/hwg/ - Historical Wargames General

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-L03744,_Norwegen,_Oslo,_Deutsche_Panzer_im_Hafen.jpg (38KB, 797x517px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 797x517px

>Advanced Squad Leader
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/d9x0dbxrpjg48/Advanced_Squad_Leader
>Battleground WWII
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/cb83cg7ays4l1/Battleground_WWII
>Battlegroup
https://mega.nz/#F!SolyxarJ!GUg6zWBStfznr6BvYedghQ
>Black Powder
http://www.mediafire.com/download/o5x6blwoczojmfr/Black+Powder.pdf
>Bolt Action
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/n7jmdnlv1n0ju/Bolt_Action
>By Fire And Sword
https://mega.co.nz/#!jxgCWTYD!FCp52DAqIUc-EM-TsRsWv7fB92nJ3kkzKsNcD_urI5Q
>Fleet Series
https://mega.nz/#F!i1N3xZxL!C6fQ3Z8o2U0gtk5kdXuVcQ
>Hail Caesar
https://mega.nz/#F!XsVD0KgT!twB1NWiFE3aKXK_O1EZ4pA
>Impetus
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/28i9gevqws518/Impetus
>Modelling & painting guides
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/7b5027l7oaz05/Modelling_%26_Painting_Guides
>Next War (GMT)
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/eupungrg93xgb/Next_War
>Phoenix Command RPG
https://mega.co.nz/#F!b5tgXRwa!mzelRNrKPjiT8gP7VrS-Jw
>Saga
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/alj31go19tmpm/SAGA
>Twilight 2000/2013 RPG
https://mega.co.nz/#F!C9sQhbwb!NVnD4jvUn5inOrPJIAkBhA
>Wargaming Compendium
http://www.mediafire.com/download/cghxf3475qy46aq/Wargaming+Compendium.pdf
>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
>Warhammer Historical
https://mega.nz/#F!LxkElYYY!FJB5miNmlWZKMj2VfSYdxg
>Warmaster Ancients
http://www.mediafire.com/download/cifld8bl3uy2i5g/Warmaster+Ancients.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/3emyvka11bnna1b/Warmaster+Ancient+Armies.pdf

Desired scans :
Rank and File supplements
Harpoon 3 & 4 supplements
Force on Force supplements
Hind Commander
At Close Quarters
War and Conquest

File: article-0-001E95121000044C-565_964x642.jpg (80KB, 964x642px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 964x642px

9th April in military history:

537 – Siege of Rome: Byzantine general Belisarius receives reinforcements and starts raids against the Gothic camps.
1241 – Battle of Liegnitz: Mongols defeat the Polish-German army.
1288 – Mongol invasions of Vietnam: Yuan forces are defeated by Trần forces in the Battle of Bach Dang.
1388 – Despite being outnumbered 16:1, forces of the Old Swiss Confederacy defeat the Archduchy of Austria in the Battle of Näfels.
1609 – 80 Years' War: Spain and the Dutch Republic sign the Treaty of Antwerp initiating twelve years of truce.
1782 – American Revolution: Battle of the Saintes begins.
1865 – American Civil War: Robert E. Lee surrenders to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, effectively ending the war.
1914 – Mexican Revolution: One of the world's first naval/air skirmishes takes place off the coast of western Mexico.
1916 – World War I: Battle of Verdun: German forces launch their third offensive of the battle.
1917 – World War I: Battle of Arras: The battle begins with Canadian Corps executing an assault on Vimy Ridge.
1918 – World War I: Battle of the Lys: The Portuguese Expeditionary Corps is crushed by German forces.
1940 – World War II: Operation Weserübung: Germany invades Denmark and Norway.
1942 – World War II: US forces surrender on the Bataan Peninsula. The Japanese Navy launches an air raid on Trincomalee in Ceylon; RN aircraft carrier HMS Hermes and RAN destroyer HMAS Vampire are sunk off the island's east coast.
1945 – World War II: The German pocket battleship Admiral Scheer is sunk by the RAF.
1945 – World War II: Battle of Königsberg ends.
1948 – Jorge Gaitán's assassination provokes a violent riot in Bogotá and a further ten years of violence in Colombia known as La violencia.
1981 – The US Navy nuclear submarine USS George Washington accidentally collides with a Japanese cargo ship, sinking it.
2003 – Invasion of Iraq: Baghdad falls to American forces.

File: 6418829_orig.jpg (87KB, 600x470px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x470px

It is 152 years since the American Civil War effectively ended with Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia. The event has become an important part of the war's mythology. Dressed in an immaculate uniform, Lee waited for Grant. Grant arrived at the courthouse in a mud-spattered uniform—a private's sack coat with trousers tucked into muddy boots, no sidearms, and with only his tarnished shoulder straps showing his rank. It was the first time the two men had seen each other face-to-face in almost two decades. Suddenly overcome with sadness, Grant found it hard to get to the point of the meeting and instead the two generals briefly discussed their only previous encounter, during the Mexican-American War. Lee brought the attention back to the issue at hand, and Grant offered the same terms he had before.

The terms were as generous as Lee could hope for; his men would not be imprisoned or prosecuted for treason. Officers were allowed to keep their sidearms. Grant also allowed the defeated men to take home their horses and mules to carry out the spring planting and provided Lee with a supply of food rations for his starving army; Lee said it would have a very happy effect among the men and do much toward reconciling the country. The terms of the surrender were recorded in a document hand written by Grant's adjutant Ely S. Parker. Lee, upon discovering Parker to be a Seneca Indian, remarked "It is good to have one real American here." Parker replied, "Sir, we are all Americans." As Lee left the house and rode away, Grant's men began cheering in celebration, but Grant ordered an immediate stop. "I at once sent word, however, to have it stopped," he said. "The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall."

http://www.mediafire.com/download/psspvt7ht7srgs7/Osprey+-+CAM+279+-+Appomattox+1865.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/lz0v4ljw1656z46/S%26T+093+-+American+Civil+War.pdf

File: christ of givenchy.jpg (49KB, 700x471px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 700x471px

It is 99 years since the Battle of the Lys, part of the German spring offensive of 1918. The allied defenders included the Portuguese Expeditionary Corps (Corpo Expedicionário Português, CEP). Opening with a heavy artillery barrage, followed by intensive use of lethal gas, the Germans deployed eight divisions (about 100,000 men) against the CEP's 20,000 men and 88 guns. The CEP lost 327 officers and 7,098 soldiers, about 35% of its effective fighting capacity.

This battle produced one of Portugal's greatest heroes, Aníbal Milhais (known as "Soldado Milhões" - A Soldier Worth A Million), their most decorated soldier of the War and the only Portuguese soldier awarded the highest national honour, the Ordem de Torre e Espada do Valor, Lealdade e Mérito on the battlefield instead of the usual public ceremony in Lisbon.

During the battle, Milhais stood up with his Lewis machine gun and defeated two German assaults with intense fire. He managed to cover the retreat of his comrades despite coming under heavy attack himself. He fired in all directions and stayed at his post until he ran out of ammunition. His bravery under severe circumstances managed to convince the Germans that they were up against a fortified unit rather than just a single Portuguese soldier with a machine gun. Finally, the Germans decided to go around and Milhais found himself alone in the rear of the enemy lines where he stayed for three days almost without eating or drinking. On the third day, Milhais, still carrying his Lewis, rescued a Scottish major from a swamp and the two reached Allied lines. Milhais was warmly welcomed, but being a modest man he did not say anything about his experiences. It was through the officer he had helped reporting the story to the British HQ and other testimonies that his deeds became known.

So if you're looking for an exotic unit to take into the Flanders mud, why not the brave lads of the CEP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal_during_World_War_I

File: Norway005.jpg (71KB, 600x436px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x436px

It is 77 years since Germany invaded Denmark and Norway in WW2. The invasion of Denmark lasted less than six hours and was the shortest military campaign conducted by the Germans during the war. The rapid Danish capitulation resulted in the uniquely lenient occupation of Denmark, particularly until the summer of 1943. The Norwegian campaign was a prolonged battle that saw the Germans experience some sharp reverses, in contrast to the previous unstoppable success of blitzkrieg. Germany's invasion of France in May 1940 eventually compelled the Allies to withdraw and the Norwegian government to seek exile in London. 62 days of fighting makes Norway the nation that withstood a German invasion for the second longest period of time, after the Soviet Union.

At sea the invasion proved a significant setback for the Kriegsmarine, with crippling losses leaving them a surface force of one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers and four destroyers operational. This left the navy weakened during the summer months when Hitler was pursuing plans for an invasion of Britain. The greatest cost of the campaign on land came in the need to keep most of the invasion troops in Norway for occupation duties away from the fronts. On the whole the campaign was a costly enterprise with limited benefit for the victor.

Often forgotten by WW2 gamers, this campaign has a lot of potential. Plenty of naval action especially of the small boat variety, hard fighting between various unusual formations, and a broad scope from skirmish to strategic.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/gjh9v88lo9wwv22/Osprey+-+CAM+183+-+Denmark+%26+Norway+1940.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/g7wi8v60yi2dz22/Osprey+-+MAA+493+-+Blitzkrieg+1940+-+Denmark+Norway+Netherlands+%26+Belgium.pdf

File: UStanks_baghdad_200.jpg (1MB, 3008x1960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3008x1960px

Apparently Baghdad is the most captured city in history; I can't confirm that but it seems true enough. It is 14 years since it fell to its latest conqueror, the United States. I recall the great fear that it would turn into a Grozny-type bloodbath, only for it to end in nine days with minor Coalition casualties, after some sharp scraps. The attack was led by the 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Division, equipped with M1 Abrams tanks, Bradleys and M113 apcs. These forces along with American and British aircraft, including B-52s, Harrier GR7 attack jets and A10 Warthogs, went against the Iraqi Special Republican Guard, of 36,000 soldiers protected in sprawling bunkers 30 miles outside Baghdad, using Asad Babil tanks and heavy artillery.

There were famous battles for the airport and key road junctions, as well as the "Thunder Run" raids into the city. Baghdad itself suffered serious damage to its civilian infrastructure, economy, and cultural inheritance from the fighting, as well as looting and arson. During the invasion, the Al-Yarmouk Hospital in south Baghdad saw a steady rate of about 100 new patients an hour. US estimates of total Iraqi casualties are 2,320; their own losses were 34 KIA, one A-10 shot down, 2 Abrams and 17 unarmored vehicles destroyed.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/onv4tydew05s6h5/FoF+-+Road+To+Baghdad.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/8191dl5i8fdfgp1/Osprey+-+WAR+106+-+US+Marine+in+Iraq+2003.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/zcxbv04swrc1osg/Osprey+-+WAR+113+-+US+Army+Soldier+Baghdad+2003-04.pdf

File: WW2 Tanks In Yugoslavian War 30.jpg (149KB, 800x556px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 800x556px

The community project this month is an obsolete unit or vehicle.

