? Or a Merkava in desert camo for the cold war in Europe? Base accordingly to where you want to use them, and there'll be no problem. Plus most of these stand for infantry too, so I don't really get that one.

File: 1371225142515.jpg (250KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1024x768px

>>47815579
Suit yourself, but you're still going to have inconsistencies even on a table that matches your bases, like in >>47810031 There isn't usually a magic carpet of dirt and bushes between your tank and the road.

Personally I like to use units in a variety of theaters and terrain types, so basing vehicles seems like shooting yourself in the foot.
If your vehicles can't handle a bit of picking up and moving around, it might be a good idea to switch manufacturers to something more sturdy, they may also be quicker and easier to build. Wargame minis need to be robust or you end up with constant repair jobs.

>>47815872
Well, I'm not entirely settled with the basing stuff, I'm doing a test on a SU-85 I built (badly) years ago.

And for manufacturers...for most moderns I don't have many options. Revell, Trumpeter, Dragon...I don't want to switch to resin as they appear to be more expensive most of the time, but for some AFVs (like the FV 432) I really have no choice.

By the way, what do you guys use to individually base 15mm plastic men? I keep seeing people using pennies lately and like sure its real cheap, but something bothers me about it.

>>47816216
I don't have any 15mm figures, but if I'd do it, I'd get some 20mm bases for them, possibly from Renedra.

>>47816216
>but something bothers me about it.
What about it bothers you?

>>47816257
Not him, but I feel the same way.
I can't explain it, but I'd rather not use money even if it's cheaper than the alternative.

>>47815903
What about airfix, italieri, Ace and Zvezda?
Also plastic soldier company has a few modern at 1:72, mostly US and Russian

>>47816690
Airfix has really old 1:72 vehicles with really shitty rubber tracks - in case I can get them cheap (2-3 pounds), I'll get some, but other than that, nah. Ace is surprisingly expensive, needs lots of filling, has generally bad fit, and once they are out of production, they are hard to get. Zvezda is too expensive and detailed for wargaming. And none of them carry FV 432s.

>>47816728
>Airfix has really old 1:72 vehicles
most of them are 1/76 so they are useless for 20mm wargaming
>Zvezda is too expensive and detailed for wargaming
also their plastic is shit and some paints and primers won't stick to them.

>>47816746
I could live with the 1:76 stuff. My Matchbox Nato Paras are smaller anyways, and if I don't want to use both 1:72 and 1:76...erm...Sheridans in example, it's no problem.

I have the S-Model box of those, but you get the idea.

>>47816746
>so they are useless for 20mm wargaming

Why is that?

File: Wow+didn+t+know+that+was+airing+this+season+_2265017ea3c7be1f59a6d7a015cfb69a.png (415KB, 778x606px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 778x606px

>>47816801
i forgot to add "for me" or "IMHO" at the end of this sentence. semantics
I'm very autistic when it comes to scales so if i have 20mm army, all must be 20mm. if it dosen't make difference for you then ok. your minis, your choice.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

Got this at the UK games expo the other weekend, but haven't played it yet, anybody got any comments?

It's nice for the hard 1:72 infantry, but the sprue design means that you need to clip the British models runners in a specific order if you don't want to break all the bayonets.

>>47816863
>It's nice for the hard 1:72 infantry
You mean 1:100

>>47816880
Sorry, yes, you're quite right. 1:72 constantly changes size in my mind.

>>47817074
No probs. Tho I'd be fucking happy if they were 1:72 as nobody really makes good plastic Late War brits with enough bloody poses.

>>47816863
That's based on Command and Colours isn't it?

So if it's anything like Memoir '44, it'll be a decent board-wargame.

>>47817167
I'd be happy with any reasonable hard plastic WWI really. I haven't got the hang of painting softs yet. I would love some hard, very early French. Crimean or Franco-Prussian would do.

>>47817354
It's my first real foray into board games, and there's no board-wargames at my university, so I'm going in blind. Glad it has some approval though.

>>47817354
Yeah, it is.

>>47817455
For soft plastic, plasti-dip if like a godly essence made into spraycan. Without it, I wouldn't have built massive 1:72 soft plastic armies.

>>47817455
It's a decent entry drug into Wargames. The minis in it could work very well with Through the Mud and the Blood, Contemptible Little Armies etc if you decide to move onto something a bit beefier.

>>47815872
Oh no. Someone bases their tanks. Quick let's have a shit flinging contest. Waaah.

I was actually thinking of basing my 1/48 tank. Why? Base to base measurements Plus it might look nice when on display. My 6mm as based so why not my others. Shit.

>>47817455
>I'd be happy with any reasonable hard plastic WWI really.

There's an incredibly faint possibility that a major franchise doing a WW1 game (Battlefield) might generate enough additional interest in WW1 to get some more companies producing minis for it. It can't hurt at any rate.

>>47817670
tfw hundreds of kits of germans with mp18s, mondragons and italians with cei rigottis because of abortionfield 1

at least the french will be included this time

File: cursed monkey paw.jpg (75KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x480px

>>47817720

>I wish for more WW1 kits

>all these people wanting more kits for one of the top two wars in history for which plenty of kits are already made
>I just want plastic Swazis that aren't generic "African tribesmen"

>>47814759
Have you tried Armaments in Miniature?

