Friday 27 January 2023

Choosing Napoleonic pocket armies and scales.




Being an advocate of going with a single scale for storage reasons, I find myself, when looking at Napoleonics, of being in the odd situation of having accumulated three different scales in the unpainted stash to choose from.


All have been collected during and since the pandemic and each stock is large enough to easily do the core of a pair of armies. I need to choose one and sell the other two, releasing both space and funds and getting the Napoleonic project at last under way.


Further I would like to settle on a set of rules, but rather like the differing scales, I have a few sets in the front of my queue to choose from.


So, the rest of this post looks at a process of choosing a scale and a ruleset, sticking with it and investing the time and effort it needs to reach fruition. Please use the ‘read more’ tab if this is of interest.




It is not worth me going around the block on how I reached this point, but needless to say, a fickle and butterfly nature has always pulled me in too many competing directions and so, as the Walrus from Alice in Wonderland delightfully mentions - “the time has come to talk of many things”.


What are the three scales? 13.5mm plastic Epic from Warlord Games, 20mm metal from Newline Designs and 28mm (mostly plastic) from Perry and Victrix.


What armies could be built? The Epic would be French / Prussian, while the 20mm and 28mm would both be French / Austrian.


What rules are on the short list? Well, not so short really. Black Powder together with the ‘Eagles’ supplement, Shadow of the Eagles from Keith Flint, Bataille Empire from Hervé Caille, Valour & Fortitude (Jervis Johnson and the Perry’s) or my own Eagles at Quatre Bras set. I do have other rules that I have already decided will not make the cut.


I ultimately see these games having six or so units to start with and then building up to pocket armies of around twelve units, which typically gives games of just two to three brigades per side, so that ‘battle size’ may be one of the stress areas for the rules.


The process of elimination will simply be to set up a generic scenario and play the various scales through with the various rule sets and just see which gives me the right feel and look that best suits what I am after.


Going for a smaller battle will help cycle through the number of games that are needed to complete this task. In any case, the whole ‘pocket army’ concept is to give that smaller, faster game with a smaller collection needed.


Epic scale with 10mm buildings



For a scenario, Bataille Empire and Shadow of the Eagles each have an introductory style engagement. There is also a suitable scenario in Neil Thomas’ Napoleonic Wargaming book and whilst I am not sold on the rules, there are several aspects of his ‘method’ that are worth drawing upon.


The Bataille Empire intro has a table with mirrored terrain and forces, so both sides are generically the same and so external factors are neutralised, certainly an interesting concept for test playing. It essentially has a small village in the centre of the table, plus a couple of hills and a couple of woods. The two forces each have 4 line infantry, 1 6pdr foot artillery battery, 2 grenadier, 1 dragoon and 2 light cavalry units, giving 10 units per side and can they can be of any nationality.


The Shadow of the Eagles intro has a table with terrain and forces described that underpins an actual scenario story, so that one army is divided by a river and needs to amalgamate before assaulting the village, the other needs to capture the village and prevent the joining of the enemy army.  The village and the bridge each giving victory points (as do casualties). We get good old traditional red and blue armies. One has 9 units and has more cavalry, the other has 10 units and includes 3 light infantry units, so quite different from the mirror approach.


Another alternative, found in Napoleonic Wargaming (by Neil Thomas) simply gives us an exampled AAR (the fictional battle of Liebnitz) and the table offers us a village, a hill and a woods. The game is presented as a French V’s Russian action, but the whole thing about this book is that armies are always 8 units strong and an earlier chapter lists the minimum and maximum unit types that each army can have, so I could refer to these to build our forces according to whether I am putting Prussian (Epic) or Austrians to the table and 8 units is a very respectable starter force for any collector.





Anyway, the point about armies is important, because whichever scenario I choose, already having all of the figures in the various scales, I will make up those small armies to match that scenario in each scale, using MDF bases and raw metal / unpainted plastic figures temporarily mounted on them and use these to game with, while deciding which way to jump. This way I get both a better visual and practical indication of the differences that the scales are delivering and which rules might serve me better. 


Once a scale has made the pick, that pairing of armies can be painted up to formally give the initial ‘pocket armies’ - while continuing to play. The various MDF bases needed are winging their way to me at the moment from Warbases (UK).


