Jump to content

Lars Porsenna

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lars Porsenna

  1. Wow that's a fairly decent sculpt for a Minifigs figure! Damon.
  2. For those that know, GW has been killing off its old fantasy lines. I have a few incomplete armies that I'd like to add to. Rather than chasing down OOP product on Ebay, I want to explore product lines that are in-production. Does anyone know of figures that would thematically go well with GW's Wood Elf range, especially archers? Their look was fairly distinctive & I'd like to complete the army... Damon.
  3. I like what Rubicon is doing. Very much edge the line between wargames figure & scale model... Damon.
  4. Those Northern Alliance figures look pretty good. Wondering how they'd look with tanned skintones & black hair... Damon.
  5. You know, I wouldn't mind a mobile-style reboot of Crescent Hawks Inception, with more than 2 mech models & better overall graphics. I'm sure my smartphone can handle anything my old Tandy 1000SX could do... Damon.
  6. So for the record I've been a lo-ong time Batteltech fan. I've been playing the game since 1985. It's been 34 years; how many people can clain fandom sustained over such a long period of time? So the game & the setting has a lot of emotional meaning for me... I went in & funded this even though I'm aware of the issues Shadowrun has had. If you have just a passing interest in the game, maybe this is not the KS for you. But the golden apple of this current kickstarter is that the lo-ong issues (since '96) that Battletech has had with a core group of mechs has FINALLY been resolved after a number of legal actions/bullying from Harmony Gold, the core group of mechs have been redesigned with arguably better art, AND they are going to be made available in plastic. I'm less interested in the Clan mech redesigns, but since we are getting nu-seen Marauders & Warhammers? That's like manna from heaven for an old time fan that has gone through all the trials & tribulations this game has had over the decades... Damon.
  7. Exactly the same as in FoW. When I play it, I don't change anything & keep the same ranges as 15mm. the effect is mainly visual. Plus 6mm figures on 15mm basing looks more realistic than the crowded 15mm scheme FoW uses now. Damon.
  8. As a matter of fact, this is something I do... Damon.
  9. ISTR in the same book the statistic that 50% or more Tigers were lost due to crew demolition than enemy fire. A testament both to the durability of these tanks...& mechanical unreliability. Damon.
  10. Make sure you buy lots of Pz 35(t)s, my favorite early war German tank! In the book Sledgehammers there was an account of the first Batallion sized offensive operation with Tiger IIs. This was at the Battle of Butapest near the end of the war (Feb 45 I think?). Anyway, the Bn started out with 45 Tiger IIs at the jump-off point, did a several mile march across country, & reached the assault point with something like 17 Tiger IIs still rolling. The rest had dropped out due to break downs & other trouble. While the Tiger II was a scary machine if you ran into one, the best way to kill one is to strategically threaten to cut off the unit, force them to do a road march, & watch as the crews have to destroy disabled vehicles... Damon.
  11. Another point about the Germans in WWII, is that often the green troops get the better weapons than the vets, in order to even out performance. So yeah the VG old men & boys platoon gets MP44s, while the crack veterans are still tooling about with KAR98Ks. In that list above we have a vet Panther, but these were doctrinally issued to greener troops with the vets getting Pz IVs, for the reasons I listed above. That's not to say a vet unit couldn't have Panthers, & there are all sorts of stories you can come up with for why vets would have a Panther (including they were greenies just a couple months ago...). It is a game, but I think sometimes these games (or gamers) miss out on how the units would be used doctrinally... Damon.
  12. Also makes certain armies much more practical. FREX, in our current campaign we made an "alliance" with a bunch of Fire Giants. There is the potential of using this alliance in a battle. An army of Behemoths (in HoTT terms) would be a really cool & impressive army to do, but completely impractical in 28mm (though the Bones giants makes it a little easier). back at the end of 2e D&D we did the Liberation of Geoff adventure, which was a sequel/soft reboot of the Against the Giants series. The DM had to handwaive some of the battles, but it would have been cool to game that out. 15mm makes that practical. 10mm moreso, although my impression is that there isn't nearly as much out there in that scale compared to 15mm. Also going smallscale allows you to do more oddball armies (I have a halfling army FREX, a big investment in 28mm for a marginally effective army, but the 15mm SL minis are characterful & not silly). HoTT is a fine game to play on its own too. Damon.
