"Which ratio - 1 to 20 or 1 to 50?" Topic

As a recent returnee to the Napoleonic era, after some 20 years absence, I have been studiously collecting and basing my 28mm and 15mm units on a 1 to 50 ratio, probably more in deference to the old WRG "1685 to 1845" ruleset which provided me with many happy games than anything else.

I have always thought that units of this size were far more manoueverable around the wargames table and made for a free-flowing game, although perhaps in retrospect they often devolved into chase affairs around the table earlier than would possibly have occurred historically. It had its flaws, but was a lot of fun.

Looking at some of the photos from the display games at Salute has given me pause for thought though in that the units do appear far more spectacular when assembled on a 1-20 basis, but I wonder if this would lead to a far less representative collection of units fielded for an average game due to space limitations (or at least limit choice), and perhaps devolve into more of a slug-fest?

For 6mm I would undoubtedly opt into a 1-20 ratio, although I feel naturally disposed to continue with the 1-50 for 15mm and 28mm.

Obviously I am writing this from a position of ignorance, but I would be interested to hear other people's approach to the era and also what rules they would recommend for the various ratios.

Apologies if this has come up before, but I did try a search and couldn't find a thread which appears to address the topic.

you obviously have the same idea for scale that I have, I play 15mm at a rate of 1:40 but if I played 6-10mm it would be 1:20 for sure. I have seen massive Empire battles at this scale and even at 1:60 it is very impressive so 1:20 would be something to see to say the least. But als, maybe in another lifetime I might switch to this scale ;-p

Shane

The one and only true scale 1:1

I like bigger looking units in the 1:10, 1:20 and 1:30 range, which results in battalion sizes ranging from 60 to 72 on the high end and 20 to 30 at the lower ratios. I have always thought that 20 figures is the minimum number required for a unit to look really, really good.

Of course, as you move up to larger units, then your table size will probably force you down the organization ladder into the realm of battalions grouped into brigades (with each player commanding a brigade of 4 to 6 battalions). This has a good look that is hard to beat.

Check out the pictures of the recent Salamanca game that the group in Scarborough (UK) hosted recently. I believe that these are 1:20 units.

If you are more interested in commanding divisions and corps, then the 1:50 ratio is probably better (unless you have a 30 foot long wargame table) and this will also impact the choice of rules that you will want to use.

I've never been a fan of those dinky little 12 figure battalions in a single rank, especially with 15mm figures. If you use the 15mm figures, then simply double the size of the unit to 24 figures. It takes up the same frontage as the 12 figure unit at 1:50 and looks much better.

I like the 1-50 figure ration for Nappies. Then again I am old school and still use/play Empire and other rules from the 80's and have yet to move or evolve into something else. The failure to move to a new ruleset is due in part to lack of opponents, a desire NOT to rebase figures, and lack of time to find new opponents and rebase figures.

IIRC the 1st Edn WRG was for a 1:15 figure scale – but figures were a lot cheaper then (sigh). I looked at 15mm figs when they were first introduced back in the day and didn't like them, so I stuck with 25mm. Fortunately for my wallet, WRG then went on to a 1:20 figure scale,and I have stuck with 25mm at 1:20 ever since.

A Bn ranges from 32 – 72 figs with 4 figs on single rank bases, including a few single figures for casualty removal and skirmishing purposes. My table for years was Grant's beloved 9 x 7 and I had little problem in divisional size games. The 'big' bns prevented them whizzing around the table like F1 racing cars, and I felt really gave a feel of how bns manoeuvred in the period.

If you use rules like General de Brigade or Grand Manner (1:20 figure ratio for both) the infantry are based on stands in two ranks so the frontage may not be that much greater than 1:50 rule sets. In 25mm a 36 figure battalion in column has a frontage of 9 centimeters. I think it really depends on what level of game you want, for divisional sized engagements then 1:20 is fine. Best wishes, Simon

Have to agree with Fritz, 12 figures in a single rank looks total rubbish!

Come to that, any number in one rank, still looks total rubbish!

