"reusing armies ?" Topic

How far would you go in reusing an army ?
I once read a magazine article from a guy who was outraged that his opponent wanted to use Early Imperial Romans to fight a Late Republican battle. I was a bit surprised, red with big shields right? (different shape I know).

I am currently using Wotr figures for the English HYW battles. And I'm painting cloth Barded horses for Crecy with every intention of using them for Late HYW and even Bosworth. Its on my dining room table so I can do what I want.

Conventions or serious attempts at historic recreations aside, How far would you reuse an army, what is a step to far ? Its all opinion of course, I just wondered what people thought.

Too far is using a unit for troops who differ seriously in weapons, training or doctrine. Costume/uniforms I can live with. I'll never have exactly the right uniforms for every battle which interests me.

Yeah once it gets confusing from a gameplay perspective I'd start to hesitate.

If a hoplite with spears and shields represent a pike phalanx, it changes how they fight and might cause me to make wrong tactical assumptions from just looking at them. If a group of cavalry in heavy armour and barding represent light cavalry, I might underestimate their speed, etc.

However, if the Roman heavy infantry wear chainmail or lorica segmentata has no risk of making me do any tactical mistakes. They have heavy armour, shields and swords. Big deal.

Not shure I would use folk with spears to represent WW2 or cold war infantry. No problem with cold war germans representing WW2 germans. One man confused my Cold war troiops with WW2 troops but no matter so really not an issue. If you can see too clearly what they are armed with at a distance you screwed up the painting its camoflarge! Often one Mk of tank is up or downgraded to another type. Its tougher to use a UK tank for a Russian tank if the sides are UK ve Russian, but if its that or not play need must! To me obsseing about uniform is putting art before game which to me is worse than putting the "Cart before the horse". Its your choice, I say make it and damm the opposition.

I have converted Norman knights (spare Russian heads, Mongol bow and arrow cases, round shields) that I use for generic armoured horsemen for 13th-14th century Baltic Crusades period. I use them for Russians, Volga Bulgars or Turkic tribal warriors depending on what is required for the game. There's not a lot know for certain about armour, costume or shield designs other than they all shared influences from the Steppes and further East. I also plan to use some of my Fenian Raids figures in ACW and 'what-if" British Intervention Force games.

I just did a WWII Bataan game using Colonial era US Marines vs Boers (guest starring as the Japanese) because it's what I had and it was a solo game. On the table now is an ancient skirmish game using Real Partha Pathans vs the same US Marines.

If I had the figs, I would use them, but in many cases I don't so I go with what I have.

For Ancients I have used my Celts as Celts/Germans/Picts etc; I have also used medieval peasants as stand-ins

My most versitile unit is a unit of Rohan horse archers who had been used for Ancients/Fantasy/Middle Ages

Interesting, more lenient than I thought the answers would be.
So using 14th C Heavy French Cavalry with swords as Napoleonic 19th C Cuirassier would be ok ( both heavy Cavalry) but using 14th C Heavy Cavalry as 14th C Light cavalry would be too confusing? That makes sense and makes me feel better about using Pre-Bardin uniforms at waterloo as well :-) Cloth Barded Horses as Tanks though , too far right ?

I guess I am more of a hard ass on this than others. But first, what are we comparing with Late Republic versus Early Empire? Octavian's legions versus Augustus' legions? Of is it Marian versus Hadrian? There is a difference.

No one would think about using SYW figures for the Napoleonic Wars would they?

Personally, I think figures should be a proper representation of the units. So I wouldn't use French Napoleonic infantry with bicornes in place of French Infantry at Borodino.

I realize there are grey areas. I wouldn't have a problem using pre-Bardin uniforms in shako for the French infantry at Waterloo. I might be more judicious in using British infantry in stovepipe at Waterloo.

What about using 1943 German tanks in dunkelgelb for 1942 German tanks in battle grey?

I like to have the right army, within reason, but we have reused armies on occasion.

German tanks. I got into this a few years ago, and realized that once I painted gray the tanks which only served in gray and dunkelgelb the tanks which had not been in service prior to early 1943, there were very few cases when I had to make a decision, and those mostly support vehicles.