An Epic battalion, 2 bases in assault column



For the Epic scale, I will use 2 x 55mm bases to form an infantry unit (the sets come with their own 60mm bases, but I prefer 55mm to reduce the gap between the stands). The troops come in strips of 10 men, so two of those strips would go on each base, giving a total unit strength of 40 soldiers.


A 60mm base of 20mm from Newline Designs



For the 20mm I will be using 60mm bases. Again a pair of bases to represent the unit. The infantry will be in two ranks of 5 per base, so that is 20 men to the battalion.


Perry 28’s - I can’t decide on whether this 80mm base should have 3 figures in a straight line or … see below



For the 28mm, I will use the same set-up as the 20’s, but increase the base frontage to 80mm.


Or whether to go with a boot-to-boot 4 figures, but to make them fit, they are not in a straight line.



Pairs of bases for a unit work fine to cover most of the Napoleonic formations (including a 2 base gun battery) - although admittedly march column does not translate well and crossing bridges can look a bit awkward.


So if I went with the Bataille Empire scenario for example, an army with 10 units would translate into 20 bases worth of troops. If all those units were infantry, the would translate into 200 figures per army, so no mean task and it is for this reason that initially gaming with unpainted and temporally based figures is a good way to go across the scales. 


I do of course have some preferences and pre-conceptions;


I prefer plastic as a material, but do not like having to put together multi part figures, preferring single casts (hello Epic).


I have found that the painting effort between the various scales is not as huge as one might assume. The small scale paint only slightly faster, but there are more of them to do, while the larger figures are easier to paint and so as someone who doesn’t like painting, a bit less tedious (hello 20’s and 28’s).


I like that the smaller terrain allows for ‘more’ battlefield in the same space, so you could have a couple of extra woods and maybe two built up areas rather than one, but I visually like the ‘modelled look’ better on the larger (20mm / 28mm) ancillary terrain such as fences, walls and fields etc (hello all three scales).


I am more pre-disposed to a French / Austrian army than a French / Prussian one … for no particular good reason other than liking the 1809 campaign (hello 20’s and 28’s).


Smaller scale, especially for terrain would be a better storage fit (hello Epic).


So with these sort of things creating a muddle of focus and influencing decisions, actually getting the various figures to the table and just getting the ‘feel’ of them is important, because the overriding factor is likely to be what appeals most on the table - what brings the most joy!





The first jobs then are to pick a scenario, choose an order of battle and wash / prep enough figures to temporarily base them up with a removable adhesive.



Between this and my ongoing Barbarossa boardgame project, I will likely have my hands full for a couple of months. I will pop up some short blog posts on the progress of how things shake out, if and when things look promising enough to comment upon, but there will certainly be some updates anyway over on my Commanders site.


In the meantime there will be other things. I have the boardgame Leningrad going to the table tonight, as part of the Barbarossa Project, likely followed by the siege of Khartoum just for my own fancy (using the same game engine used in Poltava that I reported on recently) and for the figures, we still need to look at how Lord Darcy with respond to the recent Lancastrian incursion at Beacan Farm occurring on New Years Day - he is very annoyed!


Resource Section.


AAR of the Yorkist attack on Beacan Farm. LINK


http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2023/01/attack-at-beacan-farm-piggy-longton-1472.html


My sister webspace ‘COMMANDERS’ is being re-configured to showcase various figure and boardgame systems that I am enjoying and gives a flavour of where current projects are up to. Link.


https://commanders.simdif.com


47 comments:

  1. And there was me thinking you had settled on 28mm for your pocket armies....!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Importantly, there would be terrain advantages to that - one scale of terrain across collections, which of course is what I originally envisioned at the start of the `pocket Army project … so that alone may be an argument that prevails.

    Regardless, I find the hardest part of rationalisation is parting with stuff and for my personality type, it needs to be out of sight - out of mind, all ordered and no loose ends, otherwise I procrastinate, so it always seems to me that a certain ruthlessness is the only way to deal with these sort of things ( and that in the past has meant some things going to refuse, just to force my hand!), but before things go en-masse, they perhaps should be put to the test … to justify that :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Norm,

      I can fully empathise with your second paragraph!

      All the best,

      DC

      Delete
    2. Hi David, Ross Mac put it well when he said that clearing and sorting things creates both physical and mental space.

