Help me choose my next project

Started by mmcv, 27 July 2022, 10:08:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

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.
I don't drink coffee to wake up. I wake up to drink coffee.

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.   



I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

mmcv

QuoteBut 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.

QuoteUsing 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.

QuoteI 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.
I don't drink coffee to wake up. I wake up to drink coffee.

mmcv


QuoteWell, 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"?

Westmarcher

QuoteThe HoW forum has a number of WSS battle reports.


Meant to say "WAS" not "WSS."  :-[

QuoteThat actually raises a question, where in the line of battle would the flags and commander stand?

I couldn't definitively say but as an example of early 19th century practice, in Adkins's Waterloo Companion, there is a diagram of a British battalion in line which depicts the Colour Party right at the centre and within the body of the line (which makes sense considering that the colours are intended to be a rallying point). The officers and NCOs are distributed along the line and also behind the line in their respective companies.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

Chad

I use 'Twilight of the Soldier Kings'.

Each base is 60x20, although I use deeper bases for artillery. Two bases for infantry and cavalry represent a Brigade.

For infantry each base has 12 figures two deep and represents a regiment. The command group of 4 figures sits in the centre of the base and consists of an Officer and Drummer in the front with 2 standard in the rear. The 2 standards have flags for the 1st and 2nd battalions.

For cavalry I use 5 figures per base with 4 troopers set towards the back of the base and an Officer in the centre set towards the front.


John Cook

Not entirely sure about the 18th Century but I can tell you what Napoleonic regulations say, and most of them originated in the 18th Century.  The Austrian Generals-Reglement 1769, for example, was in use until 1807. 
Colours were in the centre of the line, between the two central companies of the line.  Drummers were at the rear.  The supernumerary 'fourth rank' was formed by NCOs whose job was, amongst other things, to stop soldiers falling out of the ranks, keeping dressing, that sort of thing.  Officers led from the front when the unit was advancing, they moved to the rear if it was defending.  All regulations are pretty much the same.  Here is a rather good Knotel painting.  Its been a long time since I posted an image so I hope it works :)


mmcv


QuoteI use 'Twilight of the Soldier Kings'.

Each base is 60x20, although I use deeper bases for artillery. Two bases for infantry and cavalry represent a Brigade.

For infantry each base has 12 figures two deep and represents a regiment. The command group of 4 figures sits in the centre of the base and consists of an Officer and Drummer in the front with 2 standard in the rear. The 2 standards have flags for the 1st and 2nd battalions.

For cavalry I use 5 figures per base with 4 troopers set towards the back of the base and an Officer in the centre set towards the front.
That's quite a neat setup, similar to what I was thinking, though was thinking of maybe having the officer out front on a slightly deeper base, maybe 30 or 40. Undecided at his point.

QuoteI couldn't definitively say but as an example of early 19th century practice, in Adkins's Waterloo Companion, there is a diagram of a British battalion in line which depicts the Colour Party right at the centre and within the body of the line (which makes sense considering that the colours are intended to be a rallying point). The officers and NCOs are distributed along the line and also behind the line in their respective companies

QuoteNot entirely sure about the 18th Century but I can tell you what Napoleonic regulations say, and most of them originated in the 18th Century.  The Austrian Generals-Reglement 1769, for example, was in use until 1807. 
Colours were in the centre of the line, between the two central companies of the line.  Drummers were at the rear.  The supernumerary 'fourth rank' was formed by NCOs whose job was, amongst other things, to stop soldiers falling out of the ranks, keeping dressing, that sort of thing.  Officers led from the front when the unit was advancing, they moved to the rear if it was defending.  All regulations are pretty much the same.  Here is a rather good Knotel painting.  Its been a long time since I posted an image so I hope it works :)
The differences in position on defence and attack make sense and could be why I've sometimes seen conflicting information. So any troops that were in march attack/advancing/etc would have the officer out front while any of those in a firing position likely have the officer behind. That sounds like a reasonably sensible system then. I could represent a regiment with the colour or colours in the ranks, the officers out front and the drummers behind. I'll play with layouts once I get some figures, likely buy an army pack to give me a good mix. Will probably want most/all troops in the march attack pose and use some of the other poses as markers as required.

That picture has come up a few times, I wasn't entirely sure though if it was taking a bit of artistic license, but seemingly not!