I am an outlier in one regard: my microscale, 15mm and 30mm armies were/are fairly period-specific, but when time, money and storage got to me, I put together two generic horse & musket armies in 28mm individually mounted. Red Army is predominantly British and Blue Army is largely American with some French. Each unit is individually correct for uniform, but they by no means all served at the same time or even necessarily in the same army. I fight Charles S. Grant scenarios, and these are pretty much a Grant army. But you just can't build new armies for every period with an interesting battle. I know. I tried for years.

Like almost anything in this hobby: To each his own. It's a game gentlemen!

A rule of thumb – if they look something like what they are supposed to represent from a distance of about 3ft then that's good enough.

We don't play any Napoleonic games. Our Ancient and WWII collections are rather substantial so its rare to substitute there. If it is really important to remember that unit is not what it appears to be we might make it really obvious (like a 40K IG squad in a WWII battle). Usually though we just mention it once the enemy is in sight range. We don't really play tournaments.

I don't have a huge problem with proxy minis and have been known to sink to that level of desperation myself sometimes.

I've used figs from other regions in my armies if they look right (right weapons/armor). I don't think most people know the difference between a Spanish Knight and one from Eastern Europe. How about medieval Byzantine cavalry and Lithuanian, or Turk, light horse? There's a lot of options for all three, in my opinion, and sometimes the more outlandish the better.

As for German tanks, I believe dark gray can be used post '42 and dark yellow for the Africa Corp (and vice versa) and even pre '43; didn't the Germans smear mud on their AFV's?

The game is equal parts art and game or else you could wargame with a bag of m&ms. Where you draw the line is always going to be a compromise between authenticity and cost.

Exactly, Damion. And how deeply you are into a period.

Good answer, it does in the end come down to aesthetic. I want to use My waterloo british for the peninsula. I hardly notice the shako, and grey trousers don't bother me, but their bases are all wrong. Mud and grass rather than Spanish dust, that bothers me more than anything else.

I've seen games where scenery is card with an H on it for hill. Just seems wrong. I think it does really come down to your sense of art. Blimey a thread that comes to a definitive answer!

I can't use 1805 French in bicornes as 1812 French etc. Yet I have no problems using WAS British for SYW even though arguably the differences are bigger.
I use swedish in their classic carloian uniforms even though, I'm concentrating on 1706, were Sweden most likely would look more like late 17th century soldiers.

I will not use my claymore early HYW for later HYW, the armor is just to different.

I've abandoned creating historical armies and now have three ImagiNations armies in Napoleonic era uniforms, drawn from a mix of nations, but painted as predominantly Red, Blue and Green armies. I can fight imaginary battles like the Grant scenarios, or historical ones, without feeling guilty that my troops have the 'wrong' caps/coats/trousers/equipment.

No need to worry if the latest research suddenly overturns long-held beliefs about the details of some uniforms – it won't affect my armies – and I don't need to buy uniform books or plates.

If I was making a diorama of a particular battle, rather than playing a game, it would be a different matter of course!

For my own armies, it depends, mostly on how well I know the period and how recent it is.

For opponents', I'm unlikely to complain unless the substitutions are likely to cause confusion about game classification.

No one would think about using SYW figures for the Napoleonic Wars would they?

I think that literally doing this has been a major part of the hobby from the beginning – Brigadier Peter Young's rules were quite Napoleonic in flavour, but the troops resolutely mid C18. Some gamers did a very pretty version of Ligny and Quatre Bras on adjacent tables at the Partizan show in 2015 using mid-C18 armieslink

Myself, I am perfectly happy to re-skin C18 and C19 scenarios for use with my Napoleonic armies; or to put it another way, I am definitely not going to spend my time painting every possible variant of "British redcoat" for every different war between 1685 and 1879,

I'm ashamed to admit I sometimes use late hoplites as Carthaginian spearmen…

I've used my Napoleonic stuff to refight Seven Years War battles. And I've used Imperial legionaries as Republican ones and vice-versa.

I just watched a mini series on netflix called Betaal made in India. It included British soldiers from the late 19th century, even had a picture of Queen Victoria in a frame.
All the soldiers looked like 18th century British like what fought in the American Revolution. The tricornes and cape of the officer were quite jarring I must say. The drummer boy had a pillbox cap…with studs covering the lower half – no I'm not recommending watching it.

