Perfect six | 26 May 2014 1:53 p.m. PST |
Decided to paint some baccus figures today to see how they paint up, then it came to me that it might be useful to do a comparision with Adler especially after some comments I've had on my blog, please find a link to the post on my blog, I would like this to be useful to the undecided or new to the hobby constructive comments very welcome. link Regards Richard |
Sparker | 26 May 2014 3:01 p.m. PST |
Thanks Richard, very useful. A big problem for me with 6mil is the way they come in strips. I recall that Adler come in strips of 3 inf 1 behind the other, and you have to sort of work away at the strip to detacht the figure and it then has a lot of 'basing material' around it, which you then have to file off to get a flat surface for gluing to a base. Do Bacchus come the same way? |
Cerdic | 26 May 2014 3:44 p.m. PST |
Baccus close order infantry come in strips of 4, but standing side to side rather than one behind the other. This means you don't have to separate them before basing them. Much quicker and easier! |
steamingdave47 | 26 May 2014 5:19 p.m. PST |
Not done Napoleonics for these two, but have ACW and find Adler paint up much better. Separation of figures/removal of excess base material easily accomplished with a pair of side cutters. |
Bashytubits | 26 May 2014 8:58 p.m. PST |
I have heard an awful lot of people say they are not size compatible but your photos and the adler's and baccus I have match together well. Thanks for posting pictures for folks. |
danikine74 | 27 May 2014 1:55 a.m. PST |
the problem i ve foud it merely too time expended in cuttin them from the strip glue them one by one into the base
for 36 fig units
too much |
Royal Marine | 27 May 2014 2:18 a.m. PST |
@Sparker: those strips work just fine for young PaulS as we do Peninsula battle at Fort Rowner ;-) s'pose 28mm works better for those of us who need longer arms or reading glasses to paint. |
Perfect six | 27 May 2014 2:22 a.m. PST |
I will add a pic of unpainted strips so people can see how they come as this would be useful. Glad this is helpful as I found it very hard to choose who to buy from originally, the basing can be a pain with adler but I found they were worth the extra time in the long run , Regards Richard |
Sobieski | 27 May 2014 4:24 a.m. PST |
They both look very stumpy. I'd stick to Heroics and Ros. |
pushing tin | 27 May 2014 4:25 a.m. PST |
Most of my Napoleonics are Adler with a sprinkling of Baccus. I tend to avoid mixing units from different manufacturers as Adler are slightly bigger, but apart from that can't really tell much difference. I have never had a problem cutting up the bases for Adler, although Baccus ones can be quite thick, the cavalry I have bought from them need cutting up to base. Adler also have a big advantage in that you can still order their Napoleonic codes in individual strips where as you need to buy a whole pack as minimum with Baccus. I mainly prefer Adler as default as there is mostly more detail, but Baccus have remodelled/recast their ranges in the last few years and the results are impressive. If I was starting afresh I might be tempted to think again. I have found some Adler codes can sometimes tend to have excessive flash, less of a problem with Baccus
To summarise I think both are great ranges and can complement one another rather then necessarily sticking with one lot. |
Frederick | 27 May 2014 4:38 a.m. PST |
Both great ranges – I find the Adlers a bit more animated; that being said, the Baccus in strips are much easier to mount – I use the AoE base size so I base 9 figs per stand, i.e. three rows of three figs each. So, I clip off one fig per strip which means I have to individually base a few figs, but mostly they are pretty easy to base |
Perfect six | 27 May 2014 4:45 a.m. PST |
Pushing tin ,think that's a very good summary. And I fully agree. This is exactly how I wanted this post to go a useful tool to help people start a very interesting and fun hobby Sobieski . I have never painted or seen heroic and ros in the flesh so to speak will have to give them a go. I have added a link on the blog page to another post about adlers head size another hot topic for some, it seems this all stems from when adler first started 30 years or so ago and the heads are much more in proportion now to way back then. Would anyone have some cavalry of both Baccus and Adler for a comparison pic as this to would prove useful. And maybe some heroic and ros as well
Regards
Richard |
Who asked this joker | 27 May 2014 6:32 a.m. PST |
I've painted some Adler WW2 Americans and they were easy to paint up and look great. I have Baccus WSS figures and they too paint up well and look great. Your comparison shows that they are fully compatible. Maybe separated by unit but definitely compatible. I have a handful of Heroics and Ros and they look TINY compared to the others. |
Glenn Pearce | 27 May 2014 7:43 a.m. PST |
