"Do 28mm figures cramp our manoeuvering on the Battlefield? " Topic

baccus6mm.com/index.php

Hi All,

The guy who owns Baccus 6mm has a very well reasoned argument on his site about the perils of 28mm scale wargaming. Its a well researched and interesting argument worth reading in its own right. Personally, I can answer every point he makes to my own satisfaction apart from one: that using 28mm figures confines us to lining up wall to wall figures without room to outflank or manoeuvre, turning every battle into a same old slugfest. Now I think that the plethora of very high quality designers, coupled with the advent of hard plastic figures, makes these interesting times for 28millers. But deep down, I suspect our battlefields lack the depth and width required to truly simulate the Napoleonic era. Fighting smaller battles with less units I guess is the obvious answer, but what if you aspire to do things in'The Grand Manner' What are your thoughts, how do you address this?

Sparker "The guy who owns Baccus 6mm has a very well reasoned argument on his site about the perils of 28mm scale wargaming."

LOL! I'll bet he does, considering that he makes 6 and not 28.

I personally think that this argument is pure nonsense. Scale is a matter of personal taste, not utility. I play Nappys with 54mm figs. Yup. can ya believe it? And for me, they work just fine. Why? because I do not mind an abstract game in which the appearance of the minis is more important than realism.

I like 54mm, and one figure to a battalion works great for me. I like seeing the intricately painted individual figures, and it also is reminiscent of my childhood. Many people collect figures in a similar manner, and there seems to be a movement among many wargamers toward these larger scales. Still a minority, but I am now able to find opponents, whereas I used to have to furnish both sides.

So, if you'd rather play with a thousand figures on the table than 60, power to ya and good gaming, but THIS particular argument against 28 is an attempt to equate factual utility with personal taste, and is thus purest drivel.

Peter's arguments are neither 'pure nonesense' nor 'drivel'. What they do is to make an assumption about wargamers – that they want their battles to have a semblance of reality, at least allowing historical tactics to be employed.

Clearly this isn't the case for you (and no reason why you shouldn't play with your figures any way you want to) but it doesn't invalidate what Peter says in any way.

Well you'll not get support form me I'm affraid.

That siad, if you want to try, I'm not going to stand in your way.

I started in 25mm 38 years ago. I was one of the first to lead the charge to 15mm in my club back in about '75- and got whines and complains from many the 25mm crew. The took my old lead off my hands and I've never looked back.

I'm moving to 6mm and 10mm – for all the reasons Baccus quotes.

28 mm is great for skirmish or small scale actions – if your idea of the Grand Manner comes out of Grant's "The War Game" when you compress the number of units then I'll not stop you.

Quick question though – here are pictures from a resent game in 10mm -

TMP link

This game was played on a 6' x 4' (2m x1m) table. What size table would you need to play this game in 28mm using the same number of figures and allowing you similar room for manoeuvre?

Elliott

Years ago I spoke to a very experienced war gamer whom I respected a great deal, he was well known and knew just about everything about the period.

I discussed with him how I was enjoying an Empire campaign I was involved in with 25mm figures, he replied in jest, "guess you guys are using a Tennis court as your battlefield?"…

I was a little taken back by this and asked him what he meant?

He said : Have you played Empire Grand Tactical system with 15mm or 6mm yet ? I replied, no…he explained :

If playing on a 6ft wide table using 25mm figures a Grand Tac move will get you in one single bound right up in front of the enemy line in the hour you order your attack. The enemy get one hour of bombardment fire at you before you engage them in tactical combat. If you were to do the same using 15mm figures you might take 5 full hours to grand tac to the enemy line to engage them. If you were to Grand tac using 6mm figures you might need 3 full hours to Grand tac to engagement range of the enemy line.

He said 25mm war games using Empire Grand tac system distort the game and make it totally unrealistic to play, 25mm war games need to be played on Tennis courts to get the ground scale correct.

I was gob smacked by this and after that day I began to dislike 25mm and went to 15mm, I thought about 6mm but found 15mm was my best choice.

As an added note I also walked away from Empire for other reasons anyway.

Some might get all cranky at me for these comments but I am not trying to knock the scale at all, I am merely trying to explain my own experiences with the scale.

