|
Lord Commissar posted:Added this to the FAQ: This Wikipedia article also happens to be very misinformative. If you think "oh, I play 28mm miniatures, I should pick up some sweet 1/72 kits", be prepared to be dissapointed. 1/72 is actually closer to 20mm than even 25mm, and old scool 25mm are tiny dwarves compared to what we commonly call 28mm. I have no idea why that article isnt' changed. Photo example:  From left to right: 15mm, 1/72, GW style 28mm, 1/35. As you can see, 1/72 is not that much bigger than 15mm, to the point where 1/72 kits of houses etc. can be used for 15mm. But a 1/72 kit will look miniscule even next to non-heroic old style 25mm. The only entry in that list that is worth a drat is that 1/100 and 15mm is close since you can get 1:100 aircrafts for FoW and such games for a cheap alternative for Battlefront kits. EDIT: Traditional Games > TG Discussion > Historicals: Sperging about scales
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
That's not so much Wikipedia's fault as it is the fault of manufacturers not sticking to standards. The article on wikipedia mentions the disparity, in fact, and references 28mm in several different scales. True 28mm would be 1:65
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 16:47
|
|
|
Lord Commissar posted:That's not so much Wikipedia's fault as it is the fault of manufacturers not sticking to standards. The article on wikipedia mentions the disparity, in fact, and references 28mm in several different scales. It is Wikipedia's fault for saing "1/72 = 28mm", which is just objectively wrong. I took a "proper" 1/72 model I had lying around, and from foot to top of head it was about 21, 22mm. There's no way you can stretch that to 25mm, even less non-heroic 28mm. Add to that the fact that mm scales are measured from foot to eye level, and you land pretty square on 1/72 = 20mm "proper, non-heroic" scale. It's not a matter of manufacturers not sticking to standards or calling their scales something they arent, it's jus that a human in 1/72 is 20-22 mm tall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 16:57
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:It is Wikipedia's fault for saing "1/72 = 28mm", which is just objectively wrong. I took a "proper" 1/72 model I had lying around, and from foot to top of head it was about 21, 22mm. There's no way you can stretch that to 25mm, even less non-heroic 28mm. Add to that the fact that mm scales are measured from foot to eye level, and you land pretty square on 1/72 = 20mm "proper, non-heroic" scale. It's not a matter of manufacturers not sticking to standards or calling their scales something they arent, it's jus that a human in 1/72 is 20-22 mm tall. Well, it -is- wikipedia and you -are- spergin' about it, so you could always edit that in yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
Lord Commissar posted:Well, it -is- wikipedia and you -are- spergin' about it, so you could always edit that in yourself. Just 'cause ahm spergin' don't no mean ah care nuff to go to edit no wikipedia.  On a less polemic note, are there anyone doing 6mm out there? I've thought of the idea of making two opposite 6mm DBA armies for a one-off project one day, since it wouldn't be that expensive to do such a small army in 6mm. It is cheap, but is it fun to paint 6mm? EDIT: and after all this wikipedia page is correct, and points out that 20mm is a good fit for 1/72 kits. So it's wikipedia against wikipedia! But really much of the misunderstandings are because people think mm are counted from base to eyes, not top of head, combined with scale creep and variations between companies. Final verdict is always a comparison with miniatures side by side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_figure_%28gaming%29 lilljonas fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jan 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:I am. I know what they look like - I've bought stuff from Mongrel before. My email is dangerDOToctopus AT googlemail.com
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
With my 28mm ww2 stuff from Artizan I used Corgi 1/50 vehicles- perfect match and they are prepainted! Cheating I know but they look good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:With my 28mm ww2 stuff from Artizan I used Corgi 1/50 vehicles- perfect match and they are prepainted! Cheating I know but they look good. How do they compare to GW's heroic 28mm Elephantitis sufferers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:How do they compare to GW's heroic 28mm Elephantitis sufferers? The pic above says it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
children overboard posted:Thank you for posting this. They're so cute The best painted 2mm I've seen can be found here: http://www.angelfire.com/games4/bobsgames/tiny_warriors.htm   And some really tempting 6mm 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
Ok, so now I have my 10mm AWI armies. I'm going to be basing them shortly, and I know I'll be doing 2x2. However, I have some models that are marching, some that are standing around, and some that are firing. The ones that are matching can all go together, but I'm thinking the ones shooting should be in the front of a formation, whereas the dudes standing around would be in the back, waiting to move forward. But then I thought about how weird that will look while they're marching, since they'd likely march in a column. I guess it doesn't really matter, but I hate things looking odd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:The only entry in that list that is worth a drat is that 1/100 and 15mm is close since you can get 1:100 aircrafts for FoW and such games for a cheap alternative for Battlefront kits. Except the aircraft Battlefront sell are 1:144.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 04:37