File: NVA 244.jpg (514KB, 735x953px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 735x953px

Trigger warning: converted PDF

Imperial Roman Warships 193–565 AD (Osprey New Vanguard 244)

The period of relative peace enjoyed by the Roman Empire in its first two centuries ended with the Marcomannic Wars. The following centuries saw near-constant warfare, which brought new challenges for the Roman Navy. It was now not just patrolling the Mediterranean but also fighting against invaders with real naval skill such as Genseric and his Vandals. With research from newly discovered shipwrecks and archaeological finds as well as the rich contemporary source material, this study examines the equipment and tactics used by the navy and the battles they fought in this tumultuous period, which includes the fall of Rome and the resurgence of the Eastern Empire under Justinian the Great. Using spectacular illustrations, carefully researched ship profiles, and maps, this third volume in Osprey's Roman Warships miniseries charts the ultimate evolution of the Roman fleet in one of the most fascinating periods of its history.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/nzdubogm28lg5bc/Osprey+-+NVA+244+-+Imperial+Roman+Warships+193-565+AD.pdf

>>52614396
So I have painted up some Italian paras.
3 guys that look like officer types
14 SMG dudes
8 rifle manz
3 MG dudes
A spaghettiwerfer
A sniper team
And a light mortar team

I want to run a 500pts platoon. What do?

I want to take a Vet 2nd Lt with one man

1st squad with SMG leader, MG, 3 SMG dudes, one rifle dude.

2nd squad identical.

And I end up with ~390ish points, what do I do next?

>>52616221
Which system? I assume BA, but you might wish to confirm/clarify

>>52616298
Yeah, BA, sorry for not qualifying. BA2, though I haven't read the new rulebook yet.

File: RSCN2288.jpg (338KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1600x1200px

>>52613177

It's pretty much inevitable that I'll end up getting both sides so there's no worries there. I think 80 models per unit might get a bit much despite the looks, so 24-36 on a 60x30 seems reasonable. I think that's what's going on in the image related here so yeah I can live with that.

Any personal recommendations other than Baccus that anyone would make for late medieval? Are Irregular miniatures as bad as their website design or is it one of those classic mismatches?

File: Partisans.jpg (116KB, 710x500px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 710x500px

What /hwg/ blogs do you like?

File: vistula legion lancer.jpg (1MB, 1650x926px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1650x926px

>>52616678
Tinytanks (gorgeous 3mm/6mm)
Silver Whistle (amazing WW2 minis and scenery)
Dressing The Lines (NZ stuff, nice minis)
Ashrams House Of War (all sorts, lots of ACW and Napoleonic)
League Of Augsburg (stunning 17th-C stuff)

>>52616424
>Are Irregular miniatures as bad as their website design or is it one of those classic mismatches?
The best description I've heard of Irregular is that they're cheap and paint up nicely.

They're not very good, but they... are fairly cheap. And once you get some paint on them, they're OK. The company itself is fine to deal with, nice people IIRC.

>>52616678
Rabbits in my Basement (moderns and a bit of everything)
Charge Blog (moderns, also /ourguy/)
Jacksarge (dank painting)

File: IMG_1008.jpg (5MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4608x3456px

Hey ASLMinisanon!

guess what we did at our meeting yesterday?

https://youtu.be/9MewkWWOcaQ

Audio is a bit crappy due to acoustics and ambient noise in the area. but hope this give you some inspiration.

guys has done something i have never seen before. he doesn't use standard ASL counters. he copies and prints both sides of the counters on a standard sheet of paper and then affixes those to a thin sheet of magnet. Keeps the stacks nice and neat. he also has small magnets in the base of each one of his hexes allowing the stacks to stay in the hex the are in and not get knocked over

File: IMG_0985.jpg (5MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4608x3456px

>>52617022

File: IMG_1000.jpg (4MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4608x3456px

>>52617034

File: IMG_0992.jpg (5MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4608x3456px

>>52617048

File: 6cc17caffbbac88d51bc620cebb5a691.jpg (165KB, 900x1235px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 900x1235px

Does Weird War II belong here? It looks neat.

>>52617070
If there's no /awg/ up, and you're lucky and people aren't dicks about it, but it's mostly an /awg/ deal.

File: IMG_0989.jpg (5MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4608x3456px

>>52617066

>>52617070
not really, try /awg/

File: 10608701856_0e30947813_b.jpg (468KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1024x683px

>>52617070
Nah, once you start adding sci-fi fantasy elements /awg/ is a better fit

File: IMG_0997.jpg (4MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4608x3456px

>>52617094

File: IMG_0999.jpg (5MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4608x3456px

>>52617107

>>52617093
>>52617100
>>52617103
Thanks, guys

>>52616934
>Charge Blog (moderns, also /ourguy/)

You guys....

Hope you are all enjoying the content, anything else people are wanting to see?

File: HKP.jpg (214KB, 571x1049px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 571x1049px

So /hwg/ i always like the OP posts for their significance, and this one is no exception. A few threads back i saw something about the spanish american war, and being a roosevelt fan and an amateur historian, i started looking into it a lot more, especially to see if there were any neat scenarios i could bring up for my local /hwg/ community to play through as an event.

What i found was this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Guam

Now it wouldnt make a good scenario, but it got me thinking. Are there any wargames that deal with a morale or deception factor? I know in *some* rulesets of firefight/skirmish games you cant kill the indigs until they "show threat" by attacking. Is there a game where cunning and timing matter more than crunch and mathmatically superior units?

Anything appreciated, even if its just more silly historical instances, but especially if its on topic.

>>52616424

What game is this, looks fun. Im new to this whole historical action by the way, and the closest I have seen to its like, was a game released based on WHFB years back (cant remember its name though, but was always sad I missed the opportunity to play it).

>>52617417
Those are just models, could be used for several games.

File: germanWWIhelmet.jpg (131KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 640x480px

How bad would someone freak out if I painted one or two of my Volksgrenadiers with the WWI German helmet camo? I just love how it looks and I'd like to try painting it.

>>52617848
The unit you're looking for is Volkssturm, I could imagine some granpas brandishing their old helmets from the Great War.

>>52617880
No, I meant Volksgrenadiers. I have some late-war German grenadiers I need to paint for Bolt Action.

>>52618021
Then I'd say don't do it.

But I can't prevent you from doing it. So...eh.

File: Pulemet.jpg (79KB, 624x457px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 624x457px

>>52618085
>Then I'd say don't do it.

Yeah.Volkssturm OK, Volksgranadiers no

Just get some WW1 guys if you really want to paint 1918

File: 20090302_185053.jpg (363KB, 1239x930px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1239x930px

Combat Commander vs Company of Heros

Which one is better?

>>52618333
define 'better'

>>52618432
If I already have CoH is there a reason to also buy CC?

>>52619297
are you certain these are the titles you intend to compare? Company of Heroes the video game and Combat Commander the board game?

>>52617557

Aw crap... You made me remember why I never got in to Historical wargames...

File: awesome shields mounted 1.jpg (185KB, 800x483px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 800x483px

Hey /hwg/,
I've got a question for you.
I spent today looking through the Vallejo Model Color chart and tried to find the right kind of grey/brown for a colorscheme.
However the differences in color in that range are very slight and on one of my monitors it has a greenish tint. Trying to find good examples of the paints via google is also problematic, cause apparently nobody uses the white balance on their cameras.

Anyway how do you go about picking the right colors, if you can't pick them out in person in a brick and mortar store?
I don't want to buy a whole bunch of colors I'm not gonna use (mainly because I'm trying to get back into this after 7 years and most of my old paints have dried out. So I'll be spending a lot on paints anyway)

>>52619636
But having models that can be used in multiple systems is an objective advantage.

>>52619670
>Anyway how do you go about picking the right colors, if you can't pick them out in person in a brick and mortar store?

I try and google image search for a photo of the actual pot itself. I use a lot of vallejo so it works most of the time.

If it turns out to not be quite the right shade I just mix.

>>52619419
Shit, meant Conflict of Heros

>>52619636
wat

File: seleucid pikemen (4).jpg (452KB, 776x708px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 776x708px

>>52619720
>>52620107

Not him but it is a known problem that there's a shitload of options but for the most part very little guidance or unity on where to begin. It's not like GW where anyone can walk in to a store and find that X units are for Y force in Z game and just work within strict, yet easy guidelines like that.

With historicals... well lets go with something pretty easy access like Hail Caesar. Single book, army lists included, cross-era play .. well there's already a bump. Cross-era play isn't something people generally expect if they're new. I mean, it makes sense to see Romans and Gauls, Not Romans, Gauls, Medieval French and so on all in the same book (especially with a title like Hail Caesar). Then there's getting to miniatures and ok Warlord is there providing starter sets and everything, but even within the book there's a bunch of companies stuff on show, not all of which can be got through Warlord's storefront. Especially when getting into things outside of 28mm. Or having to worry about which type of Romans are suitable.

It can be a bit overwhelming if you're not getting guided through it all.

Whats the best vallejo paint for french indochina war paratroopers?
The only online guide uses gw paints
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHx6Je3UxI8

>>52619670
>What color is feldgrau?

There's no truly correct color, especially for preindustrial soldiers. Consider scale effects, weathering, fading, dye lots, fabric blends etc.

>>52620033
of the 2 I prefer Conflict of Heroes. Im not a fan of the card driven system for the command and control in combat command.

maps are bigger in CoH. and I think that it does armor better as well. also, there is a solo system released for CoH

>>52622754
It's not so much that I want a perfect match for a specific uniform, I just want to know what the colors I buy look like.

I appreciate the input though.

File: ED5A4476-0423-41BD-8C8B-ABA15F664949-9287-000006FA79D4CFE8.jpg (36KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x500px

>>52622432
Theres a very bare-bones guide here (scroll down) https://www.elhiem.co.uk/page_3038893.html

The tutorial isn't great but the results are nice.

>>52614453

Where is this miniature from? GIS gives no result?

>>52617022
>>52617034
>>52617048
>>52617107
>>52617121
God damn I am beyond jealous, my own project has fallen on the back burner for other ones lately and I think I need to rethink a lot of how I was making stuff but damn this is truly impressive and Im glad people who truly love the game get to play like this

Is Spectre Operations, as a current setting, /hwg/ due to it's realistic nature, or /awg/?

>>52623831
/hwg/ includes present day (and non-SF near future, if you ask me)

>>52623866
Good.
I just ordered some Task Force Operators. Planning on getting Spetsnaz GRU as OPFOR later. What am I in for?

Checking my interpretation of the Bolt Action rules: Because exceptional damage kills the gunner and destroys the gun of an artillery unit, and because snipers always deal exceptional damage, snipers can kill an entire artillery unit with a single kill, right?

>>52617237
>Are there any wargames that deal with a morale or deception factor?

Tons of them, but they're mostly hex & chit types. The use of dummy markers is one way many such games model deception. I've bluffed opponents many many times with dummy markers.

