Doing an Empire/English Civil War Army -- Episode Two: Cavalry

Posted by Ranillon on 23. August 2010 21:41

This week I take a look at Warlord Game's English Civil War basic cavalry set, compare them to their Games Workshop equivalents, and give a little history about how their real life counterparts worked.

Cavalry in the Era of the English Civil War

By the mid-16th century cavalry had nearly completely transitioned from the heavy armored, lance wielding knights of the High Middle Ages to the more lightly armored pistol and sword strike force.  With the invention of the wheellock a practical pistol gunpowder weapon became available to mounted troops and in the process altered their battlefield role.  Unlike the matchlock harquebus of the infantry which was large, bulky, and required you to load your weapon while clutching a burning match cord -- gunpowder and open flames don't mix well, especially at the gallop -- the wheellock was compact, dependable, and safer.  It allowed you to carry pistols that could be pulled out and fired at a moment's notice.  That meant that cavalry could now be lethal at range without necessarily requiring you to get stuck in.
 
Likewise, given the power of gunpowder weapons heavy suits of armor became more trouble -- and especially more expense -- than they were generally worth, although you could still see some units in plate armor (cuirassiers) even in the early part of the English Civil War and Thirty Years War (this type of armored cavalryman would never quite go away and would in fact enjoy a revival of sorts in the 18th and 19th centuries, although in a significantly altered form).  Accordingly, speed and maneuverability became more important while the armor a mounted soldier typically carried into battle was reduced to a chest plate and helmet.

By the time of the English Civil War there were two main ways to use standard cavalry.  The first was the caracole, a tactic where the pistol armed cavalrymen would ride up toward their target only to angle away once they came within range, fire at the enemy in turn, and then retire back the way they came to reload and start the process all over again.  In the era before the Civil War this had the advantage of allowing the cavalry to use their superior firepower -- pistols could be fired faster and more dependably, plus you could take more than one -- to whittle down opposing infantry, but as the organization and weapons of the harquebusier improved this method of attack became increasingly ineffective.

The second common tactic was a return to the cavalry charge, but in this case one backed up with gunpowder fueled firepower.  The rider would gallop into battle with sword and pistol, enhancing the impact of his charge by using his firearm at close range (sometimes by placing it right up against his enemy's body before pulling the trigger!).  This approach gave back the cavalry its 'shock and awe' role in battle, enabling it to once again be the unit of decision.  Both sides in the Civil War tended to prefer this type of cavalry -- Prince Rupert, the famous Royalist general, was a renowned cavalryman while the ultimately even more famous Oliver Cromwell made his name leading his horsemen to victory in a number of crucial battles.

The ECW Cavalry Models

The Warlord Games English Civil War cavalry box comes with 12 plastic models and costs around $28 (depending on the exchange rate at the time).  As you can see these models best fit the role of Pistoliers within the Empire army -- guys on unbarded horses with light armor and wheellock pistols.  It costs $22 for just five plastic Empire Pistoliers.  That is an average cost of $4.40 a model compared to just $2.33 for the Warlord equivalents.

Yet, what does it matter if the models look like garbage, right?  Well, here are some images of a completed group of eight ECW cavalry figures:

Taste is of course a subjective thing, but I think these models stack up rather well against Games Workshop pistoliers.  Admittedly, with GW you have the option of Pistoliers or Outriders, but in the end you are left with just five models for $22.  I don't see how anyone could contend that the Warlord figures or the box set as a whole are only half as good as a similar GW set.  The Warlord figures obviously do not come with GW bases so you'll need to purchase those separately.

The models themselves usually only require about five pieces each, thereby making construction pretty fast.  While the GW Pistoliers can be posed in a wider range of positions most are just minor variations of the same thing (like the angle at which an arm is pointed) so in the case the differences don't add up to very much.  Beyond that these Warlord cavalry figures are the same scale as Empire Pistoliers and have much the same look (if admittedly missing the poofy sleeves).  If your playing partner doesn't look closely he won't even notice the difference.

Note that while you can buy "Royalist" or "Parlimentary" cavalry in separate box sets both use the exact same models.  The only difference is that the paper flags that come with either fit the side listed on the box.

Quickshade Test

Posted by gbprime on 15. July 2010 10:13

A few months back, I acquired a can of Quickshade (product link here).  The store owner was raving about how good a product it was and how much better it was than poly stain for dipping miniatures.  I'd done a dipped army before and was comfortable with it's use, so I dropped 30 bucks on a can and decided to give it a try.

A squad of my marines volunteered.  I had painted these guys up in 1999 for the Chicago GT, and they were an all-drybrush job, so they seemed like good candidates to try a varnish wash treatment on.  Here they are before the treatment.

