A few more Italians

Have got a few more Italians done over the last couple of days. These chaps are (again) from the Strategia e Tattica Polybian Roman range, and although they are nominally hastati in attacking poses, they are going to be used primarily for my Roman Civil Wars armies, and have been based accordingly. With their mix of equipment and different coloured tunics they could be locally raised legions pulled together in a hurry, renegade Latins, slaves armed and fighting for their Roman masters - or slaves fighting against their Roman masters - Roman-trained Numidians, deserters in the east, disaffected Italians fled to Sertorius, Spanish armed as legionaries, ruffians gathered around Catiline, toughs pulled in to intimidate a crowd on voting day, etc etc. In short, they could be anyone or everyone. Should be quite useful, I think.

The painting is nothing special; I just wanted to get them done.

They can be fielded as six units of 12 if veterans, or four units of 18 when poorer quality.

Blog on!

I had a squizz at my blog stats today. If you look very closely, it's just about possible to make out the 'Russian bot' era.

Ooops...

I set up a table for a solo run-through of What a Tanker 6mm last night, and realised that 6 blokes around a table each with one 6mm tank is just not going to cut it, so I popped into a couple of model shops to see what they had.

It turns out they had quite a bit. Do I blame Two Fat Lardies or my own poor impulse control? Anyway, it's done now, so next task is to smuggle them into the house without drawing too much attention to how much I've spent!

Stocking up on the dip

It has caused me some angst recently to realise (after I'd knocked it over and spilt half the contents onto my table!) that my trusty, long-lasting pottle of acrylic wood stain is nearing its end. I thought therefore that I'd better re-stock, and also grab some extra that I can take to New Zealand with me next trip for future use.

So here we are, two fresh new containers (AKA a lifetime's supply - provided no one knocks them over!) of the miniature painter's last best ingredient:

15mm Roman cavalry

With the 'primed-and-ready-to-paint' boxes almost empty, I've been rummaging around in cupboards looking for figures that a) I feel like painting, b) might be useful and c) won't require spray priming in the current summer heat and humidity.

Fortunately, I found a box of Republican Romans I got in a deal with someone, and on looking more closely saw that all the cavalry was ready for paint, so I decided to make a start on those.

I actually feel a little guilty about this lot.  It is made up of a mixture of Chariot and Strategia e Tattica 15mm figures, which is a bit of an unusual combination. I know, because I did a post here suggesting that the two go together reasonably well.  Anyway, someone had bought selections of figures from the two lines, primed them, and then decided that they didn't really want to paint them up after all. I saw him advertise this fact, got in contact with the chap, and bought them off him.

The guilt comes from my wondering whether my original post (which I'd also put up to a wider audience on TMP) had been somehow instrumental in him making the purchase, and then of course in his being disappointed.

I hope not, but in any case, the best way to deal with the situation is to paint them up and use them!

So, to the painting.

These were done a little differently to my old style of painting Romans. I didn't bother with washes or stains prior to painting; my conversion to the dip method means that I now leave that to the end.

I did the horses in various shades, did the browns, the flesh, then cloaks in different reds. I did give a quick black wash on armour and spearheads, then painted on the bronze and silver. Shields were next, then plumes, belts, horse furniture and, finally, whites on the tunics and pteruges. There was a little highlight for cloaks and plumes, and then it was time for the dip.

There is quite an over-representation of command figures in this lot, but I'm sure I can find a use for them!

The photo above shows the problem that comes from skipping the pre-paint wash step I used to do - you can see I've missed a couple of spots on the hand and scabbard. If I'd used a brown wash to begin with those would not have been so obvious. Fortunately, due to the wonders of digital technology I've now seen them and can go and fix that up!

Here is a comparison with the older style painting.

You can see that the cloaks are darker and the folds more pronounced. I do quite like the slightly more cheerful look of the newer paint jobs though. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

To finish these completely I'll bash out a few blazes and socks on the horses, then it's a case of waiting till autumn so I can give them a hit with the spray varnish.

(Warning) A political post

I keep politics out of my posts here, except perhaps for sideline observations about those practitioners of the art who have not read their history books.

But this last couple of weeks, and particularly today, I have been quite disheartened by political events and various commentaries I've read, and where they are leading us (and I include the commentaries in that).

I took my opinion of politicians from my grandfather, who served in North Africa and Italy, and was a man who believed in a fair go for everyone. Basically, according to the Jim Nicol doctrine, no one really trusts politicians. If they don't start a war, cause an economic meltdown, break the law or obviously use their position for personal gain they've done about as well as you could hope. You expect a bit of grandstanding, but when it comes down to it, you demand they put that aside and the needs of the country first.