Hello Richard! Two great firms both producing world class products. I've mixed the infantry in the same units with no problems as your photo indicates. Adler cavalry, however, is much bigger, closer to 9-10mm. I have a few officers but none of their cavalry units as they just look way too big compared to my Baccus, Heroics & Ros and Irregular figures. They are all a little different as well, but not too far different in height. Adlers seem a little more prone to losing bayonets, swords, lances. If you like your infantry shoulder to shoulder you have to cut and mount every single figure which is awkward. If your units are 36 figures then Adler is great, but if not then ordering becomes a bit of a chore. The new Baccus figures have solid bayonets, swords and lances. They come in strips of four that you just stick on the base. Units are designed with 24 figures per unit, but Baccus will customize the number of command stands upon request. So ordering is pretty simple. I find the paint or cut lines on Baccus are a little more defined which makes painting them easier. Also the uniform poses allows you to jump from figure to figure faster, which speeds up the painting as well. Since the figures are the same, the colors seem to jump out at you a little more when a unit is finished. Baccus also has a complete system, figures, bases, flags, rules, terrain, etc. However, none of the above really matters as I think a new person should carefully examine both firms figures and paint a few units. After they have done that, one of them will call out to them. Best regards, Glenn |
Perfect six | 27 May 2014 8:22 a.m. PST |
Great review of baccus Glenn thankyou for the input and your final comment is 100% correct that's how I decided, buy, paint, decide good advice to anyone entering this hobby Regards Richard |
Eclipsing Binaries | 27 May 2014 8:52 a.m. PST |
Sorry, but I still can't get past the big heads on both Baccus and Adler minis. Look at the heads compared to the legs. The size of head is way too big, or the legs are way too short. If you had a 15/18/25/28mm scale figure with those proportions what would you think? |
matthewgreen | 27 May 2014 9:26 a.m. PST |
The idea with 6mm figures is that you mount them in bulk and view them looking downwards. The big heads don't look so bad then. I use sprue clippers to separate the figures and trim bases – very quick and easy – though mounting individual figures can be a little fiddly. |
Glenn Pearce | 27 May 2014 10:59 a.m. PST |
Yes they are not anatomically correct. But the most important feature on a Napoleonic figure is his headdress, so slightly oversizing this actually helps improve the profile of the figure and makes telling them apart at a distance easier. This was a concern of the period as often telling your troops from the enemy was very often done just by their hats/helmets/etc. Also as matthewgreen has rightly pointed out our view on the table top (top down) makes the proportions irrelevant. |
flipper | 27 May 2014 11:54 a.m. PST |
Hi I have said it before, but Adler figures use a rather soft metal that means bayonets, drawn swords, flag staffs and so on are very weak and prone to bending it is a real shame as they would otherwise be my figure of choice their animation leaves the competition standing! I also think they are enjoyable to paint (with the aid of an 'Optovisor'). I like the newer redesigner Baccus although I do find their cavaly pretty boring pose wise. I would like to see some 'campaign' dress French with covered shakos (I hate painting all that detail and if it is there I have to paint it!). To be honest I like the idea behind the Irregular miniatures infantry 'Blocks' unfortunately they are quite poorly sculpured would be nice to see them updated (or copied by another manufacturer). I have always liked the Heroics and Ros range, certainly smaller and perhaps dated, but a viable option if you just want a figure that is easy to paint up with a basic amount of detail. |
LeonAdler | 27 May 2014 12:16 p.m. PST |
Very useful Richard always helpful to have info out there for people. Not sure why anyone would want to base the figs up as individuals just base them as a strip, for marching figs in three ranks each rank slightly offset. As per
those are a 30mm frontage, if your using less frontage then you take off a figure to match the frontage, the opposite if your using wider bases. L |
CATenWolde | 27 May 2014 1:22 p.m. PST |
I snip them because I want to base them shoulder-to-shoulder, at about 4-5mm frontage. They look great crammed in like that and in two ranks (although I've admittedly only played around with them a bit). |
Bob Runnicles | 27 May 2014 1:52 p.m. PST |
I generally agree with CATenWolde but I might try staggering the strips – I have loads of Adler but trimming off the single figs and sticking them on a base as I have been doing for my 6mm Naps is too much work lol. |
LeonAdler | 27 May 2014 2:42 p.m. PST |
Well should really be 3 ranks to give the effect of the continental formations, not sure why 2 ranks is so often used these days. Even my Peter gilder Napoleonic 25's are in 3 deep.
