"Depth of figure basing ???" Topic

Just a question about figure basing that hit me like the proverial "elephant in the living room".

Why do all (I think) minature rule sets base infantry in one or two figure depths (ranks); whereas everyone except the British used 3 deep ranks for line formation?

Probably because the way in which most rule sets deal with the issues of ground scale and figure scale the number of lines of figures on a base is something of an irrelevance.
The frontage of bases is usually much more important than the base depth -which is often way out of proportion.

A British battalion of say 800 men, deployed in line, would be 400 times as wide as it was deep. The French deployed 3 deep would still be about 265 times as wide as it was deep.

Being 2 deep or 3 deep, in that respect, does nothing to significantly alter the ratio of depth to width visually. This is especially true if you consider alot of the widthwise footprint of the unit is officers and bandsmen around it front and back which would not be different for either 2 or 3 rank system.

Visually, the real effect of going 3 ranks is to reduce frontage, not to increase depth.

Not all rules sets do.

re Malcommccallum's comment….

I do agree that being 2 verus 3 deep greatly affects the width that the unit has when deployed into line. But I think that the visual effect is quite different whether a unit in line has 2 or 3 figures in it. I guess I am amused that so many gamers are stickliers for the exact regimental facings and button colour in the name of historical accuracy, but have little issue with showing two rather than 3 ranks. (me included).

What I am seeing, (to me it is a lightbulb turning on) is that when doing minatures with a fixed reduced figure size (18mm figures representing a 6 foot tall man is a 101X reduction), is that the width of the unit can be made accurate on the gaming table by a combination of factoring in an additional reduction in grade scale (example: LSF does an further 18X reduction in ground scale beyond the actual figure reduction- so getting 2"table to 100 realyards on the battlefield)… and a reduced ratio of figures to real soliders (one figure to 40-50 soliders) to get the little men to fit. The "method" seems to be first to use a ground scale that is convient with the wargamers gametable, next fit in all the figures that fit, and then calculate the ratio of figures to actual soliders to get the figure:solider ratio. BUT while that works width wise for the ranks (e.g. distance between files), it doesn't work for the files (depth) of the files. So we get to the situation (assume a 2 rank British formation) where a 1" x 1" stand with 4 figures, (at 50:1), represents 200 men in 2 ranks. This frontage of 100 men is okay after scaling for width, but should only be 2/100th of an inch deep (to be in correct scale). You can add the officers behind and in front, but the result is about the same.

Going to 3 ranks from 2 ranks deep on the stand may make a serious effect on the wargaming rules mechanics.(?)

A practical saving grace is that units often kept empty space between each other so they could change formation without banging into each other. The depth of the stands can be thought of as representing this distance. The errors come in when using our "little green men" (what one of my daughters called them) in any sort of column type formation, where these width:depth errors multiple.

I guess I'm warming up to the reduced scale for the visual impact and a better feel for the problems of handling the troops.

"Not all rules sets do."

I seem to recall "Age of Eagles" allows for the difference.

Quite frankly, except for an aesthetics that is chasing verisimilitude, a stand of figures is prosaicly a symbolic counter.

"Not all rules sets do."

I seem to recall "Age of Eagles" allows for the difference.

What I was implying was that in some rules sets it's not important due to the 'level' of command that is being represented. Grande Armee, for example, puts all infantry and cavalry on a 3" x 3" base

Quite frankly, except for an aesthetics that is chasing verisimilitude, a stand of figures is prosaicly a symbolic counter.

Quite. Though I do recall the gallons of ink that were expended back in the good old days of superdetailed rules on this very subject. Most of those 'rationalisations' ended in fudges anyway

I'm guessing that 1968billsfan is a bit new to all this

Hi,

I find it hard to believe that the total width of a unit in line is not more important then the depth of the base in respect to wargaming (which I admit I have little experience). The limiting factor to me would appear to be the size of the table especially in respect to 28 mm figures.

I am curious though about the ratio of frontage to depth when in a column of march. My 800 men bat's (15 figures) would be 40 mm wide by 120 mm deep). All my bases are 40x20 mm except command bases which are 40x40mm. This is 1:3 ratio of width to depth in a column of march.

What would be the historically accurate ratio for a column of march or column of attack in respect to French Infantry.

Thanks,

John

In Adkins Waterloo book he has a diagram to show a French battalion of about 500 men in column and its more or less square. Will have to get the book out to check the exact measurements.

A French 6 company battalion of around 600 bayonets deployed 3 deep would take up the following distances(approximately):

In line
Frontage: 130 yards
Depth: 3 yards

In close column of companies
Frontage: 22 yards
Depth: 30 yards

In close column of divisions
Frontage: 44 yards
Depth: 15 yards

In open column of companies
Frontage: 22 yards
Depth: 130 yards

In march column
Frontage: less than 22 yards depending on the width of the road and defiles.
Depth: Ideally no more than 130 yards (the unit's frontage in line), but this might have to be extended if marching on very narrow roads.

