Author: admin

  • A Journey Through Colour – Part 5 the Camouflage Era

    When I started to mix my own paints using artist pigments in earnest I thought that using it for WW2 miniatures and models would be a step too far. The colours are harder to mix and you also start getting into questions of accuracy and the ability to replicate the same colour on multiple occasions. But I gradually realised that the accuracy issue was nonsense – in field conditions there was in fact a lot of variation in end appearance – and that was the answer to the replicability issue too. And as I looked at models and miniatures in magazine pictures and at shows, I felt that these often didn’t look right. Surely I needed to take control and produce my own answers? Colour is much more subjective than we tend to think.

    But I wasn’t wrong about these colours being hard to mix. They are dull, deep into what I call tertiary territory – i.e. combinations of the three primary colours. Small changes in hue can make a big difference to the visual appearance (as can lighting) – where there is a much greater tolerance in Horse & Musket colours. And it sometimes isn’t that obvious which hue on the colour circle is dominant. Both olive drab and khaki often look green to our eyes (or rather brains) – but they are actually closer to yellow and orange respectively. But once you get the hang of it, it is very empowering. If you want to attempt this, my experiences should help you.

    There are three fields where I have used my paint mixing skills: figures, vehicles and aircraft. All of these are focused on British and German forces in the Mediterranean in 1943, with some American aircraft of that period thrown in. Each of these fields requires a different set of techniques, and has raised different challenges. (I have also painted artillery pieces, but these are hybrids of figures and vehicles which require no special techniques, apart from big bases, which is a bit out of scope). I will look at each of these in turn.

    Figures

    Some of my more recent British infantry. AB 20mm miniatures

    For figures I use virtually the same technique as for Horse & Musket miniatures. But how do I achieve the dull colours required?

    The British were dressed in khaki uniforms. I get a bit confused by the nomenclature, but there are two versions – dark, used in uniforms for North Europe, and light, used in tropical uniforms. In 1943 British troops most used the dark version. The campaign in Tunisia was in the winter, which was cold, wet and muddy. Even the 8th Army substituted their famous light khaki and shorts. After this, the terrain had more vegetation, and the darker colour was generally considered more appropriate – though there seem to have been exceptions in Sicily, which was hot and dry.

    Dark khaki is a hard colour to get to grips with. Back in my teens (the 1970s) I remember rejecting the standard Humbrol khaki as too brown, and trying to mix my own, starting with green. It didn’t look right at all, though often matched the box artwork for the various Airfix products. I think there were Humbrol Authentics for Khaki Drill, but I don’t think I bought it, for some reason. The key thing to understand about dark khaki is that it is closer to brown than anything – but it is so close to the neutral centre of the colour wheel (i.e. a balanced mix of the three primaries) that it doesn’t take much to tip our brains into seeing it as green. Indoor lighting (including studio lighting in TV and films), for example, does this – and context, the colours it is placed next to, can do this too. To make it I start with a mix of Raw Sienna and Titanium White, and gradually mix in Prussian Blue until it looks right. Having a bit of white mixed in at the start is essential, or you won’t see the colour balance properly. Try to do this in natural light! Pale khaki can be made in a similar way – but start with the white, add the Raw Sienna, and then add a touch of blue. The webbing and other kit in this theatre were quite bleached – so this pale khaki is a good basis for this. Forget the pale green in the textbooks.

    The main German uniform in this theatre right through 1943 was the olive cotton tropical one. This is readily made by adding some Mars Black to a Titanium White and Oxide Yellow mix; alternatively mixing Yellow Oxide with Neutral Grey gets you close enough quickly. It should look green in colour. Elements of the standard field grey uniform may also have been in use, especially later in 1943. This is a green, though later in the war may have drifted towards khaki brown. Start with a green such as Sap Green, with the ubiquitous white, and add red to it. If you are starting with a blue-green (such as Viridian), you might try mixing in Burnt Sienna. But a bit like in Napoleonic days, uniform colours were not precise in the mid to late war. For earlier war you might try different mixes for the tunic and trousers (greyer) from the same pigments. A third uniform type may also have been used – the “Reed Green” cotton summer uniform – which apparently was in use on the Russian front in the summer of 1943 (Kursk, etc.). This seems to have been greener and darker than Field Grey – but faded rapidly – more on that subject later.

    Then there were the Luftwaffe uniforms. I have only tried to represent these for an 88mm Flak crew – but the Luftwaffe was also represented in this theatre by paratroops, and by the Hermann Goring division – both of which played a prominent role. The standard tropical colour was paler and sandier than the army one – I simply used a lot more white in the same basic mix. Light khaki, described above, was probably also pretty close. The standard Luftwaffe uniform was blue-grey. I simply mixed some black and white with Prussian Blue – but a blue, brown and white mix would be just as good. Camouflage smocks were also in use, both by paratroops and others. I don’t have much specific to say on this – it’s not hard to find appropriate colours, and if they are bit wrong, it doesn’t really show.

    How about representing the fading of uniforms? Most uniforms were cotton, which isn’t good at holding dye – think about denim jeans. So a lot of uniforms were heavily faded – especially the German uniforms. The Reed Green uniform was described as very rapidly turning into a piss colour. Some of the German uniforms in Africa look like American chinos. It wasn’t uncommon for different elements of the uniform in both armies to be different colours, due to different levels of exposure to the elements. I have tended to represent this simply with variable levels of white in the mix. In my most recent batches I have kept to just two shades to simplify things. I could have been braver with the extra white- the contrast turned out to be less than I thought when the paint had dried.

    Finishing the figures is still a work in progress. In my most recent (and still not finished) batch of Germans, and the preceding batch of British (illustrated above) I have used the wash/glaze (its a bit in between) of black ink mixed into Liquitex Matt Varnish for airbrush, which is in fact off-matt. It brings out the texture of the mouldings beautifully, but stains the rest of the uniform too much. In the case of the British I had to go back over some of the figures with the original paint. I also dusted them with a paler mix of pastels (see below). Here’s how the Germans look after this step – and it looks as if I’m going to have to do some similar corrections:

    My most recent German infantry after the black wash/glaze was applied – too dark. AB Figures again.

    Vehicles

    The two big differences between how I paint figures and vehicles are primers and the use of an airbrush. Plastic models especially must be primed – artist acrylics often struggle to adhere without it, especially if water is involved. I found that plastic isn’t all that friendly to gesso (the water I loosen it with, I expect), and besides for vehicles I wanted something darker. There are quite a few nooks and crannies on models, which the final painting process often doesn’t get to (wheel arches, etc). My feeling was that the standard light mud finish (Raw Umber and White) needed to be darker, and I didn’t want to put too much ordinary paint into the white. So I went out and bought some Vallejo hobby primers – in German Dark Yellow and USA Olive Drab, as well as white. These are quite liquid and don’t need much thinning for an airbrush – though I sometimes apply by brush. I have taken to priming plastic kits (and any other models that require assembly) before assembly, to ensure that the primer gets to those hard-to-reach places. One observation to make on these primers is that they are quite dark – they seem pretty saturated – presumably reflecting how their top coat cousins are. The German Dark Yellow is also quite bright – though within the spectrum of shades actually in use, just, according to my reference book on AFV colours, which has colour swatches. These paints seem to represent what might be applied to an actual, full-sized vehicle in the factory – with no concession to the scale effect. I wasn’t that bothered by this, as I was looking for dark shades. Besides the paint is quite thin. I’m not wholly convinced by these hobby primers. They don’t seem to stick all that well to plastic – at least not in the first day or so: they are easy to rub off. But better than applying paint direct.

    The airbrush is another of those innovations that I remain not wholly convinced by. You can achieve a beautifully thin and smooth effect. This is especially useful for aircraft (see later), but less important for vehicles. Is it quicker? Yes, if the stars align and you get into the groove – and you have reasonable batch to get through. But they are a faff to set up, and a faff to clean afterwards. Getting the consistency of the paint and the air pressure right is an art I haven’t truly mastered – though on occasion it works first time. I also haven’t mastered the art of fine detail – or I don’t have the right brush. Still the model looks wonderful after it’s been airbrushed. I use it for priming sometimes, and for the main base colour of the vehicle. Camouflage contrast colours, and canvass tilts if in a different colour, go on with a brush.

    The wet palette doesn’t work for airbrush paints. I mix the paint in a small plastic pot, which I cover in clingfilm between sessions. Heavy body acrylic paints need a lot of medium to make them liquid enough. I use a combination of Liquitex Airbrush Medium (disconcertingly an opaque white in the raw) and standard airbrush thinner. Most of this is in the mixing pot, but I usually add more in the airbrush cup if it looks a bit too thick, as it usually does. Following advice, I don’t use water. I usually mix quite large quantities of each colour, to ensure that I have enough. This can be quite hard, especially if you go through the game of overdoing one pigment, so having to put in more of the others to compensate – so it can be a bit heavy on pigment use. But since the paint needs to be quite runny for the brush, it keeps for a long time in the pot under the cling film if there is a decent quantity – actually longer than a wet palette. If the quantity is small, I tip it into the wet palette – as it needs to be available for touching up, mixing with other pigments, and so on. I’m probably moaning too much – as I get used to it, it gets quicker and easier. All I would say is that if you are thinking of using one, expect the usual learning curve. The larger the models, the more appropriate it is. At 20mm scale (1/72 and thereabouts) I think it is definitely worth it for aircraft, but marginal for vehicles. For larger vehicle scales – even 28mm – things might tip more in favour of the airbrush. And if you get proficient then you can do more things with it.

    For British vehicles there are four main schemes. At this time vehicles mainly were finished at the factory in a brown service drab (sometimes called “Brown Khaki”), with a blue-black camouflage pattern on occasion. This reflected a shortage of green pigment, where the RAF had priority. The First Army in Tunisia started out mostly painted like this, with some vehicles overpainted in paler camouflage patterns ad hoc. Some vehicles (at least some of the Churchill tanks apparently) were finished in a dark green (“Green Khaki). In Sicily and Italy many vehicles were painted in this, especially second line vehicles. At the start of 1943 the Eighth Army vehicles were painted in a desert scheme, with a base of Desert Pink with an olive green camouflage pattern, and this seems to have been in use through the Tunisian campaign. After this a new Mediterranean scheme was devised of Light Mud with a Blue Black camouflage pattern. This was officially in use in Sicily, though not all that evident from the photos. By Salerno it was in very widespread use. Finally many US-sourced vehicles, from Sherman tanks to jeeps, were left in US Olive Drab

    Vehicles from Oxford Diecast, showing their version of the “Brown Khaki” scheme, with an ordinary khaki tilt on the Bedford truck. A bit on the dark side for my purposes, but I think well-researched. The top of the Dorchester (and the Bedford’s tilt) is Blue Black. Also demonstrates how not to use light when taking photos of miniatures.

    The brown is the most difficult of these to produce, as the colour sources are weak. Modern vehicle collectors would rather use the earlier or later variations on green. It seems to have been a bit redder than the khaki used on uniforms. So Burnt Sienna is the obvious place to start, mixed in with white and blue. This was too red for me when I tried it, so I mixed in Raw Sienna or Yellow Oxide. Maybe Raw Sienna with a bit of red would be a better way. I also use this colour for items of infantry equipment – such as mortars, Vickers guns and PIATs, together with ammunition boxes and so on.

    These carriers are in the brown scheme – one of my early efforts – my finishing techniques have evolved quite a bit. You can just about catch the contrast between the uniform khaki and the vehicle cool

    For Desert Pink I have simply mixed white into Raw Sienna (or perhaps the other way round). This may not be quite pink enough, but there is a distinct red tinge. For the olive green I started with Sap Green. I then did the lazy thing of mixing in other colours on my wet palette to make it a bit paler and yellower. White and Cadmium Yellow, with a bit of red to dull it down, should do the trick.

    The sometimes elusive colour of Light Mud, which was mixed in theatre, proved unexpectedly easy to mix. White, Raw Sienna and Prussian Blue did the trick – the same combo as for khaki, but with more white and a slight difference balance of blue so give a browny grey. My speculation is that it was made from mixing the redundant Desert Pink with the equally redundant olive green. The Blue Black uses the same pigments with more blue and much less white. I will discuss Olive Drab under Aircraft.