Regards,
Shane

I'll also follow my post by adding, wargaming is a personal taste – I've made my decision BUT I would like Sparker to give his arguements to counter those given by Baccus.

<<<<you might take 5 full hours to grand tac to the enemy line>>>>

should have read, 2 hours, sorry for that.

I'd love to do 6mm,10mm or even 15mm but my sight is so bad I would never be able to paint the little devils!

I'd love to do 6mm,10mm or even 15mm but my sight is so bad I would never be able to paint the little devils!

Another fallacy…

No.

It is difficult to discuss a scale-related question for a variety of reasons. If someone has invested much time and money in 25 or 28mm figures (including painting them) and prefer the details of the figures then it will be a hard pill to swallow to disavow their choice. Many people cannot afford the time and money to invest in a second scale. Many wargamers are collectors as well. Other wargamers prefer to quickly set up and "fight a battle" without pre-battle maneuvering (especially tournament gamers).

I started wargaming primarily in WWII and ACW. My first experience with Napoleonics was with a group using 28mm figures, but they wargamed on the floor in a large room of a building owned by one of the members. They used Empire III. All the members were extra careful when walking about the floor. When they did have a wargame on a table (8' X 12') it did end up being a "line um up and roll um down the pike" frontal slugfest that was not enjoyable at all. The large floor did tend to encourage some maneuvering ("out of sight--out of mind" seems an adequate description).

I did not have the luxury of a large floor. I chose 15mm Napoleonics (because 6mm had not taken off yet). An 8' X 12' table works well with 15mm, especially if the ground scale is 1" = 75 yards (or meters). We like "maneuver room" (in sight is indeed "in mind").

There was an interesting series of articles (over 3 issues in 1974 Wargamer's Digest series, related to a WWII wargame) about the "parking lot appearance" vs. maneuver room. So the scale/table space discussion goes back at least 24 years! One of the things Gene McCoy recommended to put maneuver back into wargaming was to cut sighting distance to 30"!! (this was for WWII wargaming). Our group cried out in protest when some of us suggested trying it. We did try it and it revolutionized our wargaming. The first game using that system I was outnumbered, but had kept a reserve behind a hill. The enemy sent his main force directly down a road toward me. My screening force "saw" the attack and I ordered my reserve around the flank and into the enemy's rear. By the time my opponent "saw" my flank/rear attack it was too late! Maneuver defeated brute force. We were sold on the concept.

I have 6mm and 20mm ACW. I have 6mm and 20mm WWII. I have 15mm Napoleonics. If we only have an 8' X 9' or smaller table available we use 6mm (and occasionally 15mm Napoleonics). Our groups does use hidden map movement (and a command system that limits instantaneous orders based on what a wargamer (vs. his counterpart on the wargame table) sees). Thus reserves and maneuver room become important. Flanks are a concern. But I also understand that other wargamers want to "fight a battle" and have all figures out on the table (to each their own).

You can use 25mm figures (with a 15mm scale) as long as everyone understands and gets used to the scale (setting up a little demonstration for visual effect helps). But, I think that the scale argument is more about aesthetics (which means it is personal and subject to opinion and thus we can share our ideas, but not argue about it--as there is nothing to gain by so-doing). I do agree with the Wargamer's Digest articles that about the "parking lot" appearance leads to focus on attrition/combat and not maneuver.

There is much more to the equation than scale if you want to argue about maneuverability (sighting/observability, limited span of control of commanders, restricting instantaneous and telepathic command, and more). How many wargames consider the impact of supply and losses (i.e. there is a day after the battle being fought)? Again, many wargamers do not care to deal with such detail, but if such things are considered it makes a commander think twice (whereas if they are not a factor--one can throw in the kitchen sink with little concern about repercussions). So, the scale of the figures is only one factor in implementing a system that is conducive to maneuverability.

I should add the discussion goes back 34 years (not 24)!

P.S. The WD article may be in 1975. I'll have to dig my WD out and find it. Memory? What memor?

I'd love to do 6mm,10mm or even 15mm but my sight is so bad I would never be able to paint the little devils!

Another fallacy…

So true. Though in my early 40's, getting bifocals combined with my cheap optivisor has made a world of difference! I even use them for 28mm figures. I also suffer from shaky hands and pain in my hands. If I can paint 10mm, anyone can! Give it a try. Just paint them like 10mm figs instead of small 28mm figs. :-)

I do believe Baccus is right. Still, it is a hobby meant to be relaxing, so there is no need for anyone to defend their choices or attack other people for their choices. Make sense?