Morale is part of many hex & chit games too. How works in SPI's PRESTAGS series is pretty common. Each side would have "shaken" and "routed" levels linked to unit losses. Once the 1st level was reached it was harder to get your units to move into contact with the enemy. Once the 2nd level was reached, your army had to retreat and it's could only defend themselves.

"Patton's Best" by AH had a nifty sighting mechanism. Every German artillery piece placed on the board was an 88mm UNTIL identified, every tank was a Tiger again UNTIL identified, and, until ID'd, both fought as if they WERE an 88 or Tiger.. The US player thus couldn't ignore units. It was worth getting an ID if only to lessen the threat the new units posed.

>>52624060
Yup. Trick is to stop them getting the shot.

>>52624060
Not artillery units no. However it kills teams like no ones business

How dangerous is relying on Fireteams in Bolt Action? I'm playing as the Finns, and I'm noticing if I go for squads closer to my maximum, they fold because Soviet and other enemy squads are usually bigger, 11-12 men. I'm considering basing my army around 6 man teams to maximize the number of LMGs. Is that a good route? We're playing 2nd edition btw

File: image.jpg (56KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x600px

>>52623796
That's from Valkiria Miniatures, they're doing a 70mm line based on Bartek's illustrations.

>52625563
>52625563

Don't play the rules. Play the period. Unless you're playing a specific unit in a specific scenario where doctrine is ignored (and <only> that scenario), then play what's correct for your doctrine.

Yes, it's usually mathematically better to have minimum sized teams to maximize LMG fire. You're going to be called a min-maxing beardy cunt for doing it, and very rightly so. If your faction's doctrine calls for 10-man squads with a 3-man LMG team, then you play 10-man squads with a 3-man LMG team, and learn to win with that.

Don't play a historical wargame if you're just going to ignore the history when it's inconvenient.

Mid 1400s, Burgundy versus Duchy of Savoy... good/interesting possible match up?

Looking into pitting them against someone other than Switzerland after that anon last thread was on about Burgundy, and well they're in the area and it's not the juggernaut of France at least.

>>52627359
What in, Impetus?

>>52627030
Finland basically fought with whatever they had available, man. It was the Winter War.

>>52627030
>Don't play the rules. Play the period. Unless you're playing a specific unit in a specific scenario where doctrine is ignored (and <only> that scenario), then play what's correct for your doctrine.
>Yes, it's usually mathematically better to have minimum sized teams to maximize LMG fire. You're going to be called a min-maxing beardy cunt for doing it, and very rightly so. If your faction's doctrine calls for 10-man squads with a 3-man LMG team, then you play 10-man squads with a 3-man LMG team, and learn to win with that.

Be very careful, Anon. The last poster who suggested that someone playing a historical war game should use historical OOBs and doctrine got shouted down for being autistic.

>>52623881
Fast gameplay, high speed deaths (a second hit to character kills them out right, more suppression than you can shake a stick at (except for professionals or elites who have a cap on how much suppression they take) and a fun game that's got a pretty lively community on facebook

>>52627436
>Finland basically fought with whatever they had available

They still had a formation doctrine, tho. There's always scenario play if you want to get away from that.

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/FORMATIONS3.htm

Assume the 1941 Rifle Company formation because it actually integrates SAWs with the squad, and you get:

Squad: 9 men in each squad:
-Corporal (rifle)
-8 men (light machinegun + submachinegun + 6 rifles)

If you're going to do a 1939-40 Winter War formation, full half your squads shouldn't have SAWs whatsoever. The Finn doctrine then was to have a platoon composed of a pair of 10-man squads armed with rifles and an SMG, and then they had a pair of short, 7-man SAW squads with a single SAW, a loader, and 5 guys with rifles.

So it's more, "feel free to have a single short squad with a SAW in it, but for each one of those, you should take a 10-man squad with no SAW in it at all." Because that's the actual history.

>>52627496
And yes, I agree with anon that if you're going to ignore the history and doctrine of an established military force, then you may as well not play that force. If you want to ignore history in favor of winning and minmaxing lists, /40KGeneral/ is somewhere over thataway.

>>52628191
What about playing a list that encourages more fun gameplay?

>>52628225
then go play 40k or 100 STG44 lists like the other cheeselords

>>52628225
Fun gameplay and a historical list are not mutually exclusive concepts.

>>52628238
I feel like a 100 STG44 list is just as likely to actually be present on the battlefield as an "on paper" rifle platoon actually matching up to the reality. IE: 0% chance

>>52628319
It was clearly an exaggeration. Im not against doing something thats not entirely accurate to history, but simply making something because its cheesier/stronger just feels wrong and like you dont give a shit about historicals.

Sure with my ww2 stuff squad/platoon loadout isnt ideal and my paintjobs arent the most accurate but jesus if you just want to WAAC why play a historical game at all?

>>52628382
>It was clearly an exaggeration. Im not against doing something thats not entirely accurate to history, but simply making something because its cheesier/stronger just feels wrong and like you dont give a shit about historicals.


Watch out, anon. They'll being calling autistic.

>>52628412
Ive been called an idiot for painting my ww2 minis the "wrong colours" germans grey instead of green/grey and using the m1943 uniform for americans which was notably a consistent colour of green which means I didnt care about history at all

>>52628412
nah thats reserved for people that demand you play scenarios with the exact OOB, exact soldier names, exact scenario layout and try the same tactics

>>52628191
>And yes, I agree with anon that if you're going to ignore the history and doctrine of an established military force, then you may as well not play that force. If you want to ignore history in favor of winning and minmaxing lists

Mostly this.

My local Finn player consistently runs a 1K list consisting of something *very* close to:

Platoon 1
1st LT +1 guy
Jakaari Vet Squad 1 (NCO+5 men; all with SMGs and Skis, +2 Panzerfausts)
Jakaari Vet Squad 2 (see squad 1)
Regular Sniper
Regular Medium Mortar + Spotter
BA-20 Car
Reg Flamethrower w/skis

PLT 2
2nd LT+1 guy
Jakaari Vet Squad 3 (see squad 1)
Jakaari Vet Squad 4 (see squad 1)
Regular Sniper
Regular Medium Mortar + Spotter
BA-20 Car
Reg Flamethrower w/skis

...and refuses to play on anything but snow-covered terrain with lots of woods blocking LOS. It's certainly not a fun experience to play against. (Note, I'm probably off on the officers or some detail that makes the list illegal or something. But generally yeah, it's pretty close to this.) It also bears absolutely no resemblance to any even quasi-historical formation I can find any reference to whatsoever. It's made solely to exploit game rules. Jakaari pretty much never deployed en masse as a primary attacking force like this during the Winter War, ever (en masse light infantry deployment was the purview of the Sissi Battalions). Certainly never with this sort of support, and DEFINITELY never in conjunction with 2 of the 18 BA-20s captured from Russia. But hey, he wins a lot so it must be fine, right?

>>52628444
>which means I didnt care about history

Come on, man. There's a middle ground between catering to the (sadly existent) button-counting turboautists, and not caring whatsoever about the history and doctrine of the faction you're playing. Not everything must devolve into extreme positions. Sure, have a short squad with more LMGs. Also have some squads that are historically accurate, even if it's not maximally effective.

>>52628578
>Come on, man.
You missed my point, Ive been the victim of the button counters in saying that my painting was wrong because its not how theyd do it

>>52619720
>>52620033

What you people don't understand is that your to far in to the Nerd, that you cannot see the problem when "common folk" comes along and wants to join in.

If you have an untold amount of game-systems out there, to combine with an infinite amount of miniatures (with different scale, time frame and with or without fantasy), the combinations are close to endless.
And close in the words of Douglas Adams, If you where to meet another player that has the same game as you, its just imagination.

I wont shy away that I hail from the era of GW´s prime time. A time when everyone actually believed what they said on the news, and there wasn't much else to pick from but GW in terms of miniature wargames. Boring, that may be, but at least you knew that everyone and their grandfather involved in this type of hobby, knew and owned models for a system everyone was playing!

In truth, historical miniatures (and especially the 15mm scale) has always looked awesome to me. But the fact still remains that I could just enough buy miniatures and write my own set of rules, and I would have the same chance of running in to someone who plays the same game, as if I where to pick one of the pre-written rules out there.
With this in mind, you really need a solid gaming group for it to work. A gang of 10 guys all going for the same system so to speak.

Oh well, my two cents on the matter. But hey, I´m not a historical wargamer guy to begin with to don't take my words to serious. Im just a newb with interest.

This guy gets it >>52620507

>>52620033

>>52628697
Meant for >>52620107

>>52628588
>You are the Finn guy, right?

Yes, and those people are the (sadly existent) button-counting turboautists. Every game in the history of ever has them, and they should be roundly ignored.

But just because they've taking an extreme position in "defense" of historical accuracy (and I say this loosely) doesn't mean it's OK to completely ignore the history in favor of listbuilding optimization either. Again, find the middle ground between the turboautists and the pure optimizers.

As an example, my Desert Rats (1 Batt, Rifle Brigade, 22nd Armoured Div) is *mostly*, but not completely, historical.

>2nd LT + radioman
>2" Light Mortar crew
>3 sections of 10 men each (NCO w/ SMG; Bren Gun+Loader, 8 Rifles)

This is a more or less historically accurate platoon. I leave out the Boyes AT Rifle because, well, it's frankly terrible. PIATs weren't around till 1943, so they're out too.

>Sniper Team
>6-pdr QF Anti-tank gun

These are battalion-level elements which were commonly attached to platoons or companies as needed, singly or en masse. Easily within the realm of possibility.

>Crusader Mk III tank w/6-pdr.

This were canonically assigned to the 1st RTR, which operated in conjunction with the Rifle Brigade during Operation Lightfoot. Tank platoons were often assigned to directly support infantry platoons, so we're still in the realm of possibility. Mostly, though, I just wanted a tank, and I love the Crud's look.

>Bren Carrier
>5 SAS Commados with SMGs & Vickers K.

This is just for fun. Sure, there were SAS in-theatre, but they wouldn't have operated in conjunction with this sort of engagement. But outflanking with a Bren Carrier, driving up on somebody, hosing them down with point-blank LMG fire, disembarking, and hosing them down again with SMG/Vickers fire is entirely too much fun.

So, clearly historically-derived, but with elements to, as >>52628225 put it, "encourage fun gameplay." One might call it a "middle ground".

>>52628444
>>52628510

You're missing the point, but then you want to miss the point. It's not an either/or situation. It's more nuanced than that and you know it.

There's a huge difference between the "painting nazis" and other "historical sperglords" and the gamers who call out those people like >>52625563 as being "min-maxing beardy cunts" for deliberately "gaming" army lists.

As NEA explains:
>There's a middle ground between catering to the (sadly existent) button-counting turboautists, and not caring whatsoever about the history and doctrine of the faction you're playing. Not everything must devolve into extreme positions.