    These lorries are in the Light Mud/Blue Black scheme. I have used a slightly different colour for the tilts. Models from Airfix and the now defunct SHQ

    The main German colour in use, especially from Sicily onwards, is the famous Dunkelgelb, which was introduced in early 1943, and in use for the rest of the war. As I have alluded to earlier in this series, this was a struggle to produce at first. My first batch of tanks (some Panzer IIIs) were too red – even after about the third repaint. In fact it would have been passable for the brown in use in North Africa (see later). But the solution was simple enough in the end: Yellow Oxide and white, with some Mars Black mixed in. These are the same components that I use for the olive tropical uniforms with less black. I suspect that the two main pigments are close to those actually used by the Germans, as they should have been comparatively easy to source. With these three ingredients it is possible to replicate pretty much the entire variety of shades of this colour that were actually used. The dunkelgelb was complemented by olive green and red brown camouflage colours applied in the field. I haven’t seen much evidence that these were used in Italy or Sicily in 1943, and I haven’t tried to replicate them.

    Dunkelgelb vehicles probably didn’t make it to Tunisia in significant numbers. Instead vehicles were finished in a colour called “Braun” – to distinguish it from the earlier “Gelbbraun“. There was also a camouflage colour of “Grau“; in common with German practice of the time this was pretty close in tone (or tint… I get confused by the terminology), and is quite hard to detect in black and white photos. The Braun is actually not very far from Dunkelgelb, but distinctly redder. I have only tried mixing it in my most recent project (if you don’t count those Panzer IIIs, which unfortunately have turret schurzen not appropriate for Tunisia). Raw Sienna is too red for use as the base by itself, so I mixed some Yellow Oxide in, but I still used a bit of Prussian Blue to dull it down. The Grau is a greenish grey (the Germans seemed to use these a lot), which I made using a similar process to Field Grey – though it isn’t all that far from some versions of Dunkelgelb. The end result is probably a bit too dark – it proved quite quite tricky to judge.

    One of the Panzer IIIs where I first tried to create Dunkelgelb, and ended up with Braun. On the left is a Marder III in the Braun/Grau scheme, and on the right a Panzer IV in Dunkelgelb. Both of these latter models are shown after decals but before the finishing elements have been applied. All from Plastic Soldier Company before they went down the 3D printing route

    What more to say? I use a blue-grey for tyres. I have used a red-brown on German vehicles to represent primer, on some spare tracks for example. The tracks should be a very dull metallic colour – silver mixed with the gunkiest colour on the palette at the time. I mixed various colours to represent tarps, and usually finished boxes and petrol cans in brown or Panzer Grey.

    As for figures, finishing is a work in progress. Earlier attempts were a bit timid, and I used a commercial product for “dust”, but it involved several steps, including spraying with matt varnish. I have been trying to simplify this, and get away from the harsh matt of the aerosol varnish. My last batch of British vehicles I had the same experience as I described for the figures, where I spent quite a bit of time correcting for the harsh black glaze/wash. Before this I applied small dots of Zinc White oil paint and brushed them into a thin but uneven layer (over the decals), a technique I learned from aircraft modelling. This helps give the surface that element of unevenness typical of weathered vehicles in the field, as well as integrating the decals. For my most recent batch of German vehicles (still in progress) I added dots of Raw Umber oil paint as well. This added a dark element to the unevenness. I won’t apply the black wash/glaze to the whole vehicle, but target the wash at grilles etc, and wipe off surplus. I will then finish off with “dusting”.

    For this last step I grind cheap artists’ pastels of various dull colours into a powder of a general pale dust colour (not unlike the white-raw umber mix I use so much). This is then applied with an old paint brush. It helps offset the sheen from the earlier stages, and make the vehicle look, well, dusty.

    These recent vehicles show the 8th Army desert scheme after all the finishing. Models fromPSC

    Aircraft

    I’m not going to say a huge amount on aircraft painting. It’s been a while since my last project, and I suspect that this of less interest to wargamers. These models are intended to be usable on the tabletop (wheels retracted) and are painted to wargamer standard (no obsessive detail only visible close up). The airbrush is my instrument of choice to cover the bulk of the surface, including primer. I use white primer to better bring out the colours – aircraft have fewer those nooks and crannies. I last used Vellejo primer for this, though it had a tendency to clog the brush at the nozzle for some reason, and it needed regular wiping. Camouflage stripes can be a bit tricky though, as masking is necessary to get sharp edges (experts with an airbrush often don’t bother, but I’m not in that league). This can be a huge faff – sometimes it is simpler just to paint it on with a brush. For splinter patterns used by the Germans, though, masking tape is essential – though it can be a pain in the neck if it’s more than just the wings.

    One issue with aircraft is that the finished result is much more sensitive to colour choices than are vehicles, especially if there is more than one colour on the top surface. I’m pleased with the German planes I painted in desert colours (tan and olive green, with azure blue undersides), but my British/Commonwealth aircraft I didn’t quite get right. The Mid Stone looks a bit like Dark Earth, and the Dark Earth looks a bit like Dark Green – replicating early war patterns for the home front. The result isn’t jarring, but it’s not right all the same. The moral is that you have to be very careful about the colour mixing, and not to do it too quickly.

    Three US aircraft in two versions of Olive Drab

    It’s worth talking a bit about Olive Drab – the colour used on US aircraft in 1943 (before they went predominantly unpainted). A very similar colour was used on US vehicles. In pictures this comes out in a wide variety of shades (not unlike Dunkelgelb), which can look a bit brown, or distinctly green; likewise it can be very dark, or quite light. The US government did not prescribe a method of making it, and probably didn’t enforce the results with any level of rigour – so some of the variation may well have been at the factory. The official shade was very dark, however, and quite green. I read that manufacturers used green pigment to make it. Nevertheless the quickest way to get an acceptable result, that looks close to many of the colour pictures, is to mix black and white into Yellow Oxide (the same three pigments as Dunkelgelb but with more black). This gets you towards the brownish end of the spectrum visible on pictures – I suspect this corresponds to a lot sun of exposure and weathering. This mix can be seen in the picture on the Mustang (in its A-36 ground attack and dive bomber guise) and the P-38 Lightning. I have also used this method on the two vehicles I have painted. I also thought I would try a greener version, to represent a slightly fresher aircraft – this can be seen on the B-26 Marauder. This was based on Sap Green, which needed to be duller, yellower and paler.

    Its also worth mentioning about finishing on my aircraft. Generally I use the oil paint method, described above, but with a greater variety of colours, including dark ones. These are brushed fore and aft on the wings and tail planes, and up and down on the fuselage. This leaves a nice off-matt sheen, which I think represents British and German aircraft quite well. Crews kept the aircraft clean in order to improve the aerodynamics (unlike military vehicles, where the dirt was left on to make the vehicles less conspicuous). Pictures of US planes in Olive Drab look matter though, so I sprayed the models with the dreaded aerosol matt varnish (from Winsor & Newton). After this I dusted the aircraft with ground pastel, as described for vehicles, but with a darker colour, creating the exhaust stains in the process. Overall this created the uneven weathered look you can see in the picture, and which you can see in pictures of aircraft on campaign. Whether I really need both the oil paint “patination” and the dusting on these matt aircraft is an unresolved question. But on the British and German aircraft the dusting breaks up the even gentle sheen arising from the oil paint, and is the best way to do exhaust stains.

    In conclusion I’m still developing my technique, but overall I’m very pleased with the results I’m getting from mixing my own colours. And I get a great deal of pleasure from the control I get, even at the expense of a few mistakes.

    Next time I will conclude by dealing with a number of loose ends.

  • A Journey Through Colour – Part 4. Painting Horse & Musket Miniatures

    My wet palette with lid on

    Recently I had a look at the Warlord Games website. I was astonished to see a “complete” paint set on sale for £300, and another one (actually out of stock) for £600. My Premier League of high quality artist paints should cost in the region of £100. Money isn’t the reason I have gone down the mix-your-own route, but it is certainly much less expensive. This time I want to explain how I go about painting my miniatures, starting with those from the Horse & Musket era. This is the best place to start, as the process is very straightforward.

    I have two Horse & Musket collections, and I’m starting a third. My biggest is 18mm Napoleonics, mainly French and Prussian, but I have a few old Austrians knocking around too; the other current collection is 6mm Great Northern War – Swedes and Russians. Both of these have been built up over many years, as my painting technique has evolved. My newest is 1866 Austrians and Italians. What I describe here should work for pretty much the whole era from 1800 until dull-coloured uniforms came into general use at the end of the 19th Century. It should work pretty well for earlier eras too – though there is more bare metal and that may need adjustments to technique. Also medieval heraldry is usually represented in bright colours, which might require an extension of my normal palette if you are painting heraldry items yourself, rather than buying in banners and decals, etc. I would still try to make them a bit duller than the norm, but that’s taste! And if you want to follow the fashion for painting ancient soldiers in unfeasibly bright colours, that is easy too, but you will need brighter pigments. The camouflage era I will cover in my next post. If you are after the traditional toy soldier look, you might have a need for some brighter pigments, but not outside my “second division”, except maybe some ultramarine blue – though in fact I think the Prussian Blue Hue would do fine. Fantasy figures may also need brighter pigments, depending on the aura you are trying to create.

    Firstly, where do I mix my paints. I use a wet palette, a Daler Rowney Stay-Wet one. Wet palettes have come in for a lot of criticism from Ken Reilly in his popular Yarkshire Gamer’s podcast. He thinks that they are a gimmick promoted by the commercial hobby suppliers. I looked at the Warlords one on their website, and it does look a bit more engineered that the Daler Rowney version, though not that much more expensive. I find the wet palette very useful. My projects usually run in a series of two-hour sessions, which may take a couple of weeks elapsed time (alas projects typically take longer, but I don’t need fresh paint for the whole project). Virtually all the paints I use are mixes, and I might want to use the same mix at various points, and the wet palette helps keep these mixes on the go for the duration. Hobby paint mixes may not be needed for that long – and besides they tend to be runnier than heavy body artists acrylics. So perhaps Ken’s hatred of wet palettes is as rational as his hatred of round dice, rather than irrational as his dislike of coffee.

    Lid off. This is at the end of a project for WW2 Mediterranean German infantry and vehicles. A Horse & Musket project would show a wider variety of hues, and fewer small variations on a similar theme.

    I use artist’s gesso as a primer, and I find acrylic flow enhancer useful to loosen up stiff paint – though often a touch of water is all that is needed. I do not use an airbrush on Horse & Musket era miniatures, though I have experimented with using it for priming – it’s still surprisingly hard to get the paint into all the nooks and crannies. I use oil paints for horses in 18mm – but I’ll come to that later.

    My basic process is unremarkable. I prime the figures first, using a mix of gesso with a bit of student grade Raw Umber (which I have in industrial quantities thanks to a mixup by one of my suppliers). This gives a nice neutral dried light mud colour, which doesn’t mess up the paint layers placed on top (like dark primers do) and is relatively kind to coverage gaps. This goes on with a bigger and usually older brush – as the rapid technique I use is harsh on brushes. Like most wargamers, I don’t aim for painting perfection – the priority is to get presentable results quickly and in bulk; mistakes happen and aren’t always corrected. Next I usually mount the figures on their final bases at this point, setting them in a mix of acrylic medium, sand and a white and raw umber paint mix again (using student paints). I mount WW2 figures, mounted usually singly or in dispersed groups, before priming – but for closer packed Horse & Musket units I usually prime first. This is probably much earlier in the process than most people base figures – but there’s no point in painting things you can’t see, and I feel that basing first gives the result more unity (another unprovable assertion, of the sort commonly held by artists and hobbyists alike).

    Next there is a base coat covering of the main uniform colour using a bigger brush – aimed mainly at where that colour is required, rather than the whole figure, but without worrying if it strays a bit. I also paint the bases now, in the same Raw Umber and Titanium White mix I have been using on primer and the sand/medium mixture, though perhaps a bit darker. Until this point I work on as big a batch of figures as I can – which might be 50 or even 80 18mm infantry figures. I might paint some other items at this whole batch stage – shakos perhaps, if they can be painted quickly, without too much accuracy required. After this I paint the detail with a finer brush, but in much smaller batches – 8 to 12 figures at 18mm typically. Once this is done I give the figures a wash or glaze, using a dark colour mixed with whatever medium I happen to favour at the time – at the moment with some matt varnish designed for airbrush use. Finally I do the bases by gluing on various mixtures of flock, sand and static grass. That’s more or less it – but do I go about mixing the colours?

    Readers of this series so far will understand that my technique now is to use a series of dull and mainly old-fashioned pigments most of the time, and only use fancy bright ones occasionally. This resembles the approach of the old masters, before modern pigments were invented, rather than more modern artists from the Impressionists onwards. Still, modern colour-mixing theory remains very helpful.