I started with 15mm ACW because a guy I was talking to in a wargaming store handed me a bag of ACW OG15s (Iron Brigade) and said this is really what you want to check out. So I did.

About 700 figures later I stopped painting ACW and moved to Napoleonics.

I stayed with OG15s because I didn't know many other brands, they were locally available, and the cost to quality ratio was to my liking.

In retrospect, I might have picked 6mm or more likely 10mm and something like Grande Armée. As it is, I have ~1300 15mm figures, mostly French and I am not starting over.

Unlike what many have said, I did consider larger sizes before someone thrust 15mm into my hand, I had been looking at 28mm and 54mm and did not see the 54mm as practical and saw the 28mm as too detailed for my painting tastes.

15mm has a good level of detail and allows for me to deploy a large number of units on a decently large table. But for me, table size is something I have always been conscious of and I relate that to figure scale.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bacchus makes the assumption that a unit of 6mm will necessarily be smaller than a unit of 28mm, which is not necessarily the case. Grande Armée is a good example; the base stays the same, only the number of figures change. In this case, figure scale has nothing to do with manoeuvrability.

The unit size is also variable; while I agree that playing with 36-48 man battalions in 28mm means a lot of space and possible lack of manoeuvrability on the table, can the same be said about someone who plays with small 16 man unit? Probably not.

I've played lots of 25/28mm Naps and we always had an issue with table size. Typically we used a 9' x 6' but occasionally a much larger table up to 20' x 6'. No matter what frontage we managed depth or lack of was always an issue and it always restricted what we could do.

When I got back into Naps I went for 18mm ABs to get a bit more effective space – my home table is 7.5' x 5'.

At the end of the day its always going to be a balance between aesthetics and game play. For some beautiful 28mm in 36 figure battalions is what they want etc etc… I chose 18mm as being somewhere between having nice figures (ABs) and a reasonable amount of table space.

Here's another thing to consider.

Ground scale and figure scale are almost never even close.

Assume for ease of math a 6mm figure is 1/300 scale (bear with me). That means a table 4' by 6'is a scale map of a space 1200 feet by 1800 feet wide. In other words, just wide enough for a regiment or to with no maneuver room whatsoever.

The instant you have one figure represent multiple soldiers the figures cease to matter. What matters is the base size. And at that point provided your base size is accurate you can put on anything that fits. Of course, base depth soon becomes an issue – most figures are far too deep to be "to ground scale."

I think the bigger issue is that wargamers tend to fill the table with troops, thus crowding out maneuver. Try this: Get a 6x10 table. Using a ground scale of 1" = 50 yards, deploy one French division and one Russian division – that's room for maneuver!

There's another point to consider re: "accurate tactics." When was the last time you saw a player attack with one division, hold one in reserve and have the third division basically remain in place? I thought so…

Hi Archiduc Charles

You wrote:

"Baccus makes the assumption that a unit of 6mm will necessarily be smaller than a unit of 28mm, which is not necessarily the case. Grande Armée is a good example; the base stays the same, only the number of figures change. In this case, figure scale has nothing to do with manoeuvrability."

I think that what Peter Berry is getting at is that if you go the GA or V&B route, then you can only fit 12 or so figures on a base, instead of 40-80 6mm figures on a similar size base – thus giving a greater visual impact; the point being that 28mm gamers have to choose between visual impact and large scale warfare and you don't have to make the same choice (or not to the same degree, anyway) in 6mm.

Regards

Visual impact in our hobby seems to be tending toward 28mm or larger figures with beautiful paint jobs. I agree that these are quite stunning on the table but I am bothered by the ground scale issue.

I usually game skirmish with 28mm in Horse and Musket period up through Sci Fi because I like the looks of the figures (though I cant paint worth a damn) but by the time I get to sci fi I also have skirmish games based on 6mm. For large battles almost everything up through American Civil War are 6mm. Now Im trying 2mm because of the advent of Land Ironclads and may get together a Napoleonic army in this mini scale.

As a friend once said, "anything smaller than 25s you may as well use counters". Each to his own.

