"Modelling Bocage for 15mm" Topic

link

Check out the post for tons of great pictures: link

Thanks, this is very helpful and looks wonderful. Adding it to my to-do list.

Outstanding!

Very very nice!

What kind of glue did you use to stick the foliage? I've tried Woodland Scenics own glue, and it works fairly well, but I still get some clumps falling off.

It still doesn't look like the real bocage, too many rocks sticking out.

But you knew that.

@trojan: He uses a hot glue gun. Hobby Tac is worthless for this application (if that is what you are talking about)

@Derek H: So, since he already knew that you are just ?

Actually I think Derek was probably making a helpful comment for those people wanting to model bocage on their wargames table (which is what the topic purports) …

I think the the whole article is a great and really useful terrain building guide. You might also want to use the technique to model bocage provided you don't mind your bocage looking like the rocky foliage barriers in the pictures.

Just my view having read the very useful article.

Phil
pbeyecandy.wordpress.com

To get that effect if is very easy. When flocking I use paint to hold the flock down. So use a heavier mix of static grass to woodland scenics blended turf, and add some brown paint to give the aearance of underbrush. You can also add more clump foliage around the base. There are a ton of products out there you can add to give the "overgrowth" effect.
Bocage is basically a rock wall that over hundreds of years was overgrown with bushes and trees. The younger the wall the more visible the rocks. Again, I personally like the color contrast of the rocks and think it is more visibly pleasing, although not as realistic, on the gaming table.

If you would like to contact me with specific questions, please feel free to contact me at luke@wwpd.net

link
link
link
TMP link

@Derek H: So, since he already knew that you are just ?

Just pointing out the facts for people that don't know them. Bocage hedges do not look like that, the rocks should not be visible.

On the other hand the hedges made by Tim Marshall and linked by 11th ACR above link look very realistic.

It seems that many wargamers when making terrain for the bocage read that the banks are formed by rocks removed from the fields over the years and decide to model the rocks.

Well the banks are formed from rocks, but they're held together with roots and are covered in earth and grass. You hardly ever see a rock poking out, never mind the sort of dry-stone-dyke featured in some of the examples given in this thread.

There's some pictures of real bocage below for anyone interested in getting it right.

The blog post's author also says that some people have said the banks should be higher, well this isn't necessarily the case. The height of the banks is very variable, anything from two feet to twenty feet can easily be found.

One think that's impossible to model on a normal flat wargames table is the sunken roads, which have been worn down, often well below the level of the surrounding countryside, by centuries of use.

I like this method even though it does include some rocks

link

Must get round to trying it one day!

Some examples:
Some Good some Bad!
link
link
link
YouTube link
link
link

It's interesting how a search on bocage yields a lot of wargames pictures.

And this pic here seems to show a couple of rocks sticking out of the bank on the left.

There is one great solution to this bocage debate.

If you like the terrain and think it will look good on your table (great) send me an email if you need any advice making it for yourself.

If you don't like and do not think it looks good or is not historically accurate (great) now go find something else to do and thank you for your opinion.

This post was not intended to waste precious moments of our lives arguing or debating wargaming terrain. Jesus Christ, anyone who wants to do that should really re-evaluate their life. Just sharing some terrain, that I am proud of and like despite the non-realistic attributes, with the hopes of helping fellow wargamers.

I think it looks great thanks for sharing

WWPDLuke wrote:

This post was not intended to waste precious moments of our lives arguing or debating wargaming terrain.

Personally, I think participating in a brief discussion helping people get their bocage terrain right is less of of a waste of time than writing a blog post showing people how to get it wrong.

Your mileage obviously varies.

And on a positive note the foliage bits are very good indeed.

Heh -- looks like I was right.