Like everyone where I come from and of my age, I believe in democracy as a political system. People run for office, tell us what they want to do, and then we vote for them, or don't. After the election we watch what they do and factor that in for next time. Talking politics among friends is fine - and good debate time, if you enjoy being challenged, as I do - but always with the understanding that friendship is more important than any political or debate stance, and that we will agree to disagree when ideas do not align, and that this will not be a problem.

But that was in New Zealand, and twenty years ago.

I was extremely disappointed to read, a week or two ago, in a New Zealand media outlet, an article calling for a perk that was available to elderly people - a subsidy for folks on benefits, including the pension, to help them heat the house in winter when electricity costs are so high - to no longer be extended to the elderly, on the grounds that older people tend to be better off financially than other demographic groups, and because most of them are white. This was done without spending any time examining the simple facts around either of those condemnations.

Then, in the same outlet, there was discussion of a recent New Zealand free speech kerfuffle. This article examined the implications of denying speakers we don't agree with a platform, and concluded that it was a complicated issue, but denying the platform was probably worse. Sadly, the most liked comment on this article proved that neither the commentator nor his 'likers' understood either the article or the concept of free speech.

Then of course we've had more international politics, but I don't want to go into that.

What disturbs me is this: essentially, the ability for democracy to function is being undermined, and at a scarcely believable rate. At its heart, democracy requires an informed, engaged, and parochial electorate (by parochial I mean an electorate that considers wanting the best for country and citizens to be an essential 'good', while also recognising that such is not the only good). To get that within a democratic state we need a number of things. We need common ideas about what is good for the particular state and its citizens. We need accepted ideas of right and wrong. We need a common standard for verification of truth. We need laws, an acceptance that the law is just, that it applies to all equally, and that those wronged have recourse to challenge the law itself when the law is wrong.

All of these things are under threat.

Instead of an informed electorate, we have lifestyle opinions. People are engaged, but upon very narrow lines. Local-issue parochiality has been replaced by selectively appealing global-issue parochiality, and inevitable distortions have ensued. Ideas of what is good for a particular country have been undermined by what is good for the parochial sub-group. Basic ideas of right and wrong are I hope holding up, but it's getting more fraught all the time. The common standard for verification has been bushwhacked. Claims of self-interest, systemic bias and so on have made it very difficult to get acceptance on a common set of public facts, and this has led to competing claims and competing constituencies. The law is seen as something which favours certain groups, and so other groups feel justified in using whatever means to highlight and subvert this (not necessarily in that order).

As wonderful as the internet is for wargaming, in politics it has removed our idiot filter. The newspapers, magazines and publishing houses that filtered discourse and maintained common standards of fact and evidence are no longer the gatekeepers. The internet has become one giant letter to the editor, and those who share similar views congregate and make their own truth.

There is a militant attitude, based around causes, that defines a lot of internet interactions: a strange but understandable sort of mutually endorsing 'belonging' affair. Again, we are confronted with parochial - and often not fact-based - opinions which many people do not have the intellectual tools to treat with discernment.

I'm worried about where we go from here.

I fear as constituents of democracies we are losing our ability to make informed choices. My hope is that innate scepticism and cynicism will come out, even among the parochially engaged, but I am concerned that time may be running out on our old order.

Tanker Plan

Since I don't have the right models ready for WWII What a Tanker quite yet, I'm thinking I might use some early modern AFVs instead and give them WaT appropriate stats.

If, as a starting point, we make the M48A1 Patton (with its 90mm gun) roughly equivalent to the M4A3E2, that gives us 9 armour, 9 strike, and the heavy armour characteristic, worth 19 points all told.

If we make the T-54/55 roughly equivalent to the Panther A/G, that gives us 9 armour, 9 strike, and the fast characteristic, again worth 19 points.

Based on this comparison I'll drop the Patton's heavy armour characteristic and replace it with rapid fire to reflect its greater ammo capacity, its greater firing capacity, and its better sights. I'll also drop the Patton's strike value by 1 due to inferiority in gun calibre vis a vis the T-54/55. For the T-54/55, I'll also add low profile and slow turret, and keep the fast characteristic.