Using the medium strength color, I brushed the entire miniature and dabbed off the excess.  I let the varnish dry for 36 hours and then sprayed the minis with dullcoat to remove the gloss effect of the varnish.  The result was a noticable yet subtle shade-and-ink of the miniatures.  It doesn't subtract from the look of the miniatures and darkens the colors only slightly, but it does fill in the joints nicely, giving them the depth they were missing in my haste to get them done for the GT years ago.

The Quickshade product is indeed superior to poly stain varnishes.  It is quite brushable (unlike the poly stain), does not bubble, flows like an ink, and is thick enough to stick in all the places it needs to go in a single coat. 

Unlike an ink, however, the quickshade requires a dullcoat afterward if any additional work is to be done to the miniature.  that breaks up the paint surface and makes blending look funny.  the quickshade also sticks to flat surfaces unlike inks, resulting in certain surfaces having a pool of darkness that really needs to be retouched.  (only because of the dullcoat requirement, that's kind of difficult)  The 30 dollar price tag is a bit of a bummer too.

In summation, Quickshade is a great product to do an entire army quickly and have a force that looks great from 3 feet away.  It's up close you'll notice the shortcomings of the shortcut, so you won't be winning any painting awards by relying on this product.  For that, stick to regular inks.

Judging Painting for Dummies, Part Two

Posted by Ranillon on 13. November 2009 17:46

Okay, here are some select examples from the 2009 Chicago Grand Daemon that I want to use to illustrate the various skills that go into great (and not so great) miniatures painting (It also makes for a new record for pictures in a blog post here).

 First, the Slayer Sword winner himself:

 
What you notice first here is the fine level of detail combined with neatness.  Examine the points of transition between various colors or portions of his outfit.  They aren't muddled, but rather distinct as you would expect the real thing to be. Likewise, the levels of blending are outstanding with the glint of reflection off the metals or the subtle transitions from darker to lighter areas both clear and natural.  I have seen better, but this is fine work.

Now check out the two examples above.  I list them to help illustrate what for the most part works on the model.  I think that the gems are especially nice, but the robe shading is actually not quite as good as I've seen elsewhere.  The best figures would have an even more subtle transition between layers, so much so as to make the shadowing effect seem completely natural.  Still, it's worth noting how difficult it is to achieve this level of excellence.

 

The next example is the 40K single miniature winner.  What is interesting here is how the model demonstrates just how powerful the "5 foot effect" can really be.  By that I mean painting with the notion of "How good will this model/army look at normal playing distances?"  In this case the effect is excellent -- notice how in the first picture the armor shines like actual metal.  Yet, when you examine the second close up image you can clearly see individual brush strokes.  This is only a mild criticism -- ideally you don't want to notice individual strokes even up close, but the overall effect here is nevertheless excellent.

  

This next example is of the winning 40K Unit.  What I really like here is how nice and vibrant the greens are.  It is easy to look at this and think "So, what?  It's just the basic colors being applied" but look at how solid they are.  It is harder than you think to get that "like if a machine sprayed it on" appearance on models.  The basic technique is to water down your colors to get an even application, but the solution sounds easier than it is to do in real life, especially when you are talking about the small areas on individual models.

This next example is the winning Warhammer monster and what's most obvious is the fine job done on the skin.  Ironically, whereas the last technique is a bit harder than it looks this is a bit easier than it looks as the natural contours on the model help define the areas of lighter and darker skin.  It is then just a matter of making sure you transition between them as naturally as possible (with the more complicated textures being the easier to do).  Its work that requires a lot of extensive, even tedious, work, but the end effect can be quite nice.

Continuing on in this vein...

   

Here are two more examples of color/shading transitions, one much better than the other.  The first -- the Large Model winner -- has a nice layered face, if not perfect (the transitions between grays and browns are a bit abrupt, but then again it does give a sunken, gaunt appearance).  If you compare this one with the giant you can see the advantage of having a more complex/muscled skin -- smoother skin means you can't use the rough edges as a 'cheat' to help produce shadowing.  That is something to keep in mind when judging.

In comparison to the last two, the second model in this row -- the third place diorama -- has some really average blending.  The transition on the tunic is especially heavy-handed, the sort of result anyone can get with moderate effort.  This doesn't mean it is a terrible job -- it would still be well above average at any typical gaming shop -- but is rather surprising for a placing Grand Daemon winner.

These next two are Young Blood winners so they shouldn't be judged as critically, but you can nevertheless tell that they are quite a bit less advanced that what you saw before.

The first example (the marine) has a lot of empty black spots.  Now, using (usually) black lining can be a handy technique for distinguishing different parts of a model (and saving on the effort), but you can't take it this far without losing points.  The rope is especially glaring as only the forward top is really painted at all.