@Cbaxter Thanks

@Dirty Jon – You are indeed right. It's funny how even when you put disclaimers up people still feel the need to try to force an argument or debate. Even when you say "If you want this look, you can do this…" or "I know this is not technically what bocage looks like, but I like it because it looks good on the table" it's not good enough because you are not arguing and that is frustrating for . The worst thing you can do is feed into these people because they live for an opportunity to embroil themselves in an argument over the internet.

wargaming + trolling =

Looks like something that might have crawled out of Luke's fantasy terrain.

Hey Luke, I've seen photos of bocage with stones and such showing through. Actually not as unrealistic as you inferred in your original post.

You never know what the Earth do.

@Craig – the troll should be at least 40 years old and about 300 pounds, but I like where you are going.

@Derek – is this really that big of a deal to you? Does it really matter? Really? I've tried to be nice, but dude get a life.

@WWPDLuke, Derek is a piece. He criticizes everything and contributes nothing. He's always trying to draw peeps off-sides. Just stay in your stance, follow the snap count, and you'll be fine.

Damn fine bocage, by the way. Post more terrain articles. I'm always interested to see how others do it. A fine line between realism and game playability.

And the Kool-Aid drinkers continue to pile in.

Very nice mate, and PRACTICAL! I did some scenery once for the bocage, dogs danglies it was, till you tried to wargame with it! trees and hedges got broken when vehicles and figs were hidden in them. I love propper scenery, but it has to be wargamable, unless it's for a diarama.
Just my pennies worth

Thanks everyone. i actually am working on a new set of hills that i should be ready to toll out in a few weeks.

I own about 12 feet of Luke's bocage and it is great. I will probably need more someday!

@BlackKnight – Thank you for the reply. I have just completed some new angled pieces to give a little more flexibility for placing the modular design of the bocage. I am very happy to have just received some new fences that are going to work very well for adding gate sections.

Derek – your example is very isolated and not necessarily typical:

OP's stuff looks fine – and it certainly isn't "wrong"

My tuppenworth,

1. Bocage comes in many shapes and sizes:

2. Scenery for WG tables can never be an exact match for whats on the ground as it has to be modular, transportable etc and so has to be designed with this in mind. I'm not convinced the examples Derek would be possible given these considerations.

3. With the bocage that Luke has produced, if one felt strongly that there should be tree roots, grass moss etc in the rocks then just add them on yourself.

I use a similar style to Lukes bocage and I think it works fine:

IMHO, that was a transfer of his dislike for FOW to the terrain someone was making for it, rather than a fair assessment of the terrain itself.

Perhaps you are right firstvarty1979.

It all comes down to tact. You always want to hear criticisms, especially the negatives. But one can choose to get one's points across without always coming off like a douche bag in the process.

Take this:

"It still doesn't look like the real bocage, too many rocks sticking out. But you knew that."

Perhaps factual, but it certainly seems that the author is being deliberately condensing rather than trying to be genuinely helpful as he later claims. Especially so given the normal track record of this individual on this forum.

After being called on trolling, seven days and 13 posts later the author posts this:

"And on a positive note the foliage bits are very good indeed"

Instead of waiting seven days to have anything good to say, a more tactful approach might have been to initially write something along these lines:

"Thanks for sharing your bocage modeling ideas with us Luke. Your foliage on them is quite good although I am concerned that you might have too many rocks sticking out. You might consider using fewer rocks on your next bocage project. Here are some examples you may find useful…."

True, Fair, Helpful…and not a "stick in the eye!"

Of course the key assumptions here are that one actually wants to be truly helpful and is not using this forum just to be a tool. We, all of us, should always remember that what we post here often says more about us than the subject being discussed.

VB

firstvarty1979 wrote:

IMHO, that was a transfer of his dislike for FOW to the terrain someone was making for it, rather than a fair assessment of the terrain itself.

I have spent almost six months of my life on holiday in Normandy and many days walking, cycling and driving around the bocage country. I know what bocage hedges look like and they're not piles of stones with a hedge on top. There are stones in the banks below the hedges, but they are invariably covered with earth and vegetation.