Columns could also be formed at half distance, rather than being open or closed.

In Adkins Waterloo book he has a diagram to show a French battalion of about 500 men in column and its more or less square. Will have to get the book out to check the exact measurements.

FWIW

British battalion in line (640 all ranks) 210m frontage (p170)

French battalion in column (533 all ranks) 45m x 45m (p194)

French battalion in line (514 all ranks) 125m frontage (p195) – on the same page he states:

There were very few instances at Waterloo when a French battalion deployed in line.

If you say that the British battalion in the example above was @2 metres deep, then its frontage was over 100 times its depth. Allowing 3 metres for the depth of the French battalion, it's frontage is 40x its depth.

I'm getting a distinct sense of deja vu

Well now, properly proportioned figures would do away with a bit of this worry, I would think.. ;0)

If you really want to reflect depth, use paper miniatures. They can be based accurately for depth!

Hi,

I think you get a sense of deja vu as the discussion is always about 2 or 3 men in line and actual measurements, rather then the relative size of the required formations that are required to play battalion level games..

First, I would like to say that I know very little about wargaming, as I have been focused of figure painting for the last 5 years, over the last year I have spent time looking at several battalion level rules. I have also read about 2 years of posts on this site especially as related to basing.

I find the to and fro usually gets tied up with details about which you can do very little about, once you decide on your figure ratio and figure size. The line width is a function of the number of figures (figure ratio) that in your unit (battalion) and how close you can place them together. Most games appear to require that you can place your unit in line, square, column of attack and column of march. The only thing that would then still be important to me is the ratio's of these different formations.

Clearly if the historical ratio of line formation width to depth is 100, there is nothing you can do about this unless have figure ratio of around 1:10, most of us are not going to be able to paint up 60-80 figures per battalion, so this is not an option. The best you can do here is use single file base placement. Squares are squares, little you can do about that, so it seems to me the only important calculations left are the ratio of width to depth in column of attack and column of march. It appears from above that the French column of attack is also square or 1:1. So the only remaining dimension is the march column which appears to vary from 1:4 to 1:6. I would think then that you would have to choose a base size where the depth works to give you an over all dimension of your unit in a march column of 1:4+, width to depth.

These ratios I think would hold true for all figure sizes as there is only 4 basic formations.

Also from looking at most rules sets, if the basing schemes would be recommended in ratios rather then base sizes, then the all rules would be good for all figure sizes, especially if all calculations of movement, etc were in terms of a base number rather then inches or cm. I think Grande Armeé does this, but it of course this is not a battalion level game.

But, I suspect I have no idea what I am talking about, but the information about the ratio of width to depth is very helpful to me and I thank you for that.

March column should not be considered for basing of miniatures generally as it is an administrative formation. Stick to consideration of line, column of companies, and column of divisions.

Maybe I am missing something but why? How do you move a battalion from one end of a gaming table to the other, except again in a column of march? Again excuse my ignorance of gaming.

John

In the area taken up by a model battlefield, it would be rare for troops to be using a true march columns. March columns were used for campaign movements, and the men would be allowed to march out of step, although they were discouraged from lengthening out the column.

Movement of reserves on a battlefield would generally be accomplished by company-frontage columns, either at full, half, quarter, or close distance, depending on their intended deployment. The men in these columns would move in step.

In Modern drill, column of march is achieved by the individuals all turning 90 degrees to the right and waiting until the officers and NCOs all moved to the new front of the front and back of the formation. You can then march about very quickly but your frontage is three.

Now, you can quickly wheel, halt, and have everyone turn 90 degrees to their left to put their 'front' to the enemy again. You can then start fighting as soon as your officers and NCOs have moved back to their regular positions.

It is well and good for a company to do that but as soon as you start moving hundreds of men (battalions) in march columns you are remarkably unwieldy.

If, while in march column, your enemy happens to be 90 degrees to your left, yes you can respond quickly. If your enemy is anywhere else you're hooped.

Modern drill isn't a perfect corelation to Napoleonic drill but the traditions in modern drill do still give us some good appreciations of the methods that they used.

In Modern drill, column of march is achieved by…

If some had marched me into a live FEBA using modern drill and column of march I'd have been inclined to shoot them myself. I'll take deploying from a FV432, ta. Preferably with some nice covering fire and air support

Malcolm,

At the risk of straying further from the original subject, what you describe above would have been known as "marching in file" in Napoleonic times, and was heavily discouraged, mainly because the troops would end up lengthening out the line of march to longer than their frontage in line. Large scale marches on the battlefield using company wide columns would be faced with similar problems to the one that you describe. These columns would have either their right or their left in front, and this would limit their deployment options. Pre-planning was essential, and the end deployment would have to be considered before setting out.