    I think about this in terms of three colour axes, being complementary pairs: orange-blue, red-green and yellow-purple. The orange-blue one is easily the most useful for Horse & Musket. It covers blues, browns and flesh tones. I do this almost entirely with four pigments (plus Titanium White): Prussian Blue Hue (or Indantherene Blue), Raw Umber, Raw Sienna and Burnt Sienna. Blues, blacks, greys and dark browns are made using the Raw Umber and whichever blue, plus white. For lighter browns, I use Raw Sienna (for more yellowy hues) or Burnt Sienna (for redder ones, including Caucasian flesh). For white I mix a bit of one of my brown mixes in with Titanium White. Sometimes this is all you need apart from the metallics for the shiny bits.

    The red-green axis is used much less often, and I have found it a bit trickier to mix. You need this for greens and reds (obviously), and if your base coat is one of these, then I would use this for the blacks and greys as well. For bright red, I usually dull down Cadmium Red Hue with a bit of Viridian green, but go easy on the white – or else it turns a bit pink. Often the red is on small but higher impact features like facings – it can safely be brighter and more saturated; sometimes I use the Cadmium Red straight from the tube. Reds in uniform coats need more dulling down with Viridian, and a bit more white – and perhaps a dash of Yellow Oxide. This can look awful on the palette – but much better on the figure when placed alongside the other uniform colours. True red dyes were very expensive, so that used on all but the finest uniforms was a bit dull – typically made from madder. For greens my usual starting point is Sap Green, though sometimes greens are shown as being slightly bluer, and you might like to mix in a bit of blue (use a Cyan-like shade for preference, but Prussian Blue should work OK). The green can be cooled down with sparing quantiles of Cadmium Red, or rather more Venetian Red, or Burnt Sienna – and add a bit of white. As I have already said, I have had quite a bit of trouble with green – and some of my attempts have ended up a bit on the dark side – but Sap Green is a good place to start. For the blacks and greys Sap green is also probably the best place to start, and then add in Venetian Red or even Cadmium Red. Burnt Sienna might work too, though I haven’t tried this, and theory would suggest that wouldn’t create a true grey.

    And then we come to the yellow-purple axis. The pigments here tend to be very hard to work with, and it is pretty frustrating if you try to follow the usual paint-mixing theory. Fortunately it isn’t needed much for uniforms. The difficulties with yellow and purple pigments extended to the dyes available in this era too, so they were used rarely. Having said that, a dark yellow (such as that achieved with Yellow Ochre) was used a bit, and Yellow Oxide is a good starting point for this. The olive green colour used for French artillery actually belongs here, even if your eye thinks it is closer to a true green. Use Yellow Oxide as a base, and mix in some Mars Black – and the usual white. This is, in fact, pretty much how the colour was made at the time (Oxide Yellow being chemically the same as Yellow Ochre). Austrian artillery was painted in yellow ochre – and this isn’t far off Yellow Oxide, though it is a bit too bright straight out of the tube. It needs the usual white, and I would try adding a very small amount black – though I haven’t painted any Napoleonic Austrian artillery since I took up paint mixing properly. (1866 Austrian artillery was varnished natural wood – though sometimes mistaken for the old ochre). For yellow facings, Yellow Oxide and white should be fine. This should work for most yellow uniform coats (sometimes used for musicians – and the Neufchatel battalion, of course) – but you can add in some Cadmium Yellow if you wan to zap it up a bit. For my 6mm Swedes I haven’t need anything more than Yellow Oxide. Purple comes up even more rarely than yellow. I would reach this by mixing Cadmium Red with Prussian Blue.

    The wash or glaze applied after painting is an important consideration when it comes to colour. It is one of the quickest ways to lift painting results, and for me now replaces (almost) all efforts to highlight or lowlight using direct paint – but it does affect the overall colour. I have experimented with various things – Winsor & Newton peat brown ink, adding paint to water, and using diluted inks. I currently use Liquitex Airbrush Matt Varnish (which isn’t fully flat) with a bit of acrylic ink in it – something between a glaze and a wash. Remember your colour wheel here. A brown wash will deepen blues nicely, but distort reds and greens – though not necessarily in a bad way. Black darkens things more and can turn yellow into olive. The red-tinted Peat Brown will work well on greens and reds, but could be disastrous on pale figures (white uniforms or grey horses). If the wash turns out to be too heavy handed, I sometimes do some near-dry brushing with a suitable highlight colour on the raised bits.

    Incidentally, if you want to mix your own highlights or lowlights, that’s very easy. There are three ways. First is to mix in a bit of white or black – but this is a bit colour distorting. The second is to use the colour wheel – mix a bit of the complement to lowlight (i.e go to the middle of the wheel), or a higher chroma version for highlights (taking it to the rim). The third is to use the colour wheel again to migrate the colour towards yellow for highlights or towards purple for lowlights (i.e. mix reds into blues or blues into reds). So far as I can see artists use all three methods according to situation/taste. Shadows are often represented as dull shades of purple.

    Two of my more recent Naploeonic efforts using the techniques described here: French Old Guard Chasseurs and Prussian 23rd Infantry Regiment.

    And then we come to horses, which after all are one of the defining features of the Horse & Musket era. I paint these in large batches straight after basing – after first working out the numbers of each type – Bay (about half, perhaps more), Chestnut, Black, Grey and other. For 6mm and 10mm figures I use the usual acrylic paint technique, as described above. The bays and chestnuts mostly start with Raw Sienna or Burnt Sienna – though many of the bays in particular need to be darkened down with Raw Umber or Burnt Umber. The ubiquitous white needs to go in too. For blacks and greys I typically start with my dying tube of Payne’s Grey – but this is easily made using Prussian Blue and one of the browns to get a distinctly blue-grey. This needs variable amounts of white, from a lot (greys) to very sparing (blacks). Payne’s Grey is also used for the mains, tails and fetlocks of the bays. If you are quick and brave you can mix in a bit of blue with the brown on the horse while it’s still wet to get this – but acrylic dries fast.

    For bigger horses – in my case 18mm, but the same logic works for 28mm – I have been converted to the oil paint technique, as may earlier attempts with just acrylics looked a bit flat. First you base coat the horse over the primer. You want something quite bright for all but the darkest horses. For Bays and Chestnuts I use Raw Sienna and Burnt Sienna with only sparing white mixed in. For darker horses use Payne’s Grey or Burnt Umber (the reddish hue works better here than Raw Umber) and white. The technique involves putting oil paint over this and, waiting until it’s a bit tacky. Advice on how long varies, and probably depends on the paint used – it needs long enough to stain, but mustn’t dry out; I tend to go quite quickly, 10-15 minutes, and try again if the results aren’t right. You then wipe the oil paint off, with a kitchen towel or bit of rag, leaving more paint in the recesses.

    What oils to use? It doesn’t need to be great quality – I bought whatever was on cheap offer on my preferred online supplier. In my case this was Sennelier Rive Gauche Fine Oil. The main ones I use for horses are Van Dyke Brown and Payne’s Grey (not at all a satisfactory paint in this Sennelier version as the medium separates out in the tube and floats to the top), together with Zinc White. The two principal colours are old-fashioned mixes of the sort despised by modern artists – but they work in this context. The white needs to be mixed in to un-saturate; the undercoat should give variation between the more golden and redder coat colours. The Payne’s Grey works for black and grey horses, and for the mains, etc of the bays. To provide variation I also have some Raw Umber and Burnt Sienna to mix in. I now get satisfactory results for bays, chestnuts and blacks – but greys, roans, etc. are a work in progress. I have experimented with bright orange and bright red undercoats, but not with satisfactory results – and if you miss a bit they show up like fury. But the undercoat needs to be quite bright – and lighter than the oil overpaint. Painting horses is a whole art in itself, and I’m learning all the time – but a lot of fun too.

    Is all the faff and extra expense of using oil paints worth it? Truth be told I don’t think the results are much better than would be achieved using normal paints. I still look at real horses in life and feel I’m not doing them justice, especially some of those the gorgeous chestnuts, to say nothing of greys. It’s been interesting working with a different medium, and I also use oil paints to create weathering effects on vehicles and aircraft.

    Some of my most recent horses are drawing these French limbers – black, chestnut, bay and grey; I like to have both horses in a pair to be of the same type.

    If there is interest – I have no idea how many real people read this blog – I might do a photo demonstration of my technique, perhaps using some of the free 28mm plastics that I keep getting with the magazines. I didn’t do it this time as it would have added a good week or two to the publication time.

    Next time – the camouflage era.

  • A journey through colour – Part 3. A wargamer’s palette

    The 11 pigments in my Premier League

    In Part 1 I said that a wargamer only needs a dozen artists’ pigments instead of scores of hobby paints. In Part 2 I said that pigments behave quite individually, and that you need to get to know them. This time I will describe the pigments I actually use. I will organise the 33 pigments in my collection these into three groups of 11: the Premier League – the top ones I use all the time; the Second Division (I know, I know, that’s not how the football league works) of the pigments I use occasionally but could probably do without if need be; and the Also Rans – the ones I have bought but don’t actually use these days.

    But first I need to talk about replicability. One reason people might stick to ready-mixed hobby paints rather than mix their own is that they are worried that each time they mix a fresh batch it will look a bit different. This why I try to stick to a two pigments plus white rule for mixing. This way it isn’t too hard to replicate an old mix. Otherwise if a third pigment is used this must in a small quantity for a tweak. And anyway a little variation doesn’t matter – there is variation in life, after all. At one point I tried juggling three main pigments (in my initial efforts to get German Dunkelgelb), and this was indeed a nightmare. That affects the palette choices.

    The next point is that unless I say otherwise, all the pigments I describe are from the Liquitex Heavy Body Acrylic range, where I use tubes of 59ml. I have found these to be constantly good and reliable paints – but the killer feature is that they come in the best designed tubes. The screw-top lids last for ever. Unlike Winsor & Newton or Daler Rowney, where eventually I tend to lose the whole tube because the top malfunctions, or I have some other packaging failure. This has never happened with the Liquitex Artists range – though this doesn’t apply to their Basics student-quality paint, which comes in cheaper tubes. Unless you are into bulk processing, a 59ml tube should last forever. My Cadmium Red Hue is over 40 years old, I think, and has been in regular, if sparing, use. I have had to renew only a few of my Liquitex paints (Titanium White and raw Umber, for example).

    The Premier League

    These are the pigments I can’t be without. If one of these gives out, I immediately replace it – though with Liquitex paints this has happened only a few times.

    Titanium White. Almost everything needs a bit of white in it – only bits of detail that need to stand out, like facings perhaps, should be saturated. This is often where hobby paints go wrong, though I think that some manufacturers may be wising up to the problem. The scale effect – the idea that the colour needs to be paler the smaller the scale – is not uncontroversial, but the fact is that saturated colour is for advertisements, not representing gritty reality. So you need white pigment. Titanium White is the most versatile on offer – it is bright and opaque (a virtue in the hobby context, if not always for artists). There are alternatives, but they don’t make the Premier League. Incidentally I almost never use this by itself, as it is too bright. To represent white on a miniature it needs to be mixed with a touch of something (I use raw Umber most often) – unless for small dabs where strong contrast is needed.

    Prussian Blue Hue. This is a lower-chroma blue, but actually a bit too bright to use directly for Prussian or French uniform coats. It is a mid-register blue, that mimics the colour from the standard indigo dyes well. This Liquitex paint is not pure pigment but behaves really well. It is the only blue to make it into my Premier League as it is the only one you really need. Mix with white to get paler, sky blue colours. Idantherene Blue is a decent alternative and is what I started with – and is in my Second Division.

    Raw Umber. A low chroma mid-brown that I use all the time. Mix with Prussian Blue to get greys, and as close to black as you need. This is the place to start for most browns. I also use it a lot in primers, mixed with white gesso, and terrain (but not the artist quality stuff).

    Yellow Oxide. This is the industrial age version of the ancient pigment of Yellow Ochre. Yellow is a difficult pigment, which often comes out thin and horrible. Yellow Oxide is bit duller and veers a little bit orange, but it is robust. It is my go-to yellow, even for facings (including for Swedish uniforms). It mimics the available pre-industrial yellow dyes well. It is also useful for more modern camouflage colours, from German Dunkelgelb, to Olive Drab (and the similar French Napoleonic artillery green).

    Cadmium Red Medium Hue. Alas pigment with this name is not in the current Liquitex range – they have Cadmium Red Medium and Cadmium Free Red Medium. I think what I am using is the latter. It is the only high chroma paint in the palette, and is a lovely opaque pigment . You don’t need much – but sometimes you want your red to really pop, and this does the job. Otherwise you tone it down with a bit of green.

    Raw Sienna. This is a beautiful orange-brown. When you need more chroma for than Raw Umber offers, this is where to go for yellower browns. I also use it as a basis for khaki.

    Burnt Sienna. This is redder than Raw Sienna, and useful when you want a red tint to things (Caucasian flesh for example). I use it quite a bit for horses.