If you're not willing to believe my word then perhaps you might believe the US Army.

"The terrain in the area selected for the initial penetration of French soil was generally level or gently sloping. However, it was broken up into a "crazy quilt" pattern of small fields separated by "hedgerows." These consisted of an earthen mound or wall 8 to 10 feet in width and 4 to 6 feet in height, covered with a scrub undergrowth."

That extract and diagram come from Combat Lessons Number 4. Combat Lessons was a US Army publication designed to "give to .our officers and enlisted men the benefit of the battle experiences of others" and was published in 1944. The full text of the article is available at bit.ly/xLO5DH

"The hedgerows are sturdy embankments, half earth, half hedge. At their base, they resemble dirt parapets and vary in thickness from one to four feet, with heights that range from three to fifteen feet. Growing out of this earthen wall is a hedge that consists of small trees and tangles of vines and brush. This vegetation has a thickness of between one to three feet and varies in height from three to fifteen feet."

Captain Michael D Doubler,(1988) Busting the Bocage: American Combined operations in France 6 June – 31 July 1944, Combat Studies Institute (available at 1.usa.gov/AmeToa )

Note the word s "earth" and "earthen" then look at the diagram above and then look at the pictures already shown or linked to in this thread. Then do a Google Images search on bocage. Note the earth and the vegetation on the banks. Note the almost complete lack of visible stones.

If the OP actually wants to make terrain that looks like the real thing, rather than the fantasy version put forward by Battlefront, then it's just not enough that he should "use fewer rocks" or put "roots grass moss etc in the rocks", he needs to cover the rocks up almost completely and add grass and other vegetation on to the banks.

Examples of how to make functioning wargames terrain that looks more like the real thing can be found at bit.ly/ADnQkK and bit.ly/yZqnJh

It's notable that none of you who are supporting the realism of the OP's terrain have managed to come up with pictures actually looking anything like it. All the pictures anyone has found are completely consistent with my position.

The text above might help you work out why.

But I'd bet good money that you will all ignore the facts and

VonBurge wrote.

it certainly seems that the author is being deliberately condensing

Mr Pot, may I introduce you to Mr Kettle.

Mr Kettle can actually spell condescending, which is what I assume you meant as condensing doesn't make any sense.

He can also spell sanctimonious.

He can also spell sanctimonious.

I bet he can. While I always think people on TMP are too prone to getting upset by other people's 'hate' or 'Fannboy' positions, I think in this case FoW players are right to read an unpleasant subtext in almost everything you post on the subject.

Hell, I don't like FoW at all, but even I am occasionally annoyed by your posts on the topic Derek.Just leave 'em be?

Pat

Welcome back Derek.

VonBurge wrote.

"it certainly seems that the author is being deliberately condensing"

Mr Pot, may I introduce you to Mr Kettle.

Inevitably there is a degree of truth to that statement which I freely acknowledge. That being said, given the tone and demeanor each of us generally uses here I expect that anybody who cares to examine our posting history, stifle ratios, and dog house banishments(none for me), etc will generally come to the conclusion that you push much deeper into kitchen utensil territory than I.

Mr Kettle can actually spell condescending, which is what I assume you meant as condensing doesn't make any sense.

You are smart and it certainly does seem to that you had no problem coming up with the word that I wanted to use, thus I am assured that the intent of my message got through. I do suppose that nitpicking on incorrect spelling, punctuation, or misuse of words is a "technique." However by adopting that technique you might just be giving impression that you're lacking anything substantive to say.

I do appreciate your continued enthusiasm for improving Flames of War. You've got a lot of very useful perspectives to share and I'd like to hear and debate more of them. However, much of your insights end up all for not as the substance and the quality of your comments cannot often project beyond the bow wave of negative energy that you so often seem determined to churn up.

