It is a true thing that I have many armies and navies, and a couple of air forces. Far too many according to some sources, but so it goes.When an idea surfaced to add RussoTurkish armies for the 1877 war in 54mm it was decided to do something completely different and organize the effort from the beginning, including a pro and con list. If nothing else, the list might give good reasons to not start another set of armies.
Didn't work. The Russians are bought and on their stands, and I know where to get the Turks. Choice of scales had three sources. A wargaming compatriot who found he really likes working in 54mm does incredibly well-converted and well painted MexicanAmerican War and First World War armies. It makes 54mm a very definite option to see his figures on the table. Second input was the articles in MWAN on the scale, and the author's obvious enthusiasm about it. Last and not least, choice of figures was due to knowing where to get cheap ACW figures, so that if it didn't come together, the project wouldn't tie up serious money.
The pro and con list below might be of interest to MWANers, or just a fun read. In any case, if you are reading this, thanks.
PRO: I can buy a lot of 54mm cheap from local drug stores, historic sites, toy stores, and hobby stores, without going on-line or catalog. I also already own Osprey #277. No one else in the Club does, so I have *all* the information (humorous statement, followed by Mad Scientist laugh). The bags of figures also include artillery, limbers, officers, and possibly enough mounted figures for a cavalry unit.
CON: Starting another set of armies that I can see on the table looking good, versus a slow painting speed. I also have only the one reference book, always a hazardous thing.
PRO: The Russians can be almost entirely recruited from ACW troops in kepi, the Turks from ACW Zouave lines, and the Egyptians from Sudanese War figures. French Foreign Legion figures in tunic and havelock can be also passable Russians. Minimal conversions are required, and I'm not planning on doing much converting, anyway.
CON: Guards and Grenadiers in Russia were wearing a brimmed cap on service. I haven't seen any figures that match, and I'm really don't want to convert other figures. The bags didn't have enough mounted to do a cavalry unit; apparently all supplied were either Grant or Lee. The Romanians played and active part in the conflict, and look somewhat AustroHungarian. Late 19th C. Austro-Hungarians, in 54mm????
PRO: "What a horror, only infantry and artillery and officers and dragoons to paint". Yes, dragoons, because if one trims the weapon back on the kneeling figures, and glues two of them and a horse to a stand, one (me) has a decent looking dismounted dragoon unit.
CON: Gaming without cavalry? What will lend tone to the vulgar brawl? Dismounted dragoons don't count!
PRO: Cossacks, Turkish cavalry in turban, Romanians, Egyptians - all the colorful possibilities for units instead of a mass drab effort.
CON: Issue #127 of MWAN just arrived, and page 172 tells me I shouldn't worry about cavalry since there isn't as much as wargamers might want. There will be less color and movement on the table as a result. There's one wargamer of my acquaintance that will probably walk away because he **really** needs a cavalry command. I'll be quiet now about the cavalry.
PRO: The Turks also had a few Krupp breechloaders, and then the Russians captured a few. This is an easy conversion. The local Chinese and Japanese restaurants use chopsticks that can be cut down to look like a round cannon barrel with a square breech. The sets of ACW bought have so many cannons that turning two into Krupps still leaves the historical percentage of muzzleloaders to breechloaders.
CON: This isn't as much of an argument against, just a re-statement: this is as far on the conversion trail as I'm going to go. The motto should be, "Have some fun, get the basics done."
PRO: The local game store has a 6 by 16 table provided by its friendly owner.. If I stick to a 3X2 base for all figures, at the prices I'm paying for what I get, I can conceivably line both edges of the table with troops. Not that I would do that, but it does give an endpoint for building the armies. The tablespace looks good with 54mm present.. I know this because we did a scenario of the 1950s' British, French, and Israeli incursion into Egypt on the same table using Crossfire rules, and it did not look bad at all.
CON: The owner just re-arranged the store. It's now two 6 by 8 foot tables. Oh, well.
PRO II: My beloved spouse can occasionally be persuaded to paint larger figures. Or horses. She claims its' a Zen thing.
CON I: The store owner also carries specific 15mm figures for this conflict. A possibility that he'll be annoyed I didn't buy his figures is balanced by his realization that most club members around here had already been wargaming for 20 years before his store opened, and have their collections. We are also all of us fiscally responsible men, and the inexpensive doesn't bother him that much. The 15mm figures are good looking and would paint well, but I just don't want to start more 15mm. Oh, well.
CON II: I'm going to paint two of the officer figures as the Tsar, and have them operate an open air market. You know, the bi-Tsar. I'm going to a bad place for that one.
For the Russians at least it is four figures to a base, three at the back edge and one skirmisher out front in the infantry, base being three inches along the front edge. Dragoons are as above on the same size stand. Artillery is also on a similar stand, but with the gun pointed toward one of the shorter sides. Turks and Egyptians will have the same stands, but the figure arrangement might be different.
That's all. Like I said, I hope this was a fun read. Back to painting figures I go.
Back to MWAN # 129 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com