Help me choose my next project

[Raider4]

Not the only national anthem with a few problematic sentiments to be sure, still a damn good tune.

Just noticed they're playing "Jerusalem" when England win gold at the Commonwealth Games.


Have I missed something?

[mmcv]

Just noticed they're playing "Jerusalem" when England win gold at the Commonwealth Games.


Have I missed something?

We get Londonderry Air (the tune Danny Boy is sung to).


Guessing because God Save the Queen is a bit redundant for the Commonwealth, so regional tunes and anthems are preferred so it's not just the same anthem over and over? Particularly as it's a somewhat dreary anthem. Jerusalem is a bit more uplifting I suppose.

[Raider4]

Particularly as it's a somewhat dreary anthem.

Aye, you're not wrong there. Should have changed to the Archer's theme (© Billy Connelly) though . . .

[John Cook]

Guessing because God Save the Queen is a bit redundant for the Commonwealth, so regional tunes and anthems are preferred so it's not just the same anthem over and over? Particularly as it's a somewhat dreary anthem. Jerusalem is a bit more uplifting I suppose.

Other Commonwealth Countries have their own national anthems but this is not the first Commonwealth Games where Jerusalem has been used when England wins gold.  It was used at the 2014 and 2018 Commonwealth Games to my certain knowledge. 
The argument is that God Save the Queen is the national anthem of the entire United Kingdom and because the countries of the UK compete independently, God Save the Queen is not the appropriate anthem for England. 
So in order to appease the PC loonies, who would probably like to see a republic anyway, they play Jerusalem for England, for Scotland it's Flower of Scotland, for Wales it's Land of My Fathers, and for Northern Ireland the Londonderry Air.

[mmcv]

Looked it up and a lot of commonwealth countries have it as a "royal" anthem. UK and NZ and a few territories have it as their "national" anthem. Maybe it was just so the English wouldn't feel left out not having their own tune? Maybe Jerusalem will become the national anthem of the Republic of England in the future? 

Personally I always thought Rule Britannia either be a better choice as national anthem, much more rousing, if a tad aggressive. 

[steve_holmes_11]

Looked it up and a lot of commonwealth countries have it as a "royal" anthem. UK and NZ and a few territories have it as their "national" anthem. Maybe it was just so the English wouldn't feel left out not having their own tune? Maybe Jerusalem will become the national anthem of the Republic of England in the future? 

Personally I always thought Rule Britannia either be a better choice as national anthem, much more rousing, if a tad aggressive.

But Rule Britannia, like God save the Queen, isn't specifically English.

[John Cook]

But Rule Britannia, like God save the Queen, isn't specifically English.

The tune to God Save the King pre-dates the Act of Union but its modern rendition dates from the 1745 Jacobite Rising and was performed in London.  It is, very much, I would say, English in origin.  Furthermore, when England becomes independent, when we have got rid of the unruly Scots once and for all, Northern Ireland has been left to its own devices (it is more trouble than it is worth anyway) and Wales has become Western England, Her Majesty (her heirs and successors), will still reign over us.  God Save the Queen (or King as appropriate) will still be the national anthem of proud Englishmen (and women).  Now, you will have to excuse me as I seem to have something stuck in my cheek.

[mmcv]

But Rule Britannia, like God save the Queen, isn't specifically English.

Aye, I meant more as the British anthem, while God Save the Queen would still be the royal anthem, then each of the constituent countries have their own national anthems. Then you've a bit of choice as to what you use. Then again, may all be a moot point in a few decades if any of those institutions will even exist in a currently recognisable form. Or indeed any form of civilisation depending how pessimistic you are.

The tune to God Save the King pre-dates the Act of Union but its modern rendition dates from the 1745 Jacobite Rising and was performed in London.  It is, very much, I would say, English in origin.  Furthermore, when England becomes independent, when we have got rid of the unruly Scots once and for all, Northern Ireland has been left to its own devices (it is more trouble than it is worth anyway) and Wales has become Western England, Her Majesty (her heirs and successors), will still reign over us.  God Save the Queen (or King as appropriate) will still be the national anthem of proud Englishmen (and women).  Now, you will have to excuse me as I seem to have something stuck in my cheek.