  13. Sorry, probably should have mentioned. I use 15mm figures. There's no reason you couldn't use 28mm figures, except you'd have to use the "Warrior" basing system instead of DBx (80mm multi-base instead of 60mm, which was designed more for true 25mm figures), & obviously significantly more expensive. Since HoTT ground scale is nowhere near the same as D&D, I think it helps to play in 15mm to get the players divorced from the D&D mindset. Also means I can field multiple different armies for any scenarios that come up, without breaking the bank. Damon.
  14. I do the same, except use HoTT (Hordes of the Things) instead of WM. HoTT is still in print (I even think there might be an edition on POD) AFAIK, the rules are very simple & abstract, & uses one of the more common basing schemes in the wargames world. I get figures from Splintered Light (which does lines that are very much D&D inspired). Unlike its historical counterpart DBA, HoTT uses a points based system with some very simple rules, & the difference between troops is very abstract. That stand of Warband? Could be orcs, barbarians, gnolls, etc. That other stand of Behemoths? Trolls or frost giants. Riders? Goblin wolf riders or bow armed desert nomads. And Blades? Well armed hobgoblins or the King's Royal guard. You get the idea... It is very abstract though, with magic being far moreso. One of the downsides to games like this is that it can be hard to get players out of their D&D mindset, who want an accounting of every fireball or magic missile cast, every potion drunk, or what their fighter's body count ends up being. But OTOH this level of abstraction means that any of the game mechanics can be hand-waived. Your Wizard has the enemy cleric Ensorcelled? Obviously a magical duel, right? Damon.
  15. The Tamiya paints are not the same kind of acrylics as FREX Testors Acryl or the Reaper stuff we all love. Its some sort of hybrid that I'm not really aware of why it is. But it works. I'm not sure I would really want to use lacquer in other acrylic paints unless they are specifically called out for (Tamiya has its own house brand of lacquer thinner). That being said, I hear Tamiya glosses thinned with lacquer go down really glossy, but as a military modeler I don't use those very often, so haven't tried yet. There's a lot of different paints out there & I've tried a number of them (recently pushed Mission Models new paint through my airbrush, Soviet Armor Green...though the color is suspect in my eyes), so part of it is trying out different paints until you come across one you like. Most have their advantages & disadvantages. For me Tamiya is pure pleasure to airbrush & rarely have clogs or tip build up. So stays my favorite. With lacquer thinning it just got that much better... Damon.
  16. So I did the experiment last night on a bit of Bones sprue left over from the vegepygmies set. So far results loom good. I got the advantages of lacquer thinner (smoooooth coat, sprays very well, dried very fast), but no tackiness so far. But I need to give it a few days to see if it occurs or if the lacquer thinner (which is a "hot" thinner in that it can chemically react with certain plastics) has a an adverse reaction with Bonesium... Damon.
  17. I didn't back the last Bones campaign... Family issues & the like. But I do have the sprue from the Vegepygmies on my workdesk & am gearing up to paint another tank. So I'll do a test run sometime this week (I hope) & see what happens... Damon.
  18. Title says it all. I build scale models (1/35 armor mostly) & use Tamiya extensively with my airbrush. I also prime my Bones figures with Tamiya so I don't have to develop different techniques when painting (KISS principle!). Lately for scale modeling I've been thinning Tamiya Acrylic paints with Tamiya-branded lacquer thinner (yes, sounds weird but it works; Also supposedly works for Gunze Sangyo Aqueous Hobby Color as well). We all know what happens when you prime Bones with many Enamel based primers. Has anyone tried painting with Tamiya acrylics thinned with lacquer, & did that have an adverse effect? Sure I can experiment, & will do so if I get no answers, but I want to see if someone thought of this first! Damon.
  19. Have to say I don't like that Wizkids stone giant at all. Proportions seem wrong. I like the Reaper one better! Also don't care for the Cloud Giant either, for aesthetic reasons. Damon.