>>47816216
I use 3/4" fender washers. More expensive than using obsolete coins but they're magnetic. Fender washers have a smaller hold in the center

>>47817821
Not in plastic tho. Vitrix has been planning their WW1 Germans and Brits for years now, but nothing.

Oh well, a sixth set of Hoplites or a completely new range (EIR) is much more important I suppose.

>>47816599
well..you can use a penny..or go out and spend 3-8 cents for a washer thats the same size....

File: coins.jpg (2MB, 2424x1984px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2424x1984px

>>47816599
If you say so.

Frankly I think it's a real tribute to stick a model soldier to the Queens face. Thank you Your Maj.

>>47818817
Are pennies magnetic there? I buy washers because local currency isn't. Plus I either use a 5 HUF coin, or buy a washer for 10 HUF.

>>47816746
>their plastic is shit and some paints and primers won't stick to them.

In my experience this applies to the majority of 1/72nd kits, sadly

>>47821279
Even after washing them thoroughly?

>>47819292
ahh good point.

File: 41UCEcnjbzL._AC_UL320_SR256,320_.jpg (17KB, 256x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 256x320px

>>47816746
I read somewhere Zevezda changed their plastic recipe for recent kits so paint/glue will work better. Haven't verified myself.

>>47817487
Plastidip? Only info I can find on the internet is a thick rubbery stuff meant to apply to tool handles. Is this what you're talking about?

File: DSCF5058.jpg (855KB, 2664x1647px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 2664x1647px

>>47822124
Yup, that's it. There's a spray version of it, transparent, spray it on painted minis, it'll seal it neatly. It'll be shiny, so you need to apply a coat or two of matte varnish.

File: Futurebottle.jpg (43KB, 288x419px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 288x419px

>>47822317
Ever used Pledge or Future floor polish? If so how do they compare?

Future is some kind of acrylic wax - same kind of deal, brush or spray with airbrush onto minis for durability and top with a matte coat.

>>47823277
Future wax is great shit for dealing with WSF minis from shapeways, and for the dip. You can also use it for extra glossy glass canopies on aircraft.

I'd be absolutely terrified to put it into an airbrush though.

>>47823338
I airbrush with it, using it to coat tanks as an intermediate layer of protection between painting stages.
Ex. base coat -> camo -> future -> enamel weathering -> future -> stowage and final bits -> matt varnish

I can't say if I'm doing it "right," but this has worked for me so far and none of my paint is sloughing off or anything.

>>47823277
I have no idea. Here in Hungary we don't have that kind of stuff. For washing minis, usually I don't do anything, just spray it with cheap acrylic matt spray. It usually does the trick.

>>47823338
AB works just fine with it. I usually dilute it a bit with some acrylic thinner but never had any issues with it gumming things up or anything

>>47822124

wait, svezda is a thing? like, people buy that stuff? I got a thing of some ancient cavalry and a chariot once 'cause I thought it was cool, never heard of them since.

>>47825449
Zvezda stuff is actually pretty good nowadays. Good (not best ofc) quality for great prices.

>>47825449
Their 15mm tanks are pretty popular.
And personally I really like their 20mm Samurai.
I might even paint the damn things at some point.

>>47821807

Yeah I've had trouble even after thorough washing especially with Revell. Someone here said that you can paint on thinned down elders glue to get paint to stick but I haven't tried it

>>47798342

brilliant thank you so much. (I also enjoyed the song)

>>47825630
>>47825543


dang, looking at it, it's hard to find dealers, or even much information on them.

>>47818042
Thanks, I'll check it out.

post boards

File: IMG_0269.jpg (375KB, 1600x974px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1600x974px

>>47828703
Alright.

File: natal1.jpg (218KB, 2048x1473px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 2048x1473px

Natal time!

File: natal2.jpg (236KB, 2048x1391px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 2048x1391px

>>47832705
Btw, I'm the same anon who posted the 1:72 Vietnam War US, plus lots of other 1:72 projects. I'm glad to help with any concerns about 1:72 soft plastic, as I painted a couple hundreds of them so far.

>>47832705
>>47832724
Isandlwana when?

>>47833010
As soon as I finish the British army, and start the Zulus.

File: NVA 235.jpg (1MB, 1295x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1295x960px

*fhwooshing intensifies*

Katyusha: Russian Multiple Rocket Launchers 1941-Present (Osprey New Vanguard 235)

Although military rockets have been used since the Middle Ages, it was not until the Soviet Union pioneered the concept of Multiple Rocket Launchers (MRLs) in the late 1930s that they emerged as a decisive weapon. In the modern era, these Soviet/Russian Katyushas have served in combat in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Georgia. Developed to fill the operational need for massed artillery fire support, the MRL possesses enormous destructive power and a devastating psychological impact. This New Vanguard provides a survey of Soviet and Russian Federation MRLs from the beginning of their development in 1941 to the present. It focuses on the history, design, and specifications of self-propelled ground MRL systems, but also covers towed, static, railway, and naval mounts. It highlights the many variants of the principal systems and include MRL unit tables of organization and equipment, information on MRL munition types, and coverage of dedicated MRL resupply vehicles.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/u9j0kjtz4640v22/Osprey+-+NVA+235+-+Katyusha+Russian+Multiple+Rocket+Launchers+1941-Present.pdf

>>47833441
>trainyard
>suddenly red orchestra 2 feels come back

HNNNNGH

>>47833818
>RO2
That takes me back, I wonder if any of the Australian servers are still active for that game. Probably not.