The points formula for WaT seems to be fairly easy to reverse engineer. It looks as if it's just 1 point for each armour and strike factor, and then a series of pluses or minuses for other factors, these being:

-1	slow; slow turret
0	TD (usually)
+1	fast; small; rapid fire; low profile; TD (once or twice)
+2	heavy armour; iron fist

So that gives us this:

	Arm.	Str.	Special	Pts.
M48A1	9	8	rapid fire	18
T-54/55	9	9	slow turret fast low profile	19

Next step then is to look to get a solo game in this weekend and see how we get on.

Adversaries line up for the national anthems...

EDIT: stats using Bill Butler's suggestions:

	Arm.	Str.	Special	Pts.
M48A1	8	9	rapid fire	18
T-54/55	9	9	slow turret low profile	18

First impressions of 'What a Tanker'

Well, having read through the What a Tanker rules now I must say that they have piqued my interest. They seem to use nice clean mechanisms and have effectively grafted on a clever activation system based around the hand management concept. The major difference here from a traditional hand-management game such as the Commands & Colors series is that the Lardies rules writers have you managing dice instead of cards.

To continue with the hand management parallel, the dice act as if they were move cards, acquire target cards, aim cards, shoot cards, reload cards and wild cards. Players 'play' their dice in the order they choose, and resolve each action before moving on to the next. In addition to the activation play, the player may need to dice for move distance or for combat.

So while the game play relies on random 'hand generation', the system gives players some control over their own destiny, and I think gamers all appreciate that, even if that sense of control is more illusory than real!

I think this will work well with a casual group, and I can envisage five or six people, a big table, and a few tasty beverages making for a very pleasant evening or afternoon.

It also has an interesting role play aspect that you can factor in if you want to. Your tank crews gain experience, which gives them some advantages on table. After a certain number of kills, they can 'level up' to a better tank, and start over again. I think you would really appreciate this if you had a dedicated crew of people meeting fairly regularly, and it's something I'd like to try if the conditions at some point prove propitious.

But for now my main concern is building forces. What do I use? I have some 6mm models and I can find 1/72 kits here in Japan, but probably 15mm (1/100) is a better scale: more durable models than the 1/72 modeller's kits and a better look for a skirmish game than 6mm.

The downside is that I have to order in from overseas, pay quite a bit, wait for them to arrive, make up the kits, paint them, and then source terrain. If I go with 6mm I can start right away, can easily and cheaply expand forces through the trusty Heroics and Ros, and I already have a bit of scenery I can use.

Hmm, decisions, decisions!

Anyway, it's quite nice to have another project to work on and in a different style from what I'm used to.

QRF cataphracts done

It's been quite a while between drinks, but I've finally managed to finish off the final 16 Quick Reaction Force cataphracts I bought about seven years ago (note the quaintly optimistic 'I hope to get a unit finished in time for my game on Friday.' If the Friday in question were two years later, I might've had a shot!).

The first lot was finally finished in 2014, but it wasn't a great experience to prep and paint them and I now see it's taken me four years to do the rest.

They have a lot of flash to remove in tricky places, and require spears. Unfortunately, the hands don't lend themselves to drilling, so you just sort of have to glue and hope. On top of that, I didn't really enjoy painting the armour, had other figures I could use in the meantime, and just sort of put them off, then put them off again.

But they're done now, so that's the '15mm mounted' duck broken for 2018.

And to finish, here they are with their cousins painted in 2014. I thought I'd done a better job on the new batch, but they don't really look all that much different! These will have to wait for their coat of matte varnish. Summer here is not kind to sprays, and nor is winter, which is what the season was when I finished the last batch. I'll have to give both lots a nice going over with matte when spray conditions improve...

Add caption

Thanks for viewing, sorry for the whinging, and may all readers' cataphract models be completed in a far more reasonable time frame!

I’ve given in...

...and picked up a PDF copy of the What a Tanker rules. Unfortunately, it requires tanks with movable turrets, so I can’t use the models I was going to! I expect I’ll be able to come up with a solution though...

Caesar

For a project I have on the go I've been dipping back into Caesar's commentaries. Once again, I am struck by the immediacy of the observations, the depth of information, and the quality of the insights. Such a pivotal figure in history, and we are lucky enough to have accounts of his campaigns, and in his own words. It's just astonishing.

Picture from here.

As works of history they are invaluable; as works of literature they are brilliantly composed; as persuasive, case-building and legacy-securing texts they do their job to this day. They are an astounding achievement.

The man was of course a butcher in a time of butchery, but he was not a spiteful one. He preferred to win loyalty and exercise clemency when he could. By comparison to the murderously vengeful Sulla who came before him and the callous and devious Octavion who came after, he was an honourable man.   

