https://www.goonhammer.com/historicals-essentials-how-accurate-do-you-need-to-be/
Bring out your rivet counters....
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 29, 2025, 09:00 PMhttps://www.goonhammer.com/historicals-essentials-how-accurate-do-you-need-to-be/
Bring out your rivet counters....
I am very aware that my Armies lack real historical consistency as I play them over too long a time period. However five SoA conventions in and I am yet to meet this rivet counter chap at one. (However I do always think that every one elses armies look stunning) So I am with Mr. Goonhammer in still never having met one even outside this prestigious gathering. Indeed a first time attendee this year told me he was "blown away by how nice everybody was!" and we discussed the possible ambiguity considering the main topic was war !
However I take the point that there may yet be anxiety over this,even if statistically the anxiety is unnecessary.
I would never comment on anyone's painting historical or not.
Myself however. I am my own biggest critic!
Knowing and acknowledging one's own limited knowledge of and transgressions from history is the key to peaceful fulfilment when viewing one's own troops Grasshopper :D
Interesting that the focus was on painting accuracy rather than organisation and structure...
Quote from: dwkay57 on Sep 30, 2025, 07:30 AMKnowing and acknowledging one's own limited knowledge of and transgressions from history is the key to peaceful fulfilment when viewing one's own troops Grasshopper :D
..,and when you can feel the throw of six without lifting the dice cup, then may you leave the temple 🙃.
Quote from: dwkay57 on Sep 30, 2025, 07:30 AMKnowing and acknowledging one's own limited knowledge of and transgressions from history is the key to peaceful fulfilment when viewing one's own troops Grasshopper :D
Interesting that the focus was on painting accuracy rather than organisation and structure...
The term 'rivet counter' probably comes from the modelling world (might even have been model railways) so that might explain the focus.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Sep 30, 2025, 08:20 AMThe term 'rivet counter' probably comes from the modelling world (might even have been model railways) so that might explain the focus.
I have read this somewhere too. It then transfered to other "rivetty" bits of equipment like armoured vehicles and planes. Even most of the uniform button counting equivalents come from large scale figure painting hobby.
It was a little ironic to focus so much on SAGA too. I something think there is a disconnect in criticising the accuracy of somebodies' figures but playing SAGA, which only loosely models its history.
With my medieval armies I must admit I tend towards the broadly accurate but generic. Unlike some forum members who put me to shame with their historical researches, nearly all my men-at-arms have generic heraldry (though I follow the rules), for example.
Yes 'rivet counter' comes from model railways originally. As in, checking that the number of rivets on a model locomotive is accurate and complaining if it isn't.
Paint job (and model) accuracy of toy soldiers are equivalent to costume and prop accuracy in movies. Often filmmakers will go to some lengths to get the costumes right, but mess up the history. Even more often, they will mess up the costumes and the history. Wargamers seem to like (on the whole) to get their uniform and equipment details right, more or less, but take no interest in organisation and happily play Byzantines v. Aztec battles.
In the various movie and TV threads we have had (eg King and Conqueror) the general view seemed to be that the filmmakers might as well get the props and costumes right, if nothing else, as at least it will look good, even if it's still historical mush. I assume the same basic mindset applies to toy soldiers. Of course, there is accuracy and there is accuracy, and one man's rivet counting is the next man's might as well get it at least approximately right.
Personally I grind my teeth whenever I see a Macedonian phalanx equipped with shields with the wrong shield patterns on them, because the right shield patterns are really really well known, and it's so easy to get this right, it's almost more trouble doing it wrong. But then this is my thing, and I don't think it really matters at all in the grand scheme of things. What does?
We ought always to be careful that once you paint something it becomes hard fact and we operate in a milieu in which we might well be including together a green tunic with a helmet 200 years different in time from the source of the tunic. The supreme source is, of course, archaeological and dateable, but that is very very rare. A coloured item of clothing might well indicate what soldiers wore, or it might show only one unit and the rest may differ, but be lost to us, or it may be that the artist has to follow a convention that dictates what may be shown, or indeed it might be that he had lots of red paint to use up. It might also be a matter of the troops choosing to be shown in their whites, as parade order and really they wore natural wool from black to off white when fighting or digging.