>>47833818
You just triggered my PTSD.

I need to sit in a trench hugging my Kar98k for about an hour, brb.

>>47833441
>Katyusha
You know, I had a girl by that name one time, a good gal, maybe the best.
Lord, it's been a very long time since I remembered her. Wonder how her and her gal are doing, these days
Lord, I'm drunk, pay me no heed

>>47833837
I always felt I was the only person who liked playing russians

>>47833835
They still are active in the evening but most of us just jump on the american servers now.

>>47833854
Well, I usually play on the side that has an open slot in it, but I prefer the Germans either because I'm a latent Nazi, or because my country was Axis. But playing with the Soviets is fun too, tho I really need to grind with my PPSh to get the drum mag.

>>47833854
Might reinstall and hop back in tomorrow. And you probably were, I just can't get used to the sight picture on the Nugget.

>>47833869
>latent nazi
jokes like that will wake up shitposter-kun

>>47833870
When you have a slower computer so you never load in fast enough to play anything but rifleman, you learn to get good with it real quick haha

>>47833883
>you never load in fast enough to play anything but rifleman
I know that feel too well, but quite frankly I enjoy painting rifleman. Or assault with SMG for that matter.

>>47833891
>painting
playing, derp

>>47833883
I only ever played rifleman or squad leader as a rule, partly because I'd been conditioned by Project Reality to take what the squad needed first and foremost, and that was usually either a leader or more meat for the grinder. It wasn't that I was especially bad with the Mosin, it's just that I never felt as comfortable using it as I did with the Kar98k, so I'd tend to pick Germans if I got the chance. Plus having MG-34s as opposed to the DPs as the squad's MG was way nicer.

>>47833915
MG34's are definitely terrifying

>>47833847
>Lord, I'm drunk, pay me no heed
well it's too late for that, m8.
you don't show up and imply that you have a story to tell and not tell it

File: Stronk Soviet Cuddles.jpg (173KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 800x1000px

>>47833945
Holy shit there's a MG 42 now? That must be fucking horrifying

>>47833951
She left him for Nonna obviously.

>>47833915
>. Plus having MG-34s as opposed to the DPs as the squad's MG was way nicer.
Well gee, the world's first GPMG VS a cheap lewas knockoff? It isn't even really a contest

I always thought rising storm was really overlooked. I really enjoyed playing as the Japanese. Don't get me wrong, loved regular ro2 as well, but I really liked the whole jungle aesthetic

>>47827883

Plastic Soldier Company sells the tanks

>>47827883
Where do you life anon? I could provide some german dealers.

Man, I've heard good things about Bolt Action, but my inner tank sperg is turned off by the fact that they apparently drank the Belton Cooper kool-aid.

>>47834472
>wanting "realistic" tank ranges

Fuck off you sperglord shitposter

>>47834484
Who said anything about ranges? I'm fine with that, I just don't like the fact that Shermans catch fire if given a harsh look.

File: NVA 234.jpg (1MB, 1295x965px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1295x965px

Something for the Harpoon crowd, especially if they're of a Falklands bent

British Guided Missile Destroyers: County-class, Type 82, Type 42 and Type 45 (Osprey New Vanguard 234)

In the years after World War II, new guided missile technology offered surface ships the chance to destroy airborne threats from afar, thereby preserving their role in naval warfare. This book examines the technology and combat performance of Britain's guided missile destroyers over half a century. Uniquely among modern destroyers, three of these classes have been tested in battle against the aircraft and missiles of another modern navy - in the Falklands War - as well as being deployed during the Gulf War. Written by an expert on British naval technology, this book assess the changing technology of the Royal Navy's destroyers over half a century, including an examination of the Royal Navy's newest and most capable warship, the Type 45.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/2x71as2l2tlm7wl/Osprey+-+NVA+234+-+British+Guided+Missile+Destroyers.pdf

File: 1465505708221.jpg (196KB, 1280x710px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x710px

Can anybody suggest a good kit for 80's or 90's US infantry in 28mm?

>>47835604
>kit
Like plastic kit?
I doubt there is one.

Eureka has some great US troops. Metal though.

File: Battle_of_Waterloo_1815.png (3MB, 1854x846px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1854x846px

201 years since Waterloo, chaps.

File: a2_p85_sheridan_in_merdc_2.jpg (183KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1280x720px

>>47832724

Any tips to add not already covered?

MSc in what btw?

File: 7404.jpg (92KB, 700x577px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 700x577px

>>47834144
Or ScaleHobbyist is good in the US

>>47835952
Software engineering.