Even "lite" games like Bolt Action have to pay lip service to history. If you feel historical OOBs and the like somehow limit your ability to play, Warhammer and plenty of other fantasy rules sets await.

>>52628770
Im not the finn guy, im just firmly in the middle. Like not caring about history at all is bullshit and just go play 40k if you wanna powergame, but also being a buttoncounting autist is horrible. If your germans are grey, your americans green and your aztecs dont have machine guns youll be fine

>>52628800
I just personally think 1 LMG per 5 finns is too much on the powergamey end of things

>>52628510
Hearts of Iron wargame when

>>52628697
Then ask for recommendations and don't just throw your hands in the air and act like an arrogant prick.

>>52628697
>your to far in to the Nerd

Be sure to insult us first before asking our advice.

We get it. You were stupid enough to drink GW's Kool Aid back in the day and still they're the only game in town for both minis and rules.

However, when you pull your head out of your ass take a stroll through all the links in the first two posts you deliberately ignored when posting.

>>52629393

Oh I wasn't insulting, as much as just telling you how it is from an bystanders perspective.

When you engage in a hobby that has X difficulty grading, and you're dedicated to the cause, you wont find it difficult at all after a time. Its when you go blind to its difficulty-rating, and assume everyone should be able to understand the basics, that you have become a nerd in the certain area. I am of course referring to the Nerd as a person completely absorbed by factor X. I am not, throwing feces at you here, assuming to know about your personal hygiene or if you wear glasses or not.

So before you assume to have been insulted, instead try to understand. I know this will be a difficult matter, as you failed to do so from the very beginning of this conversation. Assuming the obvious, that I could understand the mechanics of historical gaming, just the same as you.

>You were stupid enough to drink GW's Kool Aid back in the day and still they're the only game in town

Well, to be fair, 20 years back when your a teenager and sees something like a Lizardmen army for the first time, I wont lie, my jaw hit the floor! Having only played D&D before, this was a completely new level of dedication to a hobby for me. And when answered on my question what the funny little guys did (other than painting), to fight massive battles on the fields of war, my 13 year old brain exploded.

But the second part of your statement is far from truth, mainly as I am roaming this forum as we speak, but I also don't have.. how did you put it, have my head up my ass and knows a thing or two about the world around me and what is going on.

>>52629317

>Then ask for recommendations
>What game is that? <- initial question.

I did, if you failed to read the full posts above, don't bother putting in your 5 cent, because you just look stupid doing so.

>>52616221
Bumping my BA2 question

File: C9Cvnz4XgAAr-0j.jpg (244KB, 888x1200px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 888x1200px

I quite successfully made a river.

>>52629935
That looks great anon.

>>52629813
I'd say make a full rifle squad and add an LMG as a long range support squad and use two SMG armed squads as assault troops.

I have no bloody idea if the setup is historically plausible, but ech.

>>52628697
If historicals have always looked interesting to you, then you already should have an interest in one or more periods. You also may well have an interest in a particular model scale. Once you're settled on these, the manufacturer and ruleset possibility space becomes much smaller and it's easier to find what you want.

Follow the old /hwg/ maxim;

> Pick a period
> Pick a scale

>>52628054
Sounds fun. I was tempted by the SWAT/Criminals starter, but I figured that only has limited use, scenario wise. I could probably have talked a few friends into giving it a shot, as we're all Payday players, but, ehh.
Time to try and talk people into it, then! What's a usual point size? The rulebook suggests 500; are there lower and upper limits for playability?

>>52626986
>>52616759
What's with the pig?

>>52630686
The result of an incident involving language barriers and several offers to pork her.

>>52629935
Very nice. Is that caulk on fabric or some other method?

File: kiwi girl.jpg (29KB, 373x567px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 373x567px

>>52630686
According to Bartek, it references the memoir of a Vistula Legion lancer who hid a looted piglet in his cap when riding past some officers. His work is full of obtuse connections like that. For example his WW2 Kiwi trooper is crushing a lemon on her hat, and that would make no fucking sense unless you knew that hat was called a lemonsqueezer.

File: Field Kitchen.png (922KB, 1546x1159px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 1546x1159px

>>52630758
>Lemon about to be juiced isn't cut in half
my chef sense is tingling...

File: C84x3OaXsAEtXua.jpg (373KB, 1200x888px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1200x888px

>>52630750
thanks.
exactly. it's transparent acrylic on painted fabric. the same I use for my gaming mats.

>>52628770
I really have no clue if the Italian Paras platoon I'm going to run is historical or not, but since all of the miniatures are italian paras, I'm just trying to give everyone vets, even though most people advise against doing this for mortars or something.

>>52631572
>even though most people advise against doing this for mortars or something.
yeah fucking munchkins do. "Durr it hits on a 6 only anyways and doesn't see the frontline, so why make it vet"
because they've undergone the same training and shit as everybody else in the platoon you fuckwit! that's why!
I refuse to play such people.

File: 83f0c56f394331119685dddbe85c2198e9cba8be.jpg (95KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 640x480px

>>52627368
Yeah sure, but also historically.
Any existing beef they had around then beyond the usual everyone hates almost everyone else except when they gang up someone else they also hate?

>>52631599
Yeah, exactly. How come my frontline dudes are all vets, but my support crew is suddenly inexperienced and stuff? Do they take guys out of weapon teams if some guy in the infantry squad dies, and puts rookies behind the mortar?

>>52630425

Well,the problem with your solution is mostly the same as my answer to the original post.
I never got in to historical because of factor; Period (P), scale (S) and gaming systems (G). Combine all these, when not living in a metropolis for miniature wargames around 1995, and you had to have a dedicated group of players that all agreed to play the same system.

And as much as >>52629393 will likely disagree, yes, a great many people jumped the GW bandwagon, and they quite liked it (myself included, hell, some of my best teenager memories are gathered from WHFB). The boring aspect of having one company, that makes both rules, models and a single scale, is in my personal opinion also the positive aspect. Because it makes it easier to access to a wider audience.

But as stated above, I never got in to historical, much because of points above. And all I ever really mentioned was all this coming back to me wen confronted by;

> What game is that?
>what ever you feel like man....

>>52631817
Play Ambush Alley.

You don't need other players, you have have AI.
You can play whatever modern conflict or imagi-nations that you want.
You will impress your racist uncle (by killing miniature hajis)
You don't need to care about scale, since modens range from 3mm to 28mm.

It is, however, a bit difficult to use and doesn't have points costs. It does, however, have example lists (I think), so you can buy a platoon of Marines and two platoons of Taliban/Unnamed Somewhat Islamic MENA Violent Non-State Actors and go to town.

5 games later, you might add a technical.

>>52631649
Ghent revolted in mid 1400s and there were several wars against Liege. Not sure about Impetus but they'd usually be represented by a Low Countries list.

>>52627359
You can do Guelders, Brabant, Flemish uprising, Bavaria´s Remnant and a whole load of German states aswell.

File: Triples 5.jpg (134KB, 1024x559px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1024x559px

>>52631817
Dude who posted said image here (also >>52620507 so fuck knows why I didn't get around to giving you an answer, blame a sacrificial goat or something).

Said miniatures were from a guy's thing where they were using Impetus to play some War of the Roses stuff. I think I may have found it on part of The Rather Large Towton Project, which was some people doing the battle of Towton at as large a scale as they could in terms of figure ratio to known amounts of combatants. It's not very representative of games generally, being one of those things that required a team because 8500 figures don't get painted in any reasonable amount of time by just one person. Anyway that's just if that's where I found when trawling for relevant images. I think archers can form with troops like that in Impetus anyway.

So probably Impetus.

I have a bolt action army bulding question. For the finnish winter war platoon, it says I can take 0-1 allied infantry squads. What qualifies as an allied infantry squad? Could I, say, take a german panzergrenadier squad?

>>52632039

No matter the rules, this just looks so awesome!

File: yls20018_6.jpg (20KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x450px

Does anyone know a miniature company that does ww2 germans with AT rifles in 28mm?
A friend has recetly bought some Poles for the early war, and also expressed a liking for a tankette.... I feel like an AT rifle or two might be in order

>>52633531
Finnish uniforms closely resembled early war German uniforms, so you could pick up the Finnish AT rifle team from Warlord, paint them as germans, and say they looted the AT rifle?

File: Low Countries.jpg (768KB, 1396x789px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 1396x789px

>>52631946
Impetus does have a low countries list. Very pike heavy. Not as good as Swiss though. Interestingly only skirmished handgunners rather than formed unit gunners.

>>52632011
That's a good amount of options. Trying to come up with something that has a decent mash of troop types but a clear theme in contrast to Burgundy's a bit of everything.

>>52623464
Cheers, wish I did not have to mix the basecoat ;____; looks like I'll have to use the devils range for that job.

>>52633531
I think i got mine from a perry bros. North Afrcan sprue, along with a 2inch mortar

>>52630551
Around 500 points is similar to a british army section so a good place to start

Honestly, I ignore the points costs most of the time and just got with a squad/platoon fighting a force of similar size. Focus more on making a fun battle rather than sticking to points costs. But that's just me

Upper limits is going to be platoon scale (working out suppression becomes a pain any higher) lower scale can be as few as a fire team.

>>52633760
Looted from someone they were on the same side with?

>>52628578
>officer+1 guy

This is the subtle cheese.

>>52636114
I don't play the game but why is that cheese?

we're about to start with Check Your Six, however in order to make a mat we need an image - any idea where/what to look for when it comes to suitable images in enough-for-print quality?

File: BBG18_Winter_Scout SS Autumn Pea Dot.jpg (27KB, 379x378px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 379x378px

>>52637137
At least 300dpi if possible

I assume you've see this http://wwii-photos-maps.com/new_home_page_-_071216_004.htm

See if there's a local engineering supply company that has a large format printer before going to a place like FedEx. There's a place near me that will print poster size maps/pictures for like $15.

File: Vafan mannen?.gif (675KB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 200x150px

>>52636114

File: 31b8e35e7866d46349acacff74383fee.jpg (77KB, 736x720px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 736x720px

For basing 6mm aircraft do most people get fancy with magnets etc or is it pretty reasonable to just drill a hole in the bottom and add a wire?

File: Modelling - Antenna Stand System.pdf (96KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1x1px

>>52637503
Use a cheap antenna my dude.

File: 9u9NKT0.jpg (3MB, 4013x2696px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4013x2696px

>>52638636

File: IMG_0080.jpg (241KB, 1600x864px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1600x864px

>>52639233
Bear.

>>52628578
eek 14 dice
I've gotten thrashed by a privateer press employee with is list

>>52639482
Do they even get bears in Switzerland?

Or is it like in Britain were we used to have them but they died out?

>>52636361
It counts as a small squad with a -1 to hit against them.