I remember a famous painting of the battle of Wagram showing the French forming up after the crossing of the river. You can see clearly the march columns moving up in the more rear formations turning left or right to form columns of attack. I feel war gamers should look at paintings more closely, the painter might not always know what he is painting I would imagine but if done accurately can portray very closely what was happening like movie footage detailing for us, 200 years later what they were doing.

Regards,
Shane

It all boils down to figure-to-men ratio. Even if a figure represents only 10 men that still means that one rank of figures equals 10 ranks of real mean. The only way you could cram the figures into the ground scale for a 3-rank line is to have a figure:man ratio of 1:3, that is, one figure represents 3 real men (or less)!

yup, the actual bases of figures so they stand upright usually prohibit correct spacing between ranks of figures but like everyone is saying, depth is not as important as frontage anyway.

"Even if a figure represents only 10 men that still means that one rank of figures equals 10 ranks of real men."

Not true. It depends on the ground scale. The figure ratio does not imply the same number of ranks.

"yup, the actual bases of figures so they stand upright usually prohibit correct spacing between ranks of figures but like everyone is saying, depth is not as important as frontage anyway."

YES! LOOK WHAT SHANE SAY, LOOK WHAT SHANE SAY!

Geeze, wait till they start discussing cavalry and artillery stand depths, or worse, command stands with officers on horse back …

Cheers,

The Bandit

Geeze, wait till they start discussing cavalry and artillery stand depths, or worse, command stands with officers on horse back …

Ah, but. The depth of cavalry stands represents the unit becoming deeper in the charge as faster horses get ahead of the stragglers. The depth of artillery bases represents the chain of crew between the limbers/powder wagons and the actual piece itself, and the base area of a single command figure represents the area that his aides and staff would occupy

I've seen all of the above 'rationales' in print over the years

>"Not true. It depends on the ground scale. The figure ratio does not imply the same number of ranks."<

If the figure ratio doesn't match the ground scale you've got an even bigger problem. If it does, and the ratio is 1:10, then 1 figure takes up as much scale space as 10 real men. By definition.

Still harping on the same point…. why do gamers usually represent the 3 rank line with a 2 rank stand, when its very possible to go to 3 ranks and evey look authentic. (Why not use cardboard counters, or monopoly pieces as well?) Why not make at least the stand (with its 1:100 scale figures) look like a piece of 1:100 line of battle? I you roughly have files and ranks on a 30" spacing, at 1:100 you can moderately accurately represent this by having a 1.2" x 0.9" base, with 4 files and 3 ranks. (12 figures). It's a little tight but do-able. Maybe expand it a little to 1.5 x 1.5 inch (25% and 60% per dimension) and you have more room to mount the figures and use different poses. The greater depth doesn't bother me because the formation now is closer to a company close column, where the rank spacing expands from ca. 30" to two paces (5 foot).
How many stands to a company/battalion/regiment/brigade… or…the ground scale tabletop inches to battlefield is not my question right here.

Properly proportioned figures!!!! Hahaha.

Why not just play Grande Armee and you can arrange the figures any way you want?

"If the figure ratio doesn't match the ground scale you've got an even bigger problem."

I ma not entirely sure what you mean by "the figure ratio matching the ground scale". If you mean that the ground scale matches the figure SCALE then that will only apply in a skirmish game (i.e. with a figure RATIO of 1:1)

"If it does, and the ratio is 1:10, then 1 figure takes up as much scale space as 10 real men. By definition."

Again, not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that 1 figure represents 10 men (a figure ratio of 1:10) and a ground scale of 1ft = 10ft? That would be rather odd – a skirmish level ground scale with a ratio 1 figure = 10 men.

I think you may be confusing the terms here.
Here's an example that may help. Let's take a figure ratio of 1:60 (i.e. 1 figure = 60 men). Let's use 25mm figures with each figure on a base 20mm square. Let's further assume that I want to represent a 3 rank line of troops. So the 60 men represented by each figure are in 3 ranks of 20 files. (note that the unit would be represented on the table by a single rank of figures). At a file spacing of 30" then the frontage occupied by these 60 men is 20 * 30" = 50ft. Thus the ground scale is 20mm = 50ft (about 1/762). The depth of course is way out but that is the price we pay for playing with little metal men. Thus:
Figure ratio – 1:60
Ground scale – 1/762

If instead you use 2 ranks of figures instead of one (but keeping the figure ratio the same at 1:60), then the ground scale doubles to 1/1524 (20mm = 100ft)

Mike: Some rules designate a ground scale to simulate ranges etc. (say 1" = 50 yards) and then set a figure-to-man ratio that does NOT fit that ground scale (i.e. the figure either takes up more or less space than the represented number of men would do at that ground scale). Excuse me if I don't illustrate with the numbers you used, but working with a mixture of feet/yards and mm/meters makes my head hurt.