Not much to add, plastidip is the biggest thing I could recommend regarding 1:72 plastics. It was like the Holy Grail for me.

File: TU0602_Beef-Wellington.jpg (7MB, 6201x4650px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 6201x4650px

>>47835950
Had beef wellington to commemorate last year

>>47836762
> tfw not eaten yet today

Why would you do this to me, anon?

>>47837255
>tfw no food for 2 more days

hnnngh

>>47837353
Why no food for those two days anon?

>>47837671
unexpected expense cut into food budget

>>47837688
g...good luck anon

>>47837705
Worst thing is it was a medical expense so im fucked either way

>>47837747
Ask somebody if you can cook for them and eat together?

>>47837747
Can't you just kill and eat a homeless person?

>>47837776
>>47837767
if only. I'll be okay anons. No need to worry.

>>47837793
If I had the money I'd send some to you to at least buy a pizza or something, but I have nada on my bank account.

>>47837793
When you have money invest in a crate of beans as emergency food.

>>47837688
Fugg. I know your pain. Hope you will stand on your legs later

>>47837747
What country?

File: su85_1.jpg (71KB, 960x723px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x723px

Finished my Su-85.

>>inb4 "based tank hurr durr"

>>47839857
Based Tank Destroyer moar liek.

Is that 15mm btw?

>>47841335
1:72. Old Science Treasury kit, copy of either Hasegawa of Fujimi. Assembled by yours truly, kinda badly years ago as one of my first ones, and now deemed worthy as the test vehicle for my "try basing AFVs" project.

And I like it.

File: P1030678.jpg (885KB, 1317x987px) Image search: [Google]

885KB, 1317x987px

>>47841368
It's a WW2 soviet design, bad assembly is authentic.

File: 5WoodlandIndians.jpg (189KB, 790x962px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 790x962px

Painted more of my Perry Woodland Indians.

Probably going to buy the Conquest figures sold by Warlord games to fill out a full army of Woodland Indians, rather than running them as an allied contingent, but I'm still unsure.

>>47841652
That warpaint is pretty swish.

>>47834498
They were called "ronsons" or "Tommy Cookers" for a very good reason...

>>47841886
You are aware that historians are pretty sure that was something only started after the war, right?

Based on tests, the Sherman was no more likely to catch fire than any other tank with non-protected ammo storage.

>>47841957

>Based on tests, the Sherman was no more likely to catch fire than any other tank with non-protected ammo storage.

So wait, you're saying that they did catch on fire easily until they protected the ammo storage? In which case the rule would reflect that well?

You could easily have a case for other tanks with non-protected storage also having the same rule but that doesn't mean the Sherman shouldn't have it.

>>47841886
>>47841957

Compulsory viewing on the subject. 7:50 covers the Ronson myth. Sherman's on fire is discussed later in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

>>47842260
>non-protected storage
This was more than half of all tank designs used during the war.
Funnily, the Brits did do some flammability testing in fully-fueled tanks before the war, but forgot to also load ammunition.

>>47803964
Pretty sure that's just his man dress vest

>>47839857
Nicely done

>>47841957
>>47842260
>>47842358

I think its more to do with the front armor of a mid war sherman being about 65mm. Any hit from a long barrel 75mm or 88mm german gun would be fatal. Its not the shermans fault, its just a medium tank. All medium tanks had a hard time taking an 88mm in the face.

>>47841693
Thanks.

>>47842358
That video doesn't "cover" the ronson myth, in fact he gets it totally wrong, thinking the slogan wasn't invented until the 1950s. He even had to annotate the video to correct himself later. Ronson ads with the slogan were around since the 1930s

Second post has an ad from 1931:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=217773

Pretty much all medium tanks had a hard time on the offensive against defensive german tanks, and many allied tanks were called tommy cookers (some simply from being very hot inside in the desert)

There's supposedly a memo from Montgomery during the war where he tries to curb the usage of the word ronson, in relation to the poor performance of allied tanks.

>>47841886
Do you have any proof of that other than Belton Cooper?

>>47843691
He does satisfactorily explain that the Sherman, whether it did get the nickname or not, wasn't really prone to bursting into flames more than any other tank. Even the thread you liked to as 'proof' agrees the allegation was likely bullshit.
>There's supposedly a memo from Montgomery during the war where he tries to curb the usage of the word ronson, in relation to the poor performance of allied tanks.
[citation needed]

Jut once I'd like to find a WWII game that doesn't take Belton Cooper (who wasn't a tanker and didn't know jack shit about the procurement process re:Pershing - he thought PATTON was blocking it, despite the fact Patton was kind of busy) as gospel truth. You don't see people bringing up that the Panther could get penetrated in its side armour by pre-war Soviet AT Rifles, do you?

>>47845810
>Just once I'd like to find a WWII game that doesn't take Belton Cooper as gospel truth.

A Fistful of TOWs?

>>47842906
Thanks!

Has anyone played sword and spear? What does /hwg/ think of it?

>>47845810
I dont really know who Belton Cooper is, but in the WW2 game we've been nurturing for 5 years, shermans are no more likely to be destroyed than any other medium tank.

Sherman has "Medium" armor to the front, and "Light" armor to the side and rear.