The problem with double-ranking figures (at least 15mm and above, especially 25mm) is that they may look fine in line, but unless the line is long enough it ends up looking like a squat column, and regardless when in column the unit simply ends up looking too fat.

There is a different aesthetic to several dozen single-ranked battalions on the table, versus a dozen double-ranked. To my eye, the array of thin lines matches the horse-and-musket period much better than the more squat-looking formations.

Plutarch64,

We have been using the WRG 1685-1845 rules since introduction. Three years ago, we returned to the SYW period and increased the number of figures per stand to have a double rank. This meant changing the linear scale to 30 mm = 50 paces. This simplified movement as all bases now became 30 mm x 30 mm. Regulars: 6 foot, 3 skirmishers, 3 horse, 1 gun w/2 or 3 crew and Irregulars had 4 charging foot, 3 skirmishers, all cavalry were 2 per base.

We enjoyed the visual change and the ease of movement with standard base size, that we rebased all our Napoleonic. A French bn. consists of 30 figures with four bases depicting companies 1-4 and two bases are filled with skirmishers. We converge the grenadiers for Spain.

Cheers,
Robert

I have to say, in response to Traj, looking at blocks of 4 or figures in two rank bases looks like total rubbish for me. I have never liked blocks of figures.

It's what you are used too that makes another system look ridiculous…

Shane

We ahve done rules for both troop ratios. A lot depends on your preference or levels of warfare. A lot of blood and guts with casualties being the main determinant for victory lends itself to 1:20-35. Those gamers who prefer more manuever and occupation of objectives tend to prefer 1:50-60.

Grande Armee rules have set me from from figure ratios! In GA the figures just adorn the bases, it doesn't matter, for game purposes, how many, what scale, what formation, etc. The BASE is the unit!

Don, old timer wargamers can relate to Grande Armee as it is similar to playing a boardgame.

While the concept works for some, others want the miniatures feel. Where the miniatures shown or killed mean something.

I got to agree, I feel systems that play like board games really should be played as a board game….on a board.

but that's just my opinion.

For years I've played 30/1 ratio. Started with Quarrie's 33/1, but those rules dragged games out too long and required a lot of paper. So 30/1 give me 20 to 30 figure units. All double ranked. I confess, I did a heck of a lot of arithmetic getting cavalry right, the number of guns/figure ratio (1 figure = 1 gun, max 4 figures to gun model – you can finish the math). My cavalry are single ranked, which considering the depth, I call it 2 ranks in 'real life'.

Did a lot of arithmetic to get the ground scale, ranges and movement and base sizes to come close to what I was looking for. In the end, it worked out.

Double ranked infantry just 'looks' better to me. 20 figure minimum battalion strength 'looks' better. 2 guns with 6 to 8 figures, representing 6-8 guns, 'looks' better. I may make some sacrifices, but aesthetics means a lot when playing.

My one rank, 24 figure battalion using Quarrie looked too flimsy (although probably correct?), and took up too much table space.

The years of calculation to accomodate 30/1 ratio has been worth the effor. Units look cool with double ranked infantry, 2 gun figure minimum looks more like a battery, and my movement and firing ranges correlate with the references I used.

Seemed like a practicle compromise.

"My one rank, 24 figure battalion…took up too much table space." pbishop12

But isn't that the whole point of table-top simulation – to try and re-create what happened in the field? OK, I can appreciate that the big bns take up space on what can be a limited playing surface, but if you have x number of bns to defend/attack y yards of frontage then you can only fit enough figures into that space to represent the reality of that situation.

Let me try and make that a bit clearer. If you have six battalions, defending a frontage of 500 yards, I assume that the your bns will be deployed in line – to maximise each bns's firepower potential. Assuming (as per my rules) that 1 in represents 10 yards and (as per my army at a ratio of 1:20) that a close-order infantryman occupies 15mm of frontage, and that the bn is 32 figures then the frontage of the bn is 45cm, or approx 18 ins, or 180 yards in 'real life'. ('real life' = 640 men/2 ranks = 320 men x 22" frontage each = 195.5 yards, so I'm a little bit out – but can justify that by saying the men have moved a bit to give themselves elbow room while loading and firing). So, in the 500 yards of frontage I can fit in 2 bns and a supporting battery – which is fine for defence. I also have two lines of supports and reserves (each of 2 bns) available for whatever purpose I want – replacement of battered units, fresh units for a counter-attack, etc).