    Permanent Sap Green. I’ve had more trouble with greens than any other hue, and I still do. This lower-chroma mix isn’t too blue and I have found it quite useful. Funnily enough I don’t need green that much, away from the olive colour that I get from Yellow Oxide.

    Mars Black. Recently promoted to the Premier League. Monet always said that black should have no place on a palette. Totally saturated black rarely happens in nature – things just look black in context. The near-blacks we get by mixing Raw Umber and Prussian Blue, say, look fine on a miniature. And when mixing with true colour, it distorts the hue. But I have been finding more uses for it – especially mixing with Yellow Oxide to produce a wide variety of colours that are useful in the WW2 context. And sometimes you want a black very quickly – and you can just mix a bit of any unsaturated colour in to lighten it up a bit. Also you might want a neutral grey (e.g. for US WW2 aircraft) – best reached by mixing black with white. Mars Black is very potent, though – one of my most frequent mistakes is putting in too much in, which then forces you to put too much other pigment in.

    Iridescent Rich Silver. I’ve not found metallic artist acrylic paint all that satisfactory for miniatures. I even experimented with a hobby paint – but that was worse. I have also found that silver doesn’t last as long as other paints in the tube. But it is very useful – usually mixed in with something else to give it a bit of body, except when representing polished metal, like sword blades.

    Iridescent Bright Gold. As with silver, not wholly satisfactory – and often needs to be mixed with Yellow Oxide or Raw Umber to give it bit of oomph. But still necessary for most horse and musket miniatures, and doubtless earlier eras too.

    Second division

    This motley crew is my Second Division

    The second division are pigments that I use regularly. Some I use quite frequently but could substitute with something else – or I might replace them with something different if they die. Others I are harder to substitute but I only use rarely.

    Burnt Umber. The last of the quartet of classic earth pigments (the two umbers and siennas), it is redder than raw umber but also dark. It can fulfil the same general role – mixing with blue. But I don’t think it is quite as well-behaved, and mixes with Titanium White quite can come out looking not very nice. I used to use it quite a bit for horses, but I have since changed my method, using oil colours – where I use Van Dyke Brown instead. But that’s a whole other story.

    Idantherene Blue. As noted above, this used to be my go-to blue. It’s a bit darker than Prussian Blue, but I recently bought a replacement tube (my old one was from Winsor & Newton and suffered a tube failure). I now use it for French uniforms, while retaining Prussian Blue for the Prussian ones. I don’t really think it makes enough difference to be worth it, but it keeps me amused.

    Venetian Red (Daler Rowney). I have already said that I like to work with lower chroma pigments. But my go-to red, Cadmium Red Hue, is high chroma – and Burnt Sienna is a bit on the brown/orange side. Venetian Red is an old-fashioned dull red pigment that I have found to be quite useful, and which is more crimson than the Sienna. Apparently the old masters used to use it for flesh tones – but it is in fact too red for that for miniatures. Alas Liquitex don’t make it (or at least not under that name) and I have and my old Daler Rowney is suffering from cap failure and is slowly dying as a result – so I find myself avoiding using it. When it finally goes I’m tempted to try and find something to replace it.

    Payne’s Grey. This is a classic mix, now, according to Wikipedia, often made by combining Burnt Sienna with Ultramarine Blue. It isn’t hard to mix this yourself, but the ready-mix is convenient on occasion. For miniatures it is popular to use for horses, either as an undercoat (it approximates to horse skin colour) or for black/grey horses – and this is where I mainly use it these days. Mine is an ancient tube from Winsor & Newton, which is about to die through cap failure. I used to use this quite a bit as a black, and to tone down blues – but nowadays I have other ways of acheiving this. Liquitex do a version these days, but I don’t think I will replace this tube after I throw it out.

    Cadmium Yellow Medium. Occasionally I want a yellow that is higher chroma and with a truer yellow hue than Yellow Oxide – and this is what I use. It is probably the best of the brighter yellows – which tend to be thin and horrible. Its opacity is still pretty poor by the standard of most pigments. Using a mix largely based on this on WW2 aircraft can take several coats. It is probably better to use a true yellow when mixing greens too – though I’m no expert on this.

    Azure Blue. This is a mixture from Daler Rowney. I bought it because I thought it would be useful to have a pigment closer to primary Cyan. I haven’t used it much – I get sky blues by mixing white with Prussian Blue. I have sometimes used it when trying to adjust greens – where I have found it to work well, to my slight surprise. I think there are several alternatives. I didn’t see anything that looked quite right in my preferred Liquitex range – though Cerulean Blue might work as well, as might their “Brilliant Blue”. I dislike Cobalt Blue (see below), which is a bit darker and redder.

    Transparent Mixing White. Otherwise known as Zinc White. I use white a lot to reduce saturation, and this is mostly Titanium White, as do most artists. Zinc White is an alternative where opacity is not an issue – which it usually isn’t if white isn’t the base colour. I can’t say I have noticed much difference – except my impression is that it has a bit less punch – which can be a good thing. I’m not sure I would replace it if it died. I do use Zinc White as my standard white for oil paint which I use on horses, where opacity is not an issue.

    Viridian Hue. I bought this because it was the recommended green in one of the first books I read on painting with acrylics. I found it a horrible pigment to work with – runny and thin, as well a being a bit too blue for most uses. I then read that it was a very good mixing pigment, and since had a tube in stock, I started to use it to mix with reds to get grey-greens (such as German Field Grey or Israeli Sinai Grey), where it works fine. So I actually use it quite a bit, but I wouldn’t buy it again, so it doesn’t make the Premier League.

    Iridescent Rich Copper. I had an idea that I should be able to mix metallic paints rather like the normal ones – and copper provides the red. I do use it sometimes, but not very much.

    Neutral Gray. This is straight mix of black and white. I used this quite a lot in the early days, but then stopped when my colour mixing got more sophisticated. I have started using it again for convenience – in mixes which require both black and white – and adjusting accordingly after the initial mix. There have been three applications: with Yellow Oxide to get Olive Drab (though typically needing more black), as a base for Neutral Grey on US aircraft (funnily enough – though it needs a bit more white if I recollect correctly), and with Prussian Blue for Prussian Napoleonic artillery – it’s a bit less faff than using white and Raw Umber. This was useful enough for me to replace the tube recently.

    Unbleached Titanium. This is a recent acquisition when I wanted to top up a recent order – and I haven’t used it yet. Since reducing saturation is a constant, I thought this might be an interesting alternative to using white (after reading a write-up on the Jackson’s blog) – requiring a bit less sensitivity when mixing. It might even be light enough to use as a dirty white by itself.

    The Also Rans

    The pigments I almost never use

    These are the pigments that are still in my studio but which I no longer use regularly, and which I could have saved myself some money by never acquiring.

    Cadmium Orange Hue. (Presumably Cadmium Free Orange in today’s Liquitex range). The orange-blue axis is the most important mixing spectrum for horse and musket miniatures. I thought it would be useful to have a high chroma orange whenever the orange dimension needed a lift. But it’s rare you need anything brighter than Raw Sienna, and if you do, you can mix up an orange using Cadmium Red and one of the yellows very easily. This one stays in the box these days, but it’s possible I will use it occasionally. It handles in a perfectly friendly way.

    Ultramarine Blue (Red Shade). On the same logic this was my high chroma blue. It’s a very powerful pigment and mid range to reddish bright blue – a delicious colour and quite a user-friendly paint, but in fact Prussian Blue is almost always bright enough miniatures purposes. And if I want to use a blue to create or adjust a green, I prefer to use something closer to Cyan – i.e. Azure Blue in my palette.

    Quinacridone Magenta. After I got religion when I was first introduced to the art of colour mixing, I thought a powerful primary magenta would be useful. This is a modern organic pigment, and seemed to fit the bill. I have almost never used it. It might be quite fun to mix it with greens, but I’ve never seen the need. If I ever needed to mix Polish Pink I might start with this, as I have it already – but there are other ways to do this.

    Phthalo Green. This Daler Rowney pigment was yet another result of my enthusiasm for high chroma colours on the various segments of the colour wheel. Like most of the others it now languishes. I could use it in place of the Viridian, but its higher chroma would probably make it harder to manage.

    Permanent Yellow (Arylamide). My first yellow, from Daler Rowney, which I bought in the very early days. It’s a horrible pigment, thin and runny with very little opacity. Cadmium Yellow is much better – and if you are happy with lower chroma (which I usually am), then there is Yellow Oxide or Yellow Ochre.

    Dioxazine Purple. Another pigment bought when I was looking for bright pigments to represent the main hues. Purple itself has very few applications in miniatures painting – and if you do need it, a workable lower chroma version is easy to mix. I found it quite difficult to handle when I tried mixing it with Oxide Yellow to dull it down, and gave up. I use Mars Black these days – after trying to mix a red and blue pigments to get something more controllable. However, when creating my own colour wheel I did get a beautiful, rich dark yellow-brown when mixing with Cadmium Yellow.

    Cobalt Blue. This Daler Rowney pigment was one of my early ones – for use when I needed a rather greener and brighter hue of blue than Idanthrene. I found it to be a horrible pigment to work with, and used it less and less until I stopped.

    Opaque Oxide of Chromium. Another one of my early Daler Rowney pigments – this is a lower chroma mid-hue green. It has an interesting consistency – quite dense, but easy to apply with a brush, and wonderfully opaque. It’s an ideal pigment to apply straight from the tube, which is what I did a lot of in the early days – this worked well on French dragoon coats, for example. But I haven’t opened it for years. Its consistency means that it is a bit harder to mix and the old fashioned cap is a bit intimidating. Incidentally the blue colour on the label is the result of aging – the yellow component of the ink used clearly wasn’t light-fast.

    Cobalt Green. I bought this Windsor & Newton pigment when I was casting around for greens that I could use straight from the tube, subject to the odd tweak. It didn’t work for me. This was so long ago I can’t actually remember why – probably a bit on the blue side, and high chroma. There may have been a problem with the texture too. If my Viridian gives out it will probably work as a substitute.

    ACRA Red Orange. Now sold as Quinacridone Red Orange. I bought this when looking for pigments that I could use with only small adjustments – I was looking for a red that could be used as a base for uniform coats. I actually used it quite frequently; it’s a bit dark for uniform coats, but this was readily rectified (at the time I mixed in a bit Yellow Ochre). I have since stopped using it. Its lower chroma means that it remains potentially useful – but the normal earth pigments seem to be cover this area well enough, without bringing in fancy modern ones.

    Pyrole Red. I bought this at the same time as the Acra Red Orange, when I thought it would be useful to have an alternative to Cadmium Red. It proved pretty much indistinguishable, and so I have almost never used it. It turns out that this pigment was developed for Ferrari for use in its famous bright red cars – its virtues being its brightness and stability; its downside being expense. And I do remember it being quite pricy – but then so were the Cadmium Reds, including the “hue” version. Actually these days it is slightly cheaper than the other bright reds, but still expensive for acrylic pigment. As and when my faithful Cadmium Red Hue gives out, this pigment should be a perfectly decent substitute. It may yet have its day in the Premier League.

    Finally there are a couple more pigments that used to be in my collection, but which have now expired – and which I won’t be replacing.

    Daler Rowney Pale Olive Green. Olive is a useful colour in the hobby field, and this was one of my very first pigments. I got a bit of a shock when I opened the tube, though. It is very bright: it needs a lot of cooling down to be anything close to usable. I didn’t know how to do that in the early days – and later on, when I did, the question was why bother? The description “pale” is a misnomer. More recently I tried this out as a student grade paint for use in terrain – but found the same problem. I was a bit puzzled until I saw the modern Yellow-Magenta-Cyan colour wheel – which show the high chroma greens as being much lighter than in the traditional colour wheel – in the sense that yellow is lighter than blue.

    Winsor & Newton Graphite Grey. I used this quite a bit when I realised that black was too dark to use directly on miniatures – how do you lowlight it? It was my usual substitute. Eventually it suffered cap failure and died, and there was no need to replace it. Now that I use a wet palette it is a trivial matter to mix something into Mars black, or create a dark grey from a blue-orange or red-green combination.

    A bit of a long post today – but I hope it is of value to hobbyists thinking of using artists’ colours. It’s also a bit of a window in my evolving understanding of using artists paints.

