I took my collection down to NBHW last week, and ran a game based on the battle of Porto Praya, 1781.
We used a couple of Spanish ships to stand in for French ships (although treated them as French).
Also gave a run out to my Amera islands!
Some excellent photos here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1125887067464168.1073742056.302874659765417&type=3
Sunday, 21 February 2016
Friday, 5 February 2016
Langtons, Skytrex and Salute
Sorry it has been a while since last posting, I have several things going on at the moment so less time for modelling and warranting! However, I have finished a couple more ships and managed a trip to Salute on Saturday. So, here is a short update!
So, one of the reasons I have been slower on producing ships recently is that I've had a few around but no bases, ratlines, pennants, etc to finish them off. Two were a Langton British 74 'Common' and a Skytrex model of the Santissima Trinidad. The visit to Salute meant I now have a nice pile of 16 ships with bases and ratlines galore so, as time allows, expect some more posts!
Here are the two ships, albeit unfinished:
.jpeg)
Overall, I'm pretty pleased with them, especially now I've managed to get them 'finished' (apologies for lack of photographic evidence - you'll need to trust me!)
This might be a good opportunity to compare the Skytrex and Langton models, as it's the first time I've modelled a Skytrex ship.
Overall, the Langtons are a superior quality, which is to be expected given their higher price. The Skytrex models are softer, so more bendy, and lack a bowsprit yard which means you can spot the difference easily. The Skytrex also seem slightly smaller in terms of scale - the Santissima Trinidad above is the same size as my HMS Neptune 98 gun where I would expect it to be a bit larger. Furthermore, you need to glue the jibs and spanker on to the masts, which is a little frustrating and less sturdy than a Langton.
However, that is not to say they are not good models. Once assembled and painted up, they look nice and for a tabletop game are more than acceptable, in fact look very pleasing. The detail is still nice on the decks, albeit not as crisp as a Langton.
At the end of the day, it's about cost - what you can afford. In pulling together Aboukir Bay I need upward of 30 ships, and at around £13 for a fully loaded Langton, that's a lot of money! Even £7-8 for just the hull and sails. Skytrex come in at around £4 cheaper, more so if you use netting for ratlines, print your own pennants and make your own bases. Langtons are a definite for the collector, but Skytrex are a better option for those more interested in wargaming or who - frankly - can't afford the Langton prices.
So, I'll have a good mixture of both in my game for Aboukir Bay - but once painted up, I may look to sell some of the Skytrex ones fully assembled and then use that money to replace them with Langtons!
**************************
I did pretty well at Salute, and didn't come away with too many 'shiny shiny' temptations! One thing I did see were these plastic moulded islands from Amera Mouldings. At just over £13 for 5, I thought they were a pretty good buy. Also had to add a Langton Toulon fort to the shopping bag to put on them!
So, one of the reasons I have been slower on producing ships recently is that I've had a few around but no bases, ratlines, pennants, etc to finish them off. Two were a Langton British 74 'Common' and a Skytrex model of the Santissima Trinidad. The visit to Salute meant I now have a nice pile of 16 ships with bases and ratlines galore so, as time allows, expect some more posts!
Here are the two ships, albeit unfinished:
Overall, I'm pretty pleased with them, especially now I've managed to get them 'finished' (apologies for lack of photographic evidence - you'll need to trust me!)
This might be a good opportunity to compare the Skytrex and Langton models, as it's the first time I've modelled a Skytrex ship.
Overall, the Langtons are a superior quality, which is to be expected given their higher price. The Skytrex models are softer, so more bendy, and lack a bowsprit yard which means you can spot the difference easily. The Skytrex also seem slightly smaller in terms of scale - the Santissima Trinidad above is the same size as my HMS Neptune 98 gun where I would expect it to be a bit larger. Furthermore, you need to glue the jibs and spanker on to the masts, which is a little frustrating and less sturdy than a Langton.
However, that is not to say they are not good models. Once assembled and painted up, they look nice and for a tabletop game are more than acceptable, in fact look very pleasing. The detail is still nice on the decks, albeit not as crisp as a Langton.
At the end of the day, it's about cost - what you can afford. In pulling together Aboukir Bay I need upward of 30 ships, and at around £13 for a fully loaded Langton, that's a lot of money! Even £7-8 for just the hull and sails. Skytrex come in at around £4 cheaper, more so if you use netting for ratlines, print your own pennants and make your own bases. Langtons are a definite for the collector, but Skytrex are a better option for those more interested in wargaming or who - frankly - can't afford the Langton prices.
So, I'll have a good mixture of both in my game for Aboukir Bay - but once painted up, I may look to sell some of the Skytrex ones fully assembled and then use that money to replace them with Langtons!
**************************
I did pretty well at Salute, and didn't come away with too many 'shiny shiny' temptations! One thing I did see were these plastic moulded islands from Amera Mouldings. At just over £13 for 5, I thought they were a pretty good buy. Also had to add a Langton Toulon fort to the shopping bag to put on them!
Normandy Battlegames
Finally - after almost 18 months of waiting - Rapid Fire have finally released their 'Normandy Battlegames' book.
It's a lovely book, full of colour photos with the lovely Valiant figures. If you've got the other Rapid Fire publications you will be very aware of the standard of their books.
If you have the 'Normandy Battlegroups' book you will, I am sure, be very keen to purchase this.
