"Warsmurfs" Topic

The question about how to decide what gauge wire to use for spears got me wondering.

The average height of a roman soldier was 5’7", a modern one 5’9" to 5’10" in European countries.

About 90% of men fall into the following range of proportions

height 7 to 7-1/2 times the height of the head

Width of hands across the palm 1/20 to 1/15 of height

If you met a man with proportions even slightly outside these ranges you would think them strikingly odd looking. A man with a head 1/6 the height of his body would look freakish, like a gigantic child.

So why do even historical figures routinely have heads 1/5 their height with some even bigger?

Measure across your palm at the knuckles. Now imagine how big your hand would be if it were 7 inches across, yet this is the ordinary size of a hand on modern figures, some are much larger.

How did it get this silly?

In the old days of soft lead alloys there was some excuse. Weapons were so soft they had to be oversized for durability and this lead to an oversizing of extremities but non-lead alloys are much stronger and yet the distortions have gotten far more extreme.

Lots of people apparently love this style, and that’s great, to each their own. I always have to suppress a chuckle when someone shows me one. In my mind’s eye I can’t help seeing them all painted blue.

Buy soft plastic figures - they are actually correctly proportioned.
Course, you can't see expressions on their faces, and their hands are small.......

Or - to that matter - hard plastic ones. In "bigger" scale (1/35, 1/32 or 54mm) the expression on the face is clearly visible, and the proportions of figures are as realistic as they can get. And I know of people who actually game with these.

I actually like wargaming style - oversized heads and palms, chunky proportions... But that's me. For each his own.

Cheers

matheo

This isn't as bad as it could be. I know people who'd play with chibis if they could get them.

(Chibi -- super-deformed anime-style. Typically three to four heads high, with grossly oversized hands and feet. See Final Fantasy VII for an example.)

I love super-deformed anime style. As do I love the 'standard' deformation on 28mm miniatures. But I would just as easily buy a more realistically proportioned figure. The important thing is that it be well sculpted and designed.

It is the problem of scale. The features have to be exaggerated to make them show up.

Think of a model of a car. The full size car might have a 1% camber. But you would never notice a scale 1% camber in a 1/48 model. So it would have to be exagerrated to start to seem like the real thing.

The larger the scale, the less important this is.

I play with Gundan Chibis, on certain ocassions.

Brutal, bloody --well, "oily"--, no holds barred fights when a good measure of "whimsical" attitudes are needed in groups that has been "serious" for far too much time, and the spirits begin to sour...

You can get those --the chibis-- just as easily as any other Gundam models. Just go to your favourite spot and ask for them.

Hmmm, now that I como to think of it, the sour spirits also are easy to get for some people...

Features do not have to be exaggerated for them to show up. In real life, if you find someone that fits between your thumb and forefinger(spread apart to the size of the figure you use in your games), walking towards you, you will not see the deliniation of his fingers. You will not see the pockets, how many pens his has in his pocket, etc.

It's fine to use "heroic" style of sculpted figures if that is your thing. My idea of what WWII (as an example) soldiers looked like does not come from my collection of old comic books, therefore I demand more human proportions in what I take my time to paint. Someone needs to tell a few designers that an M1 Garrand is NOT the same size as an M-1 carbine!

Is this the effect of the GW style oozing into the historical (read: traditionally attempts made at making miniature humans) minis?

Tom Dye
GFI

The reason you can’t see the expressions on the faces of most plastic figures is because they are 22mm tall and they were sculpted for a process which allows for almost no undercuts, not because such detail isn’t possible in a well proportioned figure in tin. You don’t need a catchers-mitt sized hand to hold a normal weapon.

It’s true the smaller the figure the more useful exaggeration is when viewed by the naked eye but figures have been getting bigger and more exaggerated at the same time! We now have 32mm figures and larger, yet they are much more exaggerated than old 25’s which have about half the surface area.

I can see the value of this sort of caricature for fantasy or science-fantasy but why did it take over historical figures?