Al

I agree with Archduke Charles,

You can play GA or V&B any scale using any scale fig, it all comes down to the "look" you want.

The same is true for more tactical games. You can play Shako and GdB with any scale fig. You decide whether to half, keep the same, or double the ranges and movement rates based on the scale of your figs and/or the size of your table.

Smaller figs let you use more figs per base. Or let you use smaller bases while still being able to have a mass look. This last option requires less gaming space, i.e."condensed" scale. This is very helpful to the gamer on a budget--either $$$ and/or space.

You could also use smaller bases packed with smaller scale figs on a larger table. This would open up the game to a lot of maneuver. This is probably what Peter at Baccus is talking about. Use the same number of units as you would normally use but use smaller figs on smaller bases --you don't lose the look of mass and you gain a lot of maneuver. But you better have long movement rates, or your flank march and reserves will see little action.

Then the question needs to be asked-is the extra table space gained by this method actually being used? Or are gamers either; 1. Still lining'em up and shoot'em up; Or 2. Are we just using that space to put more figures on the table?

So,
Do smaller figs really give you an advantage in regards to table space? I say no. Not in width anyway. Baccus 6mm figs are on 20mm strips, more than what 1 25mm fig requires per base.

Do smaller figs allow you to base more figs on the same frontage as larger figs? Well yes, of course. No argument there.

What it all comes down to is this;
Each gamer need to decide how best balance the look and detail they want with their available space as well as the $$$ and painting time they are investing.

This is true no matter what scale you choose.

I hope I didn't ramble too much!

What Allen said. Very eloquently put, if a bit wordy.

By the way, are we still laboring under the illusion that anything we do has any bearing on reality?

When a 15mm tank can shoot at maximum range 15 times its hull length?
When a WW2 commander can pick and choose among the divisional support troops available in theory?
When every French Napoleonic army has its full complement of Old Guard?

Even at 25mm scale, skirmishing, my riflemen can shoot at a maximum 24 tmes their body height.

"Scale" has always been a problem in wargaming, and pretending that playing with 6mm makes it "more realistic" is just plain funny.
Sure, it makes your battalions LOOK larger, if you are doing it right with a large number of figures, but to have 6mm 12 man regiments (Age of Reason, Empire, etc.), and then claim you are "more realistic", is just plain dumb.

Lots of people like 28mm because it allows for much more detail in the uniforms.

The key question of scale is not the size of the figures it is the size of the unit depicted by the bases. For example, in Polemos Marechal de l'Empire -- published by Baccus for use with their figures -- a standard inf or cav base is a 60mm square representing the area used by a brigade of between 1,000 horse and 3,000 men to manoeuvre, deploy and shoot (or charge.) The ground scale is about 1:5000 and the 60mm square represents about 300 metres square.

Each base carries 48 infantry and can be made to look really good with a variety of formations (see this post… link but it could as well carry a single 54mm figure representing the same brigade unit.

The base is simply a game counter and how you want to decorate it is down to your aesthetics.

Using a ground scale of 1:5000 lets a normal size dining room table offer a battlefield of nine by six kilometres, which offers good scope for manoeuvre for forces including several corps a side.

If you want to play at the battalion level, just select rules with a smaller ground scale, and add more bases per unit (perhaps one base per company.) As long as the bases are large enough to contain a figure, it doesn't matter what scale of figure you put on them. Of course you must accept that you will not carry out corps manoeuvres -- that is not the focus of the scale you selected. The focus is on battalion command.

Sorry, that link did not work -- here is another one.

TMP link

Whatever the size of the figures, we're playing with toy soldiers. That's all. "Realism" is an illusion, except for those for whom it is a DE-lusion.

Allen

…and another thing.

Napoleonic battlefields were not games of manoeuver. They did line up and walk straight forward generally. Napoleonic games do not require alot of flank space. There ought to be some depth certainly but a narrow frontage or even a narrow space between the armies will have little affect on outcome.

I worried about joining this debate, but I will offer a few personal, followed by some general observations.

For me the main wargaming issue is not figure size. From my own experience I have found that this particular wargamer can successfully ‘grip' around 20 or so units. Commands larger than this tend to see me overlooking things, skipping things and I find it hard to give a battle the attention it deserves at every quarter. Beyond this there are concomitant time issues in that the more units you command the more time they soak up in moving them, morale checks, firing and whatnot.