Not sure how more 'crammed in' you can get really lol L |
Sparker | 27 May 2014 3:12 p.m. PST |
Ok I'm confused! I understood that Adler came in strips of 3 one behind the other, like their excellent WW2 figures, whereas Baccus come ins strips of 4 side by side. But Leon's photos show the Adlers side by side? |
Beeker | 27 May 2014 7:15 p.m. PST |
Not strips of 3 but of 4 – marching pose is the same whether Baccus or Adler. Adler figures in the assault / attack pose are one behind the other, so a file of 4. These should be cut from the strip. Cheers! Beeker |
LeonAdler | 27 May 2014 10:56 p.m. PST |
Indeed Beeker the advancing/firing figures are in strips one figure behind each other, no other way of casting them I'm afraid. But probably 90% of units people do are in march attack so a little effort for skirmish line /assault units should be worth it I'd have thought. Nice to have the pose options? L |
Hampshire Hog | 27 May 2014 11:56 p.m. PST |
It is indeed nice to have the option Leon. I base my Adlers in 3 ranks, the back 2 marching, the front rank in advancing pose. It makes them look a bit more dramatic and on a 40x30mm base I even have a bit of room to put a couple of skirmishers out the front of the base. Having to base one rank that has to be individualy mounted is no big chore. |
Perfect six | 28 May 2014 2:05 a.m. PST |
Hi all I have added some pics of unpainted adler and bacus strips in marching and adler advancing I'm afraid I don't have any baccus advancing if someone could provide that would be great, thanks for everyone for making this a helpful and resourceful post would also like to see some baccus based in mass to even out the post. Regards Richard |
pushing tin | 28 May 2014 2:12 a.m. PST |
I tend to base in 2 ranks largely because it makes my units a third cheaper :) but also justify this on the perhaps spurious assumption that many protagonists would deploy the third rank to bulk out the skirmish line, or at least had provision in their manuals to do so
|
pushing tin | 28 May 2014 2:18 a.m. PST |
searching through my archive here is a picture (hopefully if it comes through) of an Adler unit in front of an older Baccus unit. Bear in mind these are the older moulds for Baccus, I believe they are in the process of being updated
|
pushing tin | 28 May 2014 2:23 a.m. PST |
and here are a couple of posts on my blog about Vitoria last year, see if you can spot which are Adler and which are Baccus ! link link I think this shows quite well how they appear on the tabletop
|
Sparker | 28 May 2014 4:09 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the info gents, I think I'm clear now! Just looking at the options for 'Blucher' when it comes out next year – I'll be wanting to base 2 Bns to represent a Brigade on a 75mm square, so 6mil is looking good despite my reservations about painting the little devils! |
Extra Crispy | 28 May 2014 5:56 a.m. PST |
Remember in 6mm you don't paint a figure you paint a unit. If you try and paint them like "small 15s" you'll go mad. But if you find the "sweet spot" I find I can paint up even complex uniforms quite fast. I once did a display unit – six companies of four stands each – each stand three ranks deep. Took me about 7 or 8 hours start to finish (spread out over a few weeknights). |
Beeker | 28 May 2014 7:39 a.m. PST |
Extra Crispy I think you are correct for the most part, as is Leon when he says above that 90% of purchasers prefer figures in March pose. I think there are a few more than 10% however (perhaps hiding in the closet) who prefer the more animated figures that require individual attention. I'm in the 10%
possibly even in the 1 2% to the extent that I will take the time to convert 6mm figures (fig below is a SYW prussian musketeer converted to an Austrian FRevW Fusilier in kaskette). I liken it to being the chap who builds small ships in small bottles.