Looking for more of the Osprey Myth and Adventure series

So Far in this thread I found

Adventure:

Dwarf
Orcs
Steampunk 1
-------------

Dark / Adventure:

Nazi Moon Base
------------

Myth

Jason
Thor
Robinhood
Troy
Sinbad
Knights of the round Table

i would like to find more

>>52640388
>>>/awg/

File: Hurricanes.png (719KB, 1546x1159px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1546x1159px

>>52637503
I just drill a hole and use wire with my 3mm WWI and WWII aircraft. Not sure what I'll do when my 6mm helis arrive for soviet-afghan war, but I'll likely still drill a hole and use wire. I may just need to use thicker wire (currently using ~0.9mm wire and a 1mm drillbit) and some larger bases.

>>52628697

This cunt showed up at /awg/ and pulled the same shit.

File: IMG_0001.jpg (210KB, 1600x1050px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1600x1050px

>>52642123
>dude has problems getting into /hwg/ because of reasons that are well known problems
>somehow this makes them a cunt
>someone, probably not even the same person, poses a legit question about the confusing shared terminology of wargames that are in many ways radically different (board and miniature)

Anon... That train of thought you're chasing ain't even rational, even by 4chan standards.

>>52642741
youre not fooling anyone shitposter-kun. Over on /awg/ he posted that he was quitting the hobby because "fantasy wargame" and "historical wargame" were too difficult to distinguish for him and that both CNA and warmahordes shouldnt both be considered wargames

File: IMG_9934.jpg (208KB, 1600x523px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1600x523px

>>52642776
I read the posts you mentioned, I think your reading comprehension needs some work because, well, that just does not line up with the words on the screen even with a very generous interpretation. I suspect you may just be looking for something to get angry about.

This isn't /v/, you don't need to shit the bed over something that really at most might be worth a quizzically raised eyebrow. Maybe they are are the same person, maybe they're not, maybe they're dumb, or simply that thing we all were at one time: new. Doesn't really matter. A genuine answer to the questions posed doesn't do any harm. Hell it might even let you feel marginally happier for having been helpful.

>>52642123

Not to be that guy, but whats /awg/? Im the original poster by the way.

>>52643462
alternative wargames general

Basically a thread for games that aren't historical and aren't popular enough for their own general

>>52642895
You have a very distinctive posting rule stop posting pretending not that retard

File: I'll take what.gif (4MB, 531x354px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 531x354px

>>52644726

>>52640388
http://www.mediafire.com/file/687zxjakrii2k2a/Osprey+-+DARK+06+-+Thehttp://www.mediafire.com/file/68fq5rx38ffh4od/Osprey+-+DARK+07+-+The+Headless+Horseman+of+Sleepy+Hollow.pdf+Wars+of+Atlantis.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/file/gbg4g3lvhyf72rk/Osprey+-+DARK+09+-+War+of+the+Worlds-+The+Anglo-Martian+War+of+1895.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/file/77n1e3kgitvec4w/Osprey+-+DARK+02+-+Knights+Templar+-+A+Secret+History.pdf

>>52645326
http://www.mediafire.com/file/687zxjakrii2k2a/Osprey+-+DARK+06+-+The+Wars+of+Atlantis.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/file/77n1e3kgitvec4w/Osprey+-+DARK+02+-+Knights+Templar+-+A+Secret+History.pdf

>>52639549
They shot the last one in 2013. He was called Mike.

But the symbol of Bern was a bear, and they looted one from the Frogs at some battle-or-another.

>>52639549
>died out

They had a LOT of help dying out.

>>52642776
>youre not fooling anyone shitposter-kun.

>the everyone who disagrees is a shitposter-kun meme
literally the worst "meme" on hwg.

File: Seekers1.jpg (46KB, 600x272px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x272px

*Summons 10 seekers*
*Teleports behind you within 3 inches*
*takes your army apart*
nothing personell kiddo
*summons 10 more seekers*

File: Danger.5.S01E03a.webm (3MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x404px

>>52640388
>>52645326
>>52645431
Complete set of Dark Osprey
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/yhn9r8j2dq9nd/Dark_Osprey

>>52642895
>I read the posts you mentioned, I think your reading comprehension needs some work

Quit lying, cunt. Here are excerpts from the posts in question:
>Why are both genres (miniature wargames and chit/board wargames) called wargames if both groups don't really play the same games as each other? It makes it very hard for someone trying to get into them to find information and introductions.
>I'm not saying it isn't, but are you tellng me that The Campaign for North Africa is the same genre as Warmahordes?
>Alright I will leave the hobby, I am sorry for upsetting your very fragile ecosystem of blanket terms.
>You guys are definitely the ones sperging out here. Don't be a cunt.

You whined about "leaving the hobby" because CfNA and Warmahordes are both called "war games" despite your spergy insistence they are different and should be differentiated.

Here's the kicker, they are different and they already are differentiated. CfNA is a hex&chit war game while Warmahordes is a miniature war game. Furthermore, the former is historical and the latter fantasy.

So they are already sufficiently differentiated despite your sperging over labels.

Finally, as >>52644726 explained, you have a distinct posting style and easily identified because of it, so stop pretending you're not the cuntish sperglord both /awg/ and /hwg/ told to fuck off. Understand?

Either wash the sand out of your vagina, stick around, and learn something or GTFO.

>>52618309
Thats dumb

>>52617848
Do it. Just dont play with old men who have aspergers and you'll be okay.

>>52622432
>french indochina war
Muh melanin enriched friend.

This is exactly what I'm doing

>>52649064
>Just dont play with old men who have aspergers and you'll be okay.

Who am I supposed to play historicals with, then?

>>52649182
youngs 'uns with aspergers.

>>52649245
but I don't like to play solo

File: tilting at windmills.jpg (45KB, 475x385px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 475x385px

>>52649287
Try the middle ground then, the kinda people who probably got into gaming with GW in the late 80s to mid-90s. They seem to be a pretty decent generation, if often inflicted with children that cause scheduling problems.
Whilst it is difficult to generalise with any accuracy, the 25-50 age group is a fairly huge part of /hwg/ (at least according to that survey we had), it is the age range lot of people left GW at some point and branched out. Though not all, it's perfectly fine and possible to play fantasy stuff and historical games, but gamers tend to work in waves of playing one thing or another fairly exclusively.

At one point I was tempted to do WW2 French in early WW1 colours. Didn't get around to it though.

>>52648797
[image related]

>>52649540
This describes me well. 26, no kids but played and still play wh40k but i enjoy BA and have a friend who also does both.

File: Apr 16 2016 hwg age poll.jpg (100KB, 676x898px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 676x898px

Found the poll from last year. Might be worth a rerun with a more defined split of 18-21 included because I'd bet real money it's a noticeable split in favour of the over 21 in that 18-25 block.

>>52649587
I'm hitting 32 shortly, feels kinda weird to be in a minority for the age range when most historical gamers I know are a good 5-10 years older than me IRL. Still, it is the interbutt and that does trend younger so I shouldn't be surprised.

P10 BMP

>>52647133
No Osprey Adventures? Couldn't find those yet, I'm starting to consider getting the actual books...

>>52649778
How shortly? I'm turning 32 in a few days myself.

>>52649778
Yeah, I reckon a lot of the older guys who play historicals don't use the internet much in general, let alone 4chan.

File: 3.jpg (211KB, 564x623px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 564x623px

How much does your interest in a time period reflect your interest in wargames from that period. I was just thinking that my second favorite period of time, antiquity, is not particularly interesting to me from a wargame perspective. But my favorite time period, the early modern era, is.

The political, cultural, and artistic aspects of the time period are of course fascinating to me, being commonly known as the Renaissance, but in wargaming terms, it is the time period with the most varied weapons and armor. You have fully armored "knights" fighting along side cannons, lines of musketeers, and even bowmen. In what other time period do you have mounted pistoliers fighting against horse archers? You have the conquistadors of Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, the Winged Hussars, the Ottoman Empire, and, if you want to go East, the Samurai and the fall of the Ming.

I find the previous medieval period too primitive socially for my interest, and the subsequent 18th century too stuffy.

Why do you like your favorite period for wargames?

>>52617093
>awg
>>>52617100
>awg
>>52617103
>awg
>>52623831
>awg
>>52641607
>awg
>>52642123
>awg
>>52642776
>awg
>>52643462
>awg
>>52648797
>awg

Why not stop being arrogant cunts and post a link to the mythical /awg. It does not show up as a board on the top list or front page or in a search of /tg as a sub thread

>>52653027
There currently is not a thread up.

>>52653027
If it's too difficult for you to open the catalog and ctrl+F awg then you need to stop using the internet. jfc anon, its like you want people to call you stupid.

>>52653011
For me it's definitely Napoleonics. Specifically ACW. The uniform and pomp and pageantry of Napoleonic armies I love.

>>52653011
Honestly I'm not very interested in World War 2, but that's still what I play. I'd rather be doing literally any period where mans hit other mans with swords, preferably high middle ages, but I'm stuck in the 1940's because the games are fun, it's easy to find models, the research to create historically accurate formations is only clicks away, and I can always find someone to play with.

>>52653157
> ACW
> Napoleonics

hangonaminute

File: (Osprey)-[Elite-028]-Medieval-Siege-Warfare-45.jpg (442KB, 1600x1168px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1600x1168px

>>52652409
Another month to go.

>>52652678
Yeah if this was a survey of a typical facebook group I'd expect a much heavier weight towards the 40+ end.
Still, it's really nice to know that this isn't just an old man hobby by any means.

>>52653011
>How much does your interest in a time period reflect your interest in wargames from that period
Massively. To the point I just don't play periods I'm not really interested in even if they're popular and could guarantee games.
>I find the previous medieval period too primitive socially for my interest, and the subsequent 18th century too stuffy.
Are you me? (though I really quite like post-WW2 which is a nightmare for a lot of people). To nail it down, whilst warfare is always an experimental process, I like periods where the general mode of warfare is going through somewhat of a mess. The problems of coordinating all those different types of arms going on in the 15th-16th centuries is a big one for me (and that bleeds over into what the Japanese were up to at the same time). Though I also like the 17th century up to about the mid-way because whilst armament is practically at a stand-still in musket/pike/pistol/sword, the attempts to use them to greatest effect very adverse conditions is fascinating. As is the thankfully never lived out clash of soviet and NATO methods of war, or the asymmetric fights that are not as imbalanced as they might appear like bits of Vietnam and the Chechen wars.

hi guys, EXTREME hwg here. i have a bit of a background in tabletop RPGs, but not much. i like hex-and-chit games but can never really find real opponents to play (particularly for my favorite, ASL). looking to get into historicals because it's a decent shot of getting to play with actual opponents. i have no interest in sci-fi/fantasy games because that shit is gay.

can anybody give me a rundown on scales? 15 and 28 are the most commonly used, right? it seems like there are a lot more. what are the differences in terms of gameplay for each scale? are there any game systems that are flexible with scale? what kinda scale should a noobie be looking to get into?

File: Austrians vs Ottomans.jpg (136KB, 900x235px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 900x235px

>>52653157
>definitely Napoleonics. Specifically ACW.
What

>>52653011
I have an MA in Ancient History and have never wargamed anything in more distantly past than the FIW.
I play the wars I find interesting, not the periods.

