"Artistic or realistic - does it matter?" Topic

As wargamers we tend to spend a lot of time and effort in making sure rules and battle formations match the real thing. It made me wonder about painting our miniature armies. Since we wargame, that is, play actual battles, should they all be painted in campaign uniforms etc. But because it is a game, does it matter? I'm wanting to collect and paint up a French Guard Marines/Seamen battalion but realised I'm wanting to paint them in full dress, not campaign kit. Should I resist my artistic desire? Does it matter?

I think it's a personal decision.

Since the troops will be used in a number of different battles, and may also serve as proxies in others, rather than appearing in a diorama like Siborne's that purports to show a particular moment in a specific battle, there is no absolute obligation for them to be painted as they would have appeared on campaign.

If I was going to paint Peninsular War armies now, I think I would use the colour palette of the aquatints in Jenkins' Martial Achievements of Great Britain &c. published shortly after Waterloo, so they would resemble contemporary prints and how civilians at the time imagined battles to look. But that would be my choice and not one I would expect others to follow.

Your troops, your paints, your choice!

I think if you were doing a realistic display diorama then it would be different, but otherwise its up to you.

Compromises are made a lot of the time even without going "full parade dress".
Thinking of those Waterloo British NOT wearing boring oilskin shako covers.

True campaign dress would often be an unrecognisable ragged mess in the Peninsula.

I think most wargamers like the visual spectacle of the game (other wise when could just use a board game or little blocks of wood) so it's understandable that gamers like full dress uniforms.I think it probably fits with the over representation of elite or unique units in many wargames armies. Many gamers want some Old Guard Grenadiers,ACW Zouave or Tiger II tanks because they are fun or visually appealing.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I'm painting up French troops for North Africa during WW2 and there is a bit of freedom with their kit and uniforms. Since they received so much from the US, and scrounged from their own supply and others, the colors of their uniforms and equipment can vary greatly. I also tend to paint a bit brighter so the minis can stand out on a table easier. 15mm from 5 feet away can seem pretty small.

Paint what feels right.

The soldiers at the time pictured themselves, and the artists who painted them pictured them, in full dress. No grognard would ever be caught in a café talking aobut the glory days of wearing drab campaign dress!

I never would have gotten into Napoleonics if we had to paint them in campaign dress. If I wanted to paint endless boring uniforms for black powder, I would have done ACW.
: P

Well, let's take this to an extreme.

Let's say you have an Imagi-Nation, and you want the uniforms to be pink. Is that OK?

Of course it is. They're your toys. Do anything you want.

It's a game with toy soldiers -- do what you want.

There would probabaly be less Napoleonic gamers if everyone's army was dressed in dirty trousers and overcoats.

But whatever you choose, DON'T neglect the flags! All Napoleonic miniatures armies look like black-and-white masses with red bits to any passersby the table. Dark blue and green either appear black or blend into the grass. Even British red coats are less distinctive than you might think at eight feet away (not to mention that half the figures in any British army won't be in red anyway – foreign allies, light infantry and cavalry, artillery, etc).

It's the banners that let the spectators figure out "OK, there are the Austrians, there are the Russians, and the troops by the river are Poles." Gun carriages help some (especially the Austrian ochre and the Prussian blue), but IMHO the flags make the Napoleonic miniature battle comprehensible.

Eumelus

I think you've just excused Sir Ridley Scott.

I'd duck if I were you.

It matters only if it matters.
So said the Wise Master.
Who do you paint to please? Yourself or the guys who come over to play?
Larry Leadhead had a cartoon strip about the Hero slaving over obscure treatises on uniforms to get the details exactly right. Then on the table, a player asks "How fast do the blue guys move?"
Figure availability might also be an issue.

Love the LArry Leadhead reference.
I have one ofhis t-shirts – which is about to die

For me it depends on the period. I like my Napoleonic's in full dress and my ACW rebels in campaign dress. Other periods vary for me.

Full dress it is then. Phew!

Toys! They're not toys! They're military miniatures! LOL

Eumelus – good point. Got to have the right flags, full dress or campaign kt.

Action figures!

I appreciate drab campaign uniforms of the later years. Plus I'm a lazy painter, thanks greatcoats :)

I don't worry about an *exact* color match for uniforms, finding a shade "close enough!" works just fine… ;-)

Almost all of mine are in full dress uniform.

I am fortunate enough to have militia "uniforms" figures. So, can "simulate" a regimental "uniform" for hard service regiments. (I hate finger quotes…)

Full dress- but in order to quickly get together Drouet d'Erlon's XI Corps for Albuera, giving some definite thought to doing them all in overcoats- they were essentially a "marche" organization at that point, dropping off battalions of what had once been Oudinot's II Corps with their parent regiments as they moved across Spain, en route to a final rendezvous with Soult.

I've always thought that wargames are a compromise of three factors: what looks good, what's practical and what's accurate. The emphasis you put each of those factors is entirely up to you but you will have to compromise – as you can't have all three together, not totally anyway. (At least that's my thinking).

I go both ways, enjoy game rules that try and re-create history but will play a game using troops not much different than a chess game.

If I was creating summat for a museum exhibition, I would not have the Gendarmes d'Elite carrying three eagles. One eagle bearer in the Restoration helmet, one with the bearskin and red lapels and one with the surtout and bearskin. But I had them in 28mm, all of them, hidden in my attic and now gone.

Even for future museums, if folk want to show a series of Wursts carrying medics in 1815, who will argue? Time was most kids thought Waterloo was a song, I hope none know about Ridley Scott (word is an extended version is out). It will become a bridge, or a station, on the Thames, or nothing more, as the British Empire is now a source of shame I gather, from today's UK papers.

As a card carrying Irish Citizen, resident in the UK for 70 years, I do not agree.

It is all a game. You can't win. You can't break even. You can't even get out of the game. (My epitaph, but only after What a Long Strange Trip It's Been)

Lol. Do what you want to do. I have dozens of different 15mm French Battalions differentiated by the color of the bedroll on their packs. Every color of the rainbow… My older eyes can at least differentiate colors. 😊

Great comments and opinions from everyone. Just shows how different we all all. Can't stereotype a wargamer! LOL

I will go for full dress for some of the units but I am attracted to painting some in campaign gear and greatcoats.

Wargaming is playing games and when some non-wargamers have made comments about the hobby or passion I have always said it is like playing chess with more rules and movements or playing with toy soldiers with rules. I also inform them that I do not see them myself as toys but rather as military miniatures, hence all the research and painting etc. But fun and enjoyment is the name of the game, as frustrating as researching and painting can be. We suffer happily to earn our fun. (Does that make sense?) LOL