About This Blog

Xenophon's Ghost covers military history and wargaming from the ancient period to modern times.
Showing posts with label historical miniatures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label historical miniatures. Show all posts

Sunday, June 17, 2012

A Question of Scale

From the beginning, I planned to cover all of my wargaming interests in Xenophon's Ghost: Ancients, American War of Independence, and Napoleonics (for now).  I also aim to explore factors in the historical wargaming hobby that are entry barriers for new players, particularly youth.  I happened to start playing DBA simultaneously with the blog start-up, so my posts have focused on DBA almost exclusively.  It's time to turn to a new topic: Napoleonics and the entry barriers of cost and initial painting time required to start playing.

Returning to Lasalle

The end of painting my Macedonian Morph Collection is within sight, and the recent release of Maurice, by Sam Mustafa, prompted me to peruse my Lasalle rulebook.  Mr. Mustafa's Lasalle rules are designed for tactical level Napoleonic games.  I picked it up as I finished painting and playing American War of Independence games over the first 18 months of my wargaming life.  See Sam's website, www.sammustafa.com for more information.

Sam's rulebooks are reknown for photos of well-painted miniatures, and he recommends infantry basing with double rows of figures.  The units look great, and I decided to give it go, fielding an Austrian Avante Garde Division and a French Infantry Division.  I made it through two Austrian large infantry units before burning out.  The painting effort and investment to field two Armies is significant as a new player. DBA was appealing because of the limited number of figures needed to start, so I set the Napoleonics aside.

Considering a Scale Switch

Nonetheless, I do want to complete two Lasalle Armies, and I began pondering a switch to 10mm figures for my Napoleonic collection for multiple reasons.
  • Cost - I estimated that I might save quite a bit of cash.
  • Time - I might be able to paint more quickly, given the limited detail.
  • Variety - my AWI and Ancients figures are 15mm.
Before jumping to 10mm, I have decided to perform a cost analysis and a painting time test.  I did a similar painting test for DBA, trying my hand at two 6mm Elephants to compare the scale to 15mm. 

6mm Carthaginian Elephants
I decided to stick with 15mm for DBA, but I might use 6mm in the future for the American Civil War or Seven Years War.

Green Eyeshade Analysis

For the cost comparison, I planned for the reality that two Armies won't be the end of the story.  I expect to continue growing my collection over time.  I planned for expanding my collection in the following phases:
  • Two Armies to get started
    •  French Infantry Division with Cuirrassier Bde
    • Austrian Avante Garde Division with Infantry Bde
  • Two Extra Brigades
    • French Infantry Bde
    • Austrian Hussar Bde
  • British Guards Division with Dragoon Bde
  • British Infantry Bde
  • Russian Grenadier Division with Reserve Artillery Bde
  • Russian Dragoon Bde
The chart below compares the cost of this collection for two different 15mm basing approaches and 10mm figures.
The figure counts used for the analysis follows:
  • 15mm single row basing - 4 infantry or 2 cavalry figures per base
  • 15mm double row basing - 8 infantry or 3 cavalry figures per base
  • 10mm double row basing - 10 infantry or 3 cavalry figures per base

I used pricing from several websites:

Although I really like the look, the cost analysis helped me to decide against 15mm double basing.  I cannot afford the investment given my other interests and limited hobby budget

Excluding Sunk Costs

Making a decision between single row 15mm bases or 10mm bases won't be as easy.  I have already invested time in painting up two double row-based units, and I have purchased and primed enough 15mm figures for several more units.  I decides to compare the costs of my additional purchases, excluding sunk costs.
As you can see, the switch to 10mm will initially be more costly.  I'll need to spend $264 instead of $192 to get two Armies fielded.  As my collection expands, 10mm will save me money in the long run, but not by much. The cost difference for the entire collection is only $86.

The Painting Test

Given the minor cost difference  (not to mention the psychological cost of not using the already purchased and painted 15mm figures), I am proceeding with a painting time test before making my decision.  I definitely like the look of double row basing, a plus for 10mm.  I'm still unsure if I will like the look of the smaller figures.  I bought a 10mm French Flank Company pack from Old Glory, and it was primed up today.  I'll try to post the painting test results soon.  We are in the midst of a major overseas move, but I'm trying to finish this little project before my kit is packed up.





Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Macedonian Gallery

I finished my first batch of 15mm Macedonian/Hellenistic Greek figures for my Hellenestic Morph collection.  The Morph collection, when completed, will allow me to field two Hellenistic DBA armies, ranging from the Alexandrian armies to all of the Successor States.  I will also be able to use elements from my Spartan army to field a few of the Hellenistic Greek armies.

All of the figures are Essex brand.

Let's look at the infantry.



 

I painted six Pike elements, if I recall these are called "Western Macedonian" pikes by Essex.  I used transfer decals for the Macedonian stars on the shields.  One element was painted as Foot Companions.  The others were painted with red tunics and white linothorax.  If I field an Army with a General Pike element, the foot companions will be a distinctive General element.


For Auxilia, I painted two elements of Peltasts (above) and two elements of Illyrian Javelin (below).



I bought a bunch of Greek slingers for Psiloi, painting up four elements in this first batch. A few Successor States and Hellenistic Greek armies field many Psiloi, I have more to paint, including Scythian slingers for variety.


Finally, Greek mercenaries played a role in many Successor State battles, so I have painted up two elements.  The shields are handpainted.


Tomorrow, I'll post photos of the mounted elements - Cavalry and Knights - and share a few lessons learned from this painting effort.



Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Expedition to New Lands

Ryan and I had the pleasure of testing out the latest version of DBA, posted on 2 February, with two veteran gamers - Doug and Peter.  Doug hosted us.  His understanding of the rules and playing experience were a big help, clarifying several unclear game mechanics.  Peter also offered a number of recommendations on play tactics that improved our understanding of battle management. We also had the chance to drool over his 30 year plus investment in miniatures - quite a collection of Armies!

Spartans vs. Early Imperial Romans

Ryan played Doug in a Spears vs Blades slug fest.  It was a close game, but the Spartans prevailed thanks to luck on the die and the resilience of Spears against Auxilia.

The Spartans defended, using hills to protect the flanks and the camp.  The deployment resulted in a bunched up force.  However, the units in the rear were ready to counter flanking attacks.

The Romans deployed a combined arms force, placing Auxilia and Light Horse on the wings.  Cavalry deployed in the center with the Legionnaires.  A horse-drawn ballista was also fielded; our first encounter as DBA newbies with any shooting force.


Ryan advanced his Spartans forward of the hills in order to deploy in line.  This placed two spear elements in artillery range, but Spartan dice luck prevailed.  Only one or two artillery shots find its mark throughout the game.



Most of the action centered on the flanks.  Doug moved two Auxilia on the Spartan right flank toward the camp.  Auxilia and Light Horse also threatened the Spartan left flank.


Fortunately, a number of high PIP rolls allows Ryan to maneuver his reserve to confront the detachments.


The Spartans managed to chase off the Light Horse and destroy one Auxilia element on the left.  On the right, the outcome was long in question.  One Roman Auxilia attacked the camp, destroying the camp followers.  Another Auxilia faced Spartan elements trying to move uphill.

A key rules question emerged at this point - does the Auxilia automatically advance into a camp once the camp followers are destroyed?  We interpreted the following rule...

".... or a camp whose defenders have been destroyed, can be occupied without combat by moving a troop element into it."

...to mean that the Romans would need to expend another PIP to move the Auxilia into the camp.  This delay gave the Spartans time to confront the Auxilia element. After several bounds, the Auxilia was pushed off the board in a recoil.

The Spartan Spears trying to attack uphill were eventually destroyed by Auxilia, right before the Blades and Spear lines clashed.  After a few bounds of to-and-fro recoiling, the Spears finally destroyed two more Roman elements, including at least one Blade, to win the game, 4-to-3.



Feudal Fuss - French vs. 100 Year War English

I played a second game against Doug, that ended quickly. We fought two 15mm armies featuring bows and Knights.  Doug played the English, dismounting some knights, including the General, at the beginning of the game.

My French were defending, and I deployed three Knights on the Right Wing with a Cavalry element on the Far Right.  My Blades and Bowmen were deployed in a line, with a number of elements in Woods.

I quickly learned why a conservative deployment and patience is needed as a defender.  English bow faced off my Knights and Cavalry.  English Knights formed a reserve.  I rolled three PIPs for the first bound, limiting my options to deploy my blades and bows, stuck in the Woods, without losing the form of the line.  We had a friendly chat on my options.  With mounted forces, I had the opportunity to charge in, limiting the shots taken by Bow.  Unlike the Spartan defensive line in the first night, I didn't need to be a static target for long range artillery shots.  I opted to be aggressive, moving the mounted forces forward.  Doug adjusted his force deployment to prepare for battle and ensure the Cavalry did not turn his flank.

