|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 29, 2017 12:26:00 GMT
Sounds good.
I like the idea of giving dragons individual traits.
I am not sure whether the "timid" rule is necessary, maybe that could be optional too? I think that HotT has that mostly for reasons of balance, but it is not clear to me why it should be that way from the "sources".
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 26, 2017 20:41:48 GMT
Polybian Roman is all Donnington, Carthaginian is a mix of Museum and Donnington, Seleucid will be a mixture of Metal Magic (now Black Hat), Museum and Donnington. All pretty old-school, but I like all these miniatures, as they seem to be designed with the wargamer in mind. Plus Donnington makes great Ligurians and Italians.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 26, 2017 18:31:18 GMT
Let us see. I will keep you updated on my progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 26, 2017 16:46:41 GMT
And, of course, you were right, Tony: The package was waiting for me today when I got home.
Now I got everything I need for Polybian Romans, Later Carthaginian (a list) and for a Seleucid army. This is going to be an interesting autumn and winter...
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 26, 2017 14:24:08 GMT
That is great. I was not aware of the options for brush varnishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 26, 2017 14:13:19 GMT
Primer is useful to allow the paint to better stick to the miniature. I would either spray prime or brush prime, depending on circumstances. I live in a flat, so spraying stuff is always difficult. Thus I brush prime.
A protective coating after the paintjob is done is very important. I would use matte varnish. There is no realistic alternative to the spray can here, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 26, 2017 6:20:16 GMT
It is not actually a problem that they are late - I work on the 3Kn for the Teutonics instead, since the Ritterbrüder are now becoming 6Kn (which is great).
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 25, 2017 21:16:54 GMT
I should not really post this, but I must: My Carthaginians and Polybian Romans. Because it is two months since I ordered the rest of the miniatures needed and they have not yet arrived...
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 25, 2017 11:39:01 GMT
Since we have the thread about the fastest army; what about the slowest?
I have three guesses:
1) Anything with a lot of elements: Ming Chinese, dismounting Knight armies, dismounting armies in general.
2) Anything with elaborate dresses, extra points if they also do not wear a uniform. Thracians are bad if done right. So is everything with heraldry.
3) Anything you really want to paint well.
My slowest army have probabyl been the Celts, but that is due to the large number that I am doing for my morphing project.
For a single, normal sized army, it was the Ancient Spanish, because I wanted to paint them well.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 25, 2017 11:19:45 GMT
First, from actual experience, Nubians and Melanesians/Polynesians/Maori were the quickest to paint to a reasonable standard for me. Not having to worry much about clothing and equipment helps.
Uniformed armies are also relatively quick to paint. Roman legionaries, while boring, lend themselves very well to assembly line painting. Can be done quickly and you have a few other troop types for relief, so it is also fun. The same is true for most Chinese armies.
I would also think that armies with a high number of cataphracts and the like are easy and quick to paint. Thus Sarmatians and Parthians should be quick (Parthians I have tried, they were relatively quick if you do not get too involved with clothing ornaments). Sarmatians should be a piece of cake: Black paint, heavy dry-brushing in steel, a few spots of flesh and clothing and horse-gear, lances and that is it. Should also look good (It does look good on the single element of Sarmatian allies that I have painted as an option for the Dacians).
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 22, 2017 18:46:19 GMT
Great article and I like the look of the grape fences. Need to get some grapes and build one for myself too.
Building instructions are extremely useful. Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 22, 2017 7:01:20 GMT
No need for guilt. The sort of "democracy" that the Greeks had was so limited and so interwoven with slavery and all kinds of other unpleasant things, that it does not in the least resemble the idea of democracy emergent from the French Revolution.
As for army composition, I would not recommend looking for effectiveness too much. Playing historical match-ups and choosing an army one really likes seems much more important to me. The army optimization mindset kills the fun in DBA for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 21, 2017 13:56:27 GMT
The Ming are finished. I am not quite happy with the results on the shields. I tried to base mine on the designs in the Wubeizhi (武备志) manual, but they are very hard to paint. Much to detailed. I ended up with something that looks as if straight out of a badly drawn cartoon.
Possibly very fine-tipped felt markers would allow something more detailed and impressive. But maybe foregoing these shield designs entirely would be even better...
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 20, 2017 22:10:28 GMT
I would say that the most important thing is that one should choose armies whose history one is interested in, or whose style one likes.
Playing that army should be fun under all circumstances (i.e. even if losing multiple games in a row).
Another thing to consider is the composition of the army. If a player already has a number of armies that are mainly heavy infantry, something lighter, or something with more mounted troops might be interesting.
The armies that I recommend to myself at the moment are:
Post Mongol Japanese (because I like the look and because I need another enemy for my Yi Koreans)
Polybian Roman (because they have so many armies to fight against)
Free Canton (because I like the style and I am interested in the history)
Hussite (because of War Wagons...)
Classical Indian (because of the elephants)
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 20, 2017 16:37:42 GMT
Top notch, as all your work. |
|