The Rapid Fire website states that the book has:
13 historical scenarios (3 of which can be played us a Carentan mini-campaign): Villiers-le-Sec, Leibsey, Norrey and Putot, La Fière, Cambes, Le Bas de Ranville and Hérouvillette, Cristot, Villers Bocage, Across the Elle, Operation Mitten, St Come-du-Mont, Defence of Carentan and Battle for Carentan
Designed to fight with the forces from Normandy Battlegroups
Historical backgrounds, battle maps, victory conditions and organisational variations
Additional Normandy rules
New standardised terrain system that makes setting up simpler
Two new Battlegroups in graphic format for British 6th Airborne and US 82nd Airborne Divisions
The scenarios themselves are as you come to expect from Colin and Richard - well designed, historically accurate but adapted for the wargamer, and thoroughly playtested. I haven't played them yet but they offer plenty of options for players who may between them have several of the Battlegroups.
However, if I have a criticism of the design, is that they seem to have used lots of 200 point groups with 'options' made up to 250, 300 or 350 points - I may be wrong, but I would think many gamers would've built a 200 group (perhaps with a couple of options) or a 400 point group, so by making scenarios involve 350 point groups, this may involve getting the odd additional model or reworking the scenario a little. This of course is fine, but why not just make the scenarios more straight forward using the base groups with perhaps 1 or 2 of the options for the 200 point battlegroups?
To use my collection as an example, I will need to get an M10 Wolverine to play any of the 50th Northumbrian scenarios, while Panzer Lehr involve the 2nd Battalion of panzergrenadiers, which I don't have as for both units I plumped for the 400 point battlegroups. I could play up to 5 or 6 of the scenarios with my current collection as the basis, but I also think another few hundred pounds would be needed to get the added 'extras' I am currently missing.
This is picky of me however! I do plan to get those tweaks done as I want to play the scenarios, and I am sure I can use some of my generic German infantry regiment to play panzergrenadiers if necessary! It has spurred me on to get a few extra bits and make my german infantry into a 352nd Infanterie Division battlegroup too - although some of the guns may be in the early/mid war livery.
The additional Normandy rules look good and add small tweaks for a different flavour to the Normandy games and beyond, but again you may have your own club/house variations you can supplement these with.
The Battlegroups for the 6th Airborne and US 82nd Airborne look good to me, but I have no intention of getting those at the moment.
The standardised terrain system is a great idea - however, it will work if your terrain broadly fits into this; or if you are starting from scratch; but I would imagine it unlikely that many gamers would redo their whole terrain collection to fit in with it? If you only played RF, perhaps, but surely terrain is used for all games? Perhaps I am reading too much into it and it is more of a graphical, mapping, standardisation? A good idea, but practically, you either 'will' or you 'won't'.
All in all, a very handy book, a must for any Battlegroupers out there, but be prepared to have to tweak your groups a bit to make them fit!
It's a lovely book, full of colour photos with the lovely Valiant figures. If you've got the other Rapid Fire publications you will be very aware of the standard of their books.
If you have the 'Normandy Battlegroups' book you will, I am sure, be very keen to purchase this.
The Rapid Fire website states that the book has:
The scenarios themselves are as you come to expect from Colin and Richard - well designed, historically accurate but adapted for the wargamer, and thoroughly playtested. I haven't played them yet but they offer plenty of options for players who may between them have several of the Battlegroups.
However, if I have a criticism of the design, is that they seem to have used lots of 200 point groups with 'options' made up to 250, 300 or 350 points - I may be wrong, but I would think many gamers would've built a 200 group (perhaps with a couple of options) or a 400 point group, so by making scenarios involve 350 point groups, this may involve getting the odd additional model or reworking the scenario a little. This of course is fine, but why not just make the scenarios more straight forward using the base groups with perhaps 1 or 2 of the options for the 200 point battlegroups?
To use my collection as an example, I will need to get an M10 Wolverine to play any of the 50th Northumbrian scenarios, while Panzer Lehr involve the 2nd Battalion of panzergrenadiers, which I don't have as for both units I plumped for the 400 point battlegroups. I could play up to 5 or 6 of the scenarios with my current collection as the basis, but I also think another few hundred pounds would be needed to get the added 'extras' I am currently missing.
This is picky of me however! I do plan to get those tweaks done as I want to play the scenarios, and I am sure I can use some of my generic German infantry regiment to play panzergrenadiers if necessary! It has spurred me on to get a few extra bits and make my german infantry into a 352nd Infanterie Division battlegroup too - although some of the guns may be in the early/mid war livery.
The additional Normandy rules look good and add small tweaks for a different flavour to the Normandy games and beyond, but again you may have your own club/house variations you can supplement these with.
The Battlegroups for the 6th Airborne and US 82nd Airborne look good to me, but I have no intention of getting those at the moment.
The standardised terrain system is a great idea - however, it will work if your terrain broadly fits into this; or if you are starting from scratch; but I would imagine it unlikely that many gamers would redo their whole terrain collection to fit in with it? If you only played RF, perhaps, but surely terrain is used for all games? Perhaps I am reading too much into it and it is more of a graphical, mapping, standardisation? A good idea, but practically, you either 'will' or you 'won't'.
All in all, a very handy book, a must for any Battlegroupers out there, but be prepared to have to tweak your groups a bit to make them fit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)