One miniature - two ships

[Comte de Brueys]

Checking the official rules, I found out, that each miniature in the starter set has two ship cards with different names.

So you have 2 options for a French frigate, etc...

Good idea Ares Games! :thumbsup:



My question is:

Will the series I miniatures have ship cards with two different names on the front and the rear, too? :question:

[Pseudotheist]

Yep! (http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?1392-Alternate-Double-Sided-Ship-Card-List)

[Comte de Brueys]

Ok.

I ordered the

French 3rd rate Commerce de Bordeaux

and

the French frigate Embuscade.

Does anybody know what ship names are on the rear side of these ship's cards?

[Pseudotheist]

Does anybody know what ship names are on the rer side of these ship's cards?
Yep! (follow the link V :hatsoff:)

Yep! (http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?1392-Alternate-Double-Sided-Ship-Card-List)

[Gunner]

With all the yeps, I feel like I'm watching Storage Wars on TV.
Follow what link:question:

[Cpt Kangaroo]

Sven, check this link...

http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?1512-French-Ship-of-the-Line-(74)-Commerce-de-Bordeaux-(1786)-Ships-Biography

And this link too...

http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?1475-French-Frigate-Embuscade-(1790)-Ships-Biography

Follow the link to the ships class for a full listing.

http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?1493-T%E9m%E9raire-class-ships-of-the-line

[Comte de Brueys]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but I got this answer from my question over on the KS page:

...SGN102B Commerce de Bordeaux 1785 / Duguay-Trouin 1788
SGN103A Embuscade 1798 / Le Succès 1801

...


Thank you for the link, Todd. :salute:

[Comte de Brueys]

With all the yeps, I feel like I'm watching Storage Wars on TV.
Follow what link:question:

The link is hidden in the YEP, Ed.

[Gunner]

The link is hidden in the YEP, Ed.

Thanks Sven, or I would still be scratching my head.

[Diamondback]

Starter, Series 1, Series 2 are all double-sided. I'm under NDA on the Series 2 list, and while I have some reservations about some of the classes grouped together under the same sculpt, a lot of it's the fact that I'm a modeler first and don't have sufficient diagrams available to assuage the lingering doubts brought by my own admitted lack of knowledge.

[7eat51]

I wonder how easy it will be to tell the ships apart, if the different cards will be sufficient. At the Commodore level, the double-sided cards enable a significant number of ships to be played.

[Gunner]

That was a smart move. Now a lot of gamers will want two of everything.

[Berthier]

I wonder how easy it will be to tell the ships apart, if the different cards will be sufficient. At the Commodore level, the double-sided cards enable a significant number of ships to be played.

The cunning plan is to have you buy two of everything...:erk:, then modify one of the models slightly yourself, maybe a minor re-paint.

[Comte de Brueys]

Money intensive plan, Daniel. :moneygone:

I need to ckeck, but some ships sailed under the reign of the Bourbons, to be indicated with the (complete) white flags they had.



That's not an option for a French Capitaine that sails with the ideals of the Revolution and the Republic. :steer:

[Pseudotheist]

The cunning plan is to have you buy two of everything...:erk:, then modify one of the models slightly yourself, maybe a minor re-paint.
I'm planning to make use of the aternate side for any ships I intend to rig, as I don't see myself rigging all 16 ships, so probably want to keep a set unmolested.

[HMS Lydia]

I wonder how easy it will be to tell the ships apart, if the different cards will be sufficient. At the Commodore level, the double-sided cards enable a significant number of ships to be played.

32 different ships!:hmmm: (8 SoL, 8 Frigates for each side). This opens many scenario possibilities.

[Cpt Kangaroo]

Thanks Sven, or I would still be scratching my head.

Me too Ed, it didn't click. :question:

[Cpt Kangaroo]

I wonder how easy it will be to tell the ships apart, if the different cards will be sufficient. At the Commodore level, the double-sided cards enable a significant number of ships to be played.

I am planning to make some sort of pennant marking system that will be easily seen.

