Remove this ad

Lead

Oct 5 10 12:45 PM

Tags : :

Put simply, there's a lot of interest in Renaissance warfare on this forum. Quite a lot. But we seem to have spread out the 'want' far too thinly.

I'd personally argue that everyone who wants to see Landsknechts, Reislaufers, Spaniards et al - Renaissance soldiers in general - should get behind one and only one project. I've laid one out myself that I think will get everyone satisfied, at least in terms of what it would offer to the consumer - every weapon of the Renaissance, armoured, and unarmoured bodies - and, personally, I'd like to see what people think in terms of what else we could form a consensus around.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Oct 5 10 2:00 PM

I am afraid to state that miniature wargamers are not exactly well-known for their ability to reach a consensus.

[Zombie gamers might be an exception. Or at least some of them.]

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Oct 5 10 3:24 PM

Nah - even zombie gamers can't reach a consensus.  I have far future (Dead Space et al), modern, WWII, generic fantasy (dark, middle, Renaissance), Roman (Zvezda Cursed Legion) and finally a generic ancient...though I guess that is more skeletons and mummies than zombies.

Honestly though, it will make better sense to have more ideas than fewer (though the manner in which WGF prioritizes the ideas gets more complicated).  The general idea is that as more releases go out...more releases will happen every cycle.  Capital from sales gets rolled over into more sets to sell...the only thing we should focus on is getting more information out there for them to turn into sets that will sell.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Oct 5 10 3:48 PM


Yes, I suppose. But at the moment, we've got a dozen different pikemen/arquebusier/halberdier/et al options that are languishing in limbo. What I was suggesting was that WF produce a boxed set design using the new mini-sprues concept. I made a L&U introduction but so far it seems to have gotten lost, so I'll lay it out here.

This kit would comprise a modular set of mini-sprues containing that would allow people to purchase and equip a Renaissance army with a high degree of customisability. 
The basis of the kit would consist of two six-body sprues.
One of these will consist of a set of unarmoured bodies and between six to eight heads, preferably unarmoured. A second of these will consist of six armoured bodies, three of which would wear breastplates, two of which would wear breastplates and tassets (thigh guards) and one with tassets, spaulders and a decorated cuirass, along with at least six heads wearing helmets such as morions, Cassabets, skull caps and sallets to allow for a high degree of customisability. 
The bodies themselves should be reasonably generic, with the classic hose, puffy shirts and trousers and rakish hats so they can be used as most early to mid-Renaissance infantrymen. 
The weapon's sprues would be consist of: 
A pike sprue, containing 12 pikes and arms in a variety of a poses.
A ranged weapons sprue, consisting of 6 crossbow arms and 6 arquebus arms, plus ammunition pouches for the model.
A meleĆ© weapons sprue, containing 4 Zweihander arms, 4 sets of bared sideswords and bucklers, and 4 halberd arms. 
There should also be an accessories sprue, containing six Katzblagers and six other sheathed sideswords.
Personally, I think this idea is a pretty solid one. It gives us pretty much everything you need for a Renaissance army, it could be very useful for people playing WHFB as the Empire is fundamentally a Renaissance army which forgot it's pikes - and these would be cheaper and better quality than GW miniatures, and, more to the point, everyone who wants Renaissance soldiers would get them. 

 

Alexander Hunt. Co-author of the Warhammer Fantasy: Total Realism project. Author of Defiance: The realistic modern and future skirmish ruleset.

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Oct 5 10 3:56 PM


I made a L&U introduction but so far it seems to have gotten lost, so I'll lay it out here.

-ferocity

Well, currently the LAUL is waiting for total restructuring - no new external submissions being processed before that has happened.

As for your suggestion, it seems to be rather heavy in the number of sprues required. Have you tried doing any estimation of how large each of those sprues should be, area-wise? There are somewhere some rough guidelines for estimating this.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Oct 5 10 3:58 PM

Yea technically the public LaUL hasnt been open over a year now I think. Like the idea of modular systems but sounds like a lot of stuff. I think we should start off somewhere specific and then build on from that

Where is his will needed?