Years ago there was what we might call the age of discovery. Largely led by Phil Barker, but not solely he, Ancient wargamers started to research into original sources, archaeology and experimentation. An unfortunate consequence of this was a period of certainty. I do also think that the national mood has changed , we are, certainly (in the UK) more open to looser interpretations of sources. We then knew what Romans and Greeks and Gauls and Goths and Parthians and Chinese wore and wielded and the rivet counters had their moment. In a mood of rivet certainty I firmly told a friend that sixth century Roman infantry wore trousers with wide legs and that illustrations with tight trousers were of an earlier, Late Roman, period. Nowadays I would accept that both designs were in fashion. However I would still be worried about wearing an Intercisa helmet in 550 CE.
Nowadays we are much more chilled and that's probably a good thing because our periods span so long that there is the possibility that fashion could change from a to b and back again in the period of many lists. The costume and colours are fine by me as long as you can see what weapons and armour the opposition have got, so that a man with a long spear has a spear and not a sling!
Roy
I suppose wargamers have conventions they follow. For example, I find Napoleonic armies in the dress uniforms visually spectacular. Purists can argue till the cows come home about button colours, facings and when such-and-such a regiment swapped its 1809 uniform for the pattern 1811. But armies didn't fight in dress uniforms and shortages meant non-regulation items were sourced for all sorts.
I think Richard's parallels with our film and TV portrayals discussions are apt. In both a wargame and these programmes, we are talking about fiction with a historical theme. If we are recreating a specific battle, we could well want a higher standard of accuracy about who was there and what they were equipped with. Even then, we might make compromises. Troops from other armies brought in to make up the numbers because we don't have enough of X troop type.
The good thing about the dark ages is you have quite a lot of laissez faire
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 30, 2025, 10:56 AMThe good thing about the dark ages is you have quite a lot of laissez faire
In the scales you game in, certainly. But details even then told people apart. Hairstyles, ornaments, belt buckles. I seem to recall a highly critical review in Slingshot of an Osprey on Germanic warriors by a young Guy Halsall which made this point .
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 30, 2025, 10:56 AMThe good thing about the dark ages is you have quite a lot of laissez faire
Indeed. I am intending to use Picts for early Balts and Slavs - some of the figures have square or rectangular shields and the poses help distinguish them from the chaps I'm using for Viking hoi poloi. 10mm scale so not much detail on buckles or brooches
Small scales are your friend....
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 30, 2025, 11:15 AMSmall scales are your friend....
Ah! an excuse I can stick with. ;D
Quote from: Sharur on Sep 30, 2025, 12:19 PMQuote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 30, 2025, 11:15 AMSmall scales are your friend....
Go 2 mm ;D
I already did...and absolutely NONE of my WW2, Napoleonics, ACW or ECW forces in that scale are in any way inaccurate (or 'as far as I can tell....') 🙂
Quote from: Martin Smith on Sep 30, 2025, 12:26 PMQuote from: Sharur on Sep 30, 2025, 12:19 PMQuote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 30, 2025, 11:15 AMSmall scales are your friend....
Go 2 mm ;D
I already did...and absolutely NONE of my WW2, Napoleonics, ACW or ECW forces in that scale are in any way inaccurate (or 'as far as I can tell....') 🙂
And I think you'll find those will work just as flawlessly for fantasy and science-fiction gaming, should you choose 8)
I have enjoyed playing with 2/3mm armies but have felt no temptation to going that way for my own troops. I like being able to paint individual figures and find 10mm the smallest that gives me satisfaction. It is not a matter of being as accurate as possible in the painting, but the sense of giving each lead or plastic man an individual touch that sets him apart from his fellows.