 Sounds about right. Though the Welsh are of course invited to join Ireland and Scotland in the new Union if they want to be free of the English yoke. The Republic of London can do what it wants though.  

But anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Still waiting on a few "dead tree" books to come through but been bouncing between the Fredrick the Great and Wellington books digitally and enjoying both. I think for the Peninsular I'd maybe just want to start at the beginning of the British intervention with Roliça and Vimeiro, which could be quite interesting with the right scenario setup. Haven't quite worked out what I want to do with WAS/SYW.

I have settled on doing something musket based for next project though, so definitely something in the mid 18th - mid 19th, and likely one or both of the above. To be honest, I'm tempted to just order a pack of Peninsular infantry and a pack of SYW infantry and just see which I prefer painting up as realistically I'll be doing both at some point in time. Though at this point it's been near a month since I last had a chance to paint a model so can take my time researching and deciding still!

[John Cook]

But anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Though at this point it's been near a month since I last had a chance to paint a model so can take my time researching and deciding still!

Good idea! 
Sensible approach, a bit like eating an elephant - one mouthful at a time.  On books, Jac Weller's Wellington in the Peninsula 1808-1814 isn't a bad primer and an easy read.
   

[mmcv]

Good idea! 
Sensible approach, a bit like eating an elephant - one mouthful at a time.  On books, Jac Weller's Wellington in the Peninsula 1808-1814 isn't a bad primer and an easy read.

Thanks, I've put in an order for that as well, looks like it'll go into good detail of the battles.

[Orcs]

MMCV, I have just spoken to your wife. She has decided on your next project. Its the Bathroom, followed by the Hall, Stairs, and Landing.

We will welcome you back to the forum in a couple of Months  

[Matt J]

..then she'll get you doing the kitchen and the rest of the house.... then get you to sell it because she wants to move somewhere else..

(or is this just my experience... )

[Orcs]

..then she'll get you doing the kitchen and the rest of the house.... then get you to sell it because she wants to move somewhere else..

(or is this just my experience... )

No, but be careful sometimes its time to change both the house and the Husband  

 

[mmcv]

..then she'll get you doing the kitchen and the rest of the house.... then get you to sell it because she wants to move somewhere else..

(or is this just my experience... )

Thankfully we just moved in last year, and neither of us have any desire to move again anytime soon. The next project I believe is the en suite, which (like more than a few on this forum) is a 70s throwback, complete with mustard suite, brown carpet and horrendous patterned tiles. We've already converted the 80s bedroom into a nursery, including stripping the granny patterned wallpaper, and had some of the polystyrene ceiling plastered over though still 4 rooms to do. And replaced the leaky shower and fixed the hole in the kitchen ceiling from said leak. Latest projects were a new curtain rail and skylight blind in the master bedroom as well as fitted wardrobes. The 90s bedroom remains hobby/junk room but I've been able to clear it enough to put up a full size gaming table. Thankfully the baby has distracted from any major renovations for the time being, though has also distracted from any hobby time aswell. I have in the past 3 months painted a handful of 2mm bases and made a few hills, mostly in 10 minute bursts of free time. Plenty of time to read/listen/watch while nursing the wee man to sleep though. When he sleeps. If he sleeps. (He's actually been okay this week).

[mmcv]

I think I'm settling into the idea of WAS/SYW. It's been interesting reading about it and some of the parallels with the First World War. I'm still waiting on a few books to arrive (hopefully they arrive this week as I'm off for a long weekend and would be some excellent reading material). I am enjoying reading about the Peninsular as well, but have found myself more drawn to the earlier period for the moment. I will no doubt visit the Peninsular in due course, but for now I think some Prussians and Austrians are on the agenda. Maybe some French. And Russians. And Saxons. But that's getting ahead of myself!