On the other hand, if I double rank my bns, I can fit four bns in the same frontage and use all figures to fire then I have doubled my firepower potential, I also have a formation that occupies much, much greater depth than it should do. (Yes, this is a problem even with a bn in single rank, but not to the same extent). Doubling the potential firepower may be great for winning games on the table, but it does not reflect the realities of the number of muskets that can be brought to bear on an enemy in the situation. A possible way around this is to say that only the front rank of a unit may fire. More 'realistic'?, yes. But I'm deploying double the number of figures than should be deployed to achieve the same effect. So for me, given the combination of ground scale, and figure ratio, a single rank of figures will continue to represent a bn in line in two ranks.

Now I know, through previous topics, that Donlowry (for example) is never going to agree with me – nor I with him, and I strongly suspect that pbishop12 will never agree with me either, (btw, I do however, agree with his rationale for artillery – my guns rep 2 pieces of artillery)- but that doesn't mean I think they are 'wrong', it just means we have chosen different methods to arrive at something which we, individually, find pleasing. So, messieurs, with your permission of course, I shall continue, merrily, on my own path to the devil!

best regards

agreed, rules that double the ranks of figures but yet are still trying to represent a btln in line just does not cut it….

A single row of figures might not be as esthetically pleasing for some but I tell ya, its much more realistic for the depth a unit should cover in line, and cloumn for that matter.

Yes, most of our miniature battalions are far too deep whether in line or column (which is essentially just a thick line).

Pete Berry used to have pictures of a French battalion at 1:1 in 6mm in various formations which showed the actual frontages and depths which are reasonable (maybe they are still there).

These days I use brigade sized bases so it doesn't matter, I just jam on as many figures as are aesthetically pleasing and don't worry about figure ratios.

I let aesthetic taste make many of my wargame decisions.

For me, Napoleonics look best in 2 ranks with at least 24 figs per battalion. They have to be able to form column, line and square. So this means 1;20 or 1:25 ratio.

It also means i can only play small actions in 25mm. So be it. up to 12 – 16 battalions/squadrons/batteries per side is about the limit I can stretch to considering cost and table size in 25mm. 4-6 bases of 6 infantry per battalion, 4 of 3 or 4 cav, and 2 of guns look like good units to me so that's what I stick with.

I sometimes call each base a brigade and play larger scale games with the same figs, but usually enjoy the division / brigade level games as they just look better to me. Personal taste.

I made the move to plastic 1/72 because I wanted to game larger battalions, and for me, that was an economic decision (one that I have really taken to as the range and quality of plastic Naps has grown). I grew up with pictures of Peter Gilder figures, and so two ranks has always been "natural" to me – even when I used WRG rules. I like the size of a 1:20 battalion, as it is no longer nippy, whereas I always felt that the little 10/12 man units could skate around the table all day.

With frontages though, I tend to work on a French battalion in column taking up between 45 and 60 yards, and an artillery battery approx 80 yards, so I have adjusted the ground scale accordingly when scaling battlefields, and that really helps me get the troop density right – no more pretending to re-fight the whole of Waterloo in 8 foot!

The effect of this is that my French battalion in column occupies 3 bases width (6 figures in two ranks, 45mm wide) – 135mm in total, so I use a scale of approx 2mm to the yard (the etxra I regard as battlefield spacing…). The actual column is then made up of three bases wide by two bases deep (9 figures by 8), which makes it terribly squat, and so I ignore the depth of the formation, and measure from the front edge (ie when crossing rivers etc).

It is all compromise, but I prefer the look of massed units rather than spindly little ones. If you have some figures, why not rank them up and see what looks best for you.