    Next time: Part 4: Painting Horse & Musket miniatures

    Post Script. One of my commenters has reminded me of another colour in my original collection which has expired (tube failure, as usual) and was not replaced: Flesh Tone. I can’t remember who made this, except that it wasn’t Liquitex. Doubtless political correctness means that it would have to be renamed, as it represents the flesh of only a minority of people (i.e. Caucasian flesh). Daler Rowney Peach Pink might be it. I used it a lot, using for it exposed flesh without any further mixing – and frequent use is doubtless why the tube/nozzle broke. Since then I mix my own based flesh tone on a brown and white, usually with a little of something else (blue or red) to tweak it. This can be a little tricky, especially when I want to represent sunburned skin. Human faces and flesh are so important to us, and used to provide so much information to our brains, that we often can’t see the colour objectively. That said, as my commenter says, this mix can be a very useful mixing agent – as it is unsaturated and its basically brown colour is quite neutral. If you want to lighten something to create a highlight, this would work very well in most cases. And it could be a good starting point for lots of things. I’m hoping that my recently acquired Unbleached Titanium will fulfil this role – and could be a place to start for flesh tones.

  • A journey through colour – Part 2. Colour theory

    Source: Smarthistory.org who probably got it from somewhere else

    So how do you actually mix your own colours? I have been quite amused by references in wargames publications to a mysterious “colour theory” by professional figure painters, and the occasional references to a colour wheel. They want to keep the whole process deeply obscure – though in the main they use hobby paints themselves. Artists are no better – they all seem to have their own way of looking at things and make it all rather bewildering. The theory itself is in fact quite complicated if you really get into the more modern updates. But you don’t need to. You just need to know a few basic principles, and understand that they don’t always work.

    First the bleeding obvious. We are talking about mixing pigments and not light. Mixing light is much simpler and better understood – and works in a totally different way. When you see colour charts you first have to ask whether it is about mixing light or pigment.

    The next point is key: colour theory is based on the idea that any colour has three characteristics. First is hue – this is what the colour wheel in the illustration describes; more on that later. Second is chroma; this is how bright or dull the colour is; the wheel shows the hues at maximum chroma – their brightest (and lightest at full saturation, as chroma decreases the colour gets darker until you reach black, which is zero chroma). Colours in the real world are usually duller. Finally there is saturation – this reflects how pale the colour is; the wheel shows the hues at maximum saturation. Again in the real world, outside saccharine TV commercials or fairytale Hollywood epics, most colour is unsaturated, or at least appears so to our eyes.

    The traditional theory of colour mixing is simply this: first decide what hue you are aiming at, and achieve it by mixing two primaries. Say you want to get a mid-brown (i.e between terracotta and yellow-brown); the hue you want is secondary orange in the colour wheel above; you get this by mixing a primary red (say Cadmium Red) with a primary yellow (say Cadmium Yellow) or you may have an orange pigment already (like…er… Cadmium Orange). Next you achieve the chroma you are looking forward by dulling it down. You do this by mixing in the “complement” of the hue: the opposite hue on the colour wheel. In the case of orange the complement is primary blue – so you mix in some of this (say Ultramarine) into your orange until you get the right brown. Finally you decide on the saturation – and mix in some white (Titanium White or Zinc White) if you want it unsaturated. Simples.

    But there are a number of problems, both practical and theoretical. First a word on the 12 category colour wheel in the picture. This construction seems popular amongst American writers. It’s fine so far as the primary and secondary colours go – but somebody decided to call the intermediate colours between the secondary and primary “tertiary”. I want to kill that person. There should be a “threeness” about the use of the word “tertiary” and there is no threeness about these hues. They remain mixes of two primaries, just in different proportions to the mid-secondaries. They are secondary colours in my book. Tertiary colours should refer to mixes of all three primaries – i.e. the lower chroma colours which should be in the middle of the wheel. But the widespread use of this terminology has poisoned the chance of using “tertiary” in that way in the wider world.

    Which is a pity, because there should be much more attention paid to these true tertiaries. They should fit in the middle of the wheel. There should be a series of concentric rings inside the one representing full chroma colours, showing the effect of mixing in increasing proportions of the complement. And in the middle, representing a mix of all three primaries in equal weights, it is black. I have seen colour wheels constructed like this in books, but nothing on the web that I can freely publish here. I also made one myself by actually mixing pigments, but after my house move, I can’t find it. The true tertiaries are important for hobbyists, because, as I have already pointed out, the bulk of the colours we want are lower-chroma.

    Before I move on , though, I just need to deal with another aspect of colour theory and the colour wheel. That relates to composition – i.e. what colours “go with” others. This matters to artists – and there are various theories they can use if they want to (triads, warm and cool colours, etc). I have seen at least one hobby writer trying to invoke this use of the wheel. He suggested that each colour on the wheel goes with its complement, giving the pairings of red-green, blue-orange and yellow-purple. He illustrated it with some Gauls painted like American Football teams. Don’t try this when making wardrobe suggestions to your partner. The complement pairings provide maximum contrast in hue – or in other terms they “clash”. That works well in sports strips and jockey’s colours, but not so much elsewhere. Besides you get a pretty decent contrast between each of the primary colours (or the secondaries for that matter) without going the whole hog. Incidentally, if contrast matters, then lower chroma or lower saturation reduces contrast (if applied to both parts of a pairing), so increased contrast of hue becomes more significant. But the big point is that wargamers’ colour choices are dictated by things other than what goes with what – you want to make things look like an original. Perhaps we should pay more attention to colour the composition of our regiments and tables, but that invites a host of practical issues. When it comes to colour choices, intuition is a better guide than theory – it’s best to take inspiration from things you see in pictures, or tables you see in shows. Leave this part of colour theory well alone.

    The theory I have just outlined was developed in the 19th century. Modern minds have examined it further, and tried to reconcile it with the better-understood mixing of coloured light. It rapidly started to fall apart. It turns out that different pigments have a tendency to cancel each other out, and the actual results of mixing them are far more complicated, and far more dependent on the individual properties of particular pigments. And then colour printer ink makers had to develop their own system. They found that magenta worked better as a primary colour than red, and cyan (on the green side of blue) worked better than blue. They also found it convenient to use black. For your interest I have found this modernised version of the colour wheel. The inner ring is the more traditional one..

    This is interesting for as an insight into how you turn pixels of light into printer ink combinations. No so useful for mixing artists’ pigments. The three segments of green are very close. The traditional wheel was developed because it was practical, and it still is. But it is worth remembering that the “primaries” of red and mid-blue aren’t the last word. You can get a scarlet by mixing magenta with yellow, while it is hard to get a decent cyan by mixing yellow with blue.

    Another thing is worth pointing out at this stage. Saturation affects our eye’s perception of the hue. If you mix white in with a fully saturated red, it turns pink, as every school child knows – pink is closer to magenta in hue than the original red. Also if you mix white in with deep blue, you get something that looks a bit like cyan. And if you mix white into orange you get close to the colour of Caucasian flesh, which looks pinker in hue. For this reason, artists don’t add in the white at the end. They decide on the saturation level early and mix it in from the start.

    A further aside is that while you can achieve a lot in theory by mixing three bright primary pigments and white, for hobbyists, who are aiming for dull colours, it is easier to start with duller pigments.

    In summary the concepts of hue, chroma and saturation are useful, as is the idea of three primary hues. But the pigments can behave unexpectedly when mixed. It is time to meet the pigments.

    Next time: the wargamers’ palette.

  • A journey through colour. Part 1 – learning the hard way

    Blasts from the past. On the right is my last pot from the Humbrol Enamel range I used in the 1970s (though as polyurethane varnish, not strictly enamel). Next to it is the last tube from the artist acrylics I experimented with in the late 70s. This was quite a nice one approximating to “French Dragoon Green” – but I rarely use it these days. The Cadmium Red Hue on the left is almost as old, and I’m still using it.

    I have long been meaning to share my journey on the use of paint in the hobby. I am in a small minority that use artists’ paints rather than hobby paints. I have thought of trying to compose something for publication in one of the magazines – but I think it is best to start here, with something a bit less tightly edited. It will take more than one article. In this one I will set the scene by recounting my journey. I don’t expect to make any converts – but if I do, I can save them a lot of trouble. But a lot of what I have learnt will help anybody that uses paint in the hobby.

    But first: why? The problem with hobby paints is that they encourage a painting-by-numbers approach. Hobbyists look for the exact shade they need straight out of bottle. Hobby paint providers enthusiastically cater for this market, and in no time hobbyists build up stocks of scores of paints. One manufacturer even provides separate products for highlights and lowlights – encouraging you to buy three bottles instead of one for any bulk application. Contrast this with the artist’s approach: a typical “palette” has no more than ten different “pigments” – from which all the multifarious hues on a painting are composed. Often palettes are even more restricted that that. A hobbyist needs no more than a dozen different kinds of paint for anything they are likely to do using the artists’ approach. A 59ml tube of Liquitex Heavy Body Acrylic (the sort I like best) costs about £7, and lasts forever. Vallejo hobby paints (the brand leader) comes in 17ml bottles costing £3. Even assuming that 17ml is enough to last for ages too (you should need to use less of each paint), you are likely to acquire way more than three dozen. In fact I have over 30 tubes of artists acrylic pigments – but half of them I rarely use. That’s all part of the journey that I wish to share – you don’t need as many pigments as you might think at first.

    Then there is something else: mixing your own colours – which is what using artists’ paints is all about – gives you control and understanding. You break out of the prison of hobby conventions and scouring forums and articles for recommendations of what is the right colour for French dragoon coats, for example. You then start looking at the world in a different way, with a much greater understanding of colour. Hobbyists tend to make basic mistakes – typically using over-saturated colours. I might add that mixing your own gives more variation and “life” to your creations – though that is a hard point to prove. Having learnt almost entirely the hard way, it has been a long journey for me. But an enjoyable one – and I wouldn’t dream of going back to hobby paints.

    I started the hobby in the 1970s (or even 1960s if you count making Airfix kits), with Airfix models and plastic soldiers. Back then I did what almost everybody else did – I used Humbrol enamel hobby paints. Humbrol brought out a range of “authentic” colours – which allegedly matched the actual colours used – I think they did a special green for those French dragoons – and I became addicted to these. I owned probably approaching one hundred of the little tins. I only recently threw them away, apart from the one tin of gloss varnish in the picture.

    My wargaming came to an abrupt halt in 1979. I graduated from university and started training as an accountant. Furthermore, my parents moved out of London (where I was working), leaving me to live in a series of bedsits and one-bed flats. I didn’t have room or the time to pursue the hobby in any serious way. That changed in 1984 when I at last bought my own flat (at the age of 26 and without parental assistance – how times change!). I now had the space to pursue a hobby I had never forgotten. But I decided to do things differently. For a start I was going to use 15mm metal miniatures (starting with Minifigs). I also decided to start using acrylic paints, to complement and the eventually take over from the enamels. I had read a lot about how acrylics were the better than those nasty smelly enamels, and so I decided to make the change.

    But what I thought people meant by “acrylics” was the artists paints I saw on sale at W.H Smiths – not the hobby paints that people were doubtless actually referring to. So my whole journey started on a false premise. I actually started experimenting with these in the 1970s, but I became more serious in the 1980s and used them more and more. It was not especially satisfactory because I still had the hobbyist mindset. I was expecting the colour coming out of the tube to be pretty close to the end result. I started to acquire lots of different pigments. But that is not what artists’ paints are for. It took me an incredibly long time to grasp this, but once I did, my outlook was transformed.

    How I used to think was something like this: all things have a colour; when painting a model or miniature the idea is to replicate this colour as closely as possible; you then look for a paint that gets as closely as possible to this and tweak as necessary. This is complicated only slightly by such ideas as the “scale effect”, which says that smaller scale models should be paler to replicate the effect of atmosphere on viewing at distance. You simply mixed in a bit of white if you wanted to reflect this. Artists have a completely different approach. They start with the end effect they want to achieve, allowing that this has a strong subjective element (or in the case of abstract art – 100% subjective). It is not a question of accuracy, but whether it looks right. Colour isn’t a property of the object you are depicting – it is how your brain interprets the information from your eye. The colour when viewing that object close up under neutral light (however you define that…) is only one factor. Things look different, for example, when viewed on a cloudy day than they do in bright sunlight. They then construct this colour from a small number of paints – the “pigments” – which they call a “palette”. The pigments represent colours with a chemical simplicity, or simplicity of source. (This isn’t entirely true though – there a re some mixed pigments in use, like Payne’s Grey, and modern manufacturers make “hues” which are mixes to replicate traditional pigments which are not widely produced any more due to toxicity, etc.) This is a world away from hobby paints, which are ready-made mixtures of pigments to achieve a particular colour.