|
|
|
No Pun Intended posted:Except the aircraft Battlefront sell are 1:144. Are they? Thats 10/12mm scale. Thats good to know as I need some planes for BKC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 08:10
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Are they? Thats 10/12mm scale. Thats good to know as I need some planes for BKC. Yes they are.. It greatly confused me at first, I am not sure why it is that way either. You could always look at the Wings of War miniatures as they also are 1:144.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
No Pun Intended posted:Yes they are.. It greatly confused me at first, I am not sure why it is that way either. You could always look at the Wings of War miniatures as they also are 1:144. Thats a good point, I never thought of that one. Ive got loads of WW1 wings of war planes but never tried the WW2 one. Mind you WoW planes are like £9 each, which is ridiculously expensive in comparison to the rest of my 10mm scale armies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 08:56
|
|
|
No Pun Intended posted:Except the aircraft Battlefront sell are 1:144. Yeah, but 1:100 is close enough for you to use instead of the "official" ones. I'm not completely sure but I'd guess their choice of 1:144 is because the planes will be zooming around above the battlefield anyway, so strict scale adherence isn't that important between air and land. I've seen lots of people use 1:100 die cast metal airplane toys for FoW.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 10:11
|
|
|
I was looking for some 1:100 Skytrains for myself. If it was to represent aircraft flying above the battlefield, shouldn't they be be bigger? Since we look down onto the battlefield they and therefore they are are closer to us. (Haha you were right, sperging about scale right here.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 10:19
|
|
|
Danger - Octopus! posted:I know what they look like - I've bought stuff from Mongrel before. My email is dangerDOToctopus AT googlemail.com Email sent! If it's ok, I'll take this oppurtunity to list a few other bits and bobs: There's two extra copies of the Black Powder rules (with the free promo mini)- looking for 50% of retail which would be £15 and a TON of British WW1 (from Great War Miniature, Aly Morrisons company). If you're interested post here, etc. EDIT: The Great War is a really interesting WW1 ruleset from Warhammer Historical that came out last year, shame no-one seems to be interested in WW1... EDIT 2: woot just treated myself to platinum, can now take PMs BeigeJacket fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Jan 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 10:36
|
|
|
PM me about black powder (If you can).
No Pun Intended fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Jan 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 10:40
|
|
|
No Pun Intended posted:Except the aircraft Battlefront sell are 1:144. I suppose if you figure the planes are "way up there", going with a smaller scale isn't too bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 12:45
|
|
|
Lord Commissar posted:I suppose if you figure the planes are "way up there", going with a smaller scale isn't too bad. Makes for cheaper planes that are easier to pack away and bring along, too. It is a nifty thing when they won't be standing side by side to the land models anyway, so the model scale difference don't matter as much as if it was between infantry and tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 12:49
|
|
|
Among some other news from Flames of War, you can now download PDFs of many armies' special rules to have handy: http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=278 They say it's to Know Your Enemy, but I think it'd also be useful to have at hand for your own army.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 16:29
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:The best painted 2mm I've seen can be found here: These look like the MSPaint spraybrush. Got any crazy-rear end closeups of 2mm stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:These look like the MSPaint spraybrush. Got any crazy-rear end closeups of 2mm stuff?  2mm is the perfect opportunity to let your freehand drawing truly enrich your banners (it's supposed to read "SPQR" if you can't see it)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
Trouble Man posted:I love them too, but Flames of War doesn't really model the difference between turret and hull-mounted guns particularly well. So it just kind of feels like StuGs are sort of better than Panzer IVs most of the time. StuG's are also just more fun TBH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
Yeah, we played our first FoW game(s) last weekend with the Open Fire! box, and I didn't get why the did turrets/arcs like that. The front armor on a tank has nothing to do with where the turret is facing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
I got the 'Open Fire' starter set for FoW, but thought it wasn't a very good introduction to the game. It's good to have a small rulebook and a few tanks, but the introduction missions are so boring I struggled to get into them. I think they really need some infantry and maybe some artillery or something to make it a more fun introduction. That said, I fully intend to get into this game. I just hope it's a lot more fun than the introduction missions were. I've read battle reports and it really seems to get great when you have a large variety of units. My only other experience with wargaming are Games Workshop games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Lord Commissar posted:Yeah, we played our first FoW game(s) last weekend with the Open Fire! box, and I didn't get why the did turrets/arcs like that. The front armor on a tank has nothing to do with where the turret is facing. Roma posted:I got the 'Open Fire' starter set for FoW, but thought it wasn't a very good introduction to the game. It's good to have a small rulebook and a few tanks, but the introduction missions are so boring I struggled to get into them. I think they really need some infantry and maybe some artillery or something to make it a more fun introduction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