      Delete
  3. Interesting post and plenty to ponder over, all three scales have their advantages and drawbacks so your decision will be a difficult one. I will be interested to see how you go about coming to an answer and where you take it to. This year will be my Napoleonic year too although I am going 28mm and Revolutionary 1792-1794.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donnie, good luck with your 2023 project plan. It is the advantage V drawback that feels a bit like Wack-a-Mole, when thinking it all through, so I think getting things to the table will be where things get decided.

      Delete
  4. Now I can’t give advice on this one having also got three scales for this period, epic, 20mm Newline and 40mm! And unlike all my other disposals which I have done rationally and without regret I don’t think I will be parting with any just yet! The 40mm is geared up for the Peninsular war - small campaigns, battles with skirmish option and not a lot of cavalry! However the 20mm and epic are both geared up for the Waterloo campaign ! The 20mm is my retro game ((WRG 1685-1845 rules 🤦🏼) the epic for larger battles but again like you I’m not certain about rules just yet. Fortunately for the 20mm a reduced 15mm scale for buildings seems to work. If I was in your position the 28’s would go and I’d keep the other two. Sorry I’ve not been much use there!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh no ….. just when I’d settled on the 28’s :-) Yes, I like the Newline 20’s exactly for a bit of nostalgic charm. I sometimes think with these things, it can help to turn the question on its head, so instead of asking Which should I keep, the better question might be is there one that I just couldn’t part with. So for example, for medieval, I just couldn’t get get rid of my WotR, plus I can’t imagine what could satisfactorily replace them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s the question to ask. That’s why I kept the 15mm ancients and said good bye to the 28’s they were stunning to look at but totally unrealistic for the type of game I wanted

      Delete
  6. The New Year seems to have spawned a time of reflection for many, I see.

    Part of the fun of the hobby is figuring out exactly what one wants in a game, collection, or rules. For some this is a never-ending journey where the Holy Grail is never discovered.

    To me, each scale offers up the potential for a different playing experience. Different rules offer different experiences too.

    I have Napoleonic collections in both 15mm and 25mm. Each are used to examine and refight different levels of combat. Both are useful. Neither could be easily parted with since they each brings a different perspective to the table.

    Whatever happened to your Travel Battles from Perry? Was that project jettisoned or is that in the mix somewhere too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jonathan, Travel Battles went a long time ago and it is not missed as it has not left a legacy of any description behind in my gaming - though perhaps everything it offered is already catered for in my boardgaming.

      January seems a good time to plan new projects as it gives a ready made measure of success or otherwise as the year ticks onwards - though I have nearly lost a month already!

      The problem for me with ‘big’ battles is that I have no interest in painting up the necessary shed load of battalions needed, perhaps I am spared that because my boardgames can cover the higher levels of play of multiple divisions, corps and armies, so with that said, the only advantage then of the smaller scale for me is simply to bring a more compact game to the table. Regardless of scale, I still only see myself doing 2 - 3 brigades per side.

      Part of that small game thing is that set-up, play and take-down can all occur in a single session, while better ensuring that a game plays to a proper and meaningful conclusion.

      I am finding these days that I lack the stamina, focus and interest to do the longer games, but the more I think about it, years ago the lack of cash and of availability meant that many collections were small and focused and likely only covering one or two periods - and so by default, we were playing such smaller games and playing more often because we were not spending so much time painting the ‘next thing’ …. I’m not saying that was better, but it was definitely a thing.

      Delete
  7. Well I don't suppose it will come as a massive surprise that I would plump for the Epic figures out of the options on offer. For me the smaller scales allow for the visual look and feel of a big battle in a small space. The SotE intro game I played with Keith quite happily on a 3' x 2' table, with my mdf figures on 25mm bases, with 4 bases to a unit. Also terrain and figure storage is a lot easier, but as you point out, you will be doing more painting, something which I struggle to enjoy at present. These days I'm more into the games than the painting, given that I'm trying to make up lost time on this front after years of work preventing getting the toys on the table!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Steve, I have noticed on a few ‘year in review’ posts a sense that some bloggers are wanting to step back from painting in favour of doing more gaming. The sentiment behind that would probably deserves an entire post of its own.

      Interesting to see that the SotE intro game with units at 100mm frontage, worked on a 3’ x 2’ space. My 2 base Epic units would be using 120mm frontage, so not a million miles away and a good indication that for most games of a division per side, a 3’ x 4’ would be quite sufficient …. and a 6’ x 4’ a luxurious monster space :-)

      If you go to the second scenario in his rules, then those roads, hills and especially the built up areas in 28mm would put pressure on the table space, even though the forces themselves would fit handily.

