More rebasing - Huns!

So I need some Huns for the campaign I have in mind to run, and I do have quite a few Huns (albeit old figures, not nearly up to modern standards). In fact more Huns than I ever seemed to manage to get onto the table at once. Which made it an attractive idea to rebase some of them to fit in with the Mortem et Gloriam ruleset's concept of "flexible" formations.

i.e. the 3-to-a-bases ones have been rebased, the 2-to-a-base ones have not.

 

There is of course an obvious problem; I have changed my idea over the years of of what bases for Steppe inhabitants should look like, and I now feel some pressure to rebase the 2-to-a-base elements as well to be consistent. I will try to resist this urge!

It is also interesting what you discover when you look closely at these toys that have been with you a long time. The rear-most unit was originally on 25mm deep bases. When the WRG rules of the time changed to 30mm for cavalry, being more lazy back in those days I simply put the existing bases on top of new 30mm ones. I managed to camouflage the step discontinuity reasonably well so that I had forgotten about it.

This dates the painting of those figures back to sometime in the early '80s? I remember at the time being rather pleased with them as being an improvement on stuff I had painted previously. Looking at them now...lets' be polite about this... I can't honestly say I find the flat, dull style particularly appealing.

But this now reminds me that I will find the same thing if I look closely at some of my Roman cavalry too :(

I also have the question of what to do about the masses of Gothic infantry I will also need for the campaign. I'm not sure I can face rebasing all of them to represent "flexible" formations! But having started down this route, perhaps I need to see it through to its full conclusion?

Commanders and re-basing

(Not really "painting", but I didn't want to create a new label just for this post!)

Many new rules systems take as a core philosophy that they allow players to use existing established basing conventions. For obvious and beneficial reasons! However, there does always seem to be something that doesn't quite fit...

In my most recent previous wargaming life, my Ancients rulesets were DBMM and FoG. I more or less got away with ignoring the differences between the two systems. I did create a few more bases of some troop types, since in FoG they needed to be grouped in 4s, 6s, or 8s to form viable units, but expanding available is something that doesn't really need much encouragement! I compromised by using my DBMM-style 2-to-a-base Roman legionary archers in mixed legionary/archer units rather than create additional 4-to-a-base archers, opponents didn't seem to have a problem with this. And I used my DBMM commander bases in FoG, attaching them to 40mm x 40mm sabot bases.

Now for some reason - probably not unrelated to the increased difficulty of picking out the commander bases in a crowded photo! - I have decided that I need to have some appropriately MeG-style commanders. And yet I want to retain the DBMM-style commanders - although it is a good few years since I last played and I have almost completely forgotten the rules, it is quite possible that I will play them again at some point.

Some of my late Roman commanders I can live with - they have extremely large banners so are quite visible. But for the others...

I spent a bit of time going through my figures and identified some that are probably surplus to potential DBMM (or similar) requirements and could be cannibalised for MeG. Work in progress still - the single figures look a bit lonely, but I didn't find anything to go with them yet so some additional buying and painting may be required, to be decided...and I do have some more spare Hellenistic officer and banner figures but have run out of the 40mm circular bases. But Romans, Germanics, and Huns were my immediate requirement, as that is what I will need for the campaign I have in mind for the near future. I think (hope!) I now have enough for that purpose!

 

Further re-configuration work is called for because of the MeG "flexible" formation type, but that is another story! I am wrestling with the question of whether to rebase some of my existing "flexible" troops (making them unsuitable for DBMM use), acquire and paint new figures from the same manufacturer, or just live with putting formation markers on the table. Choices, choices, choices.

Painting: first Chinese Northern Dynasties

 I shouldn't think I'll be posting pictures of my painting efforts that often - I don't lay claim to any particular technical artistry, nor can I even say I am a quick painter. But as the first unit (or 2 or 3 units if used in MeG:Pacto) of the Chinese army I have meant to get around to starting for oooh only about 25 years or so now, these seem quite a significant milestone.

The combination of much-reduced social activity, plus the born-again enthusiasm of coming back to the the hobby after a number of years away, seem to have given me unexpected powers of actually getting started on new large projects :D

The style may not be to everybody's taste. But it works for me: not difficult to paint; and as long as my tired old eyes are happy with the effect when I don't squint at them too closely, I call it a success!

Anyway, hopefully there are many more units to come, and hopefully some will be a step up from the "hastily conscripted peasants with some sort of pointy stick" aesthetic. A pause on painting has been called for the moment though, as it is time to switch the table back to gaming use...