>>52653277
>can anybody give me a rundown on scales? 15 and 28 are the most commonly used, right? it seems like there are a lot more. what are the differences in terms of gameplay for each scale? are there any game systems that are flexible with scale? what kinda scale should a noobie be looking to get into?
Well it depends on your local group really. At my local 15mm and 6mm are most common, followed by 28mm.
Many games are done in bases rather than figures, so you could easily have 6mm or 28mm or anything in between. Skirmish games (this is to be taken to include any game really with figure removal) are generally 28mm but could be 20mm or 15mm easily enough. You should get into scales that you find physically appealing and/or which your local group use already.

>>52653277
I would say 28mm is nice for platoon and squad-level games, 10mm and smaller is ideal for large battles and 15mm sort of straddles the line.

>>52653213
>>52653426

Pretty sure he's making the point that ACW is essentially just Napoleonics in slightly more muted colors. Especially the first two years of the war.

There's a valid point there, though there's also plenty of room to disagree.

File: Lepanto.jpg (1MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1067px

>>52653234
Yes, the transitional nature of the time is exactly it. In later periods you have tactical innovators such as Marlborough and Napoleon, but the actual mix of old and new technology alongside the tactical innovation gives so much variety.

I also like religious fanaticism and cold political ambition going hand in hand.

And yes, 17th century, at least up to the end of the 30 years war, is firmly in this era. The time of Louis XIV not so much.

>>52653453
>There's a valid point there, though there's also plenty of room to disagree.
Ehhh, we don't need to get into it again really but they are quite distinct. In similar ways to WW1 and WW2 being aesthetically similar in a lot of ways but very distinct.

>>52653213
>>52653426

Essentially what >>52653453 said. Early in the ACW there was a lot of Napoleonic tactics used before they really got a grasp that technology had far outpaced the tactics. The ACW occupies this weird space where it's not really a strict "Napoleonic" conflict but it wasn't quite a "Modern" war either. That said, I do love me some American Revolution and the general scope of Napoleonics. Block infantry and massed artillery cannonades make me excited.

>>52653528

I'd argue pretty strenuously that land warfare tactics in 1812-15 and warfare in 1860-61 had a *lot* more similarities - in basically every meaningful way - than land warfare tactics had in both 1917-18 and 1939-40.

I do get where you're coming from, and I agree we don't need to rehash it again. Mostly because I don't personally feel that ACW should be outright considered Napoleonics either (A sub-branch? Sure.). My concern was more pointing out what >>52653157 was most likely trying to say and why, not really to defend it.

>>52653027

Jesus H. Titty Fucking Christ. Sperg much?

Check the catalog first then, if there isn't an active /awg/ thread, you check the archive. Which is what I just did:

>>52527260

There is usually an active /awg/ thread on the board. Every once in a while, a day or two goes by between one falling off the board and a new one beginning.

Now GTFO and let the adults talk.

>>52653277
EXTREME answer:

There's a handy guide linked in the Op that's still fairly relevant and lists miniature companies by era and scale.

As for games, it seems like most are flexible in scale somewhat. Some to a huge amount. One of the biggest distinguishing points isn't scale so much as if units are composed of individual models or if there's multiple miniatures per base.

In short though and skipping a lot of oddities:
2mm/3mm/6mm/10mm: used for large units representing 10s to hundreds to thousands of people. Very easy to paint due to the simplicity of the detailing, cheap.
15mm: the overlap size which can often be found recommended for use for large units and individuals.
20mm/28mm/32mm/40mm: the size for 1 miniature = 1 person.

All sizes can and are used though for large unit games, though 10mm and under is ideal.
In gameplay large unit games tend to focus on command and coordination of the armies to bring about victory, where as smaller games based around small units or individuals tend to focus on applying their particular abilities and individual struggles, and less on getting them into position in the first place. The general idea is (when it comes to the simulation side of games) to give the players a certain type of experience, often at least theoretically linked to a particular level of command in the kind of concerns they have to deal with. A regiment commander doesn't have to worry about individual soldiers where as the platoon commander does.

The fine detailing though, well that'd require a whole damn essay to cover unfortunately. Sufficed to say if you have an idea of what kind of battle you'd like to fight, there's bound to be options for it. And if you don't, well there's various good games that can be suggested. But check with your locals if you have any, community is a core part of wargaming. That can narrow down options a lot.

>>52653619
>Early in the ACW there was a lot of Napoleonic tactics used before they really got a grasp that technology had far outpaced the tactics.
Yes of course, and in the opening year (and even a little beyond that) generals in WW1 fought as if it was the Franco Prussian/Austro Prussian wars before they got a grasp that technology had far outpaced tactics.
That the ACW is between Napoleonic and Modern is why it is generally considered as being a separate section, as I always understood it, along with the rest of the mid 19th Century wars.

>>52653667
I think I'm just using "Napoleonics" incorrectly, or rather I'm using it to describe far too broad a time span, which is factually wrong. I really enjoy the age of musket and musket/rifle warfare which employed massed infantry forces and the ilk. If there's a better term to refer to that period or "genre" of warfare I'd really like to know, as to not make an ass of myself in the future.

>>52653760
Horse&musket

>>52653907
Would it be correct to refer to it as Line Warfare, as in the infantry of the line which characterize really only that period?

>>52654048
Yeah, Linear Warfare could work too, but Horse and Musket generally refers to the period.

>>52653907
>>52654048
>>52654105
Thanks kindly Anons. Appreciate it.

Many of the MYTH books : https://www.mediafire.com/folder/tb2x9xp4cbq5o/osprey%2C_myth

So to the anon who was talking about recon the other day: I actually played it. I had a pretty good time, the system is definitely a little unclear, unfortunately I spent a lot of time helping everyone set up their characters.

Actually playing the game was pretty awesome, I love all the random generators from things like VC contacts and villages to people in bars and on streets. Firefights were good, pretty different from the standard DnD style fights.

One of my friends kept making the dumbest decisions, it was hilarious. I don't think he'll last long.

While we are on the subject of Napoleonics. I've often read, on the subject of ACW, or even the Crimea, that use of outdated Napoleonic tactics meant that those conflicts were particularly bloody. Its something of a cliche, really.

But this doesn't seem to ring true at all. Because major battles of the Napoleonic Wars were, in fact, absolute bloodbaths. And no single battle of the ACW was as large as many Napoleonic Battles (the huge armies of the ACW were spread over the equally huge landmass of America).

Am I right in this impression?

>>52654542
It's probably overblown, yeah. It certainly contributed, but the bloodiest battle of the ACW was Gettysburg and that battle wasn't one of those stereotypical standing open-field line battles most people associate with Napoleonic warfare.

File: 1357852803804.jpg (2MB, 1772x1538px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1772x1538px

>>52653499
Transitional, that's the word I should have remembered.

I also like the wars that bogged down and dragged out so there's more to draw from and a certain balance. That whole 1400-1650ish era is utterly full of that.

Thanks to those who posted more Osprey Myth and Adventure/Dark after i asked last night still looking for Adventure/Fantasy specifically Elf and Steampunk 2 the old west

>>52654542
>that use of outdated Napoleonic tactics meant that those conflicts were particularly bloody.

The argument isn't that they were "particularly" bloody. The argument is that they were "unnecessarily" bloody.

The thought behind the argument is that the markedly increased accuracy/range/lethality in small arms rendered "block" formations of troops obsolete, and that generals still ordered assaults in close formation when in fact the infantry could have engaged each other at ranges of 200+ yards. What the argument mostly fails to pick up on is the reason for such close formations: command and control. Until better and more reliable signaling came along, infantry would have to continue to operate in close formations, really until WW1 and arguably until WW2 (look at how closely infantry were packed even in WW1). There was no way for them to spread out and still continue acting like an "army" until communications tech improved. So the argument that they just should have "spread out", and the failure to do so was a failure in generalship is a specious one.

The other half of the argument - that ranges were unnecessarily compressed and engagements were forced at 50 yards when they could have taken place at 200 yards (and casualties were needlessly higher as a result) - does have some merit. However, positions still had to be taken by putting your dudes on top of the ground your opponent previously held, and there's a strong counterpoint that if the basic infantry engagement distance was extended to 150-200 yards, effective assaults on enemy positions would have become functionally impossible (too much ground to cover).

But the thought that battles were "unnecessarily bloody" as a result of a Napoleonic hangover in tactical thought is mostly a meme. Tactics were the way they were because you needed to have command and control over your forces and you needed to take ground. At the time, those objectives necessitated *massed* infantry.

>>52628444

You remind me of when a friend's family who had spent years in England was vending books and documents at an SCA event. They had a 400 year old parchment diagram of a market booth and from that using 200+ year old barn timbers recycled into a new booth. A guy in combat boots and fairy wings comes by and says the booth is nothing like authentic because the awning is polyester

>>52654940
>The thought behind the argument is that the markedly increased accuracy/range/lethality in small arms rendered "block" formations of troops obsolete, and that generals still ordered assaults in close formation when in fact the infantry could have engaged each other at ranges of 200+ yards. What the argument mostly fails to pick up on is the reason for such close formations: command and control. Until better and more reliable signaling came along, infantry would have to continue to operate in close formations, really until WW1 and arguably until WW2 (look at how closely infantry were packed even in WW1). There was no way for them to spread out and still continue acting like an "army" until communications tech improved. So the argument that they just should have "spread out", and the failure to do so was a failure in generalship is a specious one.
I would like to add to this.

What also didn´t help in the American Civil War is that there was a huge lack of staff officers. A whole army of 80.000 men would have the same amount of staff officers a French Division (10.000-15,000 men) would have in 1811-12. This meant that formations would react slower to orders because there were fewer men to enact the orders, and pass them around. It also meant casualties were harder to replace.

>>52654940
>But the thought that battles were "unnecessarily bloody" as a result of a Napoleonic hangover in tactical thought is mostly a meme. Tactics were the way they were because you needed to have command and control over your forces and you needed to take ground. At the time, those objectives necessitated *massed* infantry.

Exactly. Even during the Franco-Prussian War, command and control at the tactical level still necessitated massed infantry. Both sides had breech loading rifles and much more staff officers than either side in the ACW, but that keep them from massing infantry for assaults.

If you read about the Prussian attacks in the Battle of Gravelotte, especially hose by the Prussian Guards, you're reading about a re-run of the Old Guard at Waterloo or Pickett's Charge.

>>52655034
Why do i remind of you that when I was the one being berated by a button counter?

>>52656533

Your situation not you

What's the best ruleset for ancient pike warfare?

>>52658302

DBA. If you're not working in a stupid scale (ie, trying to do ancient pike warfare with 28mm models), it's the only one you're going to have a hope of finding other players using. So you may as well play it.

>>52659121

Pretty much this.