[Diamondback]

Money intensive plan, Daniel. :moneygone:

I need to ckeck, but some ships sailed under the reign of the Bourbons, to be indicated with the (complete) white flags they had.



That's not an option for a French Capitaine that sails with the ideals of the Revolution and the Republic. :steer:
Easily fixed... all you need is a little paint and a good hand.

But why ANYBODY would want to support that murderous bastage Robespierre and his Reign of Terror is beyond me... :P

[David Manley]

But why ANYBODY would want to support that murderous bastage Robespierre and his Reign of Terror is beyond me... :P

Just look at what sells best in any WW2 range - it ain't the good guys :)

[csadn]

Just look at what sells best in any WW2 range - it ain't the good guys :)

Which is a sad f***in' comment on Human Nature....

(One of the reasons I really enjoyed the last episode of the latest season of _Foyle's War_: A Textbook Study in "how a Good Guy can be a Complete Bastard and still remain on the side of the angels".... >:) )

[tmon]

Well look at the Germans during WW2 quite a few different but interesting tanks and tank destroyers and compare it to the US very limited variety .


Just look at what sells best in any WW2 range - it ain't the good guys :)

[Andy Blozinski]

Which is a sad f***in' comment on Human Nature....

(One of the reasons I really enjoyed the last episode of the latest season of _Foyle's War_: A Textbook Study in "how a Good Guy can be a Complete Bastard and still remain on the side of the angels".... >:) )

I guess you're going to have to explain where that comment makes sense. Let's take a look at an example in Medium tanks, for instance.
Here is the entire range of American medium tanks.
Grant
Sherman with cast hull
Sherman with welded hull
Sherman with a 76
Sherman with a dozer blade
Sherman with a flamethrower
Sherman with fancy suspension
Sherman with fancy engine
Sherman with wet stowage
Oh yeah, Sherman with rocket launcher

Hoo-ee...that's some variety there.

[Gunner]

I guess you're going to have to explain where that comment makes sense. Let's take a look at an example in Medium tanks, for instance.
Here is the entire range of American medium tanks.
Grant
Sherman with cast hull
Sherman with welded hull
Sherman with a 76
Sherman with a dozer blade
Sherman with a flamethrower
Sherman with fancy suspension
Sherman with fancy engine
Sherman with wet stowage
Oh yeah, Sherman with rocket launcher

Hoo-ee...that's some variety there.

Don't forget the

Sherman with a hedge cutter.
Sherman with mine rollers.

[tmon]

You forgot a couple exploded Shermans after they ran into a Panther, Tiger I, and a Tiger II

[Diamondback]

Don't forget the

Sherman with a hedge cutter.
Sherman with mine rollers.
Sherman Duplex-Drive with swim curtain
Sherman with snorkels

[David Manley]

Sherman BARV

[David Manley]

I guess you're going to have to explain where that comment makes sense.

Chris' comment makes perfect sense. I suspect you were actually querying Tom's post.

[Comte de Brueys]

...

But why ANYBODY would want to support that murderous bastage Robespierre and his Reign of Terror is beyond me... :P

The French Revolution cleaned itself from those radical elements.

The reign of la Terreur last only a year.

Typical to reduce the revolution only on this short time period - ignoring the achievements for human rights. :hmmm:


I fully understand if former colonies would not break with their mother country in this conflict.:sly:




Just look at what sells best in any WW2 range - it ain't the good guys :)

Maybe for WW II David, but not for the Napoleonic Wars. :wink:

[Comte de Brueys]

Berthier, where are you? :question:

Here is some discussion work to do versus those coalition elements... :pistole:

[Berthier]

Ah I'm back, since my house move (the longest in history) I have had email in but not out and some connectivity problems that needed to be sorted.

RE French Revolution - well picking on Robespierre and the Terror as symbolic of the whole Revolution is as accurate as picking on Tarleton or the Tea Party (not the modern one that's a separate debate) or Benedict Arnold as being symbolic of the American Revolution. You cant look at these things in isolation, out of the Fr Rev came a unified legal system where all were equal in the eyes of the law, enshrined as the Code Napoleon but much of the work had alrady been done (no slavery in France at least although it persisted in the W Indies) , unification of the systems of measurement into a coherent and logical structure (metric), universal education for all children, the separation of Church and State, state sponsored care for veterans and their families etc etc.