I suspect that the same guys who are getting paid to make the fantasy figs are the same ones who do sculpts for historicals, and it's hard to turn your style off.

At least, that's an explanation -- I have no hard facts to support this whatsoever. ;)

I think that the answer to your question has to do with the success of the Perry's and Copplestone.

Earlier Perry stuff had the slightly exagerated style, as does current Copplestone. Their ranges with the Foundry were far ahead of anything else available in terms of quality AND completeness of each range (their Late Romans are a great example - there were better individual figures available, but not as a whole range).

T Meier-

[The question about how to decide what gauge wire to use for spears got me wondering.]

Your answer to that question that I posted was very helpful. Thanks again. I used 1/32 brass rod for the 28mm pikers. When I actually measured the figures, they were 30mm from the bottom of the foot to the eyes! I figured that an average man was about 5'8" (give or take). Adding about 2mm for the area from the eyes to the top of the head (forehead), the figure is actually about 32mm+, or about 1:54 scale, "conveniently" falling between standard 1:48 and 1:64 scales.

Using the above calculations, the 1/32 brass rod produces a pike thickness in scale of about 1.7" which seems about right. They actually look great. If I had used the customary "smurf-like" proportions for my pikes, I imagine that they would look like "circus tent poles."

I agree that figures are getting a bit too comic book-ish in appearance. I cannot imagine why sculptors simply do not create figurees that are well proportioned and anatomically correct. Certainly sculpting and casting has come a long way since the days of Jack Scruby, et al.

John

I guess it's a matter of a few people doing the actual creative stuff and the rest just doing more of the same which snowballs into a new "standard".

Standards are dangerous. If you go against the flow, your product might not sell. People will not want your miniatures since they can't use them with those from maker X or Y, or even complain that they "look inhumanly thin".

Interesting post - one point.

I recently read that many resins, because of formaldyhyde, would rust steel/iron pins. As resin figures are getting more common - avoid steel.

I think an important part of the answer is pretty evident: such minis are easier to sculpt.
You are probably too much experienced to remember this but for a less experienced sculptors if you're not carefull your minis tend to be overbulked and oversized, especially hands and heads. This come probably more naturally and BTW new sculptors tend to take the "standard" figures as reference so minis are getting more disproportionned at each "generation".

However that's certainly not the only reason. Emphazy in fantasy and standardisation are good reasons too.

Well, I guess they sell well. The bottom line is the bottom line ;)

Personally, I like the somewhat exaggerated style (say, Copplestone) because I can paint it better.

I have a bunch of "true" 25mm figures, mostly old Ral Partha. They are beautiful in the lead, but I'll probably never get around to painting them. They are just so teeny compared to anything else and the detail is so shallow it just disappears the minute I slap paint on the figure.

As for weapons, I don't care for the current cricket bats in some fantasy lines, but neither am I fan of realistic "sneeze that way and it's bent or broken" weapons.

These are gaming pieces. They are supposed to stand up to some handling.

That said, too much is too much. Some lines/sculptors are going overboard with it, but then I'm not buying those.

Stylistically, I prefer the more realistic anatomy. That's why this historical gamer has bought about $500 worth of GW LOTR miniatures in the last two years.

A line has to be complete these days, for me to buy it. At least 6 variations of the same pose of line troops, commanders, specialist troops, etc. GW did that for me with LOTR, and made the Perry brothers sculpt realistic anatomy, to boot. It was enough to make me invest heavily in a period that I would not have considered, otherwise.

Crocodile is going to hook me as well. The Spartan commander for Wargods is anatomical, and they have proven that they will deliver an entire line to match. So they will get my business.

I just won't buy incomplete lines any more - no matter how brilliant the individual figures are. And this probably is the reason that I will bite the bullet and go with the prevailing exaggerated historical figures for my next army pair - because nobody else is doing a complete range in the older, more correct anatomical style. And completeness trumps style, in the end

I don’t think it’s lack of sculpting skill. You only have to look at the finish on many of these figures to see how skilled the designer was.