In my second bound, the Knights and Cavalry charged the Bow line, with the three Knights aligned with the Bow.  The Cavalry element provided an overlap.  The die didn't favor me, and my one successful combat resulted in my rash General pursuing the destroyed Bow, resulting in overlap and isolation.

In Doug's second bound, it was all over.  He flanked my General Knight, destroying it and two other mounted troops with his Bow, winning 4-to-1.
Post Mortem - Fuedal French Gen Kn, Kn, and Cav destroyed.
After Action  Review

I was happy to see that Ryan and I have a general grasp on the rules. After the game, I spent time comparing the last two beta versions of DBA 3.0 and the playing results.  Questions from the playtest:
  • We may not have played the distant shooting combat correctly.  I don't recall that the English bow fired at the French Knights during the French turn.  If so, this was an omission on our part, not a problem with the rules.
  • We were unsure of the camp occupation rule when camp followers were destroyed, as described above.
  • Doug explained the meaning of the second sentence in the Moving into Contact With Enemy section (pg 9) to us, which reads, "Only a group can move into edge contact with a single element's or group's corner." Without his explanation, I was at a loss as to the necessity of this rule.  Why couldn't a single element contact a corner, I wondered.  Recommend review of this section for improved clarity.
  • In my post-game review, I have noticed several other points in the latest version that could benefit from re-ordering. Rules that have dependencies are explained in different sections.  I won't belabor these points in the blog, but I may recommend changes in the Yahoo Group discussion.
I recommend the following rules changes:
  • Allow positioning of terrain up to the battlefield edge.  As noted in previous playtests, the rule requiring terrain placement at least 1 BW from the edge further constricts the deployment area.  This affected both of our games.  I think the deployment restriction that encourages use of the flanks for light force deployments is helpful and historically accurate.  The requirement to leave a 1BW open area along the edge is not.  Any commander worth their salt would seek out terrain that made encirclement more difficult and allowed easy movement in the center of the battlefield.
  • As a new player, I found it odd that groups can move to form a column using a single PIP but not move from a column to a line with a single PIP.  I thought I had missed a rule somewhere. Doug and Peter confirmed that moving from column to another formation requires multiple PIPs.  I recommend a formation change rule be added to address this oddity unless the rationale relates to the difficulty of commanding and controlling troops in this era. I haven't read any cases where armies were slow to deploy into line in Greek or Macedonian battles at least.
  • Reintroduce Psiloi rear support, but limit the support to the element directly in front of the Psiloi.  I certainly would have deployed my Feudal French Psiloi as support if this had been an option.  I question the idea that slingers or bowmen could support a line three elements wide in one bound, but, if I were a Psiloi behind infantry in melee with the opponent, I would be lobbing stones or arrows into the bad guys.
I must thank Doug and Peter.  It was great to meet fellow wargamers for the first time.  They were gracious and patient hosts.

Cheers,
Dave




Saturday, December 3, 2011

The First Charge

Are you ready to explore military history and historical miniatures wargaming? If so, Xenophon's Ghost aims to help you. 

I started miniatures wargaming about two years ago, and I have wondered about its future. The games can be brilliant artforms, reflecting hours of work at painting miniatures, creating terrain, and designing rules. Most importantly, wargaming is fun and a nice change from cyber-oriented activities that dominate popular culture. However, I have pondered about the hobby's ability to thrive.  Will the next generation take up the hobby? What are the barriers to entry? How is the hobby being influenced by the internet? Can we use wargaming to increase knowledge of military history among youth and adults alike? What game mechanics will appeal to youth? Those are the questions that I plan to tackle on this blog and through my gaming.  I am developing rules for the American War of Independence (AWI) meant to incorporate game concepts that may be more appealing to the next generation of gamers.  I will also be documenting my war games with my pre-teen children.

Right now, I am playing De Bellis Antiquatis, an ancients wargame also known as D.B.A.  I am also playing games in the horse and musket period using my AWI rules.  My third project is painting Napoleonic miniatures for LaSalle, a tactical Napoleonic rule set.