Quote from: Sharur on Sep 30, 2025, 12:28 PMQuote from: Martin Smith on Sep 30, 2025, 12:26 PMQuote from: Sharur on Sep 30, 2025, 12:19 PMQuote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 30, 2025, 11:15 AMSmall scales are your friend....
Go 2 mm ;D
I already did...and absolutely NONE of my WW2, Napoleonics, ACW or ECW forces in that scale are in any way inaccurate (or 'as far as I can tell....') 🙂
And I think you'll find those will work just as flawlessly for fantasy and science-fiction gaming, should you choose 8)
I have used them for various Science Fiction campaigns before now 8)
I did play a tournament were a chap pointed out that that my Alans weren't blonde enough.
I'm quite happy with Byzantines v Aztecs, providing both armies are organised along their historical basis (as far as we know or can guess)
I remember a splendid cartoon, probably in Miniature Wargaming, of a splendid hoplite figure with a critic complaining "The dust under the toenails is the wrong colour for Thermopylae".
Quote from: John GL on Sep 30, 2025, 07:59 PMI remember a splendid cartoon, probably in Miniature Wargaming, of a splendid hoplite figure with a critic complaining "The dust under the toenails is the wrong colour for Thermopylae".
Military Modelling. I have always remembered it too. The critical chap was perhaps the judge in a figure painting competition?
The only time I recall someone criticizing me for painting something wrong it was Thomas Årnfelt pointing out I'd painted the lower legs of bay horses brown instead of black, and that's of course more an issue of zoological accuracy than of historical. (And he was polite about it.)
But having established that being criticized, let alone shunned, for painting something wrong is too rare to worry much about, how common is it that historicals players, or would-be historicals players, actually do worry about it, however unnecessarily? I have a suspicion that not merely the risk of censure, but also the worry about it, is a bit of a myth.
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 30, 2025, 10:56 AMThe good thing about the dark ages is you have quite a lot of laissez faire
Only if you're a Frank!
Quote from: Keraunos on Sep 30, 2025, 12:51 PMI have enjoyed playing with 2/3mm armies but have felt no temptation to going that way for my own troops. I like being able to paint individual figures and find 10mm the smallest that gives me satisfaction. It is not a matter of being as accurate as possible in the painting, but the sense of giving each lead or plastic man an individual touch that sets him apart from his fellows.
And if you can't do that because the figures are so small, why not just use counters?
Quote from: RichT on Sep 30, 2025, 09:55 AMPersonally I grind my teeth whenever I see a Macedonian phalanx equipped with shields with the wrong shield patterns on them, because the right shield patterns are really really well known, and it's so easy to get this right, it's almost more trouble doing it wrong.
I'm going to share a moment of shame, in the hope that it will at least cause some merriment to others...
My wife had to dress as a Spartan soldier once. Don't worry about why, but large amounts of alcohol were involved. She requested my help in improving her costume, and I managed to dig out a 12" foam kite shield that our daughters had bought at Legoland. I was feeling that this wasn't perhaps Spartan enough, but inspiration struck when I remembered reading that Spartans had a lambda on their shields, so I painted one on for her which she was very happy with.
It was only shortly before the party that I discovered my error. My experience of Greek letters was from Maths, and it had slipped my mind that there were both upper and lower case Greek letters. So now she was the only Spartan warrior ever with a lower case lambda on her shield.
I took the only possible course of action at this stage, and kept quiet, but every time I saw her shield I cringed inside. No-one noticed.
I've never told anyone about this before. This is the first audience that I thought would understand!
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 01, 2025, 08:38 AMI've never told anyone about this before. This is the first audience that I thought would understand!
I am shocked. But you have taken the first step on the long road to redemption.
Quote from: RichT on Oct 01, 2025, 09:49 AMQuote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 01, 2025, 08:38 AMI've never told anyone about this before. This is the first audience that I thought would understand!
I am shocked. But you have taken the first step on the long road to redemption.
Indeed, by joining the forum you have joined alalaholics anonymous!
Boom tish....
