Sigur goes South - The American Civil War

[Battle Brush Sigur]

@oldgamer: Cheers, thanks for looking and commenting!


On the day the battle looked much like this. Hop onto the linkytrain to see my article on Austrian Salute 2016 and more pictures of the game (and many other games and tables):

http://www.battlebrushstudios.com/2016/03/show-report-austrian-salute.html

[Sunjester]

I like the corn! 

[Larry R]

I really like your painting style. It has been a pleasure to read this thread for the first time.

[Gangleri]

I don't know whether to be more impressed by the quality of the painting, the rate of production, or the battles!

I don't recognize the mounted flag-bearer and the officer with field glasses, however, nor could I find them on the Foundry or Perry sites.  Could you tell me where to find them?

The battle to depict was the battle for Perryville (or Chaplin Hills if you prefer. ACW battles always have two names, depending on the Northern or the Southern view. The Confederates usually named them after nearby cities/towns, Union troops named them after terrain features such as hills or rivers. I once heard that was because in the Northern states more of the officers and men were from urban areas and thus found natural landmarks to stand out more or to be more impressive and Southeners who were used to cities and man-made landmarks to be more sparse found those to stand out more. Not sure if that's true though.).

This explanation has been circling around for a long time (the citations always seem to point to Shelby Foote, but I don't believe he ever said where he learned this, and it may just be his supposition).  I'm pretty sure it's false.  For one thing, the percentage of rural and "urban" soldiers in both armies was about equal (over 80%), since the whole country was still overwhelmingly rural and even many of the cities were still fairly small.  Even if it were true that Secesh were more rural, then it would be just as likely they would name fights after the natural features they were allegedly more attuned to.  And in any case, there are just as many mountains, rivers, etc. above the Mason-Dixon as below, so I don't see why they would be more remarkable to one side than to the other.  Maybe buried in the army regulations of each side is some stipulation that battles be named in one way or the other.  Also of interest, however, is that battles sometimes bore several names even within the same army that defy these conventions.  For example, Federal soldiers, even years after the war, typically referred to Second Bull Run as the Battle of Groveton (the nearest town).  And there were of course many battles that shared the same name, or type of name (Kernstown, Yellow Tavern, Seven Pines/Fair Oaks, e.g.).

[Pol]

Excellent report back from Austrian Salute. Many thanks. 

[Battle Brush Sigur]

@Sunjester: Yeah, it's rather lovely. It's made of paper and bought like that off ebay IIRC.

@Larry R: Thanks very much! It's basically an abridged version of my project log on this topic from Warseer and other forums. I try to get it up to date pretty quickly without omitting anything.

@Gangleri: Thanks very much. As I said, it's the "fast forward" version of this project which started over 3 years ago. Not sure where the officer and the mounted flag bearer are from. When I'm in contact again with the gentleman I painted these for (I painted a variety of other units for him since. Highlanders for the Crimean War, 1940 Highlanders, Napoleonic Light Dragoons and now British Paras. I guess he likes Brits. ). Thanks for the info on the names of the battles indeed. Very interesting stuff.

@Pol: You're welcome. Feel free to have a look at my report of Austrian Salute 2017 as well (or any of my show reports. ): http://www.battlebrushstudios.com/search/label/Shows. Austria's wargaming scene isn't that big and many people (despite the country being small) are slightly unwilling to travel, but we do manage to put together some pretty cool things every now and then (40k/Warmahordes/Malifaux/Bolt Action tournaments and all that aside).


Along came Sharp Practice 2:



Before the release the interwebs was buzzing with anticipation. It's TFL's flagship rules after all, and them getting a new incarnation is pretty big.

The rules cover large skirmish games set in the 18th and 19th century, with a big focus on leaders and the narrative of a game, replicating the exploits of literary heroes of the time.