Panther by comparison has "Heavy2" armor to the front and "Light" armor to the side and rear.

So essentially the same armor for both tanks on the side and rear. As long as the germans stayed in a front-facing fight and ideally were on the defensive they would be ok, but as soon as a sherman got close or around the side (and usually there were FAR more shermans than panthers around) the panther was pretty much fucked.

It looks like the names "ronson" and "tommy cooker" were for many allied medium tanks, and for many reasons, not just the brewing up. its just that there were so many shermans that for some reason the name stuck to them more than the valentines. I mean the Sheman was really THE allied medium tank, its just that against 8.8cm and 7.5cm KwK 42 german guns, they stood no chance, like any medium tank. The guns were pretty much designed to annihilate medium tanks in order to deal with T-34s (and even heavy KVs) in the east.

The Sherman turret could also rotate a lot faster than a panthers turret, being electronically assisted. Both had about the same turret protection at the front, with heavy gun mantlets.

In our system a Panther costs 27 points, whereas a Sherman costs 9 points. So you'd almost get exactly 3 Shermans for every panther. In a situation like that, it could go either way, but the odds are that the shermans will use cover to get very close, then drive around a corner and hit the panther at close range and to the side, destroying it. This kind of thing doesn't really happen in real games though, usually there's plenty of infantry around and other units.

Last game I played actually had katyushas destroy a panther in the first turn.

I want to die /hwg/

File: Tiger lego.png (280KB, 1010x654px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1010x654px

>>47852004
Why is that?

Have this "lego" tiger to cheer you up!

>>47852004
Finish your backlog first

>>47852018
Nonono, you got it wrong. IF he finishes his backlog, THEN he will die.

>>47852004
How so?

>>47852004
>>47852004
Strength brother, what ails you?>>47852004

>>47852036
>not wanting to die having finished your final project
sounds ok to me

File: ClTKuX0XEAArPOY.jpg (223KB, 1200x888px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1200x888px

finished my 101st US Airborne yesterday. finally.

File: ClTKzDEWIAAafvx.jpg (170KB, 1200x888px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1200x888px

>>47852477

File: ClTKwvAWYAA0l5i.jpg (224KB, 1200x888px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1200x888px

>>47852490
and a close up of on of the MG teams

Pretty anon >>47852497

>>47852490
sexy af

Love the guy with the pistol

>>47852540
>>47852620
Thx guys!

File: UTKwz74.jpg (205KB, 818x600px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 818x600px

>>47852865
Yep. Does the job. Good work soldier.

Anyone have a good tutorial for late war Waffen SS?

>>47854169
...for what game?

>>47854183
Sorry, I'm practicing to paint the camo on 28mm.

Has anyone heard about "The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast 1600-1720"? Is it any good?

Does anyone have a pdf of it?

File: Vallejo - Waffen-SS Camoflague.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47854228
PDF related and the link below should give you some help

http://www.mediafire.com/download/5ag6k6rot2fhty6/Modelling+Waffen-SS+Figures.pdf

>>47854319
Thanks a lot, this is much more helpful then the one I used.

Why is there no 3mm infantry games, its all fucking tanks

>>47854441
Because 6mm and 3mm are the best scale for tanks to be used.

File: 0.jpg (395KB, 1600x854px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1600x854px

>>47854441
You could play the DBx games in 3mm, just use the 6mm rules and double distances

>>47854441
isnt that ASL guy using 3mm, or was that 6?

>>47854441
because for 3mm infantry games you use any of the existing scale agnostic games and use 3mm figures with a more realistic ground scale.

>>47854481
Wouldn't you halve the distances? Otherwise a unit that can move 6" can suddenly move 12" in 3mm.

File: IMG_2785.jpg (516KB, 1600x928px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1600x928px

>>47854705
Yes. I think my brain did that flip thing it does sometimes.

>>47854931
>>47854705
nonono

You keep same distances. Take Flames of war and use 3mm stuff but keep the rules as written

File: af00.jpg (3MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x3000px

>>47852477
Is that shoulder patch a decal?

File: 000b3pdt.jpg (358KB, 916x1285px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 916x1285px

>>47854169
https://www.elhiem.co.uk/sitefiles/34/1/1/341115/Elhiem_Easy_Waffen_SS_Oak_Camo.pdf

https://www.elhiem.co.uk/sitefiles/34/1/1/341115/Matt_Hingley_SS_Oak.pdf

https://www.elhiem.co.uk/sitefiles/34/1/1/341115/Matt_Hingley_Splinter.pdf

File: bf-109s-in-fog-1945.jpg (175KB, 1000x655px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1000x655px

>>47855069
This, at least if you want a more realistic show of how far tanks and whatnot can attack each other. In 3mm a kilometer is 1.6 meters - tanks should be able to engage at those kinds of ranges, infantry should have 50-60cm range.

>>47855673
yet no game does this. Instead everyone thinks guns can only shoot 10 metres

>>47855576
source on pic?