      I have a good bit of versatile 10mm resin terrain which fits easily in three 11 Litre Really Useful Boxes, while my 20mm (WWII) and 28mm buildings are in 9 x 5” deep stacked draws, 4 x large 2 foot (by 7” deep) plastic storage boxes and a chest - which rather tells its own tale!

      Delete
  8. Dude picking the correct scale / size of miniatures is like picking a spouse; if not MORE important. Once you decide it’s time to be ruthless and jettison the others to make the commitment more sealed and then the time spent on the scale will start to see rewards.
    Rule sets are more flexible as long as the basing can be adjusted for; which is usually the case. Good luck in making your choice. 😀

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Stew, it is true that modern rules are much less prescriptive these days on basing styles. Yep, I think a certain inertia will only subside once there is nothing before me but ‘the one true scale’ whatever that might be :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't envy your conundrum but I will follow your decision making with interest. I only just yesterday learned of the Neapolitan War and find myself suddenly seriously interested in putting Napoleonics on the table. With no miniatures in the period and no preference for rules yet, your project will provide a handy reference point!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi John, for most of my wargame years, I have travelled a path of getting inspired, then spending ages trying to paint up both sides before the first exploratory games and more often than not the project just crashes as steam runs out or I can’t find the right rules or fancies have just moved on to something else.

    These days, I would rather initially explore with a mix of part painted, unpainted and blank bases while I get a feel for the subject / rules etc and if it turns out to be something that falls out of favour - then the false start has not been too much of a time sink!

    ReplyDelete
  12. As for rules, I try to test new rules using cardboard elements first. That way I don't base up figures for rules that end up not being something I like. These days most rules are basing agnostic. I lured a board gaming friend to the dark side with cardboard DBA elements. Now he owns a number of wargaming armies in various periods.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi, thanks for dropping by. I think that is the best way to go, I don’t think that I can ever remember doing a new a project that part way through didn’t fall victim to some sort of rebasing. There are also some good visual options these days with paper armies that can be printed off.

    I recently picked up the Peter Dennis illustrated ACW rules book (rules by Andy Callan), just to see and those books now cover several major periods. They are full of ready to cut out armies that fold into stands for a 3D look.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rules and scale, the Holy Grails of wargaming. A well measured approach to your conundrum I will follow your course with interest. I have switched scale for my WWII Italy project from 28mm to 20mm the main reason is I cannot face glueing any more WWII Perry Americans together, awful fitting arm combinations with no clue from the box as to which are the intended ones to help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Phil, I have an embryonic 20mm WWII force being built up around the single cast and excellent AB figures. I’m sure that manufacturers could bring their multi part kits in with fewer and simpler parts …. I say this as I stare at the 28mm box of hussars in front of me. I like your 20mm tables.

      Delete
  15. You certainly are being thoughtful in your approach to the project. I settled on the 28mm for Napoleonics years ago, but I have kept my WW2 forces in 20mm for the most part, with a foray into the early desert in 15mm . It will be interesting to follow your thinking on the project.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi, the good thing about that arrangement is that much of the 20mm terrain (buildings) gives a better smaller footprint that can also be used for the 28mm games.