I think that literally doing this has been a major part of the hobby from the beginning – Brigadier Peter Young's rules were quite Napoleonic in flavour, but the troops resolutely mid C18. Some gamers did a very pretty version of Ligny and Quatre Bras on adjacent tables at the Partizan show in 2015 using mid-C18 armies

I thought that historical gaming put some emphasis on historical. Uniforms and weaponry matter. I realize it is a game but I thought most people put some prize and reasonably representing it. So would you use French and British SYW figures to fight the ACW? What about British and Zulus to represent Western Front WWI. Everyone has a limit to how far they will go. I wonder what the "control" is that limits people?

Pre-Bardin uniforms at waterloo

Heretic! People got burned for less :-)

I thought that historical gaming put some emphasis on historical. Uniforms and weaponry matter. I realize it is a game but I thought most people put some prize and reasonably representing it.

I am having a bit of trouble understanding that last sentence, my apologies. Weaponry certainly matters, uniforms…perhaps not quite as much? So a WW2 British infantryman with a Lee-Enfield rifle is pretty much the same throughout the war, even if he had a gas mask on his chest in 1940 or a slightly different helmet in 1945. Likewise a French Napoleonic infantryman between 1793 & 1815. Or 1693 for that matter.

So would you use French and British SYW figures to fight the ACW?

That is probably just outside my personal line – I would probably move the scenario into the SYW rather than give the troops the characteristics

What about British and Zulus to represent Western Front WWI.

Probably not, since the Zulus are so far away from WW1 Germans that it would actually affect the game, I think.

My point Whirlwind is that most people has some limit in reusing armies. Obviously people's sensibilities vary quite a bit about this. I am curious about where people draw the line and why?

Pre-Bardin uniforms at waterloo

Heretic! People got burned for less :-)

Let me ask you this Puster, all joking aside, why are TAG's Janissaries which are designed for the 17th century not acceptable to you for 16th Janissaries involved in the Siege of Vienna? I think you mentioned a long time ago of perhaps having accurate models produced since nobody seems to do them.

I am curious about where people draw the line and why?

Hats/helmets and weapons/armour seem to be the main criteria, I guess: the first perhaps because it is the thing that is seen best when playing, and affects the silhouette the most; the second since they are the bits which make a difference in the rules.

My first wargame club had several units of early production 15mm Persian MI JLS Sh infantry that would come out if anyone was short of figures for their 1,500 WRG points army. No one ever seemed to suffer a reduced enjoyment of the games.

I've spent 60+ years worried if the buttons on my 7YW french were correct. I still enjoy doing the research into who who wore what and when. But recently I decided to paint up two forces, Army Red and Army Blue. These troops will be used for general games, not historical refights. It's fun not having to worry about lace patterns and such.

It depends…. I think there is a certain amount of pragmatism required. For example, most Napoleonic games I play are pretty large (say, 5 to 10 thousand 28mm figures on the table), and I know quite a few people who have those size armies.
Now I'm not going to be fussed if someone with 5,000 French infantry in 1812 regs decides to use them for an 1805 game. Expecting them to assemble another 5,000 very similar figures would be ridiculous.
If my army only needed a hundred figures it would be correct.

In the world of legitimate morphing, there are IMO 3-4 types of Romans;

- Oval scutum-type shield (Republic… including the Triarii era)
- Square "hollywood-style" shield (Imperial)
- Oval-ish Nota Digitatum shields
- Fully oval Nota Digitatum type shields with irregular, scruffy soldiers stood behind them with spears (Very Late / post Roman types)

The last 2 are mergeable, but the core Scutum/Square/Oval Nota Ditatum are (to me) the baseline types.

I use AWI French for FIW, French Revolutionary War French and Peninsular War Spanish. I use ordinary Nap. Poles for Vistula Legion and sometimes use Austrians or Prussians for Confed. Rhine Units.

You cant have all troops for all situations

I am surprised no-one seems to have referred to scale. I have 10mm Napoleonics. At that scale and at more that a couple of feet viewing distance it becomes quite difficult to distinguish detail of uniforms. I find it difficult to distinguish even between headgear under such circumstances, and I am not talking about differences between Austrian and Bavarian helments, but of differences between shakos, helmets and even bicornes. Now 28mm is a entirely different kettle of fish.

