"A question for PiersBrand (and other master painters)" Topic

Mr. PiersBrand

The pictures I've seen of your talents are impeccable.

Can you give us lesser artists a brief overview of your painting process?

Anyone else care to chime in is much appreciated.

I'm looking to start in on some WW2 15mm

Thanks

Thanks but im not sure i qualify as a master at anything other than excuses for not doing housework…

I can offer some tutorials?

Though only have old ones online at present, one does cover using pigments that has proved popular. I think I have one for simple German splinter pattern and possibly one for doing Dunkel Gelb without an airbrush.

I hope to do some new ones soon, but as ever time is the hinderance, or rather lack of it!

I do have a painting guide in the next WSS magazine covering British WW2 figure painting.

What processes are you looking for? Vehicles? Infantry?

Let me know that and I will trh and offer some more info.

I'm using an airbrush for primer and base coats.
I'd like some assistance with both vehicles and infantry.

Yes, any tutorial would be helpful

Thanks

Might you have a link to the pigments article, Mr. Brand?

Here are a few, they are all in the forum I run with a bunch of other painters so I suspect you will need to register to view them, but if you are into WW2 gaming its a good place to be with thousands of images and several pages of tutorials.

Most are old, but hopefully I will get time to do some new ones.

Simple Pigment Use Guide;

link

Super Fast Soviets;

link

Old Dunkel Gelb tutorial for without Airbrush;

link

Late War British Infantry;

link

Fast Painting German Heer Splinter Pattern Camo Tutorial;

link

Where can I see his work without signing up???

Tony, search for Piers's handle here on TMP and you will find a lot of great pictures of his work.

Matthew

Combatpainter@ try here

ww20mm.blogspot.co.uk

Very good tutorials Piers. I am a Guild member but I have never seen them before!

But Piers, you are a master!

Yea he is! :)

Thanks Piers

The Russians look great after the matt coat.

I have an artistic opinion that breaks ranks with the fine 20mm-28mm figures, all painted using something like Osprey or Funken
First off, unless the troops depicted are upright and within say 1500 yds, you won't see much except the major uniform colors, headgear and such
But if you are doing WW2 or later, then the uniform painting guides are mostly rubbish
At over 1500 yds, the troops depicted should be wearing some basic browns or tans or greens, without the special stripes or marks that would only be visible at under 500 or even 250 yds--and this goes for vehicles as well
indeed there ought to be several models for the same "unit"--what it looks like at over 2000 yds, at 1000 yds at 500 yds and at close quarters--and what's worse, the fine uniforms ought to be dirtied up--I never fail to be amused that Napoleonic Austrians retain their white uniforms even after several black powder volleys
and indeed I do have several model tytpes for my units--I work in 6mm for a WW2 land game of platoons (each stand a platoon) with a ground svcale of one cm equals 80 mtrs, so you can see that the opposing forces can start well back out of observation range, and the use of terrain eliminates many figures on the table--I do not place the inft platoon on the bunker it occupies, that info is on a piece of paper
As to my HO/20mm/25mm--the game is a double blind umpire driven game where the figures rarely show up, except as "markers" that is, that someone say an enemy soldier, maybe, or took fire, and as all too many troops went out of their way to "break up the uniform contours", the basic figures in the aforesaid Osprey are really at odds with sya Japanese and Soviet methods of disguise.

And this last item--why do gamers work long hours getting the figures painted to a high quality and then handle them in a wargame--mint coins used to buy a Coke?
As I know that the real troops will never meet Osprey standards because of field conditions, especially in WW2 and later, and because of distances and the absolute need to camouflage and disguise everything, expert painters, for me, are wasted--except if I were to paint up a diorama--but not for the game

Im not sure id paint various sets to represent troops at different distance… id just move mine further away.

Perhaps, and its just a thought, people spend time on gaming pieces as they like to play with nice toys rather than brown counters.

Its a game, thats all, it will never be an accurate historical simulation.

My paint jobs look great from 1500 to 2000 yards, if the light is dim.

I am reminded of Eugene Sledge on Pelilue asking what are those amtracs doing over there with the Japanese, then a few minutes later, as they got closer, recognized the amtracs as Japanese tanks--I am also reminded of a cardinal principle of tactics, to hide one's main line of resistance--but we do not merely have games, otherwise why all the effort to get correct TO&E and uniforms and vehicle data--why not just paint up red troops and green troops with "generic" vehicles--sorta like chess?

It is sorta like chess already.

They are glorified counters.

And yup, its is just a game… thats why its fun. I read books for history and that is the reason to put in the effort on modelling. To recreate in miniature a representation of the real thing.

