Monday, 11 January 2010

Clearing up confusion... I hope

Following the discussion in the comments section after my last post (by the way, thank you to all who left many kind words), I thought it would be appropriate to clear up a little of the confusion around things like basing, rules and the like.

OK.

This Classic Wargaming collection is a project I am doing which is very different from my other wargaming armies. The "basing" (or lack of) is a direct result of the desire to recreate the units shown in Charge, unbased.

For my other armies, as used in some of the books with Charles, I have used multiple bases, and am quite happy with the way the rules worked. We used rules from The War Game, with some slight alterations to accomodate multiple bases, but really it was very straightforward.

For the Classic collection, I am creating rules based around those in Charge.

To give a simple visual reference as to the difference between this Classic collection, and my "normal" 18th century wargames collection, I hope the follwing picture will help:


This is my "normal" 18th century collection, with multi-basing.

Compare this with the photos of the classic units seen on the rest of this blog.

Now, I'm not saying one is better than the other. But only one is what I would call "Classic Wargaming"... and I am approaching it in the same way that someone reconstructing a Classic Car would be reproducing it as faithfully as possible to the original.
One of the most liberating factors with reproducing units as seen in Charge is that no decisions need to be made about basing at all.

Cavalry that tend to topple over if left are being glued onto thin pieces of metal, purely for stability. Apart from that, it's very straight-forward.
I think...

8 comments:

Stefan said...

Thank you for this clarification, but most of all for providing such wonderful inspiration to us all! About to embark upon a classical wargaming project myself, I look forward to hearing more about yours. In particular, an insight into your rules would greatly help me decide between individual or multiple basing - the lack of proper function for officers in Charge! (beyond lending tone, of course) has always baffled me.

Bluebear Jeff said...

Phil,

Either way your figures always look the way I wished mine would look (but don't).

Lovely looking units with either basing, sir.


-- Jeff

Der Alte Fritz said...

Thank you for my daily dosing of eye candy. It has a quite pleasing effect on one. I never get tired of looking at your pictures.

zieten said...

Classical or 'modern', your collection is always inspiring! It motivates me to go ahead with the Blasthof Order of Battle I decided to complete (single-basing, Front Rank/Foundry miniatures).

Apart from the single-basing and using the classical/original figures, is the terrain also part of your definition of classical wargaming? I think it is and has to be. It conveys an interesting 'clean' look as can be seen in your pictures.

Olaf

Peter said...

Phil,

I think it's very important you "set the scene" and defined what your blog entails.
I also understand that you can play "Charge" or "The wargame" with different parameters regarding painting style, basing and even "realism" in terrain.
My way ahead, without losing my original objectives, is going for the classical look and feel. I did this before with my sons "Warhammer armies": nice clean painting, no special effects, Goblin green (what's in a name?) bases on a same coloured playing surface (I had a large pot of mat green paint made up at the local DIY store)and hills and terrain features. You can find an example in my blog when I presented my woods.
Now I feel this sipmplifies things, as I was struggling with the intricate painting I was doing on my first unit.
So, thanks for helping me getting the cobwebs out of my brain and seeing things clear again.
I was looking at material for making thin supporting bases for individual models.Any suggestions anyone? I find washers to thick. Maybe plastic card used in modelling, as this is the easiest to work with?

Pjotr (or Peter or Pete)

Richard Lockwood said...

Ah, yes, all is now clear. So my question about basing was somewhat "off topic" for this blog. Still, this is all great stuff and I will be following it closely.

Phil Olley said...

Don't worry Richard. All comments are always welcome, as they reflect the thoughts of many more people beyond the commenter. I welcome such as they let me know when I have not explained something very well, or any confusion exists. It's my blog and therefore I'm the culprit when it comes to confusion caused!
Phil

DeanM said...

Wow! That's cool. Dean