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Oct 5 10 4:40 PM

Yeah, it is a lot of stuff, but it's got potential. Landsknechts, Reislaufers and Tercio pikemen have massive potential to draw in consumers, mostly with the Zweihander-type swords and the various side weapons initially. It's also likely to be a massive hit with WHFB Empire players looking for cheap greatswords and line infantry of all kinds, including the only-metal Dogs of War pike ranges.

I've honest to God no idea where to start. While the logical first step would be to produce the unarmoured sprue and the pike arms, I feel this would be losing a lot of the potential of the range as it wouldn't cash in on the core of the WHFB-love, but if pushed to reduce the sprue numbers I'd say:

As an initial 'opener':
One mini-sprue for bodies: 2 wearing breastplates and thigh guards, 4 without, some heads (helmets and hats)
One pike mini-sprue, 6 pikes, some accessories like sideswords.
One sprue containing 4-6 Zweihander arms.

Put a couple of the Zweihander sprues, five of the body sprues and five of the pike sprues in a box, you've got basic 'Landsknecht' kit. 
Maybe release a Reislaufer 'nemesis' kit with Halberds instead of Zweihanders (maybe an optional extra head sprue for both sides to seperate them)
That's four sprues.

Expansion kits:
A roldelero-sprue containing 6 or so sidesword+buckler combinations.

A 'ranged' box set where the pikes are switched out for arquebus sprues or crossbow sprues (plus appropriate accessories).

So, basically the whole thing can be reduced to a minimum of 3 sprues as an opener, 4 if they're to be released as a pair of boxed sets.

Alexander Hunt. Co-author of the Warhammer Fantasy: Total Realism project. Author of Defiance: The realistic modern and future skirmish ruleset.

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Oct 6 10 12:03 AM

How about three bodies a sprue. One full armor,one half, one without, 6-8 heads some hats,some skullcaps,some helmed..at least a single sallet helm, for weapons run Pike,halberds, and great swords.
From one box we can make German and Swiss mercs ..each sprue would yield three ranks of Pike or a landskect and a couple of halberd bearing skirmishers ...

Winners work hard, losers whine about the other guy

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Oct 6 10 4:13 AM

Splitting the bodies into a 3-body sprue would, I feel, leave too little room for variation of poses and stances, making the model's too inflexible.
I'll refine the 6-body suggestion: 2 with tassets and cuirass, 2 with just a cuirass, 2 with no armour.

Alexander Hunt. Co-author of the Warhammer Fantasy: Total Realism project. Author of Defiance: The realistic modern and future skirmish ruleset.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Oct 6 10 10:36 AM

As for pike sprues, I would suggest having them only contain pikes and nothing else; this way they could be in future re-used for any pike set (be it ancient, medieval or renessaince).

So the arms for holding pikes would need to moved to their own sprue.

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Oct 6 10 11:32 AM

There we go Ferocity, two files of three ranks a sprue!
And Griefbringer, I think that with the mini sprues that Tony has in mind, we will see a sprue of them..make that a six pike sprue and add it to this infantry set. With weapons of the sprue we can still have plenty of arms to hold pikes and halberds and have extra to hold swords

Winners work hard, losers whine about the other guy

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#12 [url]

Oct 6 10 12:49 PM

It's more detailed and at the same more universal, without being specific to the Italian Wars, and covers pretty much every major infantry weapon if it goes into full production. Basically, I see this as a logical compromise between everyone here who wants Renaissance troops - something to unite behind and show WF that there's a market for these things. 

Alexander Hunt. Co-author of the Warhammer Fantasy: Total Realism project. Author of Defiance: The realistic modern and future skirmish ruleset.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Oct 6 10 4:38 PM

IMHO, this is a winner of an idea.  I NEED these guys. I would be able to fire up my DoW WHFB armies for use with the Empire.  I would be able to field units that do rank up and meet/touch enemy bases front to front.

IMHO, it would be very easy for me to convince my group to buy, buy, buy  and create two or more complete armies of period/correct (well almost) Renaissance troops.

I am therefore I think....OR....I think therefore I am...OR...I think I am therefore I am!!

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Oct 6 10 4:40 PM

So the plan would be for pikes as a separate sprue?
 And you could have a universal arm for both Halberds and Pikes (Whereas swords, bucklers and Beidenhanders would require their own arm sets), and then a separate bare or T-shirt wearing arm set for ancient armies and their phalangiti.