The suggestion in my above post was simple. If you want to be taken more seriously and perhaps throw off the yoke of "hater/troll"…just try a little tact. I'm pretty sure it will not kill you. Otherwise your comments, as good as your points sometimes are, will often just amount to a waste of your time and a degradation of your credibility on the issues under discussion.

Good luck,

VB

It's notable that none of you who are supporting the realism of the OP's terrain have managed to come up with pictures actually looking anything like it. All the pictures anyone has found are completely consistent with my position.

The text above might help you work out why.

But I'd bet good money that you will all ignore the facts and continue with what has all the appearance of a collective case of wilful ignorance fuelled by copious amounts of Battlefront's Kool Aid.

Wow – to paraphrase Grandmother Fa from Mulan "who spit in your bean curd?"

Why the pathological hatred of Flames of War players? You seem to take the very existence of the game as a personal affront.

Back to hedgerows – given that the ground scale of any miniatures wargame is compressed – if I look at one of the large field pictures I posted and step back and look at the OP's work – it works fine using the "three foot rule" – looks good too. It's also fairly durable and modular – two things you also need for good terrain. Is it perfect? Nope – does it need to be?

Don't get me wrong, on the miniatures (especially armor) I tend to be a rivet counter, and I've given Battlefront both kudos and flames as warranted. However, your comments seem to typically start negative and end up at downright insulting. What gets lost in all of that is whatever point you were trying to make.

"Why the pathological hatred of Flames of War players? You seem to take the very existence of the game as a personal affront."

Where do you see this? I think I saw a retort to someone who attacked the (albeit tactless) messenger rather than absorb the actual message.

I think Derek learned a different message a long time ago.

Tact doesn't work on Pavlov's Dog..so now he doesn't bother

Where do you see this? I think I saw a retort to someone who attacked the (albeit tactless) messenger rather than absorb the actual message.

OK – I'll bite – here:

But I'd bet good money that you will all ignore the facts

You get this from a mocking metaphor ported over from another game? he isnt even mocking battlefront, but the reactions on this thread.

I wouldn't even give Derek originality, let alone "pathalogical hatred".

……You've not been here very long have you?

edit: Ahhh…3 days..Welcome!

Von Burge wrote:

I do appreciate your continued enthusiasm for improving Flames of War.

You've got the wrong man here.

I am very interested in Flames of War as a wargame, as a business and, dare I say it, as a cultural phenomenon.

But I'm not in the slightest bit interested in improving the rules. They are not to my taste.

Fair enough Derek. Drive on as you must even if it's not in the spirit of being helpful. I must say though that I am curious about this claim from Kevan on your behalf:

Tact doesn't work on Pavlov's Dog..so now he doesn't bother

I never got to see the Derek that did not come off here most of the time as an embittered curmudgeon. Did you really abandon tact because you just gave up? Do "fanboys" really have that much influence over the way you conduct yourself? Like I noted above, a gentle application of tact could not hurt your cause, won't kill you, and I think most folks would agree that a little dose of it here and there may help you get your points across better. You do have some good ones.

Cheers,

VB

You make some valid points worth discussion Derek, however it is a shame your troll like manner and personal jibes railroad any chance of debate.

fingolfen wrote:

it works fine using the "three foot rule"

Three yard rule, maybe.

Would work for my painting as well.

Tact doesn't work on Pavlov's Dog..so now he doesn't bother

Can you kindly direct me to a thread where he did bother? I never saw one.

Pat

VonBurge wrote:

I never got to see the Derek that did not come off here most of the time as an embittered curmudgeon.

I'm more than happy to be labelled a curmudgeon.

"Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can't compromise their standards and can't manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse.

"Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor."

Jon Winokur, The Portable Curmudgeon

It seems to have some rather negative definitions as well.

cur•mudg•eon 
noun
a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person.

Origin:
1570–80; unexplained; perhaps cur- representing cur

Synonyms
grouch, crank, bear, sourpuss, crosspatch.

I'd expect in its application here most would defer to the negative definition.

Cheers,

VB