File: IMG_20160428_174748.jpg (2MB, 3286x2432px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3286x2432px

>>47855576
nope hand drawn.

nah only kidding. it's decals

File: 4py4.jpg (3MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x3000px

>>47855793
Don't remember, probably some forum or blog. It was just saved in my folder of war games reference/inspiration pics

Reverse image search isn't finding where it's from. Only other pic I have with the same date is attached. Must be a French Indochina game with that halftrack

>>47856287
damn, its a beautiful table

>>47837836
>>47838573
>>47839193
>>47839214
Thanks for the support anons, Ive been focusing on painting to get over it.

>>47834832
>most capable warship, the Type 45.
Can't operate in the Persian Gulf because the water is too toasty...
>most capable
Well, compared to aircraft carriers with no planes, I guess...

>>47855761
There's good game design reasons for having a compressed ground scale that doesn't match the miniatures scale. One is that you're doing a game that really isn't even trying to simulate anything, like Bolt Action, so it doesn't matter.

But the main reason is that by compressing the distances on tabletop (for instance A Fistful of TOWs might typically use 1:300 miniatures but has a 1" = 100 meters ground scale) it opens up far more variation in what can be represented for differences. Using FFoT as an example again; NATO 120mm tank guns having an effective range of 24" really makes a difference compared to the soviet 125mm guns 16" effective range in gameplay as players attempt to play to their strengths as NATO tanks try to stay at range vs Soviets attempting to get up close to mitigate the advantage, where as matching the figure scale means everything is in short range all the time (and in this case would bias the soviets by removing a key NATO advantage that can't be represented).

>>47856376
bothers me less with tanks desu but games like BA an Flames of War infuriate me to no end

>>47856448
FoW is an interesting case in that it uses a sliding ground scale, like quite a few games once you start taking a look at mechanics.
If a tabletop distance is twice as great, it represents a ground scale distance that is more than twice as great.

This means that you're able to show the differences in speed and effective ranges etc, but still fit a variety of unit types on the tabletop.
The effect is basically a "zoom-in" for closer-range action.

File: IMG_4614.jpg (83KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x450px

>>47856376
Some compression like you describe is OK, especially for naval games where even at very small scales you'd need to play on a tennis court but like >>47856448 a rifle with a limp 18-24" range just breaks all immersion for me. If we're playing skirmish and trying to clear a couple blocks of a village, everything on the table should be in rifle/MG range.

I realize it's a fairly pointless debate because this either bothers you or it doesn't

>>47856769
>>47856376
I use a compressed range and kinda skewed scale since im not even meant to be using miniatures and just have to represent things the best i can, however rifles can get a max range of around 40-50cm even if usually youll fire at much shorter ranges so I guess Im not too far off what >>47855673 said

>>47854488
3mm yeah

>>47856769
It does bother me in some places, mostly where it's inappropriate or done badly. But not constantly.

Bolt Action's bothers me because I find it difficult to reconcile a game that tries to use things like pinning, an alternating activation system and troop quality based rating with super compressed ranges, true line of sight and a lot of other really 'gamey' rules that serve to make it a confuse of attempting to have a bit of realism sprinkled into something that might as well not even be based on a real war (and technically wasn't to start with as it was just a generic rules set that WW2 was pasted over).
I find the game aggravatingly average: It does a few things I like, a lot that I don't like and has become so popular I can rarely ever get people to play something more in-depth.

>>47857291
Well, at least I can play WW2 and moderns with my clubmates.

>>47857291
>>47857323
The only positive of a game where bullets can fire only 24 metres is that you can find games

File: ohyou.jpg (24KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 450x338px

>>47857356

>>47857515
I revise my statement, also that it leads to cool posters like the guy who always posts his BA armies and tables.

>>47857669
Quite frankly I don't get the hostility...yeah, the ranges are small, yeah, it plays like 40k...but so? It still feels like a WW2 game, it's still fun to play, and if others play it, why does it bother you? If you always go full sperg about "BA is shit, you shouldn't play it!", you'll be just left out of the games, and somehow this'll justifies for you how BA players are dicks.

Live and let live, man.

>>47860070
Im just joking around mang. I think the ruleset is dogshit but if people have fun good for them and if we get to see cool paintjobs an tables out of it all the better.

File: DSCF7583.jpg (2MB, 3829x2341px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3829x2341px

>>47860098
Amen to that.

>>47860070
he was goodhearted about it you defensive sperg

>>47860172
how was british equipment in ww2 anyway, it seems kinda... shit

>>47860206
What do you mean?

>>47860215
just seems outdated an ugly. truth be told them and the french in ww2 i know almost nothing about

>>47860290
Well, their .303 Vickers was a WW1 design, so a venerable, but still useful weapon. Their 81mm mortar was kind of a standard sized medium mortar, the Bren was...iunno, I haven't heard any particularly bad things about it, the Lee-Enfield was tad heavy, but precise, and had a clip size of 2x5, the double of most bolt action rifles used. But then again, most other armies phased out those in favor of semiautomatic rifles like the Garand, SVT-40 and Gewehr 43. The Thompson was a US design, their own Sten wasn't liked, was ugly, but cheap and easy to produce. Germans liked to loot those as you could fire and reload them while prone due to the mag on the side.