    One of the things apparent about the way that I am going about this is that in the short term at least, the amount of gaming that I do as a percentage of time spent on the hobby should go up. I have already noticed with my Barbarossa project that the number of games played in January this year has been greater than the same period last year - so some good is coming from this deeper involvement.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I will own up that I only game with 28mm figures, I prefer painting them and actually painting them is an important/ possible main driver of the hobby for me, it also helps that my terrain is universal, although I am moving towards more 20mm type buildings for non skirmish games. Having said I'm primarily a painter, joining a local club and having the big game at Christmas, which has generated a lot of enthusiasm amongst the gamers in the family has resulted in me playing six games so far this month, in previous years that would have been almost a yearly output! I have found that playing Blackpowder on a 6' x4' board with about six units a side seems to be a bit of a sweet spot, especially once one has played it a few times, I've also fielded semi finished units, which is alright with me and those I play with, we might all want to live in an ideal world but sometimes something has to give! Never mind you being upset if you got rid of your 28mm war of the Roses figures, I'd be distraught! If you are keeping them and their terrain than surely your general terrain would have to be 28mm/ 20mm for all your pocket armies, wasn't that the point? Sorry for waffling on, I'm sure you will come to a logical and rational conclusion!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Iain, thanks for thoughts and all that you say is spot on, particularly about universal terrain. Good that you have had such a lift to your gaming output. I have also been enjoying the 6 unit - black powder - 6’ x 4’ combo and I like that it brings in the feel of dining table battles of my youth. Some more Piggy Longton is due shortly :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. A difficult decision Norm and it is interesting to see your thought processes. Your painting is fantastic and that makes it harder. My own painting is mediocre (at best) so deciding to concentrate on 10mm scale was an easy decision 😊
    Your painting is great across the three scales and I am not surprised that you spend as nearly as much time painting each epic figure as for 28mm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ben, while thinking about this today, I have only changed my mind nine times :-) For my standard operating scenario, I am thinking of generating a table with two built up areas as I think this will help to highlight the terrain differences between the scales.

      Delete
  20. Following with interest, but I can only say that, for me, the scale choice would be a 'no brainer' but the rules you go with will be equally interesting.. :o))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Steve, I like your 20mm ACW units, but I am guessing that for Napoleonics, you would go with Epic.

      I am hoping for a game that sits in the 2 - 3 hour slot for completion, so that alone may have some impact on the rules choice.

      Delete
    2. Hiya Norm - in fact, no, for me the Epic's are too small.. there's a fine line between board game counters and little metal men :o)) Conversely, for me, the 28's are too big, there is also the loathsome effort of having to build the little buggers.. I'd go 20mm every time, but if I was starting from scratch then 15mm AB's might get more than a little of my attention.. :o)

      Delete
    3. Steve, there is some sweet - spot talkin’ there! I have just done a Black Powder Epic trial game for this project and there are a couple of things that I immediately took from it. There is the increased visual of the ‘big picture’ look and the reduced visual of not seeing individual loveliness of figures. It struck me that in the same space, I could run exactly the same game with the 20’s because I have them (at the moment!) both based to 60mm. The depth is different, but that matters little on the table. The terrain features would need to grow a little (buildings up from 10mm to 15mm for horse and musket). So maybe that would close the gap between big picture and charming toys. I think the AB’s are ‘big 15’s’ which puts them closer to 20mm anyway.

      Perhaps Airfix had it right all along and it has taken some us over 50 years to appreciate that :-)

      I have just been gluing up some 28mm Cuirassiers and understand your sentiment!

      Delete
  21. Interesting Sunday morning read Norm as usual. I don't envy you the 3 scales conundrum, it would drive me mad :) I do like the Epics for their close order configuration, so refreshing after decades of seeing figures based up with large gaps between the files, rubbing shoulders is exactly what it should be of course. That said it's hard to beat 28mm for impact! The 20mm's are a nice middle ground though and they do look nice sculpts/castings. So basically I'm no help whatsoever Norm. May I also suggest DNB rules as something worth bearing in mind? 12 bases per side and they give a great game with a good period feel, would also fit your Pocket Armies concept perfectly and the playing area is just 600mm square. Look forward to following this as things develop.
    Lee.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Lee, the DNB rules would nicely sit with the 12 units type army and in fact I was looking at the authors most recent video yesterday on an 1806 battle.

    One downside to Epic that became apparent yesterday is that each sprue gives 1 leader base. hen building units of 4 bases, that is fine, but I plan to have units of 2 bases, so that leaves a lot of strips on the sprue going to waste.

    So on opening my Old Guard box yesterday, the three sprues would give me six bases and so another six bases worth would be redundant - though for my style of gaming, I doubt I want three units of Old Guard in the first place. I hadn’t really thought about the inflexibility of the 60mm strips and the ‘locked in’ consequence of the sprue for organisation.

    Warlord Games dealt with this issue in their ACW pack by issue separate metal command stands for those that want them, but I am guessing there are too many infantry types already for that to be either practical or viable.

