"How far do you compromise on figures." Topic

I am making a czechoslovakian army currently 1981 to 1985. Mainly because I wanted to field OT-64's and OT-65A. Now it can have T55's or pushing it a bit T72's. However There are lots of different T72's and all look a but similar, I could pro=int out the correct mark but it would be out of date quite qicklt. I instead opted for T72B (about 1988). This meand I have a vehicle that can do a wide range without being too far from correct. Just as a note I checked with ORYX mapping Russian losses in Ukraine, over 200 have been lost so the T72 B is acceptable to cover a wide period.

My figures generally are generic prone which saves lots of additional figures as one set does all. Support weapons are less generic so add some "colour" to the battlefield.

Where do you stand on this issue, do you cover wide ranges of similar army's all with different models? Do you have limits? I would not really want to use a Challenger 2 to represent a T72, it would get too confusing.

Well, my 20mm WWII Romanian army has some Dutch figures to add different poses because the helmets are almost identical. So for me, close enough is good enough.

I know gamers that never get their games to come off, because they're pursuing 'the perfect collection' (as if approaching wargaming primarily from the modeler's perspective of the hobby, and so just have things on the shelf).

I know gamers who will substitute out-of-period miniatures and mix those into a game force, and readily put their games on, and often multiple times each month (or more often than that). To these gamers, getting a game off is their highest priority, the least important being their game pieces.

I know gamers who wouldn't know a T-72B from a B3 variant, and wouldn't care to know the difference much either.

I know gamers who probably know the difference between T-72s, but their eyes are so bad now wouldn't be able to make out these differences on the tabletop.

I also know that in the Ukrainian conflict referenced, that's waged nearly 10 years now, multiple insignia schemes have been applied to T-70 types deployed (and the other myriad of vehicles involved) by the combatant forces, with insignias that have changed in color, their geometric shapes, with stripes applied of different quantities, or with dots, letters, symbols, etc……

UshCha, I would think you should have latitude to make up your own mind about your game priorities…..

Where things get interesting, is when someone thinks to prioritize these decisions for others (or that there's any meaningful consensus of opinion to be reached on such things).

Really depends on the period. For my 19th century colonial African armies I get really picky to the point of converting different tribes because Foundry's Darkest Africa spearmen will not "just do". I find myself being offended by the suggestion Ngoni look just like Zulus. I want to do Lugard's exploits in Uganda but I won't because no body makes Buganda spearmen in correct attire with the right shields and I won't compromise.

This year I started a Napoleonic's project and I've met lots of uniform enthusiasts online who get really bent of shape by the wrong type of cuff or lapel when someone tries a paint conversion of an existing figure. "No you can't just paint French as Westphalian fusilier! dear god the horror" yet I find I'm not bothered by this sort of thing at all.

I cant explain why clearly I'm more invested in my colonial Africa project than I am with my Napoleonic project which is just for a bit of fun.

I'll proxy one long barrel Panzer IV for another. But not a short barrel for a long.

I'll use any T72 as any other, but would not use a PzIII as a PzIV

As ever, I think if your opponent doesn't mind and you don't, its good enough!

I can be fairly tolerant if it is communicated in advance so that everyone is on the same page.

Smaller the scale more you can get away with.

It's all about hats. If the hat is the right shape you're good to go…

(It was good enough for the Duke of Wellington!)

Yes. I cover multiple sub-marks with same miniature.

If the right figure/vehicle/gun is available then I'll use it. If not (eg 18mm SYW Prussian jδger) then I'll get as close as possible, doing simple conversions such as snipping muskets to rifle length if possible.

For a short-notice game I wouldn't worry over using a T-62 as a T-72.

+1 Extra Crispy and Cerdic.

I like things to be exact, but I am not exactly a fanatic about it.

Close enough is good enough if that's all you can get or reasonably convert in your scale.

If someone knows the original and is able to recognize what the model is supposed to be, then that's exactly right.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

+1 Bunkermeister and Col Durnford

+1 Bunkermeister and Col Durnford

Close is good for horseshoes, hand grenades and miniatures!

Depends on the period and scale, you can get away with an awful lot in smaller scales. My 2mm Cold War guys just have generic T55 type which stands in for T62 and a generic T64/T72.

I wouldn't dream of using a late war 15mm Panzer IV as an early war one though, whereas a Sherman is a Sherman. I just differentiate by gun, 75, 76, 105 or 17pdr.

My 20mm 'barbarians' get used as anything from Picts to Huns as I hate painting Irregular troops, whereas I have lots of different Roman armies as they wear nice sensible and fairly well documented uniforms and stand in neat lines.

Depends on scale. 6mm- general type is ok. A T72 is a T72 in that scale to me. 28mm I still ignore variants usually, I'm not paying a premium or hitting the brakes on a project for a variant that's missing. In a pinch "A Russian tank is a Russian tank" but I try to hit around the same period (WW2, Cold War, Modern, ultra-modern) at least and my opponent knows what is what.

I don't compromise on the figures in use. I get the exact figure I need for the exact purpose. So yes, I have had multiple different Pz IIIs for example, or multple different Pz IVs, whether short barrelled or long barrelled (FREX in my 15mm collection I had both Pz IVDs and PzIVFs with short barrels – though the D's were painted for French campaign and the Fs for Russia). Painting and building is as much a part of the hobby for me as it is gaming. To add to this, I also build 1/35 scale models, which influences things.

Damon.

Damon, would love to see your stuff!

Yep, I've got PzIVs in different variants too – then painted early war (Panzer Grey), Marks for Afrika, some mid-war with camo (tho I try to cheat w/a single base coat of Gelb that'll work for the Eastern Front and Afrika). Then I have some IVH's painted up in snow camo.

This is really just a personal thing – get this stuff on the board and do most gamers really care?

I had a conversation with a Fantasy Pro figure painter once at a local shop – he had pics on his phone – beautiful work, so expressive, bright colors, very imaginative!

I pulled out my digital camera brought along for our games day that Saturday – tank schemes, ACW uniformed minis….the last one he turned away on – black troops painted for the Anglo-Zulu Wars.

Maybe he thought those too dully painted? I wouldn't have thought of painting those in aqua blue though.

It's a personal thing.