John Cook

Quote from: mmcv on 10 August 2022, 11:25:11 AMThat sounds like a reasonably sensible system then.
That picture has come up a few times, I wasn't entirely sure though if it was taking a bit of artistic license, but seemingly not!
It was a very sensible solution!  When I say officers moved to the rear, they moved to positions in the line, rather than in front of it. Where exactly depended on their appointment, but that sort of granularity is not really relevant in a wargames context. Similarly they took up different positions when a battalion was going through the various evolutions, depending on which evolution it was.  Herbert Knotel is a pretty reliable artist, he produced a lot of paintings between the wars mainly, as I understand. it for German army officers' messes.

mollinary


QuoteIt was a very sensible solution!  When I say officers moved to the rear, they moved to positions in the line, rather than in front of it. Where exactly depended on their appointment, but that sort of granularity is not really relevant in a wargames context. Similarly they took up different positions when a battalion
QuoteIt was a very sensible solution!  When I say officers moved to the rear, they moved to positions in the line, rather than in front of it. Where exactly depended on their appointment, but that sort of granularity is not really relevant in a wargames context. Similarly they took up different positions when a battalion was going through the various evolutions, depending on which evolution it was.  Herbert Knotel is a pretty reliable artist, he produced a lot of paintings between the wars mainly, as I understand. it for German army officers' messes.
QuoteIt was a very sensible solution!  When I say officers moved to the rear, they moved to positions in the line, rather than in front of it. Where exactly depended on their appointment, but that sort of granularity is not really relevant in a wargames context. Similarly they took up different positions when a battalion was going through the various evolutions, depending on which evolution it was.  Herbert Knotel is a pretty reliable artist, he produced a lot of paintings between the wars mainly, as I understand. it for German army officers' messes.
QuoteIt was a very sensible solution!  When I say officers moved to the rear, they moved to positions in the line, rather than in front of it. Where exactly depended on their appointment, but that sort of granularity is not really relevant in a wargames context. Similarly they took up different positions when a battalion was going through the various evolutions, depending on which evolution it was.  Herbert Knotel is a pretty reliable artist, he produced a lot of paintings between the wars mainly, as I understand. it for German army officers' messes.
was going through the various evolutions, depending on which evolution it was.  Herbert Knotel is a pretty reliable artist, he produced a lot of paintings between the wars mainly, as I understand. it for German army officers' messes.
The Picture is actually by Carl Rochling, who died in 1920. Herbert Knotel, son of the famous military artist Richard Knotel, also did a lot of military painting,  and research into the history of military uniforms. He served in World War One,  and I think finally died in the 1960s. . 
2021 Painting Competition - Winner!
2022 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up!

John Cook

So it is.  Carl Rochling is also a pretty reliable artist.  Yes, I got my Knötels mixed up.  Teach me to rely on memory in future.  Richard best known, amongst other things, for the 18 volume Uniformenkunde series of plates, his son Herbert, a lesser artist, in my view, who produced material based mainly on secondary material, who is best known for Handbuch der Uniformkunde and the illustrations used in Elting's Napoleonic Uniforms.

mmcv

Armies of the Seven Years War arrived today, it's a good size book with what looks like lots of information. Also got the HoW rules book so that give me some weekend reading.

mmcv


Quote

Not a fan of the 7YW, but this is a useful book for uniforms and organisation of 17 nations, as well as some OOBs. Got to love a book with OOBs. 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Armies-Seven-Years-War-Commanders/dp/0752459236/ref=sr_1_2?crid=7LGLDM1GA339&keywords=armies+of+the+seven+years+war&qid=1659197115&sprefix=armies+of+the+seven+years+war%2Caps%2C97&sr=8-2
This was a great recommendation, thanks, really good collection of information so far. Pulls a lot of disparate information into one place for easy consumption. If anyone else is interested it's much cheaper here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313743356093 and they have a lot of other good books for historical wargamers.

fsn

Lord Oik of Runcorn (You may refer to me as Milord Oik)

Oik of the Year 2013, 2014; Prize for originality and 'having a go, bless him', 2015
3 votes in the 2016 Painting Competition!; 2017-2019 The Wilderness years
Oik of the Year 2020; 7 votes in the 2021 Painting Competition
11 votes in the 2022 Painting Competition (Double figures!)
2023 - the year of Gerald:
2024 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!