Prussian 15th Division, VIII Corps, 1870

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Finally got back into the 1870 groove (1 year and 5 months since I last did any Prussians).
The division

Minus two heavy guns and its general...

Infantry

33rd Fusillers

7th Hussars

Jagers (Damned flock)


Corps Artillery Command

[fred.]

These look great. Good to hear that this project is on the move again.

I do like the style of these bases and units

[Ace of Spades]

Great stuff!... really should find some time for that period again too!

Cheers,
Rob

[Leman]

Excellent stuff Lem. Always good to see some hussars putting in an appearance.

[Techno]

Great work again, Will. 
Cheers - Phil

[Hertsblue]

The problem with seeing well-painted figures in someone else's thread is that it reminds you that you should be finishing your own project. 

[Leman]

Many a true word, but I find a bit of chopping and changing stops me going stale.

[Techno]

Talk about setting up a sitter, for someone to knock in...
Cheers - Phil

[Subedai]

Very nicely painted and based.

[cameronian]

Nicely done as always Lemmey, gaiter buttons next time please 

[Leman]

To the last one please.

[Fenton]

Very nice...Dont  really like the labels but thats just me

what rules are you using again?...I am sure you said but I cant remember

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Thanks guys.
Originally Volley & Bayonet (hence the 3" square bases), but now Black Powder.
Labels are so I can tell regiments and Corps apart...

[paulr]

I find the white label area clashes with the really good basing 

[Hertsblue]

I think we're all agreed that the problem in the "uniform" periods is telling the units apart. If you provide identity labels that blend in with the basing they become that much more difficult to read. If you make them stand out they then clash with the basing. The alternative is to put the labels under the base. The drawback to that is, of course, you have to keep lifting the base to check the unit identity. You pays your money....

[Ithoriel]

Personally I like the white labels - they are clear and easy to read and simple to make - but there again I play a lot of board games and see figures as rather nicer playing pieces than a cardboard counter which is why I prefer rules that use single "diorama" bases per unit.

I can't be bothered with rules that involve a dozen or more bases per unit these days. Units taking losses seem to me to get thinner not narrower so leaving units on table until they break fits better with my idea of how it should look.

[Ace of Spades]

Units taking losses seem to me to get thinner not narrower so leaving units on table until they break fits better with my idea of how it should look.

I tend to disagree with you on this subject Ithoriel. It really depends on period and occassion I think. Troops in the 'modern' days (starting after, say, 1862 roughly) will take cover when firing and thus will not immediately shorten the line by keeping in touch with the center as troops moving in line would do when taking losses. For moving troops keeping shoulder to shoulder contact is what they were taught and how they would thus move in the field (with adapted but rather strict intervals the system of advancing in a straight line was still taught and in in use by the time of the Boer War and maybe even WW-1?). Gaps would be filled by dressing the lines to the center or left/right depending on orders, not merely by letting the rear rank step up. Taking losses would thus result in lines getting considerably shorter in a relatively short time. Also troops that are in a firing line in cover and that have taken losses will end up with a shorter battleline as soon as they are ordered to redress for an advance or retreat. The length of their new firing line will then be adapted to their 'new' numbers. Although this may seem trivial it will immediately affect the ground a unit can hold. The effects on most games are certainly relevant in my opnion.
There is of course no objection to ignoring this if people feel this is overcomplicating or spoils the fun but I think from a historical point of view it shouldn't be to easily overlooked...

Cheers,
Rob

[Leman]

The older I get the more I want an enjoyable game rather than an absolutely accurate historical recreation. Anyway I wasn't there so I don't really know. Eye-witness accounts are not especially reliable; ask any copper.

[Ace of Spades]

I agree with your remark on eye-witness accounts, but as an experienced re-enactor in a whole lot of different periods (roughly from the early 17th up to and including the 20th century) I've studied a lot of original manuals and handbooks and I feel quite confident in saying that shortening the lines has virtually always been the 'prescription medicine' for dealing with losses in the line up to the 20th century. Indeed; rules were adapted or done away with at certain times (like taking cover when returning fire was a sensible thing to do when the manual forgot to reckon with the increased range and accuracy of the rifled musket!) but on average the manual is what the men in the ranks and their officers stood by.
Again; what anyone feels as an enjoyable game may of course be completely different and, luckily, totally up to them

Cheers,
Rob

[Leman]

To be honest, if you are playing a big game where most units in your army wear the same uniform, then there has to be some way of identifying them. My preference is for rear coloured base edges, but the label with name does take the guesswork out of it.