Overall their equipment was a bit outdated, but their training and morale made up for that.

>>47860368
>most other armies phased out those in favor of semiautomatic rifles like the Garand, SVT-40 and Gewehr 43
Yeah, no. They might have tried, but only the US succeeded in any way. The Kar98ks and Mosin-Nagants were still the main battle rifle at the end of the war (though the Kar98k was slowly getting replaced by the StG44, at least on paper)

I am looking for an indept read about the Burgundian military under Charles the Bold and Phillip the Good

File: IMG_20160610_163936_resize.jpg (474KB, 1314x973px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1314x973px

>>47860098
I love BA, it's easy to learn ( I know there're some fuzzy rules but in a friendly game who cares) and I have and had a ton of fun with it and sure will do in the future. Really looking forward to Version 2.

>>47860526
Forgot to type "tried to phase out" there, sorry.

File: IMG_20160612_163318_resize.jpg (479KB, 973x1314px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 973x1314px

>>47860580
while we're at it. here are some pics from a recent Operation Bagration game. Liberation of the Ukraine

File: IMG_20160612_170652_resize.jpg (343KB, 1314x973px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1314x973px

>>47860702

File: IMG_20160612_182003_resize.jpg (465KB, 973x1314px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 973x1314px

>>47860725

File: IMG_20160612_184910_resize.jpg (415KB, 973x1314px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 973x1314px

>>47860747
aaand out. gn8

bumpeth

>>47860770
POST MORE

File: LarryLeadhead_HeartAttack.jpg (225KB, 1345x416px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1345x416px

>>47852018
>>47852036
>IF he finishes his backlog, THEN he will die.
>>47852162

>>47860526
If you post that on /k/, you'll be told that the garand is an overcomplicated meme gun popular with fudds well beyond its merits.

>>47863630
Well yeah, /k/ has been shit for at least the last four years.

>>47863670
Is /k/ still
>f35
>sprey plz
>T50 is best
>putin plz
>china will grow larger
>no blue water navy

File: Mount-stupid-–-Borgerlyst.jpg (23KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x338px

>>47863670
>>47863779

I know pic related applies to enthusiasts of all stripes, but I feel like gun nuts in particular like to run their mouths.

>>47863823
/k/ isn't even actual gun nuts anymore. It's basically military themed /v/ with a side of/pol/

>>47855673
Effective range and range proper are two different things. I know in FoW the thinking is that most of the engagements weren't done at an incredibly long distance, maximum generally was 600m for most engagements between infantry.

>>47864111
Anon here to shill for force on force. Generally you can shoot at anything on the table as long as you have line of sight. Troop quality will determine optimum range and bonuses that you receive due to it.

>>47864111
That's why I went with 50-60cm as a max which equates to 350-400m. A mosin-nagant's sights are marked out to 2000m but that doesn't mean it has a 2km effective combat range

>>47864517
I've done a lot of hunting and even with a scope you're looking at an effective rang of 50m - 100m

Maybe if you're using something big like a .308 and have a really good scope you could hit something up to 500m away, but that's more sniper territory than "average rifleman"

In WW2 your average iron sights rifle is only going to be effective up to about 50m, 100m max. beyond that you wont really be able to guarantee a hit.

Here are the ranges for our 1/72 scale WW2 game (ostfront):

6" : Thrown grenade, infantry flamethrower
8" : Vehicle mounted flame thrower
12" : Rifles, Bazookas
16" : HMGs, AT Rifles
24" : Small caliber AT guns like the 2pdr or Pak38 (most light tank guns too)
36" : Medium caliber AT guns like the 6 pdr or Pak 40 (most medium tank guns too)
48" : Larger caliber AT guns like the 88mm or long barrel 75mm (most heavy tanks like the Tiger or Panther)
60" : Artillery and rocket barrages

How did we do? There is a degree of "telescoping" as ranges get longer, and we also have artillery and rocket strikes that can hit anything on the table as part of an "Initiative Card" system. Air strikes of course have no range and can hit any target, but must contend with air defense in order to pull off the strike

>>47864818
I like how Command Decision 3 or Bob mackenzie's alternative charts for CD4 work with each weapon having a close assault, near, med, far and extreme range band with a different rating for each.

Definitely more on the sim end of the spectrum but it's not as troublesome in practice than it sounds since you typically only have a handful of different weapons on the table in a given game (infantry are by platoon so you don't need to distinguish LMG vs rifle etc)

>>47860368
>the Bren was...iunno, I haven't heard any particularly bad things about it
The Bren was one of the best weapons of the war, everyone who used it loved it.

>>47865176
Yeah we have a range band system as well, not for infantry weapons, but for AT guns where long range will screw with your penetration, or where very close range will actually give you a chance to penetrate heavy armor.

Each AT gun has a close range, long range, and even a point blank range. And each is scaled to the range of the gun

So for a 24"range gun: beyond 16" is long range, and within 8" is close range.

36": beyond 24" is long range, within 12" is close range, and 2" is point blank range

47" : beyond 32" is long range, within 16" is close range, and within 4" is point blank.

It works pretty well, at long range its harder to hit, and your gun will do less damage, while in close range its the opposite, easier to hit, do more damage.