The second example (the vampire) only has two layers most everywhere -- which is a bare minimum.  You just aren't going to get much depth with only two.  Likewise, it isn't that hard to do as it only requires a single round of drybrushing.

Well, I don't want to make this too long so I will end here, but in the future I will do similar evaluations and comparisons when the opportunity comes.

Judging Painting for Dummies, Part One

Posted by Ranillon on 8. November 2009 21:58

One of the things I’ve learned over the last few years is that it is actually harder to judge good miniatures painting than I had originally thought.  I think that is partially because the best way to become a good judge is to actually paint yourself – by going through the process you learn what is easier and what is harder. 

However, I think just as important a factor is that most people haven’t really sat down and figured out what good painting looks like.  Sure, they can see a particular miniature and instinctively come to the conclusion that it’s “good” or “bad”, but they often can’t deeply explain the exact reasons for their decision.  They just “know”.  The problem is that without a clearer, more conscious understanding of the process of painting you can get fooled into thinking some effect was hard just because it is “spectacular” or, at the other extreme, that another job is mediocre because it strikes them as “uninteresting.”

Such misunderstandings can be potential issues for two basic reasons – One, it can negatively impact your assessment of your own abilities (I know from experience that it is easy to think you are a better painter than you actually are), and; two, more rarely, if you are ever asked to judge miniatures painting in a contest you may produce results that will leave those in the know scratching their heads.

So, with this article I want to get into the basics of judging miniatures painting.  To help me do so I am going to grab some examples from the recently posted Chicago 2009 Grand Daemon painting competition (you can see them at the Games Workshop site right here).

One proviso before I begin – while there are general benchmarks most anyone will use grading painting when it comes to miniatures is something of an art rather than science.  So, consider this to be my own personal opinion as to what matters the most.  With experience you might come to subtly different conclusions, but I doubt there would be a significant divergence between those and what you’ll read here.

The Basics of Miniatures Painting and Judging

Generally speaking I would say that there are five different aspects to pay attention to when judging a painting job:

1) Color Selection and Application:  What colors did the painter use and in what patterns?  Does it fit the model and draw your attention to its most important aspects or does the painter seem to be color blind?

2) Neatness:  How orderly and neat is the painting job?  I don’t mean whether or not the overall scheme is blocky or unimaginative, but rather does the painting make the model look “real” or is there bleed over that makes different aspects of the model muddled?

3) Layering and Blending:  How many layers did the artist apply?  Do they transition well or seem jarring?  Are the curves and edges of the model distinct, yet natural looking?  Does the shading on the model transition nicely from light to shadow or is the lighting haphazard?

4) Conversions:  Is the model just straight out of the blister or has the individual converted it into something different?  How complicated are the conversions and how naturally do the fit into the overall concept of the model?

5) Basing:  What sort of base is the model on and has any work been done on it?  Is the work well done and natural?

Another consideration when judging squads or entire armies is how well the individual models fits into an integrated whole.  An army should, well, look like a unified army and not some odd polyglot of colors and shapes.

Not everyone will see these five (maybe six) criteria as all being worth same.  For instance, conversions are often seen as being less important than the actual painting and may only be used to determine tie-breakers between different otherwise similar painting jobs.  So, when it doubt spend time on painting rather than conversions.

Likewise, there is a degree of personal taste involved.  For instance, many people are impressed with a complicated and detailed base on the model, but I personally dislike anything fancy.  It's a strictly personal quirk, but when I see a figure on an extravagant base I can't help but think it is a bit silly -- what, does that knight bring that rock with him on which to pose wherever he goes?  Does that Sentinel has that dead ork glued to its foot so he's always stepping on it when he moves?  Especially cinematic poses also break my suspension of belief -- that's not a Space Wolf in the midst of vicious battle with a Tyranid genestealer, but rather a stiff bronze statue in the middle of some village square.

More to come -- including numerous examples!

Still Painting

Posted by Ranillon on 1. October 2009 20:56

I haven't offered many finished painting pieces recently, concentrating more on conversions or straightforward articles.  So, just to prove I haven't put up my brushes here is my latest effort -- a new model for our regular Saturday night D+D game.

He is a Reaper Warlord miniature.  Overall I don't think the Reaper does quite as good a job as GW, but they do produce many great models -- and at lower prices.  Many of their efforts (especially their Warlord line) are of the same basic scale as Warhammer/40K and could be used as stand-ins for some armies rather easily.  The knight above would work well as an Empire or Bretonnian character, for instance.  They also have the virtue of providing models for potential ideas that are harder to do using just pure GW.