I am currently working on a Napoleonic variant of the Batailles de l'Ancien Regime (or "BAR") rules for 28/30mm figures that uses the 1:10 figure to man ratio and the 3 ranks commonly used by the majority of European armies during the Napoleonic era.

This will entail large units of 60 to 80 figures, deployed in 3 ranks on stands representing either platoons or grand divisions. An 1805 French battalion of 9 companies of 9 figures is something to behold. The prospect of setting up the British (50 to 80 figures) in 2 ranks is rather daunting in that it takes up a huge frontage.

This project is about a year away from the play testing stage as it will take me that long to paint the required figures. Obviously such a rules system requires very large wargaming tables and is not suitable for those who lack the space (although it would work equally well with 15/18mm figures. I have been able to paint several French battalions so far, and I must say that the visual impact is simply awesome.

I have often thought that 15mm figures were best suited for these HUGE BATALLIONS and never understood why gamers combine 15mm figures with the dreaded 1:60 ratio that is used in so many Napoleonic rules. Smaller figures give one the luxury of building larger units. Nevertheless, I like the look of the large units with 28/30mm figures and so I will keep plugging away on the project.

>"… never understood why gamers combine 15mm figures with the dreaded 1:60 ratio that is used in so many Napoleonic rules."<

To make room for more units on a reasonably sized table. Note that when c. 1:60 first became popular 15mm was about the smallest scale available. (There was Scruby's so-called 9mm, which were actually about 13mm.)

"Some rules designate a ground scale to simulate ranges etc. (say 1" = 50 yards) and then set a figure-to-man ratio that does NOT fit that ground scale (i.e. the figure either takes up more or less space than the represented number of men would do at that ground scale)."

Agreed. It's one of the first things I check. If they get such fundamentals wrong, I bin 'em straight away. Yet another reason for writing your own rules.

The problem with depth comes from the form of the figure – usually on a square base. A battalion of 600 men in line (three ranks) could be represented at a scale of 1:9 so each figure is 3 files of three ranks. The batallion is then represented by 67 figures in a single rank. This is not what we are used to and would need a big culture shift to be considered acceptable (thinking 25mm / 15mm etc.)

For cavalry it is even worse. A squadron of 140 horses in two ranks would require a frontage of 70 metres and a depth of two horses and an interval giving 8 metres or so. The ratio is almost 10:1 yet a cavalry figure may be 1cm wide and 2-3 cm deep (25mm scale). This would require a squadron frontage of 25-30 cm to be "realistic".

It is perhaps interesting to note that the original Kriegsspiel uses rectangular blocks which give the correct forntage when the unit is deployed (but overdeep) or the correct column depth (but with an incorrect frontage). This is recognised by the author and is partially corrected when bases are stacked for formations massed in reserve.

As an aid to understanding it is worth perhaps a small investment in 2mm blocks (or matchsticks/hair rollers) and a copy of a drill manual and to spend an hour or so working through the formations and evolutions just to get a feel for the shapes of the different formations.

To make room for more units on a reasonably sized table. Note that when c. 1:60 first became popular 15mm was about the smallest scale available. (There was Scruby's so-called 9mm, which were actually about 13mm.)<q/>

Yes, but one could double the unit to two ranks deep (which would look better) and still retain the same unit frontage at 1:25.

"Some rules designate a ground scale to simulate ranges etc. (say 1" = 50 yards) and then set a figure-to-man ratio that does NOT fit that ground scale (i.e. the figure either takes up more or less space than the represented number of men would do at that ground scale)."

So long as the frontage of a battalion is roughly correct, the depth taken up by the bases is much less important, and the number of figures used to represent a battalion doesn't matter at all.
Getting away from fixed figure:man ratios solves a whole bunch of knotty problems, and also has the merit of allowing pretty much any existing basing. Shako takes this approach, and it works very well.

>"Yes, but one could double the unit to two ranks deep (which would look better) and still retain the same unit frontage at 1:25."<

IF one doesn't mind buying and painting twice as many figures and has room for a table twice the size.

>"Getting away from fixed figure:man ratios solves a whole bunch of knotty problems…"<

Very true, and one reason I prefer something like Grande Armee or Polemos.

>"Getting away from fixed figure:man ratios solves a whole bunch of knotty problems…"<

Very true, and one reason I prefer something like Grande Armee or Polemos.
--------
Also true of Shako, Volley & Bayonet, Horse Foot & Guns.