Of course I'm bubbling with ideas for all kinds of things to do with these rules, but the period that would be the easiest and quickest to put on the table turned out to be the American Civil War. So I placed an order with Old Glory to get my hands on some of the 28mm ACW minis from the Sash and Saber range, just to see what they're like. I was cautious, so I just got a pack of dismounted cavalry and dismounted cavalry command. Very, very good prices on those. The minis themselves are pretty okay. The molds probably are a bit worn and the metal used isn't the best. Well, there's only one word to describe it: soft. Not a huge problem, but you gotta be a bit careful with gun barrels. The thing is that the Perrys only do 6 different sculpts for dismounted cavalry, and that can be a bit repetitive over time, so it's nice to have additional poses and such. And the minis mix well with Perrys, so things are cool. The dismounted Confederate cavalry troops pack is 10 models (armed with a mix of shotguns and carbines. Some of them wear regular shoes and no sabers, so they can double as skirmishers or raiders), the command pack is 4 models (officer, sergeant, musician with bugler and a dude to hold the flag).

Here's a WIP shot of the chaps along with a then almost fully painted officers from the Perrys Confederate infantry plastics box:



For Sharp Practice you need a bunch of leaders (a.k.a. Big Men) of various ranks to lead the boys into battle. Here the Big Men I assembled from my collection  are all finished:



From left to right: 2 Corporals, 2 Sergeants, 1 1st Lieutenant and the guy with the yellow feather on his hat is ranked Dashing. I also finished a random skirmisher and a marksman with a target rifle (note the scope).



...and with this my boys are ready for Sharp Practice.





As civilians and 'minor characters' play a big role in Sharp Practice I ordered these fine people here from Redoubt Enterprises:



...along with a civilian coach. I'd been waiting for 3 months, but eventually they arrived.

[Axebreaker]

A wonderful thread and your confederates look superb!  

Christopher

[Battle Brush Sigur]

@Axebreaker: Ha, slipped in the update mere seconds before your comment! Thanks very much, Sir.


By the way, here's my review of Sharp Practice 2:

http://skirmishwargaming.com/sharp-practice-rules-introduction-review/

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Hey, happy 1st of May!

Here's my review of the 2012 Confederate plastics:

http://www.battlebrushstudios.com/2017/03/review-perry-miniatures-confederate.html





In other news, I painted figures from the "Union Infantry in Sack Coats Skirmishing" box:




In other news the Longstreet campaign somehow became a thing again and sheer horror filled me when I went back to check the basic campaign forces required. Somehow I had memorized "I got that sorted" when in fact my infantry units have 6-7 bases each and my cavalry unit has 6 bases. For campaign play I require 3 regiments of 10 bases each and a cavalry unit of 8 bases. The only requirement I barely fulfill is artillery (3 bases - two 6pdr guns and a howitzer).



So what I need to do is ramp up three of my units to 10 bases each. As these Perrys plastics boxes are crammed with minis I still had some spares lying around. This allowed me to (over a horrifyingly long timespan) to add four bases to the 3rd Louisiana infantry:





It's the four bases in the front rank (apart from the command base). You know what? I really, really like these older plastic ACW infantrymen the Perrys do. They aren't as much work to put together as the new ones and they just 'paint up' really, really well. Details on the new ones are sharper, they're a bit taller and have more army specific gear and all, but I really like the older ones. Perfectly fine models.

That's one out of three regiments sorted. I also assembled four horsemen to add to my cavalry to bring them up to the required 8 bases and started working on four more bases of Confederate infantry in slightly butternuttier looking uniforms. Of course I also have to get four dismounted cavalrymen done after that. Then I have two choices - I could add three more bases to the Tiger Zouaves (I painted 7 bases of those chaps in the past PLUS another dude, so I'd have to paint just 11 models) and make them a proper full regiment OR I do nothing and cobble together a 10-base regiment from five Tiger Zouaves and 5 bases from my beloved 14th Louisiana infantry regiment.

Considering this campaign won't happen for a while (or maybe never at all) I still have time to think about it. But you never know. My mate just did the painting equivalent of an insane forced march and painted 70 Union infantry.


Next on the list: four more bases for the Butternut confederates you've seen in the Confederate Infantry box review (see above).





As far as Sharp Practice plans go: I'm all set for that. All I need for that is deployment points and support choices.