But here we are definitely in the realm of "different strokes" without question. Cheers! Beeker |
Perfect six | 28 May 2014 8:21 a.m. PST |
Hi beeker I'm in your club im afraid I will paint every 6mm to the highest standard I can and im going to be converting some old guard into fireing poses as I can't get them from adler not for lack of trying mind if you read this Leon please please reconsider lol the converting won't be easy but I need them for a diorama I want to do so will give it a go , Richard |
Intrepide | 28 May 2014 8:38 a.m. PST |
Sparker – I was one of the most skeptical (and anti) 6mm gamers out there some years ago, but the indomitable Peter Berry wore me down enough to give it a whirl and buy some ECW. WOW
They paint up into little gems, and the -leave room- for real world concerns like open flanks, races towards more favorable terrain, and all kinds of tactical and even operational considerations you just don't get with larger scales. As for painting them, Extra Crispy tells you true. 6mm are much faster to paint than larger scales. Paint the strip not the man. Quick and impressionistic goes a long way towards shocking levels of production. I've gotten to where I will paint my rank and file troops very quickly and to a 'good' standard. I then set aside a smattering of minis for special attention: Generals, skirmishers, couriers or color guards, for the detailed, animated and visually commanding focus points of a stand. It works out to a nice balance. I am very pro-6mm. Just about to turn my hand to 10mm. Now, those DO scare me! |
Sparta | 28 May 2014 11:19 a.m. PST |
" I was one of the most skeptical (and anti) 6mm gamers out there some years ago, but the indomitable Peter Berry wore me down enough to give it a whirl and buy some ECW. WOW
They paint up into little gems, and the -leave room- for real world concerns like open flanks, races towards more favorable terrain, and all kinds of tactical and even operational considerations you just don't get with larger scales." The best thing about 6 mm gaming is that you have tp consider how to anchor your flanks. |
Glenn Pearce | 28 May 2014 2:38 p.m. PST |
For at least 20 years we mounted our infantry figures in 3 rows before we finally decided that the middle row was just a waste of figures. You really couldn't see them and if you reduced your units to 2 rows you gained another third. There is also the lack of color exploitation. When you cram 6mm figures into tight formations less light gets in and less color gets outs. Today mounting them in 2 rows seems to have become very popular. I rarely see 3 rows anymore. Most gamers do seem to prefer having them mounted shoulder to shoulder so Leon's strips are awkward to deal with in those situations. One fellow I know has reached a compromise by simply cutting out the center section and creating two strips of two. He then only cuts a few into single figures. This allows him to create 2 rows with fewer spaces and some are shoulder to shoulder. Irregulars blocks form a major part of my collection and I'm really surprised that no other manufacturer has jumped on that concept. The first time we saw 6mm over 35 years ago now, the first word spoken was "flanks". |
Glenn Pearce | 29 May 2014 5:45 a.m. PST |
Hello my good friend Sparker! For awhile we mounted our figures on 75mm x 25mm and gradually noticed two things. The first was the size of the base looked awkward in any terrain that was not flat. So if your terrain is rolling etc. they look really weird on some hill tops and in certain valleys. Remember 6mm allows you to compress your terrain so you can generally create a more realistic looking table top with finer features in a smaller space. The other was just the scale of the base. If you go down to 60mm square that increases the size of your table by 20%. That's a huge difference. We also noticed the 60mm square looked awkward as well, but not as bad as 75mm. That was another reason why we went for two 60x30 bases for a brigade. You can easily fit two battalions or two cavalry regiments on a 60mm square. Some people even put more units on by simply reducing the size of the units. It's all about trying to create an illusion. I think you can probably see some in the Baccus photo album. If your unable to find any let me know and I'll try and dig some out for you. Best regards, Glenn |