Saying it’s due to the success of certain designers style just moves the question, why the success of such a strange style?

The completeness theory has an interesting point but I don’t see how that alone can account for it. A very complete line of historical figures with physiques like the ‘Thrudd’ figure recently posted would probably not do so well.

I think the paint better also has a good point and the flip-side which is that this style is undoubtedly much quicker to sculpt.

Let me put it another way; why is it in the other hobbies where adults "play with children’s toys" model railroading and model kit building, the most scrupulous accuracy and scale is observed but in model soldiers it is flouted? ‘Toy’ trains exist with bloated scale and exaggerated, simplified features, just as in the model soldier hobby, yet model railroaders shun them and would regard the use of them for anything but a novelty ridiculous.

So why has the miniature figure hobby embraced distortion?

I'll take another stab at the completeness explanation.

I've been collecting miniatures since 1975, and have many of your miniatures, Tom. So I know zippo about the production end of the business, but a lot about the customer end. :-)

No, a complete Thrud line would flop, but here is another real-life example:
In 1997 I was keen to do Samurai. Dixon had a range, but they had pumpkin heads. The Perrys (Foundry) had a limited range, but were beautiful for the time. Old Glory had a cruder range, but was more complete than even Dixon.

I painted 600 of the Old Glory. I didn't love them, but they had all the units that I wanted. And that's the point - a partial range might as well not even show up to the market. I'd rather be able to field a complete army from one range than cobble together a bunch of units from different manufacturers. On the tabletop, an army made up of 1/2 gorgeous sculpts and 1/2 mediocre ones (fillers for units that the gorgeous manufacturer didn't make) looks WORSE than a homogenous army of mediocre sculpts. Really.

If I had it to do over, I'd go with the new Perry range. Much more anatomical (their LOTR work seems to be having some influence), and it is complete. Miles ahead of anything else out there.

A sculptor that steps up to the plate, and does a complete matched historical pair of armies in a true anatomical style, with all options will sell miniatures. But if he even just makes ONE of the two sides (Greeks, but not Persians), I won't buy. Who will I pit the gorgeous Greeks against? Oversized Persians from another manufacturer? It looks horrible on the tabletop. Again, on the grand canvas of a beautiful tabletop game, you are better off with opposing armies cast in the same style. It HAS to be a turnkey job.

In 2003, completeness wins - that means a historically matched pair with all options. Ditto for everything else. I'm buying into Wargods of the Olympus for this reason (if the later releases match the initial sculpts).

Can anyone do this and make money? Probably not. But Crocodile does seem to be making some suprising inroads with guys like me.

Tjskupin;

Your completeness theorem is good but there must be more to it or Minifigs would still be the biggest manufacturer of historical figures in the world.

Also your answer leads to the question of why does it seem to matter less that the figures be accurate models in the miniatures hobby than that they be a complete line? I don’t think this would be the case in model railroads. If a very complete line in a new scale came out which was weirdly distorted I think model railroaders would ignore it, no matter how good the detail was perceived to be.

It’s a question I can’t seem to arrive at a definitive answer to.

I have to agree with maxxon.

Having painted hundreds of Partha figs in the past and many dozens of Copplestone recently, the Copplestone style figs are simply far easier to paint.

Even people whom I consider mediocre painters (at best) seem to field decent looking Copplestone figs out on the table.

With the exagerated relief and a lot less 'fiddly' detail you can get a pretty good looking fig with about half the time and effort of the older Partha figs.

My major complaint about Copplestone is that every one of his figs is carrying a small cannon instead of a rifle.

That said, when you are looking at a pile of unpainted lead, the ability to get them painted quickly with a better looking result is a pretty big draw.

Personally I am really looking forward to painting some of the Perry's LOTR figs. Very nice indeed. Too bad they come on those #@%&* plastic slotta bases. The first thing I had to do was remaount them on pennies.

Regards, the Gorb

Great discussion, BTW.