I actually bought a bunch of ACW camp accessories which I intend to use for deployment points (and I can just use my general as a deployment point as well). I bought a covered wagon which can double as water/ammo/medic's wagon/whatever if need be, so that'll cover quite a lot. I even got a preacher model and some general civilians for scenarios which I should finish some time. He's not an army priest, but oh well. It's a start. I actually had someone ask for a demo game of SP2 at the local club, so that may happen sooner rather than later. I'll just use the same minis I use for battle games. That's 4 infantry models to a base, in Sharp Practice 2 groups of line infantry consist of 8 models, so that'll work. Skirmishers are 6 to a group if I remember correctly, but at this point I got plenty of those single-based (something like 4 groups in total). Concerning Big Men I'm sorted, so all I really lack for SP2 is those deployment points. Of course markers can be used for that, but where's the fun in that?

I guess I also should make some more terrain. Somehow I really want to have a lot of split rail fences. You know, the zig-zaggy ones. Well, let's see about that. God, that reminds me I still got that US farmhouse kit lying around...

[Larry R]

I'd love to read a tutorial on your painting technique! Hint, Hint!!

[Gibby]

Bloody amazing work. You'll love Sharp Practice. It's easily my favourite black powder era game, and 2nd Edition pretty much perfects the ruleset.

[Battle Brush Sigur]

@Larry R: Thanks very much. I used to do Painting tutorials between 2010 and 2012-ish, but these day I don't have time for them any more unfortunately. I did two for Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy Magazine in the past years, but that's it really. My technique really is just plain old painting. Which it always is (unless we're talking about the people who made it their 'thing' to paint Space Marines in ever faster ways entirely taken from car/scale modelling. Because it's the same thing really. ). Especially now with youtube 'personalities' and painting videos there seems to be a weird dependence in some people on these things. And this is what these videos lead to eventually. It's really odd to see people asking for tutorial videos on every little thing these days on facebook. This isn't directed at you, of course, it just reminded me of what's going on. How I paint these ACW minis really is: apply grey primer (or dusting stylee primer. I think they call it zenithal pre-shading now and people made up 20 other names for it, but it doesn't matter.), apply base colour, highlights, a wash, highlights, paint details. It's really banal how I paint. I was actually surprised when at a show recently someone called my painting style "old-school". Maybe fantasy-sci-fi-centric peeps view it that way because I do a lot of historicals. Not sure.

@Gibby: Thanks very much! Indeed I already had the honour to play an introductionary game to SP2 (last game last year actually). ACW, but 15mm. I have yet to publish the battle report, but my esteemed colleague Frank Shandy put up an AAR of the game. So far (apart from the ACW thing in 28mm) I've been roped into 15mm FIW. I'd also like to do 28mm Napoleonics (Tirolean Insurgency was in talks; Bavarians vs. Tiroleans. Anything but bloody Penninsular or Waterloo.). Of course someone in the area is planning 15mm Penninsular. I think that 15mm makes more sense, BUT 28mm looks nicer in some regards.



Come to think of it, I should post it here for everyone to see. I played a test game of Sharp Practice with Frank Shandy late last year. Of course my own AAR of the game is still in the making, but Mr.Shandy put his own AAR up:

https://wargamingraft.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/encounter-at-gaps-crossing-sharp-practice-aar/



Findings:
.) Sharp Practice 2 is as great as expected and then some.

I strongly suggest having a look at his blog in general. He's a seriously well-read dude in terms of the American Civil War and wargames in general. He also does all kinds of other miniature gaming (even though his main thing is 15mm skirmishing). Two special things to check out I think are his "Women in War" posts and that glorious ACW balloon.



Back to 28mm ACW and getting units ready for Longstreet:

The reactions to the 3rd Louisiana in its boosted-to-10 state was overwhelmingly positive on the interweb, which really helped my motivation getting another regiment to 10 bases:






Neato. Hope you like them!

[Larry R]

Thanks for the reply. I think its your pre-shading that makes your figures pop! That and your color choice! Thanks again.

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Thanks for the reply. I think its your pre-shading that makes your figures pop! That and your color choice! Thanks again.

Cheers, hope I didn't come across as stand-offish. I firmly believe that it's all about experimenting, working out a recipe that works for oneself and keeping on tweaking that, try out new things and so on. It's not the fastest way to get things done, but I think it's the right way because this is how I prefer to learn painting.

[Larry R]

No you didn't. I think I just got lazy lately. Time to go back to old ways and take more time experimenting instead of charging through projects!