LeonAdler | 29 May 2014 10:42 p.m. PST |
I'm listening Richard but its very difficult to find the design time to do something that really is not going to sell :o( Making lots of variations is a good thing but unfortunately not always supported by customers by them buying the basic figures which are the bit that makes the money. Well Glen not much I can say to that, all depends on if you think what things look like is important or not. Shoulder to shoulder is important but three ranks isnt? Odd that one is and the other isn't to me. As always with basing it does seem to get people agitated for what reason I dont understand as its all totally abstract and is usually more a matter of a rules designers trying to convince people they can refight the battle of Waterloo with 100 figs on a 3'x2' table
and stick with their rules of course lol L |
Perfect six | 30 May 2014 2:49 a.m. PST |
I understand Leon I'm actually looking forward to the converting should be fun, well the first one anyway, Cheers Richard |
Sparta | 30 May 2014 5:24 a.m. PST |
I can hardly imagine 6 mm more perfect to my aesthetics than Adlers. I base them shoulder to shoulder in two ranks – it requires a little bit of work, but then I have it my way. I don΄t think we can find a universally accepted model for aesthtics – or we would all be dressed similarly. But to my sense of aesthetics Adler cannot be beat. |
DHautpol | 30 May 2014 6:17 a.m. PST |
I much prefer the animation you get with Adler figures. As with Sparta, I base them shoulder to shoulder in two ranks; gel super glue makes basing a quick and simple operation snip figures off strip (base will have been smoothed in the clean-up phase before painting), 6 blobs of super glue on the base and mount the figures one at a time holding for ten seconds before moving on the next one. I always replace the rather frail standard poles with fine gauge brass rod creating a spear point with pliers and filing to shape. French eagles are more work as they involve snipping off the flag pole about 3mm below the eagle, gluing the flag to the new pole and then sliding it up the pole so that a small tube is created into which the small amount of shaft remaining below the eagle can be slotted. Following a conversation with Leon I have now taken to replacing the more vunerable swords and sabres with nylon filaments from a nailbrush. Snip off the blade, clean up and flatten the hilt/guard a bit, then drill a small hole (1mm depth is sufficient) using a very fine bit (I use 0.5mm), secure the filament into the hole with super glue and trim to an appropriate length. |
Glenn Pearce | 30 May 2014 8:12 a.m. PST |
Hello Leon! Yes, I agree it is odd, but as you see this is what your customers are doing. I'm happy that you posted your photos as the basing looks really good. However, outside of your site I don't think I've ever seen more then one or two collections based that way. I think shoulder to shoulder in two ranks is extremely popular so you seem to be going against the current trend. Most of your customers really like your figures and don't seem to mind doing the extra work. There are, however, some who see that task as too tedious and it seems that you may have lost some customers because of it. Have you ever thought of changing your infantry strips to shoulder to shoulder, or is that too much of an adjustment to your process? Best regards, Glenn |
Perfect six | 30 May 2014 8:37 a.m. PST |
I do agree with glen on this one I would always buy adler but the basing can be a pain, when I painted the bacus for the comparison pictures I was very impressed by the closeness of the figures and how this would base up, shoulder to shoulder strips would be a godsend and I'm sure you would get a lot more sales from this worth a think about!!! Regards Richard |
Sparta | 30 May 2014 1:58 p.m. PST |
"Following a conversation with Leon I have now taken to replacing the more vunerable swords and sabres with nylon filaments from a nailbrush. Snip off the blade, clean up and flatten the hilt/guard a bit, then drill a small hole (1mm depth is sufficient) using a very fine bit (I use 0.5mm), secure the filament into the hole with super glue and trim to an appropriate length." Wauww – pics needed |