>>47865734
>47"
whoops, 48"

Hey /HWG/
I'm just a little drunk and dreaming about doing a 1-to-1 battle, as in each soldier that should be there is there on the table.

Do you think that'd be possible in 6mm or would you have to go even smaller scale.
Part of a battle would also count, like Pratzen Heights, or Hougemont (which I'm aware would be far smaller than the former)

>>47852036
I didnt get it wrong. I suggested the best way for him.

>>47864219
Although, it being a skirmish game generally involving 28mm figures and smaller tables, that makes perfect sense.

>>47866838
Yeah it's possible, but you are going to have to buy, paint and individually base nearly a thousand or so little mens. I have seen Hougomont done in 15mm and even that had to be abstracted a little. But if you're resolved to it, then it would just be a matter of how much time and effort you can spare.

The thing with scale is pretty weird, although i don't mind 28mm and 1/72 i personally think that the best scales with a good balance between "realism", good looking tables and "reliability" are 15mm and 6mm.

For example try to play Flames of War in 6mm or Bolt Action in 15mm, use the same ranges and enjoy.

Yes i know that some people make REALLY good things with even smaller scales, but if you really want to play really "big battles" with proper supply lines, etc. it is better to play with tokens.

An idea that i always had is writing a company lvl game in 15mm with every units having "infinite" range where spotting is the most important aspect and it vary from types of units and how "high" they are, using more hills and forrest in our tables or at least not trying to play in a really flat table and voila. Or at least a RPG like skirmish wargame about tanks.

Don't forget that most tanks combat ranges of the WW2 in the western front were like 500-600m and in the eastern front 1000-1500m, more than that were lucky/really rare skilled shoots.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gendarmegames/king-and-parliament-the-english-civil-war-1642-164

Any game systems for removing of kebab?

>>47869089

There has been a lot of kebab removal throughout the ages so you'd have to specify a period first.

>>47869142

Serbia strong.

>>47869158

Force On Force, not sure if you can get 20mm Yugoslav Wars miniatures anywhere though.

>>47869173
In plastic Orion sells modern federal Russians and Chechens.

>>47864818
>rifles can fire less than 20 metres

Nigger...

>>47854236
Anyone?

>>47869279
>less than 20 metres
No need for namecalling, but 12" for a rifle is really short in 1:72.

>>47869279
where did I state that?

If you read the first part of my post, it says that unscoped rifles are only really effective up to 100m max. 12" represents about 50m in our game.

1/72 is just the scale we use, but 1/100 would probably be more accurate. In fact when we first designed the game, tanks all had infinite range, but we decided to abstract and telescope a bit so that on a 6' X 4' table you could still hide outside of peoples range

>>47864818
>>47869422
>In WW2 your average iron sights rifle is only going to be effective up to about 50m, 100m max. beyond that you wont really be able to guarantee a hit.
I think there would be a lot of shooting beyond this point. People aren't always that keen on advancing into the distance where shooting is guaranteed. Limiting shooting to 50m really wouldn't work for me, and I'm guessing the other people commenting on it.

>>47869422
in 28mm 12" is between 12 and 25 metres. Your scales are shit and abstracted and just cancer.

>>47869452
He said 1:72 you dense motherfucker.

>>47869458
Well it barely changes it, 25mm goes up to like 30 metres. Still abstracted and stupid

>>47869475
And how in the motherfucking hell does this affect you? Abstracted ranges killed your mother and raped your dog or what the fuck is your problem?

>>47869475
Question: does it take training to be that stupid, or are you just a natural?

Do some fucking math, faggot

>>47869475
1:72 is 20mm

>>47869435
in our system it really is more of an "effective range". Beyond 50m you're not going to be causing mass casualties, but suppressing fire would still be possible.

50m is close enough for 25 men with rifles to kill ~12 enemy soldiers in about 6 seconds, provided they're not in a hardened bunker.
This is really what 12" in our system represents, more of a "kill zone" where you can cut an enemy unit in half. shots could still be made beyond that range, but you wont be inflicting the kind of mass casualties we track.

A base of regular infantry in our system is about 25 men, and we only track casualties as either have "50% casualties" or wiped out. everything else is ignored for simplicity.

HMGs can still reach out a bit longer, up to about 300m (16") to account for sustained rapid fire and the ability to still do quite a bit of damage even at longer ranges.

In the end its a game and many things are going to be abstracted for good gameplay.
so our telescoping goes something like this:

3" about 3m
6" is about 10m
12" about 50m, possibly up to 100m
16" about 300 or 400m
24" about 900m
36" about 1500m
48" about 2K
60" about 5K

>>47869505
telescoping makes no sense what the fuck

File: OSTFRONT.V.17_9.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47869475
the abstraction from 30m to 50m isn't that much of an abstraction.

30m is still a pretty good "effective kill zone" for your average iron sights rifle. You can guarantee a hit and kill at that range, provieded your target is in the open, so seems to work pretty well.

I'll post what we have of the ruleset so far, I still have a few things to clean up, but the majority is there. we've been refining it for 5 years or so, and had some great map campaigns with it.