    For me the penny didn’t really drop until I bought a book on how to mix paints. It was one of those great moments of revelation. A whole new world opened up. Alas I overdid it. I rushed out to buy yet more pigments, to cover parts of the colour wheel that were missing. Many of these, a purple and a magenta for example, I have barely used. There are important differences between how artists and hobbyists use colour, which affect the hobbyist’s palette. The first is the question of vibrancy. This is a quality artists often seek, and it is why they chase bright pigments, and mix these with care. But, unless they are going for the toy soldier look, wargamers rarely chase vibrancy. They seek a sort of authenticity of presentation that reflects weathering, cheap dyes and camouflage. In ancient and medieval times, bright dyes were expensive and the preserve a small elite. The bulk of the soldiery used cheap and dull dyes, or undyed cloth. These then got even duller as people lived in their clothes in the great outdoors, exposed to rain or sunlight, to say nothing of mud and dust. This was followed by a brief age where most uniforms were designed to be bright – in the 18th and 19th centuries – but even here the problems with dyes and weathering persisted. There may have been a brief moment towards the end of the 19th Century when advances in chemistry allowed cheap, bright dyes. But by this time camouflage was coming in: soldiers and their equipment became deliberately dull. And there’s another factor: we want an outdoorsy look to our gaming tables, and that dulls things down too – a matter of lighting and atmosphere. All this makes the job of a wargames painter much easier than for the typical artists – though, of course, that depends on the art being created. Artists complain that if they get their mixing a bit wrong they end up with something looking like mud; for a warmer variations on mud is often what they seek. Things are also quite easy for hobbyists looking for the toy soldier vibe: the colours are bright, but they are also simple. This highlights another difference between the hobbyist and the typical artist: the quest for exactitude. Artists are not after the false exactitude of accuracy, but they often care deeply about the precise hues of the colours they create, and especially how they bounce off each other in a particular composition. This really isn’t worth hobbyists worrying about. A degree of consistency across a wargames table improves the appearance – but getting the reds, greens and khakis exactly “right” matters little. I once tried devising mixes for the three (or is it four?) types of red in use by the Prussian army for facings. But I really couldn’t tell the difference on an 18mm figure at arm’s length.

    Now I was fully converted to an understanding of colour, and at time when my hobby painting activity started to take off with my early retirement. Firstly I applied the new found knowledge to Napoleonics. This was, and is, a good place to start, as the colours are very basic. I found I could paint a French infantryman with just four pigments: Titanium White, Raw Umber, Cadmium Red and Prussian Blue. That included the black shako and the flesh. Not quite true: I still needed the metallics of silver and gold for some of the details. I only needed the red for the facings (though it also helped with the mix for the face) – and having one of the lighter brown Siennas to hand was helpful (in point of act I could have replaced the Raw Umber with one of these Siennas entirely – but some of the mixes would be a bit more difficult).

    With my confidence built on Napoleonics, I broke into WW2. When I embarked on the journey, I had always considered this too difficult. But by the time I reached my first WW2 project, some German vehicles in 20mm, I was too far gone. I was not going to be dependent on some paint manufacturer’s interpretation. Dull colours are complex ones – involving all three primary colours in relatively high proportions. Small tweaks to the colour mix have a big impact, and can take it in completely the wrong direction. So it proved. I made several attempts at German Dunkelgelb before getting something I found acceptable. And even that first attempt, on some Panzer IIIs, looks to my current eye as being closer to the German desert colour Braun than Dunkelgelb – which as it happens was just as appropriate fro a Panzer III in 1943. But slowly I have got the hang of it. I have even got as far as painting WW2 aircraft, though my first attempt at RAF desert colours was not entirely successful.

    It’s been a long journey, and I’ve learnt a lot. Above all I have achieved an understanding of colour, and a sense of control over the whole process.

    Next time: colour theory

  • Twilight of the Emperor – gilding the lily

    Twilight of the Sun King is one of the most interesting, and I would say important, rule systems out there. It has a simple but ingenious game mechanism, which does away with much of the paraphernalia of traditional wargames rules, making it particularly useful for bigger games. It was originally designed for the wars of Louis XIV (the Sun King). These new rules represent an adaptation for the Napoleonic era. Based on a preliminary read through, though, I have very mixed feelings about it.

    This is the first time that I have bought any rules based on this system – even though the Great Northern War is one of my periods, and that is contemporary with the wars of the Sun King – and they were recommended by one of the readers of this blog. I didn’t really understand what the fuss was about until I read an article in Wargames Illustrated by Bill Gray, my favourite regular contributor to a magazine that I find increasingly disappointing. He gave a thumbnail description in July 2023 edition in the occasional “Why I love…” series. The system is so simple that an overview is actually most of it. Bill describes the system that he uses (“TWIGLET Redux”), which is based on the original, rather than subsequent published editions. I was blown away the elegance of the design. I immediately started culling it for ideas for my nascent system for Bismarck’s Wars. Each side moves alternately. The move starts with a morale phase, where each unit that is under fire or in contact with enemy units tests. Units can withstand a certain number of fails (typically 4) before being removed. This test, using two D6, or average dice, is kept very simple, with a minimum of modifiers. There are no automatic retreats or other such refinements – it is up to the players themselves to remove battered units from danger before they are destroyed and concede real estate. After morale there is movement; some moves can be carried out without more ado (advancing straight forward, for example), others require a score of 3 on a D6 , with again very few modifiers. This is followed by a targeting phase, where the player specifies which of the other side’s units are under fire. And that is pretty much that. No separate firing or close combat processes; no elaborate protocols for retreating or following up after combat, no high-flown activation system. Some sort of army morale system to end the game before it gets interminable is advisable.

    So how does Twilight of the Emperor (henceforth TotE) work? The basic structure is there, sure enough, but the author, Nicholas Dorrell (not the originator of the system, who was Steven Thomas in 1995, based on earlier ideas by Steven Simpson – with later versions by Andrew Coleby) adds in a lot more complexity to reflect the developments of this later era. These are in three main areas. First is command. Units are brigade-sized, putting it in the same space as systems like Sam Mustafa’s Blücher, or earlier Grande Armée (brigades can be standard, small, large or tiny…); these are organised into divisions or corps. This, apparently, wasn’t built into the Sun King version – but the changes are quite simple. A command figure for divisions (if merited) or corps can influence morale or movement tests. The second main way is a reflection of tactics. Each unit can adopt one of a number of modes, broadly reflecting column, line, square or skirmish – with a distinction between British and other lines. This is where the trouble starts, because it inevitably builds in a lot more complexity.

    And the third area of Napoleonic detail is in troops types. Mounted troops are not just split into light horse (cossacks, etc.) and cavalry, but cavalry into heavy, medium, light and lancers, as well as battle cavalry and other. Artillery can be organised into battalions, brigades or boost individual units. British doctrine is distinguished from “Continental” (the British use of that word to refer to other Europeans is a personal bugbear, but that’s another story), and various other differences in national doctrine are recognised. All this complexity means that the quick reference sheet extends to four sides of A4, though not especially densely packed, admittedly. The morale test takes up nearly two sides. The original would surely require a single side for the whole thing. Added to this the author wants to reflect additional troop grades. In the original there are just three: Trained, Elite (+1 on morale tests) and Raw ( -1). The problem is that if the modifiers get any larger, they would have a major distortionary effect. In these rules (optionally), you can grade Trained troops from A to E; these can be randomly promoted or demoted to Elite or Raw depending on grade (so and A gets a 50% chance of promotion, an E gets a 50% chance of demotion, etc.) – a couple of optional systems are presented to do this (e.g. permanently assigned on first test). This is admittedly a self-contained aspect of the rules that can be left out (and doesn’t make it to the QR sheets) – but it is another thing to do in game play, and needs to be kept track of.

    This level of complexity is just not what I expect from a set of rules in the big battle space. Sam Mustafa’s two big-battle systems don’t bother with distinguishing between the use of different tactical formations; they have a simplified systems of dealing with troop quality and type. Ditto for Chris Pringle’s Bloody Big Battles, though this is not specifically designed for this era it is used for Napoleonics with some amendments. Having spent a lot of my life writing and adapting big battle rules I haven’t seen the need for such complexity either. If you want that sort of thing it’s better to drop down a level to rules where the main unit is a battalion – mis-named Général d’Armée or Lasalle (which is still pretty stripped down) for example. There was an opportunity to keep the QR sheet down to a single side, which was lost.

    Of course, this is a matter of personal taste. To many players the extra twists on tactics and troop types are the very joy and essence of Napoleonic wargames. I remember the thrill of Bruce Quarrie’s Airfix Magazine Guide back in the 1970s, which opened my eyes to the wonderful world of Napoleonic wargaming. The complexity was part of the joy. If that is how you feel, then this system may be a clever way of bringing that complexity to big battle rules. I haven’t tried playing them, so they may well flow quickly once you get used to them. But the three page player guide included in the booklet seems to revel in the number of decisions the player needs to make – and if there is one thing guaranteed to slow play, it is giving players too many choices. You pays your money and you makes your choice.

    A couple of other aspects of the rules caused me to raise an eyebrow. Quite a few words are devoted to ideas of flank or rear support, which can affect morale tests (depending on formation). A second is that units in contact with the enemy require a successful morale test to break off. Neither of these get a mention in Bill Gray’s TWIGLET – and indeed the ability to break off combat (subject to a movement test) is one of the design features that Bill really likes. These may well reflect modifications made later in the official evolution, before TotE. Both seem to there to persuade players to adopt what are deemed to be historical deployments and tactics – rather than letting the merits of the tactical situation do so.

    So, my view is that the designers of this system have taken an elegant system for big battles and moved it towards more mainstream systems, and gilding the lily. This may be to your taste, but it is not to mine. So, how would I adapt the original model for the Napoleonic era? We need to go back to what the main differences between warfare in the two eras at the big battle level. The first is that armies were much more articulated into separate divisions and (sometimes) corps each under the command of a general, often on a campaign basis, rather than just for the day. This idea was embedded into pretty much all armies by the time of the late Revolutionary wars (i.e. from 1799) and quite possibly from way before that. The corollary of this was that the divisions could tolerate operating at some distance from their neighbours – and were much less worried about exposed flanks than in earlier eras. That reflected tactical developments in the manoeuvre of battalions, with the use of columns and squares, or simply with much better drilling of the troops allowing rapid changes of facing. TotE’s command rules make sense, with more commanders on the field than for earlier versions. But how to reflect the more sophisticated tactical handling? It should be harder to conduct flank attacks – the typical solution is that these must be delivered from behind the front of the target (which TotE does). I would suggest that all attacks require a movement test – rather than just frontal attacks. There is a case for some special cavalry v. infantry rules incorporating squares – which trade protection against cavalry for manoeuvre and vulnerability to artillery. But this rapidly turns into a nightmare and I wouldn’t be inclined to go down that route. That means doing away with the paper-scissors-stone aspect of Napoleonic tactics, but I don’t think that was a big battle thing.

    How about representing different troop types? The first thing is to tolerate much less variation. The critical question is how much different types of troops were used in different ways by generals of the time. If you can’t find much of a difference in role, it shouldn’t go into the rules. For example, at the big battle level there is no point in having a separate classification for lancers, which were another version of general-purpose cavalry. There isn’t much of a case for treating French dragoons as different from hussars or chasseurs either, for example, at least on the battlefield (a different matter for the British). If you feel the need to make distinctions then one way is to give some units special abilities in one aspect of the game – for example a bonus/penalty on the movement tests, or particular morale tests (just close combat, say). The simplicity of the Twilight system admittedly makes that harder. Perhaps give some troops a the elite bonus on some morale tests but not others (close combat but not firing, or vice versa), or a demotion if facing particular troop types.

    When adapting the system to my own rules (starting with the Bismarck era ones) there are couple of other things I would do. First I would drop brigades from the tabletop organisation, and articulate each division into a number bases depending on the number of men (one base for 1,000 infantry or 350 cavalry, say) not necessarily corresponding to actual historical units, and move these as individual elements, with a bonus when the are joined together in bigger combinations. This latter can be enforced using a PIP (movement points based on a D6 score, say) system for each division, perhaps replacing the movement test altogether. This would then be a blend of Twilight and DBA (De Bellis Antiquitatis – Phil Barker’s revolutionary system which started the fashion for stripped-down rules). And then I plan to replace the morale test dice throw with a card draw. But that’s another story.

    In conclusion I would say that the Twilight system can be used for Napoleonic battles, but I would stay closer to simplicity of the original, and try to get the QR sheet down to a single sheet. But that really is just down to personal taste.

  • GDA2 – lessons from first game

    Our game not far from when we finished. At the top right the French cavalry’s flank attack is in progress

    My hobby year started off with real momentum. But this crashed to halt in early April, and I’ve made little progress since. A combination of holiday trips, a family crisis and gardening conspired to divert me. I can’t see myself getting back to the hobby room for a few weeks yet. The one bright spot is that I have kept the games going, with my two regular monthly groups, and I have had time to explore new set of rules: Général d’Armée 2 (the published rules don’t bother with the accents: I’m just being nerdy) – known hereon in as GDA2. I have already posted my first reactions. At the start of the month I played my first game with a couple of people at the club.