File: IMG_5304.jpg (388KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1600x1200px

>>52658302
There's bound to be something specifically for it but damned if I can name one and my google-fu is failing me as I mostly found references to WRG 6th and Warhammer Ancient Battles, neither of which I would ever recommend.

However I did come across this though which might give some things you want to look up for yourself:
http://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/the-search-for-perfect-ancient-wargame.html

File: IMG_0046.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

TFW these are both 1/72

>>52660114
The guy on the right is a big guy, maybe 6 ft 2 or something
guy on the left is a smaller guy, maybe 5ft 3

>>52660455
The majority of my guys are the 5'3 dudes then ha

File: 7a96d2602d62ecdfc3c7ac3d2eae13df.jpg (37KB, 492x693px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 492x693px

>>52661192
>when that one guy is a giant

File: 1371804364917.jpg (163KB, 578x828px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 578x828px

Hey /hwg/, other than Five Men in Normandy/Kursk, what are your favorite WW2 squad level games?

>>52662182
Five men at Normandy but I've switched to Kursk

>>52634275
You can probably find something that's similar enough to use straight out of the bottle

>>52660455
>is a big guy
__________for you_________

>>52653426
>FIW
?

>>52662792
French and Indian War.

File: IMG_0047.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>52660114
>>52661192
Seriously though how can these be considered the same

>>52663325
I'll take "what is scale creep" please

Plastic 1/72 has this scale creep even more pronounced than for example 15mm. That and the soft plastic is why I don't bother with 1/72.

Carcinogenic resin (or lead) miniatures make me feel more like an adult.

>>52664321
interesting, I've never encountered this and I've used miniatures from most manufacturers in 1/72.

>>52663325
So who makes the tall guys? who are the manufacturers of these 2 lines?

>>52664359
Tall is Italeri and small is airfix I have zvesda as well that's kinda in the middle

>>52664454
Strange, the airfix and italieri miniatures I have are very close in size, only about half a milimeter between them. Something aint right there...

What's the general consencus on Warlord games Finnish models?

Their Italians i bought were pretty good. Really fun to paint too. The Germans looked so wrong though. Slopped shoulders and wack looking faces with moldlines very prominant in places.

>>52628697
>And close in the words of Douglas Adams, If you where to meet another player that has the same game as you, its just imagination.

No. You don't build a single force for a random system that you like and expect to randomly meet somebody that also already plays that system. You build a full scenario that you like and bring it out to host games for people at conventions or meetups. Other people do the same, and we all get to play a bunch of different games and nobody is stuck painting a bunch of shit for a period or game that they are indifferent about because that is the only way to find opponents.

Basically, don't be a selfish cunt. Share your toy soldiers. Let's play some fucking games.

File: 1491728712165.jpg (292KB, 1280x577px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1280x577px

>>52614396
This must be General Lee; I can tell by the eyes.

>>52666177
No, that's general Li

File: 5fdbc5d1d13c2edbb1ffd23513363c57.jpg (141KB, 795x523px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 795x523px

>>52664597
>>52664454
Aren't the old Airfix figures 1/76 rather than 1/72?

>>52666400
That would explain it, but I think Airfix just trends smaller with infantry in general. That and we are talking about some pretty ancient figures (the Italiari ones are not theirs originally) that have been in production for quite literally longer than most of this thread has been alive.

http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=354
http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=86

>>52633531
the Warlord Pioniere box has an AT rifle in it. It's 100% of the Blitzkrieg box plus a bunch of metal stuff like aforementioned AT rifle, a flame thrower, a bunch of xboxhueg backpacks, couple of extra heads, one extra guy with wire clippers, a Goliath mine, some arms with various guns like SSPH and MP38, 3 arms with landmines, a mine sweeper, and possibly some other shit I forgot.

So if you just want an AT rifle its a bit much but if you want early war nazis that box is well worth the 2 extra currency it costs.

>>52666198
>TFW no orange painted Chinese muscle car and Chinese rednecks doing improbable jumps and running from incompetent police

>>52668535
> Muscle car painted bright Yellow with the Qing dragon on the roof.

Any ospreys/models for Ukrainian Nationalist WWII soldiers, preferably in 1/72?
I want to try something offbeat

>>52667530
>>52666400
Their vehicles are all 1/76 so figures probably are too. Plus 40-50 years of scale creep

>>52661664

That is German wrestler & actor Kurt Zehe "Gargantua” born 1913

>>52649159
28mm empress or a different scale? I managed to get a big group of the empress ones for 20ish quid.

>>52665839
The older Paul hicks sculpts are great which I think the Italians are, the later stuff is really variable between good and utter shite (looking at you spear fighters and metal japs)

>>52664454
plastic soldier review actually warns you how tall the figures are in each set they review, e.g. Revell modern Brits look like the school cadets

>>52668535

No Rednecks in China they are called Nongs, the same ones who go to London and crap on the sidewalk in front of the Burberry store 100 feet from a toilet

>>52666198

That might be the Cherokee Aid decamp who was in the room

BRDM

>>52672476
>Aid decamp

GTFO

Hey there. I'm totally new to historical wargames, and I have a couple of questions. How do I actually find people to play with, as in what channels would I use to contact people? I'm used to GW games where I can just head to a store, and I'm at a loss on how to find people to play with. Also, what is a good system to use for Perry's Civil War range? I'm looking for something on a slightly larger scale.

Thanks in advance!

>>52676793
Look up local wargaming clubs in your area. A lot will be more than happy for you to drop by on game night.

For a beginner, Black Powder is probably a decent ACW ruleset, I think it needs an expansion book to cover that particular war though.

>>52676907
How do I find clubs? I've tried looking up "wargames club cityname", "miniature games club cityname", "miniature wargames group cityname" and a bunch of others, but can't find anything that seems relevant.

>>52677046
Oh, that's what's worked for me in the past.

I guess in that case some websites have directories of clubs. A lot of clubs also have facebook pages and stuff like that.

>>52677063
Alright, I guess I'll try making a Facebook account or something. There's a nearby game shop, and while they don't do any non-WW2 historicals I'll see if I can find a group.

File: ely_parker_.jpg (102KB, 600x672px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x672px

>>52672476
That's the guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ely_S._Parker

Osprey-anon, do you by chance have DUEL 21: Centurion vs T-55?

>>52677225
Well, if they do WW2, they might be interested in other periods as well. If they play Bolt Action, Black Powder may be easier to get them into, being a Warlord ruleset and everything.

Anyway, feel free to share which city you're from, lots of anons here found opponents to play with from these threads.

File: DUE 021.jpg (400KB, 703x953px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 703x953px

>>52679861
Yes!

Centurion vs T-55 - Yom Kippur War 1973 (Osprey Duel 21)

Conceived at the height of World War II, the British Centurion and the Soviet T-55 were initially expected to counter the formidable Panther and Tiger tanks of Germany. But as the Cold War unfolded, these machines prepared instead for the coming struggle between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Though they never fought in Europe, these two tanks became the mainstay of the Cold War's proxy forces around the world. From Korea to the Middle East and on to Angola, these two armored combatants clashed repeatedly, reaching their crescendo on the Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur War where 177 Centurions of the IDF took on a vastly superior Arab force. This book compares the design, development and deployment of these classic tanks, and analyses their battlefield performance. Presented with highly detailed digital artwork, this is a tightly focused study of two of the Cold War's first main battle tanks.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/m2nnv11sk2sbdzw/Osprey+-+DUE+021+-+Centurion+vs+T-55.pdf

>>52677225
Facebook is a good idea - I've done well finding groups and clubs with it.

Considering the interest in ACW, I'm guessing you're somewhere in the US?

>>52682045
That's goddamn sexy as hell.

File: IMG_5779.jpg (334KB, 1600x1081px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1600x1081px

>>52682098
Seems to fight pretty well too
http://www.wwpd.net/2015/02/french-army-project-1250-point-list.html

>>52679960
>>52680758
I'm in Burlington, Ontario, Canada. Is there anyone nearby?

>>52677225
>non-WW2 historicals

A lot of those guys presumably have an interest in history and would probably be open to trying something new if you asked, particularly if you showed up with both sides and a compelling scenario.

You might look at the rules Sharp Practice which have a ACW supplement. It's a skirmish system so you wouldn't need to buy as many figures.

File: ww1-a-028-masurian.jpg.jpg (61KB, 825x517px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 825x517px

>>52682909
Oops, just noticed you said larger scale battles so Sharp Practice probably isn't what you're after.

large battles and 28mm are a poor mix - consider smaller men or smaller battles. Are you going for the look of mass battles? Do you like the added detail of 28mm figures? Is painting a chore for you?

>>52682332
I believe there's a Toronto group, at least

>>52682909

Is Sharpe Practice in the OP collections? I have no problems supporting Two Fat Lardies, but I want to look them over to see if I like them whatsoever first.

File: The_Wounded_Soldier_by_Stanley_Borack_.jpg (259KB, 900x1406px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 900x1406px

>>52683811
Yes indeed, both editions in fact
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ow6c4j66snuo2ef/Sharp+Practice.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/file/wwyc1bbgx1y6svq/Sharp+Practice+v2.pdf
Here's their original ACW expansion for 1e, I think the 2e main rules incorporated a lot of it
http://www.mediafire.com/file/04a4sd90ma8otqm/Terrible+Sharp+Sword+%28TFL%29.pdf

>>52682045
>>52682128

This is not helping my constant internal war between my finances and my desire to buy cute little tanks.

>>52683926
Nor mine.

I've already got scads of French botes to paint and base, I don't need an entire new scale/system/medium.

>>52683213
I enjoy painting at 28mm, especially the added detail. However, the large battles are the most exciting part of warfare. Is using 28mm for large battles that bad?

>>52684239
Yes.

File: tiger 1.jpg (9KB, 236x213px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x213px

>>52684239
Yes unless you have a big big big table

>>52684239
>>52684305
It really, really depends on personal aesthetic tastes.

>>52682045
Fantastic work.

>>52684239
Yes. Unless you like to play in a car park. Especially for ACW.
In 28mm is better a skirmish game.

Won the fucking Osprey modelling comp boys. Wheeeeeey.

>>52684239
>>52684383

The increased footprint of units and terrain does have a significant impact on gameplay, assuming that is more than a handful of 28mm miniatures are used, which is almost always the case. An increase in unit footprint needs to be accompanied with an increase in table size to not have a negative effect on the ability to position units. But there's also a practical limit on table size due to having to deal with being able to move units by hand.

One of the most negatively affected parts is the ability to have multiple lines of battle that don't just block each other. Formation depth is pretty limited with a typical 28mm set up on the normal 6'x4' table.

File: nice.jpg (6KB, 226x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 226x225px

>>52684540
Good job, anon.

>>52684270
>>52684305
>>52684383
>>52684488
>>52684557
Jeez. I guess I'll try 15mm. Any recommendations for plastic civil war troops?

>>52684664
Only in 1:72. Strelets will soon release some fucking sweet ACW troops, plus lots are around from Revell, Italeri, and some others.

