"Accuracy v. what looks cool" Topic

Do you ever let period accuracy take a back seat to what looks cool?
As a specific example, I am currently working on a 3rd crusade project (being a soloist, doing both sides of course), and I am seriously considering giving m unit of Knights Hospitallar some red parts, just to break up the monotony of all black everything, even though as I understand it, that was about 50 years later.

I do it for all sorts of reasons….

My Union troops for the Civil War are far too bright but look blue at distance. An "accurate" paint would look black.

My 1809 French time travel to 1795 and 1815….as do my Peninsular British.

My current project is a 1:1 Soviet Tank regiment….in camo!

The union troops that I am working on have four shades of blue on the jackets, a mix of black and charcoal on the traditional black parts and three different grays on the pants. (1st R.I.)

I painted a unit of Confederates with all red-brown leather because I thought it looked cool. I painted a unit of Continental light infantry a Bavarian shade of blue because I like the Bavarian blue. No one sees them, so I enjoy.

They are – after all – your minis!

I used to be quite the stickler for accuracy, but luckily I grew out of it. I found myself wondering if I should re-paint units because new information had become available after I'd completed it. Eventually I decided it was madness to try for 100% accuracy. And often what was historically accurate looked terrible on the tabletop.

So now I try to be mostly accurate, but if I can justify, even vaguely, what looks cool, I'm going with that from now on. For example, during the Napoleonic wars, the British 50th foot had black facings. There is some dispute over whether the regimental colours were white with a red cross (the most probable option), or black with a red cross (unlikely). But GMB makes both, and the black one looks a lot more metal, so that's what I'll be giving them.

As Brother Frederick says "they're my miniatures." If they offend your pedantic side, find another game.

My Zulu War 24th foot has pure white helmets just because they look so good.

About half of my local force Viet Cong have rice paddy hats, because nothing say local farmer more then a rice paddy hat.

I usually try to stick pretty closely to some documented appearance, but it may not be the right appearance for my typical use case. I will also make up small details to differentiate individual miniatures, rather than try to research dozens of actual documented variations (e.g. airplane serial numbers).

To be fair: most units in most periods looked dirty and ragged and faded, but gamers tend to paint them in factory fresh hues, because the platonic ideals are often more fun and more visually appealing.

There's also the issue of evolving standards over the course of a single war or even campaign. Soldiers changed kit, ships changed paint, planes changed markings, and so on. Only a few of us can afford the time, effort, and storage space to keep around multiple variations of the same unit.

- Ix

NEVER! :)

Several ways. Within the range of historically worn, usually the priority is 1) tell sides apart, 2) tell troop types apart and 3) pick the better-looking uniform. The only reason any unit of mine would have cased colors would be because I have no idea what the colors looked like. And in the smaller scales especially, colors are clearer and brighter.

I am a historical miniatures gamer, not a dioramist. And no one's paying me as a consultant

You are the artist, so it is your decision. I prefer historical accuracy most of the time, but I also like colorful troops. So if you want some red Hospitallers, go for it.

I mostly do ancients/medievals, so unless it is heraldry, most clothing is done in earthtones, or basic colors. Makes the process easy.

For modern stuff, the information is widely available & accessible.

Damon.

Stylized for me. Especially since my game is based off of a board game that uses wooden blocks with stickers on them to represent units. I tried to keep in the spirit of Commands & Colors while definitely have it being a miniatures game.

For Borodino I will field a few units of early Russians to make the numbers up,

Tally Ho!

ALWAYS! Dude… they are toys!

Well, what you see in a book, what was ordered, what was issued and what was worn in the field are really three very different looks. LOL

The usual compromise is between the official uniform and the appearance in the field..from all accounts the troops in the Peninsular War were often in unrecognisable rags. I don't fancy doing an unrecognisable army.

I guess anyone who does a Rebel army in the American Revolution gives their forces a rather tidy appearance at odds with the descriptions of them in contemporary sources!

Any army in the field is likely to take on the Field look.

Napoleonics, indeed. After one march, those tight tunics, felt and fur hats, patent boots are history. Modern sewing these were not, nor were the boots Nikes.

3rd Crusade Templars? Yeah, red or black, makes zero difference. They used what was available. Chances are, if dyes were not available and if black pitch, ink, or burnt ash wasn't to be had, then lamb's blood was used. Dried it could be seen as anywhere from black to brown to red.

Even modern uniforms wear out, fade, patches unravel, and the bedraggled field look arrives.

Paint them as you like. Chances are you wont be far off