But the actual event on the tabletop is just a game, a very enjoyable and social event best shared.

If the toys and table look pretty too, then the event is all the more enjoyable.

I couldn't agree more with Piers… If the aesthetic you like has your troops in campaign gear, with patches and dirt, and looking like they'd just walked 200 kilometres to get there, then that's great. But in the context of a tabletop game, it's no more or less accurate than a force put together by someone who prefers livelier colors and "just clay-piped" whites. :) If we all weren't incurably fascinated with details by nature, we'd be out kicking a ball around, instead of researching epaulets…

I have an artistic opinion.
Recession is represented in paintings (partly) by making close things darker and distant things lighter. And somewhat bluer. This is kind of how distant things appear due to atmospheric effects.
I think it'd be quite challenging to see an individual person 1500 yards away. Not that you'd get the chance in most NWE terrain.

Anyhow.
The usual thinking on scale effect is that colours should be painted lighter as the model gets smaller. With little men you will usually have a load of folds and whatnot which will be shaded and even out the effect from any distance.

For 15mm uniforms I would:

Pick your "correct" colour.
Add some white.
Block the uniform in with that colour.
Add some darker version of that colour or black or blue black ( paynes grey ) and thin.
Stain over with this.
Add more white and pick out a couple of tippy top highlight bits.
Depending on size of more fiddly bits just paint two layers or block and stain over.
Consider re-inforcing the odd bit of shading with thinned paynes grey.

A quick thin overbrush of light fawn can be used as a quick way of picking out highlights for infantry. This looks rubbish in close up pictures but fine on the table.

Prime in a colour suits the uniform best.
Black or dark grey for most jerries, grey or white for many others.
Or of course you could mix that light version of the uniform colour for your primer from Vallejo polyurethane surface primers. I mention them specifically as polyurethane is pretty tough stuff.

Before you start off painting you really want to consider what type of audience you're interested in pleasing.
Ff you want to wow the interwebz crowd then you are setting the bar pretty high.
If painting stuff so it looks good pleases you then that's a different story but you need to decide how high you want to set your standard and therefore how much time you're willing to spend.

Yup
I'd love to agree that it is all just a game if it weren't for all the time spent and the research and the arguments over why the T 34 should be rated with such and such armor, the Soviet crews of such and such quality, the Soviet command able to exert control only over a shorter range, with similar detail regarding Japanese, Marines, Fallshirmjager, etc--
As I have read those histories I am struck by the fact that the combatants didn't know a lot, and each side was adapting and improving its weapons, leadership, tactics etc
So why not a historical game of green troops vs brown troops--the opening encountersm between Germans and Soviets, Japanese and Marines, Fallshirjager and the UK forces on Crete, etc
After all--it is only a game

You spend hours arguing?

No
My wish list is simple: to have the question answered:
If this is a game, why do the many gamers debate over the stats on vehicles, weapons, on the tactics used, on the uniforms, each and all arguing the historical issues, and, in some cases damning those who either disagree--or in my case--do not care--because it is primarily a game
To get the uniforms and perhaps the TO&E correct hardly justifies the heat or the arrogance I see not only at this site but all others regarding whose "authentic historical simulation " is more historical or authentic or any simulation--yes, on a scale of 1 – 10, miniature historical games are about a 0.5 on the scale of replicating the real world
But yet you all insist that the French Napoleonic infantryman be so painted, even in the face of Paddy Griffith or John Elting (Swords around a Throne--the chapter Dressed to Kill--read it and then tell me that my 0.5 judgement is off the mark, even with the uniforms)

I am constantly reminded that the hobby needs new blood--and there have been attempts to make the games more playable, more fun--but right after that comes the "historians" who want to junk up a simple or elegant set of rules with those "historical features" and the games become not games, but attempts at a Masters thesis or s doctoral dissertation on the history
The extra "history" doesn't alter that 0.5 at bottom as the things that make for that low score are still there with or without the "history"
The hindsight
The lack of real world conditions (a well rested gamer playing an ageing Napoleon or a fanatical Japanese at Okinawa--no)
The biased or incomplete sources--those Osprey "histories" for example
And those figures--the incredible distortions of time and space we casually insert into the "simulation" because we use those figures

But no one will admit to any of this because, well, we like/love? the figures and we are oh so sure of ourselves regarding the "knowledge" we have gained--anyone read say, Plato, on knowledge?

There's one last item--no gamer really wants a true simulation because of warfare's number one feature--uncertainty. The gamer has already enough of that in his real life and is gaming not to replicate history, but to have some fun--and this too is never addressed.