  20. I LOVE Perry metals, but I'm pretty luke-warm about their plastic sets. I don't have any of the WWII stuff, but I have the 15th C Infantry set & the Agincourt foot knights sets. I like the designs & attention to detail of the armor the figures have, but the sculpting leaves me cold. I'm going to stick to Perry metals from now on (which are top notch, if the castings are a little "rough"). Damon.
  21. I knew of a Sergeant in the US Army that would have gaming sessions in the back of an M577 Command Vehicle during exercizes when all the officers went home to their beds (leaving the enlisted & NCOs out in the field). Even described how he could fit a DMG, PHB & dice bag in a rucksack! The M577s were ideal because of the map boards they had... Damon, has a model of an M577. Now considering showing a bunch of soldiers playing D&D in it...
  22. StuGs, like any piece of WWII equipment, is a study of evolution. The G model entered production in December 1942, though this kit is not that model (this very early G had the fighting compartment ventilator on the compartment roof, rather than the rear wall), so this would be a spring '43 production. Some of the features to look for include the smoke grenade launchers on the fighting compartment sides (which were discontinued in later production models, when they were replaced with an internal grenade launcher that could fire both close-in Apers grenades as well as smoke grenades IIRC). The external smoke grenade launchers tended to catch on fire when damaged in combat. The other distinguishing feature is what appears to be applique armor on the hull nose. Early Gs were produced with 50mm armor in these areas, just like the preceding F model. Bolt-on 30mm plates were added to make the frontal armor 80mm. Later production runs had the base armor built at 80mm. This model also is remarkable in that it lacks Zimmerit, which was added late summer '43 until September 1944. So out of the box it wouldn't be a vehicle produced later than around August 1943. Some other distinguishing features: the kit has skirt armor, which was not implemented until March 1943, so assuming this is not a rebuild, the vehicle would have to be a post-March '43 production. So it would ONLY be painted in Dark Yellow (No grey Gs with skirt armor...even if a rebuild this would have happened during an overhaul & would get a fresh coat of paint). All of this IIRC. I'm working from memory. Tanks are my specific & particular interest. Ask me questions! Another note: the block mantlet was kept in production till the end of the war. Late model Gs with the remote weapon station in the loaders position, travel lock & coaxial MG-34 had a hole drilled in the block mantlet for the coax. The block mantlet was available for both the StuG IIIG & the StuH 42. I like the StuG IIIGs, but I like the StuG IV much better (I build 1/35 scale armor models; I have 3 StuG IVs & only one StuG IIIG, though I do have a StuG IIIF L/43 & a StuG IIIC rebuild with an L/48 that I haven't started yet). I'm ambivalent about WWII skirmish games because a lot of the figures are suspect (as some of the comments in this thread indicate). My pet peeve is German infantry without bread bags! A distinctive piece of kit for the German army, that is noticeable in its absence. Some companies sculpt them on, others don't. But admittedly I haven't been looking very hard recently. Damon.
  23. What was the issue with the Warlord Pz IV Exhaust? I went & looked at the pictures & the exhaust looks pretty typical for this tank. The bigger issue seems to be that, like a lot of historical models, it doesn't build into a quite accurate model of anything (the PSC Pz IVs in 15mm suffer from the same issue). The F version lacks the smoke grenade mount on the hull rear, & the H version still has the split commander's hatch (one-piece hatches were incorporated in the late-G models), the turret would need to remove the side visors & the auxiliary turret face visor in order to make an accurate G or H, etc. I don't know if the instructions specify these differences, but usually wargamers just don't care enough about those details. The Warlord StuG IIIG is, to be fair, an early G produced in early to mid '43, so lack of a saukopf isn't as much as an issue if you build it as it comes in the box (assuming of course accuracy is at all a concern for you). One note: the promo pictures show the MG shield up with an MG mounted. IIRC the shield could only be deployed when the loader hatches were open... there was a hook on the forward hatch that engaged the shield to act as a support to keep it up. I see a lot of models built that show this deployed but it could not stand up on its own... the hatches MUST be open to model accurately. FYI. Damon.
  • Create New...