    I could of course just carry on building bases and have some units without flag / leader …. Shudder!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the lack of command is certainly one downside of Epic Napoleonic. As you will know I used a lot of the old Chariot 'small' 15mm command figures with mine and they worked very well but a time consuming and fiddly job getting them to fit! Pics on the blog from last year and I used every figure from each sprue that way with each 20 figure base having command figures, standard bearers and officer for DBN with 60mm frontages. My ACW commission for the planned big NZ game in July uses 60 figure regiments which works perfectly for Epic and the metal command strips are perfect, they seem to me to have been mastered from the plastic strip which are digital sculpts?

      Delete
    2. Hi Lee, the issue of ACW command was identified very quickly as buyers clearly did not want to go to 5 base regiments, but that was an easy fix with the generic command strip. There are likely too many unit types in the Napoleonics to do that. I note that you have clients that go to the ½ sized base and I wonder whether Warlord in the first place would have had a more versatile system for the whole Epic series if they had chosen 30mm or say 35mm as a standard size. Your discovery of Chariot Miniatures has been a good fit - many buyers went down the Kallistra route for the ACW, though people seemed excited by that, I never thought it the best mix as the figure styles are so different.

      Delete
  23. Interesting to read how you have approached this Norm. I think if I were doing 'any' of this kind of thing in 28mm, I would do it 'all' in 28mm for the terrain reason you identified. Terrain can end up taking up a lot of storage and the more multi-use stuff, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Agree, the practicalities of terrain are no small matter. Yesterday I did an Epic test (with Black Powder). I used 2 x 10mm buildings to make the village into to BUA’s. Next up I will do the same with the 28’s, but those 10mm buildings will be replaced by 20mm ones - it will be interesting to see what impact that has on the table, plus each base is 20mm wider, so each unit is therefore 40mm wider. I will probably end up liking both games … but for different reasons :-)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I have collections in 15, 20 and 25/28mm (not in all eras I hasten to add) and obviously there are attractions to all of them but if I was having an epiphany and starting from scratch, I would definitely consider the merits of smaller scales - not 2mm or 6mm, they are a bit too small for me as I like the aesthetics of figures I can actually see as individuals, but I could be tempted by 10mm, if I was still able to paint them to a decent standard....!
    Will be interesting to see what you end up going with Norm or, in fact, if after all the play testing etc, you decide to retain different scales for different purposes (I cant see you ever getting rid of the Piggy Longton 28mm WotR collection, for example?)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Keith, when talking of the small scale, I immediately think of an AWI army being possible ….. but for 1066, I would certainly want the bigger stuff, so perhaps the golden bullet for one scale alone has too many contradictions to be viable - for me at least!

    ReplyDelete
  27. A very interesting discussion Norm and I am sure one most of us have wrestled with. There are so many factors to consider in considering scales, for me this has been most prevalent in potential future projects for example the ECW a which I am keen to do at some point. So many factors to consider….🤔

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Matt, I saw some very nice 1/72 ECW (metal) at York show - but also the Warlord starter set! Oh Oh.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Top post Norm- I have nothing but 28mm armies..and having played some large (ACW) games in the past- I have been toying with the idea of doing a large collection for really big battles..in a much smaller scale...but don't know where to start! So many figures..so many choices...so little time..and even less money!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi John - I have put much thought to this today and changed my mind 3 times already …. No really! I see that Warlord Games are announcing their new Epic project tomorrow (Wednesday), not sure that that will impact on my decision. I am presently basing up 20mm raw metal figures onto temporary bases for a dummy run with them. My mind though does keep going back to a single scale terrain as being an important factor amongst all of this chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Epic post! I have a load of 18mm - have offloaded a load of 28mm and might be tempted by Epic if I started again, I rember Hinchlife had a 12mm range - I bout some of those.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi, it looks like Epic is becoming a ‘thing’ with first ACW, then napoleonics and now ECW announced, so as a concept, it has grown some legs and is developing nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Very interesting post Norm - thanks for sharing your thoughts on something that seems to challenge so many of us! It'll be interesting to see if you can eventually settle on that one scale and one ruleset (not an easy thing to do). I like your idea of using two bases per unit, making it much quicker to set up, move around and put away again. I guess the decision will come down to what compromises you're prepared to make. I love 20mm Naps of course, but even that scale has its drawbacks for me due to space limitations, so I have 10mm as well. Warlord's Epic range is very tempting too, but so far I've struggled with painting those at speed. Good luck with it all!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thanks Kevin, the painting time of the epic is an issue, there is so much detail, I would like to be more impressionistic with them. Your 20’s are lovely.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for taking the time to comment