    For this game I went for a similar scenario to my first club game of Lasalle 2, a very different game system, but in a similar space in terms of the scaling. A Prussian brigade of 9 battalions plus two cavalry regiments and two batteries attacks a French division of 10 smaller battalions and two cavalry regiments and two batteries. We used my normal Napoleonics, on 25mm bases, with four bases to a standard unit, and six for a large one (the Prussian infantry were in large units). Because of this small base size, we used the 28mm distances, but in centimetres rather than inches. We played on the same field size I have used for Lasalle 2 – 40in by 60 in, rather than the full 4 ft by 6 ft. Following my concerns about the complexity of the game, we decided to leave some of the rules out, notably the menu of ADC tastings, including the C-in-C commands. My fellow players provided the tokens, including a set of casualty trackers using rotating number devices (which can be seen in the picture – adorned with casualty figures).

    The game itself proved a bit lacklustre. The Prussians moved to an infantry attack, but this took too long to develop. The French decided to send their cavalry round their left flank. This again took time, but they were able to deliver a devastating attack on the Prussian cavalry, catching it in the flank, and driving it from the field, causing complete disarray on the Prussian side. At this point we ran out of time. Subsequently we realised that this flank attack should have been kicked off with a Redeploy tasking, which the French player forgot to do – as the cavalry started off in the centre rear. that wouldn’t have been too hard, though.

    Clearly the learning curve meant that we were slow. In a learning game it is worth taking time to refer back to the rules a lot. We decided that my attempts to simplify the game didn’t really work – and especially that the CinC intervention rules were critical to the balance of play. We also felt that the scaling didn’t work, as it was taking too long for the combat to develop – even after I allowed the attacking side to deploy much further in than the rulebook suggested. We decided next time to use the full rulebook, and the standard 15mm scaling, though using a 6ft by 4 ft playing area. The unit sizes would need to be kept the same, though, as I don’t have enough miniatures for the six-base standard battalions that you should really have for this scaling.

    For all the frustrations we decided that the rule system has an excellent Napoleonic feel, and that this would be our standard Napoleonic system for club games.

    It is also clear is that the game’s name is a misnomer. “Général de Division” would give a more realistic idea of the scope. Though the rules do provide for the use of an army corps, this would still need a very large playing area – or smaller scale miniatures. In the latter case, though, our experience is that there is a danger of things being too slow – though I do see Facebook reports of it being done successfully. I will resume development of my own big battle rules.

    Alas, I am going to miss the next club day at the beginning of July. However, I have promised to lead a game at my other regular venue, which should entail two players a side. I plan to use the Gilly scenario from the 100 Days book (although this is not a historically accurate reflection of that encounter, on the evening before Ligny). I’m hoping that some of the other players will have some experience of the game – and I will certainly bone up on the rules – as we need to keep it reasonably brisk to get through ten moves.

  • General D’Armée 2 – first impressions

    I have been using Lasalle 2 for my club wargames, gradually working through the scenarios in the rule book. But I’m tiring of it. It is far too abstracted and too gamey – by which I mean the players is more concerned with the operation of game mechanisms than things that a historical commander might consider. Many important features of a Napoleonic battlefield (such as generals and skirmishers) are abstracted away. In my last game I found myself pushing my cavalry towards a random patch of earth because it represented a victory point. This allowed me to snatch a draw from a losing game – and it felt like a lot of nonsense. It’s always possible to rationalise explanations when odd things happen, but I prefer it when tabletop events look more historically plausible. At the same meeting, one of the other club members raved about the General d’Armée 2nd edition rules. I have also seen being praised by some members of my last club – so I thought it was time to investigate.

    Now I had heard about GDA and GDA2 before – but because they were designed around divisional or corps-sized games, I had not investigated further. My main focus is bigger battles – and I thought that the well-written Lasalle 2 rules would suffice for club games. But if these rules were gaining popularity at my club, then they were surely worth a look. So I went to the Reisswitz Press section of the Too Fat Lardies website and ordered the pdf and hard copy package. I wasn’t disappointed.

    I discovered that they covered remarkably similar space to Lasalle 2 – the typical two-player encounter would be between forces of four to six brigades – being a reinforced division. The basic unit is a battalion for both with typically four bases (this uniform in Lasalle 2 but there is variation in GDA2), allowing only the most basic of formations to be represented: line, column and square – with the column representing all manner of different column types. They are both carefully written. GDA2 covers some 90 pages of A4; Lasalle 2 has some 120 pages of smaller 7in by 10in paper. But GDA2 feels much weightier. More space is given to diagrams in Lasalle 2, and the writing is more spaced out. And Lasalle 2 is split between basic rules (100 pages) and advanced rules. There is no basic game in GDA2 – you plunge straight into the advanced game equivalent. Its quick reference sheets are a full four sides of closely packed A4, with many more tables and categories than Lasalle 2 (whose QR is much briefer but leaves too much out).

    My most recent club game of Lasalle 2. My French are attacking the Prussians from the right. You can see my cavalry passing the cornfield on the right centre and heading for that lone tree in the distance – which marks a victory point. I am in the process of overwhelming the village in the foreground. But in the distance on the left Rod’s combined arms attack is about to cause some serious havoc. Great game but it doesn’t feel historical – a problem GDA2 should fix.

    Quite a lot is abstracted away in GDA2, of course. But it feels much less. The generals are represented on the table and issue what amount to orders. There are skirmish bases rather than an off-table system. You need a dozen or so hits to destroy a unit in GDA2, rather than the typical seven in Lasalle 2. There are more unit statuses; in Lasalle 2 units are fresh, shaken or broken (though their effectiveness diminishes with each hit); in GDA units can be unformed, brigades can be hesitant, and so on. Somehow GDA2 feels much more serious and detailed.

    Write-ups for GDA2 suggest that its the critical innovation in game design is the allocation of Aides-de-Campe (ADCs) from the commander to the brigades. This is a bit oversold. The ADC system is really a variation on the old idea of command points or command capacity. They only superficially represent the role of real ADCs. I have had the idea of using ADC figures to represent command points for allocation each turn in my own rule systems. It is a good idea though – contemporary prints of battles often show individual horseman charging around the field, as well as skirmishers, and these prints should be an inspiration for the tabletop, as they operate under similar constraints. What is much more interesting are the stylised orders that these ADCs transmit, which operate at brigade level – they are called “Taskings”, terminology that I dislike: surely “orders” would be better. They are supplemented by “C-in-C Commands” to represent the impact of the commander taking personal control, which can only happen a limited number of times. Brigades can’t do very much without these orders. This system achieves the same thing as MO in Lasalle 2, but it is less abstracted. It is much easier to understand what is actually supposed to be going on on the field.

    One interesting aspect of the brigade order system is that only one unit in a brigade can charge per turn. Amongst other things this stops the wargames tactic of two or more columns ganging up on a unit deployed in line (which happened in my last game but one of Lasalle 2), which is totally unhistorical – a function of how different a wargames tabletop is from a real battlefield. This is an arbitrary rule but a very sound idea.

    The turn itself follows a fairly classic Igo-Ugo format, with different phases for command, charges, movement, firing and close combat, each played alternately. This has the big advantage of making multi-player games easier to run – though only one player can allocate the ADCs. The more complex card-driven or other systems so fashionable in modern wargames systems can produce interesting game situations, but are harder to rationalise. They are more suited to skirmish games than one where each commander dominates the whole field of play – as was the case in Napoleonic battles at this level – though perhaps less so for big multi-corps situations. The need to manage multiplayer games without players from the same side having to wait for each other all the time is still the best reason for the traditional alternate move system – and it’s an important consideration for me. It’s the big weakness of Lasalle 2, though the author does make suggestions as to how to run multiplayer games.

    There will always be things in a rule system to quibble over from somebody that has been into wargaming and Napoleonic history as long as I have. From a gaming point of view my biggest one is that I would have much preferred a simplified basic game, to which more complexities can be added as people get the hang of it. It’s not hard to see how that might be done. The basic game would focus solely on divisional encounters (the rules do cater for corps games too), with a reduced menu of ADC Taskings (leave out CinC Command, Skirmishers, Artillery Assault, Scouts and Reserve) – and the CinC Commands altogether. No reserves, scouting, simplified troops types, no light infantry skirmish deployment or reinforcing skirmish screens (or you could leave out the skirmish screen altogether), and simplify the troops types a bit (no drilled or enthusiastic) and do away with small (and perhaps large) units. I’m tempted to create such a basic version myself, but currently I have bigger priorities for my limited hobby time. As it is taking on my first game with my usual club partner is going to be a bit daunting.

    Other quibbles are pretty minor. I don’t buy the logic that six and eight gun batteries are the same at this level (“If simply having more guns guaranteed superior firepower, then surely every nation would have deployed 12 gun batteries,” the author asks. Then why didn’t everybody use six-gun ones?). It wouldn’t have be too hard to build a bit more depth to the larger batteries, even if there is no firepower distinction. The author isn’t familiar with later Prussian command doctrine, whereby commands at “brigade” level (i.e. the game brigade – the actual Prussian Brigade is a game division) were task-oriented, and it was usual for them to be composed of battalions from two or three different regiments. I would like to see the ability to form converged howitzer batteries. I’m a little less than convinced by the skirmish rules, especially what the deployment of light battalions into full skirmish actually means. It would be pretty much impossible to deploy a whole battalion into skirmish order and to maintain any meaningful control of it – it would disperse over a very wide area. This presumably actually means some combination of a dense screen and formed reserves. And I don’t think this happened much (or at all?) in the Empire era. Commanders often reinforced skirmish screens by drawing off companies/third ranks from formed units – but the rules provide for this already. And yet this is all grumpy old man territory – the issues are either easy to fix or don’t really matter.

    The important thing is that these rules are steeped in a Napoleonic feel. Achieving this with relatively simple game mechanisms is quite a feat. Incidentally, I don’t think they would work that well for either Seven Years War, or the mid-19th Century ones. I really want to give these rules a go!

    Which leaves the question of how I adapt my Napoleonic armies to the system. I have 18mm men on bases 25mm square (with some on 30mm squares) – six infantry or two cavalry per base. Artillery are on 35-45mm bases. I also have skirmisher bases which are 25mm by 15mm deep, with a pair of figures. The rules say that a standard battalion should have a frontage of about the same as musket range. On the standard scale for 15mm troops (1mm to a yard), this would mean 15cm. That’s six bases (or five if they are 30mm) – with say 8 bases for a large unit (which would be normal for my 1815 Prussians). This is a lot of metal: 36 miniatures for a standard battalion, though it would doubtless be visually impressive. I would prefer to use the basing I already use for Lasalle 2 – four bases to a standard unit, six bases for a large one (using house rules). That would mean using the recommended distance scale for 10mm miniatures – where musket range is 9cm. That’s a bit tight, but it roughly equates to what I’ve been using for Lasalle 2 in terms of distances (musket range is four base-widths). The distances in GDA2 are all (almost) in units of 50 yards – which is 5cm for 15mm, 3in for 28mm, and 3cm for 10mm. So I could try 4cm for 50 yards. – but then all the QRFs etc would have to be redone. Batteries would be two bases, as per Lasalle 2.

    In breaking news, I have already agreed to have my first game this coming weekend at the club. And somebody is bringing a set of status markers – which you are encouraged to buy separately, as there are no printable sheets, but which are out of stock. We still have to mark casualties somehow. I think I might stick to pipe cleaners with yellow/white being singles and red being 5s. I will try and simplify the rules (i.e. leave bits of the standard game out).

    My aim is to try this system out for club games with generally non-historical scenarios – in place of Lasalle 2 (perhaps using Lasalle scenarios). For big, historical battles, like Ligny, I still want to develop a different system. The authors suggest that GDA2 can be “bathtubbed” for bigger battles, with each unit representing a brigade, and so on up. That’s not a bad idea, but I prefer systems developed specifically for the scale. Anyway, watch this space!

  • Using Oxford Diecasts for wargames

    Making up and painting models from kits and castings is a faff. What about buying die cast models ready assembled and painted? A bit more expensive, but not that much, and less trouble. For my most recent project I decided to try a couple of models from Oxford Diecast. These were a Bedford OYD 3-ton truck, and a Dorchester Armoured Command Vehicle (ACV). The former was to provide a bit more variety to my transport (dominated by Bedford QL trucks), the latter to act as brigade command vehicle for my British at Medinine and doubtless subsequent scenarios. Here’s what I found.