But that's not really my point: my point is that when you read Caesar you begin to understand on both an intellectual and a visceral level the kinds of things that an ancient commander had to deal with. You see what he had to take into account before a battle, during a battle, and after the fight was over. You see what went into a successful campaign. You see what led to failure. 

Anyway, whenever I get back into reading him I am always made forcibly conscious of how fortunate we are that the commentaries survived, and how much poorer our understanding of the man and the era would be if they had not.

Sellasia, 222 BC, with Lost Battles

I got the figures out again last night for another bash at a new (for me) Lost Battles scenario, this time Sellasia.

Sellasia was the Spartans' last gasp as a military power, and their defeat here by Antigonus Doson condemned them to relative obscurity thenceforth (though no one of course could erase the fame of their earlier deeds).

The terrain is an interesting mix of streams and hills, with a fortified camp there as well for good measure. The attack limit of five means that the equivalent of five units may attack into or out of each zone (though that is halved when fighting along streams), so massing units in depth will be required.

The terrain. The stream limits the number of 'unit equivalents' able to fight in the central
stream zones at any one time to three, thus forcing the action into the hills.

The armies are both formidable, led by spearheads of veteran troops and supported by good quality infantry, cavalry and skirmishers. Antigonus has four units of veteran phalangites to draw upon, seven units of average phalangites, and one of levy quality. Supplementing the phalanx are three units of average heavy infantry, two units of average heavy cavalry, and three units of average light infantry.

Cleomenes III of Sparta has six units of veteran phalangites (armed with the sarissa, not the hoplite spear), one of average phalangites, and seven units of other heavy infantry. Two units of average light infantry and one of average light cavalry round out his force.

Both Antigonus and Cleomenes are classed as average commanders, so the two sides square off with fighting values of 72 and 63, giving Antigonus a nine point advantage, and 21 units against 17. In real terms, the Macedonians bring 30,000 troops against 20,000.

Deployment.

Both sides put what cavalry they have into the central stream zones and stack the hills on each side. The Spartans keep their veterans together in front of the fortified camp, and Antigonus matches them there with his own veterans and the bulk of the phalanx.

Armies deployed with skirmishers forward and the heavy infantry to catch up.

Spartan centre.

Macedonian centre.

Macedonian right.

Turns two to four.

The first turns see both sides getting the heavy infantry forward and claiming the central zone with cavalry and auxiliaries. The Macedonians get higher activation rolls than the Spartans, but even so Cleomenes decides to move two units of veteran phalanx to support the central zone and attempt to break through there.

Spartan veterans march to join the centre.

The lines in contact.

The high attack limit sees a lot of hits scored, and both sides are forced to feed their reserves into line earlier than they would have wished.

Turns five and six.

The Spartan reinforcements do the business and the Macedonian centre is forced to pull back or risk being destroyed. Fortunately for them, they have the spare command points to do so. But as a consequence of the Spartan relocation, Cleomenes' right is forced to make do with fewer troops, and they are hard-pressed here against Antigonus and his phalanx.

The Macedonian centre pushed back. Attrition rates are high on both sides.

Casualties mount on the Spartan left.

The Macedonians continue to get better returns on their command rolls and use some of the excess activation points to move light infantry forward on their far left to menace the Spartan camp. This little sideshow forces the Spartans to use valuable command points to pull light infantry back in defense of the camp.

Showing the light infantry shenanagens.

Both sides are now almost at breaking point. The Spartans have no reserves remaining; the Macedonians have some, but not many.

Turn seven.

The Spartans damage the Macedonian right, shattering two units and forcing another to flee, but in turn are undone on their own right. With his troops beginning to crack under the pressure of the Macedonian attack, Cleomenes is forced to attempt to rally his men and, disastrously, is killed in the act. The light infantry and cavalry flee, but the rest of the heavy infantry hold firm for now.

The Macedonian attacks continue, more hits mount, and suddenly the entire Spartan line gives way. Antigonus has won the day.

Spartan remnants just prior to the coup de grace.

Cleomenes defeated (image from Wikipedia)

Antigonus triumphant! (again, from Wikipedia)

Aftermath.

When it comes time to tally the points, it becomes apparent just how well the Spartans have fought. The Macedonians win, but by 95 points to the Spartans' 90, which is almost as close as you can get.

The telling factor in the win was probably the better Macedonian command returns: they were averaging 11 command points per turn to the Spartans' 8. As a consequence they were more nimble around the field and were able to buy more attack bonuses.

It was an excellent game and a compelling tactical situation. I look forward to trying this one again with an opponent.