::)
Quote from: dwkay57 on Sep 30, 2025, 06:58 PMI'm quite happy with Byzantines v Aztecs, providing both armies are organised along their historical basis (as far as we know or can guess)
Historical organisation could well be more difficult than figures in the right kit. Unless the ruleset is tightly focussed on a time and place, rule writers rarely seem to focus on this. Indeed, some rules make historical organisation nigh impossible. Note all the discussions here and elsewhere about not being able to use the Roman
triplex acies under x rules, for example.
Very astutely observed Anthony. Often overlooked or at least skimmed over, historical army organisation is a tough nut to argue let alone get 'right'
Indeed, Anthony. What is driving some of my current attempts at rule writing is how to ensure that a player is not penalized if they wish to deploy their troops in historically realistic ways and, if possible, incentivized to do so. Not as easy as it sounds.
Amen to that...a tough nut to crack but a worthy aspiration nonetheless
A nut which your no doubt applying the crackers to in your rules Dave?
More Nutella than nut... ;D
Quote from: Keraunos on Oct 01, 2025, 02:00 PMIndeed, Anthony. What is driving some of my current attempts at rule writing is how to ensure that a player is not penalized if they wish to deploy their troops in historically realistic ways and, if possible, incentivized to do so. Not as easy as it sounds.
While difficult to get right, rigorous playtesting with a variety of players and playing styles helps a lot. Without extensive playtesting, these inconsistencies may be difficult to surface.
Quote from: Jon Freitag on Oct 01, 2025, 07:11 PMQuote from: Keraunos on Oct 01, 2025, 02:00 PMIndeed, Anthony. What is driving some of my current attempts at rule writing is how to ensure that a player is not penalized if they wish to deploy their troops in historically realistic ways and, if possible, incentivized to do so. Not as easy as it sounds.
While difficult to get right, rigorous playtesting with a variety of players and playing styles helps a lot. Without extensive playtesting, these inconsistencies may be difficult to surface.
Agreed. That's where the SoA Convention comes in handy, trying out rules with a new group of people interested in the questions you are trying to address and with a variety of experience and ideas to help get things over the line.
Quote from: Keraunos on Oct 01, 2025, 02:00 PMIndeed, Anthony. What is driving some of my current attempts at rule writing is how to ensure that a player is not penalized if they wish to deploy their troops in historically realistic ways and, if possible, incentivized to do so. Not as easy as it sounds.
To some extent, being historically 'accurate' would disincentivize or prevent unhistorical deployment which is better in game terms. Having proper reserves for instance.
Piquet did this by having certain deployment options which were only available to more 'sophisticated' armies.
Unfortunately it removes one of the main decision points for a player and can end up with battles becoming too repetitive.
On the appearance side, using historical examples can look better than using imagination. I think historical heraldry is generally more interesting than made up examples and the rules of colour were applied because it makes the colours pop more. I noticed this when I found a D&D figure I painted when a callow youth. The red cross on blue background just didn't stand out.
There can be limitations on appearance due to what is suppled by manufacturers- my early 15th century knights mostly came with horses with housings even though they were probably less common than that. On the plus side, it does make them look nice. The Teutonic Knights likely didn't use coverings on their horses but the folk image is so strong that they seem wrong even if historically they are right(ish).
I think it is possible to organise armies along known or near-known historical structures, irrespective of other factors. In the Completed Armies Thread, David Stevens has organised his Sassanians in line with the "seven great families" so it may not be just me. Be interested to learn if this affects their performance on the battlefield.
I do think that the writers of army lists do have some responsibility too. For instance in Slingshot 359, the Age of Hannibal list for Early Germans mentions the various tribes and outlines some of the differences but the list itself does not really bring out the differences in the tribes nor potentially the impact of some of them being allied.
I applaud army list writers and yet at the same time echo what David says. It would be nice to have more detail and context and of course the standard answer is well if you want it do it yourself
Which is why I am doing it for my dark age armies and digging another rabbit hole for myself
Quote from: Swampster on Oct 02, 2025, 07:30 AMOn the appearance side, using historical examples can look better than using imagination. I think historical heraldry is generally more interesting than made up examples and the rules of colour were applied because it makes the colours pop more.