Alexander Hunt. Co-author of the Warhammer Fantasy: Total Realism project. Author of Defiance: The realistic modern and future skirmish ruleset.

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Oct 6 10 5:10 PM

What kind of stances would there be for pikes/halberds? Upright obviously. Will there be gaming challenged defensive positions (over arm and mid)? causes problems for gamers but looks delightful for modelers. Although I am likely to opt for the swords and halberds over pikes anyways for future purchases, just asking questions.


Where is his will needed?

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Oct 7 10 3:26 AM

It's more detailed and at the same more universal, without being specific to the Italian Wars, and covers pretty much every major infantry weapon if it goes into full production.

-ferocity

More detailed: true. As Howard and Tony will gladly admit, a lot of the current LaUL submissions are lacking detail in their descriptions.

More weapons: the only additions I can see in your list are crossbows and bared one-handed swords. Crossbows tended to be rather marginal in western Europe by 1520's, though could be seen in the colonial warfare for a while longer.

More universal: I think you would need to explain what components make your suggestion more universal. In the end, a model that looks like 1525 landsknecht looks like that, regardless of what you call it. So perhaps you should specify more clearly what all types of soldiers (place and time) could be created by your idea, and which of the pieces included make them suitable for those.


As for tassets, there is always an option to make them separate pieces. First GW multi-part plastic Empire soldiers (sculpted by Perries, released around 1998) had separate tassets that you could glue on if you needed. Some people might find the gluing of such pieces a bit fiddly, though.

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Oct 7 10 10:18 AM

1. Separate tassets is splendid idea.
2. More universal: With these models you could make pretty much any infantry soldier in the Renaissance period, the three 'biggest' being Reislaufers, Landsknechts and the Spanish. Puffy trousers and shirts, tights on the calves, floppy hats - a generic Renaissance clothing, armour and weapon styling to the models. 1525 Pavia Landsknechts is unduly and excessively specific on what the models are meant to be, while unduly vague on the details.

3. Yes on the crossbows, but this kit is designed for a 1450-1550 era period as so to maximise it's appeal to potential customers. Plus, the Roldelero's are an important component of Renaissance warfare AND an important part of making the kit have a mass appeal.

4. The arms: I would suggest that there be two underarm 'attack' poses, one with the pike held in two hands on the staff itself, and the other with the left hand held on the pike, and the right holding the base of the pike-stave so to 'push' with the weapon. A third 'ready' pose at 45 degrees from horizontal would also be a good idea, as would having a fourth 'attention' pose with the weapon hoisted vertically.

5. I'm going to do a little market research on this on some other forums. Mainly re: the Warhammer Fantasy players.

Alexander Hunt. Co-author of the Warhammer Fantasy: Total Realism project. Author of Defiance: The realistic modern and future skirmish ruleset.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Oct 7 10 11:18 AM


3. Yes on the crossbows, but this kit is designed for a 1450-1550 era period as so to maximise it's appeal to potential customers.

-ferocity

I think here is an issue: clothing-wise it is difficult to make models that will fit for this long period. The shift to the "puffy" style amongst soldiers in the early 16th century is a rather drastic change. I think more realistic would be to narrow the period, such as for 1500-1550.

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Oct 7 10 4:56 PM

I think here is an issue: clothing-wise it is difficult to make models that will fit for this long period. The shift to the "puffy" style amongst soldiers in the early 16th century is a rather drastic change. I think more realistic would be to narrow the period, such as for 1500-1550.

-griefbringer

Irregardless, this is a specific (and most importantly, archetypal) Renaissance soldiery and the uniforms. The tedious specifics of when said clothing was worn isn't hugely important. Renaissance-looking puffy-clothing wearing soldiers. It's a brilliant idea, it's got massive potential and appeal, and all we need to do is get behind it.

Alexander Hunt. Co-author of the Warhammer Fantasy: Total Realism project. Author of Defiance: The realistic modern and future skirmish ruleset.

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Oct 8 10 10:33 AM

The tedious specifics of when said clothing was worn isn't hugely important. Renaissance-looking puffy-clothing wearing soldiers.

-ferocity

I think that historical nitpicks surely want to have some sort of time period pinned down. Or at least having the chosen style specifically illustrated with a couple of pictures.

As it is, even the puffy styles changed in look during the 16th century.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help