I'm doing 10mm Napoleonics and I used a long time to make sure my French were in bicornes and my Russians in their 1805 uniform.

I see it like period pieces in the movies. Each director/producer is going to spend a different amount of time/resources on getting details right and their decision will have a distribution of reactions among the viewers.

When the movie is supposed to be about the war and the battles and the intended audience are those would would be interested in such things, thing can get very jarring very quickly. Just like if a movie about horseback riding in Britain had western saddles and all the riders using western technique. The horse enthusiasts would quickly notice and ask "what is going on here?"

Now for some people, that's not why they are in the theatre at all. They want the romantic story that just happens to be set in that context. They just want an evening out with friends or a date. They might just want to eat popcorn.

What are you trying to do and with whom are you trying to do it? Get a mismatch in expectations? Problem. Don't get a mismatch? No problem.

Then this gets extrapolated out. People might ask "Just what exactly is a historical battle move about?" and try to pin down the genre. Which is fine, because genre is about exceptions. Break the expectations enough and people can make the legitimate case that you're no longer doing X but are doing Y. But both X and Y are still things happening in the context of miniature gaming or movie theatres.

I'm also a big fan of the hodge podge imagination approach of both Little Wars/Floor Wars and the later "The Wargame" where all the toy soldiers available got mixed together. In the case of H G Wells it was a mixture of early 20th century toy soldiers. For Grant and Young it was all the available Horse and Musket era figures. Pavlov Genadiers as quasi-german jagers? Why not?

Just get everyone on the same page. If you want to refight a historical battle or a battle that maybe could have taken place in a historical context, then get your gear to line up. If you want to fight battles in a mediterranian that never quite was, then be clear about that too.

Then there's the practical side. For many the figures they have already invested time and money into should see the table more rather than needing to collecting another entirely different army because of a shield shape or a helmet/hat change. For others, getting the scene right is of greater importance that such limitations of time and money.

There's also the possibility of people just liking the miniatures they like. A friend of mine and I recently started ancients projects that were meant for future games when we were playing regularly in person again. He was originally talking Republican Romans so I bought Carthaginians. Then at the last moment he switched his order to Macedonians. Because it's something he always want to do. We're not going to let it stop us. And I might take the excuse to get even more open with what I include in my army.

I find this conversation interesting and educational. I got out of historical war gaming many, many years ago because I grew tired of listening to endless heated arguments about buttons,cuff facings, and the exact angles of various glacis plates on tanks.
I switched to fantasy and Science Fiction to gain the freedom to be creative and play games with what I created.
For many decades I have observed historical gamers deride fantasy gamers while insisting they themselves were not engaged in a "fantasy" of their own. :)
Nice to see confirmation of what I suspected from fairly early on. (not as a teen of course, I had little experience with anyone admitting that their troops were not so historically correct or reason to doubt anyone elses insistence that they armies were 100% accurate)
Besides, I had my fathers example. He collected real period cigarette cards, referenced color plates and written accounts to make sure his painted uniforms were accurate. For WWII he worked from wartime photographs and researched accurate TO&Es and first hand accounts from period sources.
I thought all historical gamers were just as retentive LOL.
I am not deriding anyone, just glad to hear that most of you just like to play the with nice miniature and are not quite so inflexible(or smug) as I remember gamers from decades ago. :D

Hell, I loved Avalon Hills Tobruk and used to play it scaled up with models instead of counters. The constant comments on how inaccurate the rules and equipment capabilities were used to really drive me down.
It was a fun game and seemed to be accurate to me, but what did I know.

I guess what I am trying to say is I wish I had met more people like you folks instead the ones I encountered.I always thought SYW and Nappies were beautiful to look at but the players attitudes?…. not so much.
I loved medieval and dark ages, where real and accurate information is downright impossible to confirm, did not stop the self appointed expert from ruining those games either. :D
Besides, I think most of the old smugglies have now switched over to Fantasy and Science fiction, where they have heated arguments over the proper tone of orc skin( GW green vs JRRT sallow or black or……..sigh), and what shade of blue Space Marines are supposed to be. LOL