Crimea: Foundry Purchase #2 and an Initial British Paint Test

[@TheDiomedef16]

More great purchases, the test figure is excellent. Basing, always has been, and always will be, a conundrum.

[@ZenMiniPainting]

A conundrum and source of agony for me. I utterly detest having to rebase figures, so this is one of those "must get it right first time" moments.

[@TheDiomedef16]

@@ZenMiniPainting I do like the asymmetry of four bases, but three does allow for that command in the centre. It really is a nuisance and frustrating, as you know, sometime down the line rebasing will be needed.

[@RalphAstley]

Bayonets seem to break off so easily regardless of manufacturer. I'm painting some 18mm Crimean War Russians at the moment and most of them have lost their bayonets, so I've tried to trim them to look as though they were never there in the first place. I think that plate is legitimate but the more I research these things the more I doubt my own decisions. You used a word that is much on my mind at the moment, "aesthetics", and as beauty is in the eye of the beholder the choice of base sizes is very much a matter for the individual. My personal preference for instance is to use 40x40 bases for 28mm figures as this allows greater flexibility when changing unit formations but the downside is that figures get crowded together, especially awkward if they have energetic poses.

[@ZenMiniPainting]

Regarding those brass plates: It appears that they only really belong on the Guards. I am struggling to find a picture of the regular line with it present. Nonetheless, it is a minor detail and easily ignored in the larger view of the battalion. On the topic of basing, the agonizing I am currently engaged in (or perhaps self-flagellation is a better word) is informed by that battalion symmetry I described, but also the footprint of the battalion. As an example, I need the footprint to be narrow enough for a Russian "Company" or base to man a redoubt, or the British to occupy the narrow strip of land between the Alma river and the rising embankment (where they were able to take cover from the Russian guns). This creates and issue if the bases are too large of the those features being stretched to fit the figures. I'm perhaps not being very clear. Anyway, I am toying with the idea of doing variable base widths to accommodate. So perhaps Command base = 60/80mm wide, and then remaining troops 40mm wide. The 40mm depth might then work well in the context of the features I described above. Not quite sure what I will do. I do agree that 40x40 makes more sense that 60x60 particularly since it allows the unit to "articulate" better to terrain. Truly first world problems. Since I mentioned redoubts, do you know of a good looking model in 28mm by chance?

[@RalphAstley]

@@ZenMiniPainting You might be right about the plates but I have found a single image that might counter - if you google 'Major Thomas Egerton and a sentry 77th (The East Middlesex) Regiment' you will see an example but this is variously described as undated or 1850 and by David Cunliffe or Daniel Cunliffe so not confidence inspiring. In 28mm I can't think of a redoubt but it would be fun to model one from individual gabions. Otherwise I would resort to 3D printing. I have a nice STL for the Grand Redoubt at Borodino for example.

[@ZenMiniPainting]

I thought of 3D printing largely because of you adventures in it. I have some friends just across in Canada who might be able to oblige. But I certainly will make some, very iconic for the conflict. Re: the painting you referenced, the National Army Museum has it as painted in 1849. So I suppose it can break either way really. Honestly, I only really noticed it when looking at my Osprey plates, and when I was looking at the figures from Great War and Wargames Foundry. Thanks for the note though, as you have demonstrated many times before, before Osprey!