Yes there was a reign of Terror, just as there was fraticidal murder extensively during the Am Rev and most other revolutions in history. By their nature Revolutions get messy, judge them in the context of the times, the outcomes they did or did not achieve and see the more sensational abhorrent acts for what they were. Remember the perpertrators of the Terror were themselves over thrown very quickly and the period ended as Sven pointed out in only a year.


On a further note wasnt one of the Sherman variants "The Ronson".....:cannonboom::cannonboom:

[Diamondback]

True, I was just razzing Sven a little, hence the "tongue stuck out" smiley. :)

[David Manley]

Maybe for WW II David, but not for the Napoleonic Wars. :wink:

But even there the evil Frenchies outsell everyone else :happy:

[David Manley]

I guess there are indeed quite a few M4 Sherman variants out there. But I suspect the numbers of different types is rather less than the enormous number of variants of the Panzer III / Stug III - and then add all the PzIVs, weird and wonderful things built on top of Pz38t hulls,

Suffice to say, plenty of variation regardless of one's choice of army :happy:

[Gunner]

On a further note wasnt one of the Sherman variants "The Ronson".....:cannonboom::cannonboom:

The "Ronson" seemed to be a constant rather than a variant to the early Shermans.

[csadn]

Here is the entire range of American medium tanks.
Grant
Sherman with cast hull
Sherman with welded hull
Sherman with a 76
Sherman with a dozer blade
Sherman with a flamethrower
Sherman with fancy suspension
Sherman with fancy engine
Sherman with wet stowage
Oh yeah, Sherman with rocket launcher

Hoo-ee...that's some variety there.

Well, for one: You're ignoring the US TANK DESTROYERS -- the M10, M18 (aka "the tanker's dream"), and M36, which are the units one is *supposed* to have when taking on German armor (sadly, it took a while for the US to work out "tanks fight tanks; infantry fights infantry").

The US has the same problem in tanks that Germany has in fighters.

[7eat51]

Well look at the Germans during WW2 quite a few different but interesting tanks and tank destroyers and compare it to the US very limited variety .

The Germans did have a pretty cool looking arsenal, especially in terms of armor. Some innovative engineering in terms of tactics and equipment.

[Andy Blozinski]

Well, for one: You're ignoring the US TANK DESTROYERS -- the M10, M18 (aka "the tanker's dream"), and M36, which are the units one is *supposed* to have when taking on German armor (sadly, it took a while for the US to work out "tanks fight tanks; infantry fights infantry").

The US has the same problem in tanks that Germany has in fighters.

"Here is the entire range of American medium tanks"

[csadn]

"Here is the entire range of American medium tanks"

Which has to include the TDs -- US armor doctrine was "infantry tanks to support infantry (which the Sherman was) plus tank destroyers for dealing with enemy tanks". In fact, the M10 and M36 were built on M4 chassis, and came within 3-4 tons of the M4's weight (with much better firepower).

[The Barrelman]

I guess you're going to have to explain where that comment makes sense. Let's take a look at an example in Medium tanks, for instance.
Here is the entire range of American medium tanks.
Grant
Sherman with cast hull
Sherman with welded hull
Sherman with a 76
Sherman with a dozer blade
Sherman with a flamethrower
Sherman with fancy suspension
Sherman with fancy engine
Sherman with wet stowage
Oh yeah, Sherman with rocket launcher

Hoo-ee...that's some variety there.

My favorite...

Sherman Firefly

Don't know if anyone here likes the video game thing... I enjoy some tank on tank violence in world of tanks (http://worldoftanks.com).

[OmegaLazarus]

Don't know if anyone here likes the video game thing... I enjoy some tank on tank violence in world of tanks (http://worldoftanks.com).

I just signed up for the beta on Xbox, but I haven't got to try it out yet.