>>52684540
Link

>>52684707
Dont know. I got the email this afternoon.

>>52653011
My interest in wargames comes from the fact that my interest in history tends towards military history, rather than a specific period. The periods/conflicts I currently have armies for are Caesar's civil war, WW2 western front, Lebanese civil war and some alt history stuff for NATO vs USSR in the 80's and AVBCW.

what scale are the minis from memoir '44?

>>52685357
I would also like to know. I have a copy and was using it to approximate how big Flames of War minis are to my friend

>>52685357
>>52685706
I have a feeling it's 1:72 for infantry 1:144 for vehicles but don't put money on my accuracy.

>>52684488
That reminds me of the biggest battle I've ever played. It was ACW, in 28mm... on a 21' long board about 9' wide. Took about 5-6 hours.

Was at a place in the UK that specialises in running such games, I think it's called the wargames holiday centre. Basically it's a small warehouse with multiple massive tables (so they can run multiple battles or have single battles that range over the different boards at the same time) and armies to use and they play battles that take all weekend and cost more than a few pennies to take part in, I think it's a spin-off of a local hotel. I saw recently they ran a tournament over at the hotel instead due to needing even more space.

Genuinely amazes me that such a place exists and is financially viable simply because there's a bunch of wealthierthannormalfags out there willing to spend some amount still cheaper than a weekend at a decent golf place I believe, but on grabbing a bunch of like-minded fellows and having giant games where everything is provided.

>>52682045
is that 2 plates of poppadums at the back for a half-time snack?

>>52684664

From 28mm to plastic 15mm. Bro, go 3mm or go home!

If you enjoy 28mm just go 28mm, lots of old guys manage to paint full armies in 28mm. I don't even try and enjoy my 15mm stuff. For ACW look at 10mm, some really smart figures available from Pendraken.

>>52685948
>still cheaper than a weekend at a decent golf place I believe,
But is it cheaper than rallycross?

File: 17201174_1126577504131021_1814693997830305170_n.jpg (53KB, 578x320px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 578x320px

>>52684664
If you don't have a problem with excessive figure scaling (i.e. a regiment of hundreds of real men is represented by only ~20 models) then 28mm will be fine.

For example, the Perry twins frequently game ACW at 28mm and if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

File: 2016-04-12 018_zpst8iouffj.jpg (145KB, 800x398px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 800x398px

>>52687937
Have honestly never heard of this.

>>52680680

Osprey Anon, you are a lovely person and also a pretty cool dude.

Thank you!

>>52687958
>For example, the Perry twins frequently game ACW at 28mm and if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
"company that makes 28mm figures uses 28mm figures so 28mm figures is a good scale for it"

Maybe?

>>52683926
>This is not helping my constant internal war between my finances and my desire to buy cute little tanks.

For a second there I thought you wrote "fiance" and was going to tell you to kick her to the curb!

So still no decent scans of Battlegroup?

>>52687873
>3mm
no. just no

>>52689067
3mm I still actually great and looks amazing on the table

>>52689067
I do 3mm acw using black powder, I can get a 12cm frontage by using 6 2x2cm bases and it looks great having a hundred dudes lined up like that

File: IMG_0840.jpg (346KB, 1600x1013px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1600x1013px

3mm makes you really feel like a god.

>>52689067
>>52689067

3mm is objectively the best scale for modern combat. I don't mean that as a statement of opinion - it's backed up by math.

If 3mm = 2m (average soldier height), then the table scale will match up well to effective weapons ranges. A 6 foot table gets you about 1200m of range, so given that infantry engagement ranges are about 300 meters (shoulder arms thusly have an 18" effective range, SMGs have a 6" range, marksmen can go 24-30" and can go up to 72" with spotters), you can have a good infantry skirmish game with room to move around outside of weapons range at 3mm scale.

Anything larger requires necessary and unrealistic compression of weapon ranges, which compromises the entire point of playing wargames. Really, if you're playing moderns at a scale larger than 3mm, you've compromised your experience so much you aren't really even truly wargaming at all any more.

>>52689635
That's why FoF has infinite ranges.

Suggesting 3mm for SKIRMISH, is fucking bonkers. Plus what many people forget to take into account with the weapon's effective range: the soldier doesn't have a magnifier built into his eyes.

For that last paragraph: may I look at that mighty high horse you're on, or that's forbidden as well? Can I even have fun if I play with miniatures that have visible details, or am I forbidden from doing that?

>>52689840
>replying
nooo

>>52689635
>Anything larger requires necessary and unrealistic compression of weapon ranges, which compromises the entire point of playing wargames.

While you're speaking the truth and while I agree with you, there are a lot of people who will stick fingers in the ears while screaming nah-nah-na-nah.

Everyone uses varying levels of historical accuracy because everyone is different. After all, we've anons here seriously asking the best way to "game" and "cheese" their point builds and army lists.

For some of us that's okay, for others of us that ignores the reason for playing a historical game in the first place.

And life goes on. Hi-ho.

>>52689635
idk i like it as scale but in terms of "playability" for modern it is annoying imo.

I mean in stuff were infantry fought in big blocks it is really godlike but in eras with tanks and grouped infantry it is unconfortable, more if you add tanks while you try to play with the most realistic ranges.

A 6 foot table is still really small for tank skirmish with actual ranges for example

>>52689635
>objectively the best
This is only true if the greatest thing valued is scale. Which it never is.

Quality is not defined by being able to measure out precisely scaled distances with a degree of fineness that's basically pointless. Modern combat is a fuckton more than infantry skirmishes and even a kilometre isn't enough for decent combined arms representation.

5/10 some idiot might believe you.

>>52689947
>A 6 foot table is still really small for tank skirmish with actual ranges for example

Well, "historical" does imply a certain level of "realism". Of course, just what that level that is or should be depends on the individuals involved.

Look at our "cousins" over at /nwg/. They routinely play historical games with minis which are wildly oversized relative to the distance, ranges, speeds, etc. They must do so in order that their ship minis can have any visual details.

As in all things, there are trade-offs. Just how much to trade and for what is going to varying from person to person.

>>52689840
>Plus what many people forget to take into account with the weapon's effective range: the soldier doesn't have a magnifier built into his eyes.

As a former infantryman and redleg, you'd be surprised at how quickly you develop a "calibrated eyeball" in combat. I may not have been estimating to within single meters but I certainly was doing within dozens of the same.

Whether a prospective target was within effective range or not quickly became intuitive/

>>52690240
Realism =/= finely detailed simulation though
Realism can be had through appropriate abstraction, which makes for a far better game. There's basically nothing worthwhile to be had from matching miniatures and ground scaling with 3mm/1:600 figures, and so many practical problems.

>>52689947
>A 6 foot table is still really small for tank skirmish with actual ranges
A 6 foot long table with actual ranges is 6 foot long. It's perfectly fine when scaling of say 1"=100m is applied.

>>52690506
>Realism =/= finely detailed simulation though

Which is why I wrote: "Of course, just what that level that is or should be depends on the individuals involved."

>Realism can be had through appropriate abstraction,

Which is why I brought up the example of /nwg/ minis being being wildly "oversized" relative to the distance, ranges. speeds, etc. of their rules sets. Abstraction is a necessity in all war games and especially in naval war games.

You and I happen to be in agreement in here.

>There's basically nothing worthwhile to be had from matching miniatures and ground scaling with 3mm/1:600 figures, and so many practical problems.

Who's talking in absolutes now? For some people it is worthwhile.

>>52690506
>A 6 foot long table with actual ranges is 6 foot long. It's perfectly fine when scaling of say 1"=100m is applied.

sorry i was triying to talk about his scalling about the 1200m of range, something like that is small for ww2.

>>52690897
I wasn't disagreeing, I was elaborating further. My bad for not better phrasing it to read that way.

Though from a game design perspective, there really isn't anything worthwhile unless you're not designing a game but one of those hyper-detailed simulations military's used for training and planning purposes.

>>52690899
Hell it's small for a lot of wars, wouldn't even fit some pre-industrial era battles with enough room to capture the important moves or the full frontage.

>>52684790
>Lebanese civil war

Please do show

>>52691083
>My bad for not better phrasing it to read that way.

No. My bad for misreading your post.

>Though from a game design perspective, there really isn't anything worthwhile unless you're not designing a game but one of those hyper-detailed simulations

I occasionally enjoy a hyper-detailed simulation like Harpoon and others. They're not only designs I play but I don't discard out of hand either.

It's a matter of "horses for courses". I've regular opponents who play the rather abstract DBA/DBM over 90% of the time and yet still enjoy an occasional Harpoon sub hunt.

Keep your options open. You'll play against more opponents in more games that way.

File: korean_people_air_force_mig_29_by_rusberkut-d4lwq2n.jpg (77KB, 752x571px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 752x571px

>>52685948
>9' wide
How do you move figures near the center?

>>52691337
>1337-post
Incidental numbers aside, I think naval wargames can and do get away with the super detailing whilst still being practical games because the terrain is, well, there's absolutely not need to model it in the same way that a hyper-detailed land warfare game would require, and there's generally few units in play to keep track of.

The land warfare stuff, especially for moderns, well that needs a lot of terrain detail otherwise it's the classic problem of certain weapon systems being far too effective, like ATGMs. Or the reverse and things like ATGM teams can be killed far too easily because there's not enough concealing terrain modelled.

And then there's the sliding-scale middle-ground. For example A Fistful of TOWs is going for simulation, but with heavy abstraction, where as I find DBA to be more on the end of pure game-y game (one of these days someone is going to provide a much better word for that), though not nearly as much as say Bolt Action, even though ostensibly DBA is just as abstracted as FFOT.

Game design eh.

File: 10996344_875159069201788_8411457024009101274_n.jpg (102KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 960x720px

>>52691509
Good question, I went to check because I feel like my memory might have tricked me, turns out it was 6' wide and 28' long, either way we got up on stools and had pusher sticks for a couple of harder bits.

image nabbed from their facebook page.

>>52691656
>Incidental numbers aside, I think naval wargames can and do get away with the super detailing whilst still being practical games because the terrain is, well, there's absolutely not need to model it in the same way that a hyper-detailed land warfare game would require, and there's generally few units in play to keep track of.

Very true. The "lack" of terrain and low unit density allow naval games to "pour" detail into other areas.

>The land warfare stuff, especially for moderns, well that needs a lot of terrain detail

Terrain or equally detailed spotting/sighting rules. Damned if you do...

>And then there's the sliding-scale middle-ground.

Most definitely and we all choose just what part of that scale we prefer. Or, more accurately, what range of options on the scale we prefer.

>more on the end of pure game-y game (one of these days someone is going to provide a much better word for that)

I know I'm waiting for someone to coin one! Sim-lite? Ab-heavy? I've got nothing.

>>52691829
I wanna play on that table in 3mm

>>52691885
I've always just called the gamey games, gamist. As opposed to simulationist or narrativist games.