Non-historical heraldry has three major advantages for me
1. Identifying the heraldry. It can be difficult to find historical heraldry, and identifying the individuals who you need in the army beyond the commanders.
2. A more generic approach allows you to use the same figures in more than one army.
3. My artistic abilities are not up to tackling a lot of the more complex heraldry of the later Middle Ages.
QuoteThere can be limitations on appearance due to what is suppled by manufacturers- my early 15th century knights mostly came with horses with housings even though they were probably less common than that. On the plus side, it does make them look nice.
Agreed. Most of my early 15th century knights have caparisoned horses, because that's what their original owner bought. If you look at the Hinchliffe catalogue, though, you will see they only produced one unarmoured horse and that a bit on the small side so he didn't get a lot of choice. My 14th century cavalry are very colourful but, again, in barding terms, far too much of it. Incidentally, on the choice available point, most wargames covered medieval horses have their tails through the cover, whereas period sources much more frequently show the tail under the cover. So it's hard to be accurate, even if you try :)
Quote from: dwkay57 on Oct 02, 2025, 07:34 AMI think it is possible to organise armies along known or near-known historical structures, irrespective of other factors. In the Completed Armies Thread, David Stevens has organised his Sassanians in line with the "seven great families" so it may not be just me.
I think there is a difference between being able to identify troops as a named entity (that warband there is the Chatti) and organising them tactically to operate as their historical prototype. If I say that Roman unit is the Tenth Legion, what does it mean within the rules?
Quote from: Erpingham on Oct 02, 2025, 10:14 AMQuote from: Swampster on Oct 02, 2025, 07:30 AMOn the appearance side, using historical examples can look better than using imagination. I think historical heraldry is generally more interesting than made up examples and the rules of colour were applied because it makes the colours pop more.
Non-historical heraldry has three major advantages for me
1. Identifying the heraldry. It can be difficult to find historical heraldry, and identifying the individuals who you need in the army beyond the commanders.
2. A more generic approach allows you to use the same figures in more than one army.
3. My artistic abilities are not up to tackling a lot of the more complex heraldry of the later Middle Ages.
I'm not thinking so much of heraldry to match particular individuals and I understand that most people want to have generic knights rather than specific ones for each different nation. What I was thinking more was where I have seen combinations of colours - like my red cross on blue - which don't work either aesthetically or heraldically.
By looking at historic examples there are quite a few simple designs which are still easy to do but which add a bit more variation than the more common fesses, bends etc.
P.
Quote from: Swampster on Oct 02, 2025, 08:25 PMWhat I was thinking more was where I have seen combinations of colours - like my red cross on blue - which don't work either aesthetically or heraldically.
By looking at historic examples there are quite a few simple designs which are still easy to do but which add a bit more variation than the more common fesses, bends etc.
We are in agreement here. I might make arms up, but I follow the rules and spend time looking at real arms in my heraldry books or online for inspiration. I'm afraid I have to confess, I am dreadful at animal charges. I should have far more lions, eagles and so on than I do :-[
I find animal charges (in 15mm anyway) more forgiving than many of the straight line designs. My eye gets drawn to wobbly or uneven supposedly straight lines more than the animals which have the advantage that they are supposed to be wobbly and uneven.
Scale is your friend again here to a degree...
My animals tend to look like they have been in a Cronenberg movie
I think it is having the entity structured and operating tactically as such that comes before the naming.
So, there may be a Chatti warband but where are their accompanying skirmishers and cavalry (if any) and are they all under the command of a Chatti chieftain rather than scattered about the force?
And whether the Tenth legion gets a bonus for being Caesar's Tenth is optional as long as it can be identified as a body of up to 5,000 men under the command of a legate and depending upon your level of abstraction organised into cohort sized units.
P.S. If our noble editor could see what I've tried to paint on the shields of my 6mm hoplites, he would be very cross.
;D