[csadn]

Sherman Firefly

Yours, and everyone else's -- it's the only Sherman variant which has the remotest chance against German armor; everything else is undergunned infantry-support Rubbish.

[Gunner]

My favorite...

Sherman Firefly [/URL].

And it took the British to come up with it.:hatsoff:

[Andy Blozinski]

Which has to include the TDs -- US armor doctrine was "infantry tanks to support infantry (which the Sherman was) plus tank destroyers for dealing with enemy tanks". In fact, the M10 and M36 were built on M4 chassis, and came within 3-4 tons of the M4's weight (with much better firepower).

I thought the Marder was a Tank Destroyer, but I guess you've proven me wrong. You've just described a Marder and declared it a medium tank.

[Comte de Brueys]

Another question:

Are the KS exclusive ship cards double sided, too? :question:

[Comte de Brueys]

Another question:

Are the KS exclusive ships's ship cards double sided, too? :question:

[GrouperKicker]

Another question:

Are the KS exclusive ships's ship cards double sided, too? :question:

Yes. Here are the details:

SGNKS01 La Concorde 1777 / Junon 1778
SGNKS02 Fougueux 1785 / Redoutable 1791
SGNKS03 HMS Juno 1780 / HMS Castor 1785
SGNKS04 HMS Bellerophon 1786 / HMS Defiance 1783

[Comte de Brueys]

Thank you, Scott. :salute:

[Diamondback]

Why do I get the feeling some people here ain't gonna be happy unless Ares spins up "TREADS of Glory" next? LOL

[csadn]

I thought the Marder was a Tank Destroyer, but I guess you've proven me wrong. You've just described a Marder and declared it a medium tank.

That's because it *was* used in roles where ordinarily a "proper tank" would have been used, and was built off other light (Marder I and II) or medium (III) tank hulls -- an indicator of how screwed up Germany's supply situation was.

In this case, "tank" and "tank destroyer" are a design and designation issue -- the Marder, like all *German* tank-destroyers and assault guns, did not have a turret; only "proper tanks" did. The US, conversely, designed both tanks and tank destroyers with turrets (the only German-style design the US came up with was the T95 Gun Motor Carriage -- known to some of us as "OGRE Mark 0.5" :) ).

The main reason for the German TDs/AGs lacking turrets was simplicity -- it was faster and cheaper to build a casement than a turret, so more units could be produced in a given time; given German armor losses in N. Africa, and the Eastern Front, they needed as many units as they could get, and if that meant sacrificing some tactical flexibility, so be it. (Yes, that meant TDs and AGs being used in roles usually reserved for "proper tanks".) In some places, the German TD/AG lacking a turret wasn't a problem (hedgerow country; mountainous areas -- places where field-of-view was limited to begin with); in others, it was a fatal flaw (Kursk, etc.)


Why do I get the feeling some people here ain't gonna be happy unless Ares spins up "TREADS of Glory" next? LOL

I'm more concerned about the WW1 trench-warfare game -- "Holes of Glory".... >;)

[Diamondback]

I'm more concerned about the WW1 trench-warfare game -- "Holes of Glory".... >;)
o.o o.O O.o O.O :smack:

[Andy Blozinski]

That's because it *was* used in roles where ordinarily a "proper tank" would have been used, and was built off other light (Marder I and II) or medium (III) tank hulls -- an indicator of how screwed up Germany's supply situation was.

In this case, "tank" and "tank destroyer" are a design and designation issue -- the Marder, like all *German* tank-destroyers and assault guns, did not have a turret; only "proper tanks" did. The US, conversely, designed both tanks and tank destroyers with turrets (the only German-style design the US came up with was the T95 Gun Motor Carriage -- known to some of us as "OGRE Mark 0.5" :) ).