I still haven't settled on the battle I want to work towards, but can start planning some core forces. In general, I like to base things on as few bases as possible. For the Long 19th Century different formations and manoeuvres are quite important so I'm generally planning on those being multiple 25mm bases to allow that to be shown. For 17th Century and before forces are in lines most of the time so single bases are generally okay with a marker on the odd occasion when in something different.

18th Century though provides a bit of a transition between the two. As far as I can tell forces are typically either in some form of column or line. Square formations exist in drill manuals, but don't seem to have been used much beyond last stands. I could go with the single base approach and just have a small base of marching troops to indicate when in column, or go with the 19th Century approach of multiple small bases, though I'm leaning towards maybe having a 2 base unit. Exact sizing to be determined, probably 50 of 60mm frontage per base, representing each as an individual unit with it's own flag and command. Then they can be used as individual bases with markers as I build the forces or for bigger games, then as combined units as I get more done. This would allow me to show line, march and square fairly simply. I'll need to get some figures and start sticking to bases to fully decide though. I do like the look of a single-based diorama style unit, but I might be able to get that on the smaller bases. I suspect I'll need to custom order some extra commands when the time comes though unless I'm feeling particularly masochistic and decide to do 30-man bases.

How are others basing their forces for the period?  Have I missed anything obvious I might need to consider?

Rule wise I'm looking at Twilight of the Soldier Kings and Honors of War/Post of Honour.

[FierceKitty]

I put almost everything in units of four bases, with 7 line foot, four HC, or 3 LC on a similar frontage. The columns are a bit broad, but nobody stays in column for long, since the enemy are usually professional enough to hurt you badly if you aren't properly deployed.

[Westmarcher]

My 10mm SYW infantry and cavalry units are 4 bases strong on 1 inch square bases - I cram 8 Line infantry onto a base, 4 or 5 light infantry and 3 cavalry per base. This enables me to arrange these in Line, Field Column, March column and Square. These were originally based with Field of Battle 1st Ed. and Maurice rules in mind.

But for a long time now, my favourite rules have been and still are Honours of War. It's a slick set of rules and 15mm or smaller scale games can be easily fought on a 3 foot deep or less table. With these rules, you have the choice of using different ground scales; all you have to do is match the width of your standard tabletop infantry or cavalry unit with the Close Order Infantry in Line movement rate in one of the many different scale Quick Reference Sheets provided and Bob Fred's your uncle.

Using this facility, I'm now able to fight battles where the standard unit width is 4 bases wide OR, if I need to fight a bigger battle requiring more units (or play on a smaller playing area) fight battles where my standard unit width is only 3 bases (this also has the advantages of having your colour party in the middle of the unit and to paint less figures per unit)(some spare command bases are also helpful to have for building 2nd battalions from the 'spare' 4th bases).

I've also found with Honours of War that I don't really need to represent a 'Field Column' or Square for infantry so, if I was starting again, I would probably build my infantry units using 3 bases only. For cavalry in HoW, there is the option of using the 'Field Column' formation (called Double Line in HoW) so a 3 base unit would probably have to be 2 bases in front with one behind (or just don't have Double Line which, frankly, I wouldn't miss because there are no movement or direct combat advantages - indeed, it's a disadvantage when fired on by artillery).

If I had done this, I might have been able to start armies for those other nations I had planned to paint when I first started my SYW project(!). How also allows you to field "Large' and "Small" size units in addition to the "Standard" unit size giving you 3 choices of unit size within the same game.

The HoW forum has a number of WSS battle reports.

"Standard" units of 2 bases can also be accommodated with HoW (remember, it's all about matching your preferred unit width to the appropriate QRS) meaning that you could consider representing "Large" units with 3 bases and "Small" units with only 1 base. Incidentally, the standard unit size in Might & Reason is 2 stands strong and, indeed, the author of Field of Battle (now in its 3rd edition) has since re-based from 4 to 2 stands per unit, saying although it's more figures per stand, it's less figures per unit to paint plus his games move faster because there are fewer stands to move.   