I think that the answer lies in the extremes that you use as examples. Minifigs are clearly out of date, and are not complete in terms of 2003 technology, i.e. can you get 8 slight variations of Napoleonic French line advancing (like Foundry 25mm, or my AB 15's)? No. You get a couple of very different poses, but nothing like we have come to expect.

If model railroaders were given the choice between having a set with a beautiful engine and caboose, but no freight cars, or a cruder train with freight cars, circus cars, and a Pullman coach, a good chunk of them take the cruder option. And that is what I am faced with every day.

Another real-life example - I wanted to do 1/600 scale ironclads. Peter Pig has a huge range of mediocre ships. Thoroughbred at the time had only a few - not enough for both sides of common scenarios. I could not stomach the Peter Pigs, so I actually waited a few years until the Thoroughbred line was complete, because the quality is astonishing. And then I bought a bunch of them.

So, if quality drops too low, completeness will not make the sale for me. But completeness is the single MOST important factor that has guided my purchases for the last decade. I'll delay a period if the available figures make me ill, but if they only give me occasional heartburn, then I'll probably bite the bullet, and trust in my faithful brush to do what the sculptor couldn't/wouldn't do.

You are thinking about this as someone who can sculpt and cast whatever he personally wants. The process that the rest of us mere mortals (customers) go through is this:

1. Get excited about a period.
2. Find out who makes decent figures.
3. See if there are enough figures to make an army, and an opponent.
4. If no figures exist to your liking in a complete line, get excited about something else.
5. If you can't get axcited about something else, sigh deeply, and buy figures you don't love, but look o.k. with a great paint job.

I can only buy what the rather small number of historical sculptors make. I would DEARLY love to buy a matched pair of anatomically-correct Tom Meier Greeks and Persians. Or Hussites and Imperialists. But you don't have the time or financial incentive to do that much work (as you pointed out on your web site, historical miniatures just don't pay). So I can either wait for someone to make that perfect train set (probably never), or I can buy a train with actual freight cars now (Old Glory of Foundry).

A range has to have "critical mass" for a tabletop gamer.
Once again - I can only buy what you guys make.

I wasn't saying that the sculptors aren't skilled enough to sculpt more accurate proportions, just that it would requiere more effort. IIRC you wrote it yourself on 1listsculpting about the figures you posted: they required more effort (=more time) because of better proportions and detail.
BTW finish and proportions are 2 different skills, many people having a try at sculpting master one without the other (but of course we can except both from a professional sculptor).
Also I'm a sculptor too, I think that my finish is good but still, if I'm not carefull enough my minis will be overbulked. Better proportion requiere more effort (and are less forgiveable).

About the comparaison with model train: you miss one point, most of the people buying figure are wargammer and are more interested by gaming or background (historical or fantasy) than sculpting skills and proportions. In those conditions minis are more a support for their imagination and recreatting battles than representation of reallity.

If you want an equivalent to the model train hobby that would be historical models collectors of 54 mm (and more) miniatures, which aren't designed for gaming but painting and display. Those are more accuratly proportionned (not only because of the larger scale). Painting is also very different from wargaming historical figure, but that's another topic.

Yes, I misunderstood what you meant. I’m used to trying to be as precise as possible when talking about work with my clients. To make a more precise figure takes longer certainly, though it doesn’t necessarily require more skill. Sort of like the difference between building a boat to cross a river and swimming.

What you say about gamers not being as interested in a figure’s accuracy to scale as it’s function I don’t see. Model Railroaders could easily take the same attitude but they don’t. Toy trains for children have simplified, exaggerated proportions and are cheaper than model trains yet railroad modelers aren’t interested in them. Maybe it’s because model railroaders are generally older.

model railroader are modelists, and then interested in accuracy. Wargamer are more interested in mass effect, figures just need to look right from a distance. Also wargamer prefer plenty cheap figures so the additionnal time for better figures wouldn't pay.
The modelist of the historical figures world are those painting larger display models were it's easier to put every detail (and which are a lot more expensive). Those are almost two different hobbies even though soms peoples belong to both.