I still stand behind Open Fire! as a good place to start with FoW. But you are right the game does get far more interesting when you start throwing variety into the mix, there are so many different things you can do. After the game against Trouble Man, I was browsing the rules and found out (as per usual) we were doing something wrong. The way air support works in FoW, for those who aren't familiar, is that you buy a dice pool (7,5,3) that represents the access to ground attack aircraft during the battle. Every time you use the pool you reduce the number of dice by 1, now this is where we are going wrong; we just figured that you ran out of dice and that was it for having the fly-boys save your worthless rear end. Apparently you will always have one dice at your disposal if you have payed for air support. I guess my point is since you only need one of the dice in your pool to come up with the correct number, why spend the points on more dice? I think Anyone else have any thoughts? No Pun Intended fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Jan 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 06:04
|
|
|
Well having more dice to throw is handy - but it seems like buying 7 dice is mostly worth it if you are going to risk reducing your dice pool intercepting early on. Having more dice is a much bigger factor in trying to get the 6 you need, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 06:19
|
|
|
I read those rules in the rulebook too. I like the way it's set up. It seems to allow you to be able to request air support, but you have little control over when they show up and how many show up. Makes sense when you're controlling a small ground army. Also, anyone had experience with the Firestorm campaign(s)? I heard you can play them as both a campaign system and as a separate board game (unless I misunderstood something?) Is this any good? I've pretty much decided I'm going to concentrate on Late War eastern front armies for the first year or so while I'm getting into this game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 07:41
|
|
|
Roma posted:I read those rules in the rulebook too. I like the way it's set up. It seems to allow you to be able to request air support, but you have little control over when they show up and how many show up. Makes sense when you're controlling a small ground army. I don't really object to how the rules function now. I am just not so keen on never running out of dice. No Pun Intended fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jan 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 07:54
|
|
|
No Pun Intended posted:
Im glad our gaming group arent the only oens who do that!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 09:43
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:
I'll take a copy of Black Powder (our gaming group could do with an extra copy) if theres one left. Mail me at amrypooins@gmail.com
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 14:58
|
|
|
Roma posted:I got the 'Open Fire' starter set for FoW, but thought it wasn't a very good introduction to the game. It's good to have a small rulebook and a few tanks, but the introduction missions are so boring I struggled to get into them. I think they really need some infantry and maybe some artillery or something to make it a more fun introduction. Really? I had a lot of fun with the intro missions. They taught me quite a few things, at least about the armor rules. And I think tanks are less daunting for people to start with. I mean, no, it's not Skull Pass or Macragge, but I thought it was a decent introduction (plus it's still cheaper than the main rulebook, and you get free armor). Arquinsiel posted:The logic is that your troops are not retards and if they see the back of the turret they'll aim up a bit rather than at the thickest part of the armour. I'll admit I don't know if this is the case, but it would seem to me like a turret would be armored the same way all around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
No Pun Intended posted:I don't really object to how the rules function now. I am just not so keen on never running out of dice. Lord Commissar posted:I'll admit I don't know if this is the case, but it would seem to me like a turret would be armored the same way all around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
Lord Commissar posted:I'll admit I don't know if this is the case, but it would seem to me like a turret would be armored the same way all around. Some tanks had equal thickness armor on all sides of their turrets, some did not. Don't really have any numbers on if the majority had same thickness or the minority. But i am assuming in a effort to speed up game play they just decided to treat anything but the front of the turret as side armor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
I just ordered 96 infantry dudes.  Ok so it's 6mm so that is one 5 quid blister and I'm just trying it out
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
lilljonas posted:I just ordered 96 infantry dudes. They'll be really lonely and sad without lots of tiny friends...
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 18:18
|
|