LeonAdler | 30 May 2014 1:59 p.m. PST |
Well Glen apart from having to take a year off, spend several thousand pounds on moulds and probably wear out my vulcaniser to replace hundreds of production moulds wouldnt alter my process at all
lol Im afraid I always believe in doing things the 'proper' way, shoulder to shoulder in two ranks is in my mind just plain wrong ( except for Brits of course and we put them on shorter strips so the figures closer together for this reason). And of course having them shoulder to shoulder makes painting a pain as you cant get around the figures. I just cant get past the idea that people would inflict a pain in basing figures in order to base them two deep which deosn't look at all right when basing them three deep not only looks right but is a doddle. Baffling to me. I repeat, shoulder to shoulder is visually important to people but three ranks isnt?. I find that a bit weird. Where has that come from? Rules basing I imagine? Which is odd considering that basing regimes are utterly abstract anyhow lol Why have something which 'looks wrong' and is a hassle on the basis on some abstract basing? I'm afraid I wont be changing things just to be fashionable, otherwise I'd be making 32mm, 'Heroic' GW style zombies
..umh
..Napoleonic zombies
. theres an idea
lol If that means less sales so be it. L |
Perfect six | 30 May 2014 3:07 p.m. PST |
Think that clears that up lol. Thanks for your input into this post Leon to be honest I never thought about basing your figures the way you have shown I always presumed they were ment to be sniped and glued,I will give it a go on more scenic base to see what the effect looks like and post some pictures. Regards Richard Ps napoleonic zombies I'm in !! |
Sparker | 30 May 2014 4:30 p.m. PST |
The first was the size of the base looked awkward in any terrain that was not flat. So if your terrain is rolling etc. they look really weird on some hill tops and in certain valleys. Remember 6mm allows you to compress your terrain so you can generally create a more realistic looking table top with finer features in a smaller space. The other was just the scale of the base. If you go down to 60mm square that increases the size of your table by 20% Absolutely right on both counts, Glenn, of course. However if I do go down the 6mm route, it will be very specifically for Sam Mustafa's forthcoming 'Blucher' grand-tactical rules where the only scenery represented will be that which would impact at Brigade level ie the Pratzen Heights, the Essling Granary and so forth, rather than every last copse and berm. And the idea I think will be, at least initially, to mix figure unit bases with the unit cards that will be released with the rules. So it will have to be 75mmto conform to the card units. But actually that suits me as I do like a base to visually indicate what it represents In this case a Brigade so I would be wanting to have at least 2 units on the base
|
Glenn Pearce | 30 May 2014 5:59 p.m. PST |
Hello Leon! I didn't think it would work for you, but I had to ask so at least everyone would understand why. I don't have a clue when or where the two ranks started. When I first started in the 70's everyone based in a single rank in 25mm. Sometime later we switched to two ranks for two reasons, it seemed to look better and it allowed us to double our table size. Then we switched back to single rank units but they were now only twelve figures (down from 36). It was rare to see anyone in three ranks until we got into 6mm in the 80's. One of the arguments that came up when we switched to two ranks around 2000 was we don't have all the figures for the length of the unit so why is the depth important? The other was the depth scale is way out of whack so having three ranks just makes it worse. The switch also allowed us to increase our collection of units by a third. That was the big one that everybody liked. Anyway today two ranks seems to be very popular in all scales so I think it's here to stay. Best regards, Glenn |