The main reason for the German TDs/AGs lacking turrets was simplicity -- it was faster and cheaper to build a casement than a turret, so more units could be produced in a given time; given German armor losses in N. Africa, and the Eastern Front, they needed as many units as they could get, and if that meant sacrificing some tactical flexibility, so be it. (Yes, that meant TDs and AGs being used in roles usually reserved for "proper tanks".) In some places, the German TD/AG lacking a turret wasn't a problem (hedgerow country; mountainous areas -- places where field-of-view was limited to begin with); in others, it was a fatal flaw (Kursk, etc.)



I'm more concerned about the WW1 trench-warfare game -- "Holes of Glory".... >;)

I actually drive a StuG and suddenly I feel so schooled.

[Wargamer]

Back to the original thread, so what is on the obverse side of HMS Victory and USS Constitution? Britannia and United States?

[David Manley]

The main reason for the German TDs/AGs lacking turrets was simplicity

It was also because, in many cases the weapons fitted were too large and the recoil forces too great to be safely installed in a rotating turret (e.g. 75mm Pak40 on a Pz.38t chassis)

[Comte de Brueys]

I - will - not - join - you - in - a - WW II - tank - discussion - here.

:swordright:

...it's hard to resist.

:wink:

[GrouperKicker]

Back to the original thread, so what is on the obverse side of HMS Victory and USS Constitution? Britannia and United States?

I don't believe that Ares has released any information on this yet. I'm still trying to figure out if the January release/ship date is still on track for these ships.

[Wargamer]

I don't believe that Ares has released any information on this yet. I'm still trying to figure out if the January release/ship date is still on track for these ships.

I would take that release date and base it on previous ares/nexus and ask which year?

[GrouperKicker]

I would take that release date and base it on previous ares/nexus and ask which year?

The cynic in me tends to agree with you, but for some reason I am being fairly optimistic about the Victory and Constitution.

[Gunner]

I can't find the post or article, but I read somewhere that the series 1 delays shouldn't affect the Victory and Constitution's January ship date.

[David Manley]

(the only German-style design the US came up with was the T95 Gun Motor Carriage

There were also US Tank Destroyers based on half tracks - one mounting a 57mm gun (licence built 6pdr), the other with a 75mm. And also an early version based on the Dodge 3/4 ton weapon carrier carrying the 37mm ATG

[DeRuyter]

There were also US Tank Destroyers based on half tracks - one mounting a 57mm gun (licence built 6pdr), the other with a 75mm. And also an early version based on the Dodge 3/4 ton weapon carrier carrying the 37mm ATG

I painted a couple of these in 15mm for the Pacific theater (USMC). Apparently the M3 GMC was the most numerous US TD in North Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Gun_Motor_Carriage

Eric

[Diamondback]

Admins, may I suggest splitting the armor discussion off into its own thread? :)

[David Manley]

Why break the habits of a lifetime? :)

[Coog]

A later period, two U. S. anti-tank vehicles:

M-56 Scorpion

7258

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M56_at_AAF_Tank_Museum.JPG

M-50 Ontos (One of my all-time favorites)

7259

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontos

[7eat51]

Admins, may I suggest splitting the armor discussion off into its own thread? :)

If Sven desires it, as he is the original poster, I will be happy to do so.


Why break the habits of a lifetime? :)

I know I am guilty. :smack:

[Diamondback]

Fair 'nuff. :)

[csadn]

It beats the hell out of another "when is the *&^%$#!ing game going to get here?" thread. >:)

FWIW: I actually prefer German StuGs, particularly the StuGIII. As to the truck- and halftrack-based units, I had to research those back when _Crimson Skies_ was a going concern, for the China-v.-Japan sourcebook (working title: "_Dragon's Dance_").

[Comte de Brueys]

If Sven desires it, as he is the original poster, I will be happy to do so.

No problem, Eric.

I will not break up the therapy.

If the patients want to talk about their traumas (Allied WW II tanks), I'm not going to interupt. :help:



Stop - talking - about - WW II tanks - Monsieur de Brueys - :smack:

[csadn]

o.o o.O O.o O.O :smack:

On the Baen Forums, I usually get:

0o

o0

><

>;)

[csadn]

o.o o.O O.o O.O :smack:

On the Baen Forums, I usually get:

0o

o0

><

>;)