    Firstly these are marketed as collectors’ items and not as wargames models. They come in nice plastic display boxes, screwed to the base. For tabletop use you have to unscrew them – and you then have the display boxes to throw away or repurpose (or leave hanging around while you try and think of how you might repurpose them). Once out, the models are nicely detailed and beautifully finished. They also handle nicely. The Bedford even rolls one its wheels. Unfortunately the Dorchester’s front wheels don’t fit properly and are jammed against the wheel arch. They are quite small – true 1/76 scale I would guess without measuring them. Alas I’m finding that “20mm” models come in a range of scales. If the 20mm is meant to come up to eye level – itself a bit of a scale creep definition (it should really take you to the top of the head) – then the scale should be about 1/80. All 20mm products are bigger than this that I have seen. Plastic Soldier has 20mm in the range description, and 23mm in the instruction leaflet (about 1/70 in my book) – and maybe a bit bigger even than. So these models are at the smaller end of the range, but consistent with Airfix vehicle kits, old and new, for example, and models from the likes of Milicast and SHQ.

    Here’s the OYD next to my Airfix QLD to give an idea of size:

    One obvious difference is that the die cast models come with windows – though in fact I could have put these into the QLD in this case. Most wargames models either have the windows completely open, or, now more common in the age of 3-D printing, moulded solid. There is no driver model, and adding one would mean disassembly and potential damage. You would also struggle to find space.

    The next issue is finish. These models are painted in authentic colours (they match precisely to the colours in my reference book on WW2 colours). That means there is no attempt to lighten them up to replicate the scale effect, which is something I like to do. This is a complicated topic with “that depends” type answers – it basically means that they look best representing originals in in strong light, and this is clearly the standard for display models. On the wargames table they will be a bit dark. There is also a slight off-matt finish – appropriate for a parade ground rather than the battlefield. The tilt on the Bedford is plastic, and the finish a bit plasticky. The decals are lovely and intricate, going down to serial numbers, etc, which I don’t bother with.

    So how about incorporating these vehicles into my 1943 tabletop army? Take the truck first. This is modelled on a vehicle in the 15th (Scottish) Division in the UK in 1943 in the artillery. The paint scheme is fine for 1943 First Army in Tunisia. And second-line vehicles might well not be repainted for later campaigns. The divisional marking is not correct – but this can be removed rather than replaced, as these aren’t very 1943 in theatre. Perhaps it should have a roundel on the roof for air identification (the white stars were not used by the British in this theatre, even later in the war). Removing the divisional decal would be quite delicate work, though – but I do have some very fine sandpaper. To integrate with my army at large the model will need to be weathered – though this feels a bit sacrilegious on such a nicely finished model. I think this would take the form of a little white oil paint, brushed very thin, which would help lighten it up, as well as representing slightly uneven discolouration. And then dusting with powdered pastel. I don’t think there is the need for a wash.

    The Dorchester is another matter. This represents a vehicle in use by the Polish Armoured Division in Northwest Europe in 1945. In fact the camouflage scheme is similar to the Bedford (brown and blue-black) and OK for 1943. But unlike the trucks, these vehicles were nearer the front line and surely would have adopted one of the standard or ad-hoc camouflage schemes. This might be the Desert Pink (appropriate for Medinine), Light Mud (Sicily and Italy) or plastered with lighter coloured paint ad-hoc (First Army Tunisia). But it does look as if I should repaint this, using the airbrush. That gets round the issue of the decals, which would be overpainted rather than sanded off. At least I don’t have to worry about the windscreen and windows.

    So the models will need some work to be table-ready, and I should reserve my final judgement. I don’t see myself buying many more, though.

  • British vehicles for 1943

    The three Bedfords. The QLT on the left; the QLD on the right is the metal SHQ model; the others are Airfix

    My third article on my latest batch of 1943 British covers the vehicles: three Bedford medium trucks, three carriers, two Quads with limbers, and a CMP 15cwt light truck. I’m not showing the Quads or the OP carrier in this post – but you can see them in my previous one, along with the artillery.

    First the big trucks. These Bedfords were one of the mainstays of the British war effort, and the easiest medium trucks to acquire as models in this scale (20mm, 1/76 or 1/72). I had an Airfix kit of the QLD (general purpose) and QLT (troop transport) trucks, and a metal SHQ model. The Airfix models are proper, detailed kits with lots of parts, that require intricate assembly. The SHQ model is much cruder, though also requiring assembly, but with many fewer parts. Neither came with crew. For the Airfix models I used AB figures, though they weren’t an easy fit. For the SHQ model I took a very crude figure from a vintage Airfix Matador I had in stock. That was actually fine – it’s waste of good quality models to put them in an enclosed cab. The Airfix models are nice – they are modern ones, rather than reissued Vintage classics, which I’m going off a bit. The SHQ model, though, was simpler to put together (though vague assembly instructions didn’t help) and looks very similar at distance. Incidentally, the Airfix models came with clear plastic for the windscreens, etc., but I couldn’t lay my hands on them at the critical moment – and would have made it even harder to fit in the crew. None of my other models have clear plastic windows so I wasn’t going to stress about it – though they did turn up later.

    After my initially negative impressions of SHQ, I find they are growing on me – they look much better than you would think when they arrive unassembled, and have a nice weight when handling. Their figures are growing on me too – though I prefer the beefier AB ones. Unfortunately SHQ have ceased business. They have been bought by Grubby Tanks/Britannia. As it happens, a few weeks ago I was helping the owner of Grubby Tanks to unload his stuff at the Cavalier wargames show in Tonbridge (put on by my new club); he says that he’s going to put the SHQ items back on the market later this year. I took the opportunity to buy some items of light artillery from his Britannia range – which look quite similar but are significantly cheaper. None are assembled/painted up yet, but include one of the 2pdrs I will need for Medinine (I also bought a German 20mm flak gun and a 75mm infantry gun).

    Here’s another view:

    The SHQ model is in the middle

    And now for my models in desert colours, the CMP light truck and two carriers:

    These are all from Plastic Soldier. The CMP truck was easy enough to put together, but it is hard to get excited about it. It’s a very basic model with no options. I left the tilt loose so that I could play it without should the urge take me. This vehicle has no clear role in my set up, but it is available to shift 2-pdrs or Vickers guns if needed. The carriers are a bit more interesting. The are from the PSC Carrier Variants set. The one on the left is the 3in mortar transport. The mortar couldn’t be fired from the vehicle (unlike the German equivalent with the SdKfz 250), but is stowed away at the back. The crew are the standard crew for the PSC “generic” carrier. The one on the right has a 2in mortar in firing position – this weapon could be fired from the vehicle. Since the light mortar was part of the standard equipment of a carrier platoon, this vehicle will stand in as transport for a carrier platoon in my setup.

    Another view

    The Carrier crew are those supplied by PSC. I’m not a fan of these – a lot of PSC figures seem to be sculpted in 15mm and scaled up, looking a bit clumsy. AB make carrier crews, which would be easier to fit into these models than the slightly smaller Airfix ones – but they are rather pricey and don’t have the 2in mortar in action. From a distance the PSC crew work OK. The generic crew are appropriate for NW Europe with scrim on the helmets; the driver comes with a beret, though the head is separate and easy to swap. I hadn’t woken up to the idea of sawing off heads from the desert uniform to use on the NW Europe bodies yet, though the desert heads would have to come from other PSC models – so I left the scrim helmets on, which isn’t realistic either for 1943 or this theatre. The supplementary figures on the Variants sprue are OK in this regard, though not especially nice mouldings. I added a few boxes and bits to make the carriers look a bit more used. The models worked well, with one exception – it’s hard to fit the Bren gun in the front slot when there is crew in the front seat. You have to skew it a rather awkward angle fairly early in the assembly process.

    On the subject of the Carriers, I made up a third one from the Variants set, as an OP (visible in my previous post). This is extremely useful on the tabletop, and it is modelled with a heavy-duty radio set and lots of cable for the field telephone – and a ladder, presumably for accessing vantage points. I only have two niggles; one is that the officer with binoculars is rather crude; the second is that there is no range finder amongst the equipment stowed in the vehicle – even though this does seem be there in the picture in the assembly instructions. These instructions, incidentally, tell you which parts belong to which variants on the additional sprue (the set consists of seven generic sprues and one variants – it would have been more useful for the balance to be 6-2 or 5-3…), but you have to work out for yourself where they go based on a rather basic pictures of the assembled models; in my case even this instruction sheet was missing, and I had to find it and print it off from the website. There are complete instructions for the standard generic carrier though, which is just as well as this is much more complicated. There are alternative parts for Mark 1 and Mark 2 versions; I used the former, based on pictures of the vehicles in theatre.

    Now for some notes on my painting of these vehicles and the artillery discussed in the last post, including the Quads and limbers for the 25-pdrs (good basic models from PSC, about which there is not much more to be said – no whinges here). There are two schemes: the Light Mud scheme used in Italy, from Sicily onwards, with Blue-Black as a contrast colour; and the desert scheme of Desert Pink, with Olive Green contrast, used by the Eighth Army in Tunisia (but not the First Army in Tunisia, which had darker UK colour schemes, overpainted ad hoc in many cases). The first of these is well explored territory here. I mixed Light Mud from Raw Sienna and Titanium White, with some Prussian Blue. These are the same pigments I use for Khaki, but with a bit more white and a bit less blue. The Blue Black can be made from the same pigments, with only a touch of white and a lot more blue. In fact I think I just dived into another mix I was using that was lurking on my palette, adjusted slightly. Incidentally, I use a wet palette, as I have for many years. Not the expensive one marketed by one of the usual suspects in the hobby world, but a Daler Rowney one that has been going for many years. Mixing paints from artists’ acrylics, this is a bit of a no-brainer, as you want to keep your pigments going across a multi-day project. In fact in the winter (my studio is only heated when I’m using it), the paint kept going for weeks. Which was just as well given all the interruptions. For the tilts on the trucks I used the Khaki mix I had been using for the infantry for both schemes.

    The desert scheme was new for me – this being the last of the three main scenes used by the British in the desert (Coulter and Light Stone being the earlier ones). For the Desert Pink I simply mixed white into Raw Sienna. This is a touch less red than the usual portrayals of this colour, though I suspect (for no particularly good reason) that the pinkness softened with weathering. The Olive Green was a mix based on Sap Green, into which I threw various mixes used for the uniforms to dull down and lighten up a bit. The result may be a little dark. Greens are the hardest colours to mix. The schemes themselves were based on a variety of sources, including the official guidelines (which generally didn’t cover the vehicles I was painting and which were usually simplified in practice), photos (giving only one angle) and otherwise guesswork.

    Apart from the basic scheme I painted the tyres and radiators (a variation on the dark grey-black mix) and tracks (ditto with some added silver). And that was pretty much it (apart from the crews, painted as infantry). I took the view that other detail (the lights for example) weren’t important enough to pick out. After this came the decals. I put roundels on the truck and Quad roofs, filched from old aircraft decals, and a couple from some an Italeri halftrack kit that I had recently acquired. I also put some arm of service markings on where I could use appropriate ones. I used the ones in the Airfix kit for two of the Bedford lorries. The others were from some I had printed myself a few years ago – but these were tricky and I lost a number of them in the process. Some models, like one of the carriers in the picture, had to do without. I did not bother with divisional markings (these often weren’t used in 1943 in this theatre).

    After this came the weathering and high/low-lighting. I wanted to simplify this from the multiple stages of earlier versions. First I used small amounts of white oil paint brushed into a very thin and slightly uneven layer. Then, as an experiment, I mixed some ink into some new acrylic matt varnish that I recently acquired to make a wash. Previously I have used dark oil paint mixed with a slightly glossy medium, to get into the crevices as a glaze (which, in my parlance, is thicker and stickier than a wash) – followed by spray-on matt varnish. But the matt varnish is a very harsh matt, and the effect is too uniform to my taste. So I was trying to combine the two steps with the new, very liquid varnish, which dries off-matt. The basic concept was sound enough, but unfortunately I used some very powerful black ink. This enhanced the crevices beautifully, but made the models too dark. I had to light brush over the lighter colours on the original paint work again (which the wet palette has preserved); even then they still look a little on the dark side, especially the desert scheme. Finally I applied some powdered pastel in a sort of light dusty mix, with a brush. This served to matt-ify the off-matt varnish, without the harsh uniformity of the spray, and create a dusty texture. Apart from the matt varnish wash being a bit too dark, I’m pleased with the results. I have nice weathered finish, and the decals look well and truly integrated – and the method is quite simple.

    My next project is the Medinine Germans – which I have now started. But before then I will do a quick post on some Oxford Diecast models I have acquired.