[mmcv]

But for a long time now, my favourite rules have been and still are Honours of War. It's a slick set of rules and 15mm or smaller scale games can be easily fought on a 3 foot deep or less table. With these rules, you have the choice of using different ground scales; all you have to do is match the width of your standard tabletop infantry or cavalry unit with the Close Order Infantry in Line movement rate in one of the many different scale Quick Reference Sheets provided and Bob Fred's your uncle.

Yeah I've heard a lot of good things about HoW. I've read over PoH and done a little playtesting with Shadow of the Eagles which I know are both by Keith as well, though I understand HoW is slightly different and includes an alternating activation (which I tend to enjoy in a game). I have ordered a copy of the rules but it's one of the books I'm still awaiting arrival of.

I signed up to the forum recently and have been reading through and enjoying some of the scenarios and battle reports, including some of your own, looks like a great resource.

Using this facility, I'm now able to fight battles where the standard unit width is 4 bases wide OR, if I need to fight a bigger battle requiring more units (or play on a smaller playing area) fight battles where my standard unit width is only 3 bases (this also has the advantages of having your colour party in the middle of the unit and to paint less figures per unit)(some spare command bases are also helpful to have for building 2nd battalions from the 'spare' 4th bases).

Being able to have a colour party in the middle and paint less figures is no small thing. I do enjoy a bit of symmetry in a unit where appropriate and with liking to have many projects on the go and not a whole lot of painting time that's always a win.

That actually raises a question, where in the line of battle would the flags and commander stand? As far as I've been able to find out so far it looks like the battlefield positioning (as opposed to the parade ground) would be the commanders out front and the colours and musicians behind or within the line? Or would they have stood at one flank or the rear to avoid blocking line of sight of their men? Part of me suspects the commanders outfront is more artistic convention than reality. The NCOs (always more sensible than officer types) certainly seem to be behind the men to dress the ranks and keep them moving in the right direction and it would seem more sensible for the officers to be similarly positioned to give orders more easily.

I put almost everything in units of four bases, with 7 line foot, four HC, or 3 LC on a similar frontage. The columns are a bit broad, but nobody stays in column for long, since the enemy are usually professional enough to hurt you badly if you aren't properly deployed.

Your games do certainly always look impressive in scale, though is there any advantage to having 4 rather than 2 bases with perhaps the foot in 2 rows rather than 1 on each base?

Part of me is tempted to try and do the 3 rank Prussians and 4 rank everyone else. That might lead to some degree of madness, though I do want to experiment a bit with speed painting dense infantry like that, e.g. only painting the front of the front rank and the back of the back rank in detail and have the rest in just dark block colours with maybe heads and shoulders and guns painted. That might make it easier to field large numbers of units quickly and hopefully doesn't look too naff. 

[FierceKitty]

Well, I differentiate a bit in allowing a small melee bonus for a double deep line, but an increased vulnerability to artillery. That aside, there's an automatic break and run if a unit loses 2 elements more than it inflicts during the artillery shooting phase, the smallarms shooting phase, and the melee phase. Any unit losing three elements is out of it too. So the system suits my rules, and in addition does allow one to form square, though this very seldom happens.

[mmcv]

Well, I differentiate a bit in allowing a small melee bonus for a double deep line, but an increased vulnerability to artillery. That aside, there's an automatic break and run if a unit loses 2 elements more than it inflicts during the artillery shooting phase, the smallarms shooting phase, and the melee phase. Any unit losing three elements is out of it too. So the system suits my rules, and in addition does allow one to form square, though this very seldom happens.

Ah certainly if base removal is a factor then it makes sense. Though that can usually be fudged with markers if needed. Interesting on the double deep line factors. Is that for a standard line or a type of "attack column"?