I play two types of game. 3-4 hour evening games at the club and large multi-player games that take a whole day. In each case time is a factor as we have not the luxury of keeping the figures in situ until the next meeting.

Of course you can fight bigger battles on a similar sized table the smaller your figure scale. But unless these are going to soak up more time then you still need to field a similar number of units no matter the figure scale or simplify the rules. The latter means that although you are able to more accurately reflect tactical issues on the battlefield the rules are going the other way; towards greater simplification.

Then there is the issue of the unit footprint. If your unit has 48 6mm figures that produce the same unit footprint as 12 28mm figures what is the difference? Surely it is simply a matter of preference as to what scale you want your toy soldiers to represent ‘real' men? As for impact I have not seen a 6mm game at a convention ever, unless you are talking ships or aircraft, and arguably this is where impact matters the most. In terms of painting, well, I much prefer the feeling of painting 28mm than I do of 6mm because of the nature of the final result.

So, for a club game, a division-plus per side over 4 hours between two players works pretty well at 15mm or 28mm. At 6mm it would be ‘lost' unless the units were huge and you would still be able to field a division-plus because of the constraints of time.

Just a few observations

K

Bacchus makes the assumption that a unit of 6mm will necessarily be smaller than a unit of 28mm, which is not necessarily the case.

Not necessarily, but in practice it is almost always the case. Firstly you get more than you are going to have to cram those 12 25mm figures in to fit them in the same space as 48 6mm figures Khevenhuller.

Assuming you are willing to let a unit of 12 be big enough (which many aren't). In the end 25mm figure units are bigger, and you have to work around that.

Even if frontage is the same, when fully deployed, there are other issues. 25mm units in column are hugely wide in ground scale. Unit column depths are also enormous.

Using the same rules as the 6mm, is not really possible to manouevre columns historically in 25mm because they take up too much space. They are too wide AND too deep. You must expand ground scale to get round this, of course -- which leads to the tables being too small.

The depth of a limbered 25mm artillery battery is something else entirely. (And if you don't have limbers, the whole "I game for aesthetics" is rather wasted, no?)

Terrain is a major issue. It is possible in 6 mm to put down a town that both looks like a town and takes up approximately the historical "footprint". One church in 25mm and you are already taking up more room.

In 25mm you cannot get a good aesthetic look to a town AND keep to ground scale AND have tables that represent any real depth. One or other has to give. Inevitably it is a compromise on all three. (Yes, 6mm compromises too, but not half as much.)

In 25mm every river is the Danube, in terms of ground scale. There is no way round this -- anything remotely correct for ground scale looks silly.

I have no issue with playing 25mm figures, but pretending that they avoid ground scale problems because you CAN fit a small number onto a frontage is special pleading. No-one really does it, and even if they do other issues remain.

Allen:
"Whatever the size of the figures, we're playing with toy soldiers. That's all. "Realism" is an illusion, except for those for whom it is a DE-lusion."

I hear similar statements like this repeated by a few posters occasionally. I think it is safe to say that 99.6% of us know this fact. Thus, I'm not sure what your point is (other than to suggest the discussion is a waste of time and we could just as well be shooting rubber bands across the table at each others' army men rather than discuss it).

You can find many examples in history where wargames were used to train and sharpen the minds of commanders (I just happen to have researched such things). If officers in various past armies thought wargaming was merely playing with toy soldiers then they would not have wasted their time nor that of their officers. Of course we know that you cannot represent real combat via a simulation. But one can learn about tactics and strategy (i.e. applying the art of war). A well-designed wargame can develop one's understanding of the importance of reconnaissance, holding reserves, and other elements of the art. It can help you understand certain tactical evolutions (and thus ties in well with historical study of the period).

I don't care if your version of wargaming is "playing with toy soldiers," but to insinuate that that is what we are all doing is a mere assertion, overgeneralization, and, I may add, arrogant. Consider me deluded--est macht nicht. I have used wargaming to help Junior High School students understand command and control (and other things) about the American Civil War. The "toy soliders" were thus an educational tool. The students did learn things and enjoy them. No, you cannot simulate the death and destruction of combat (and who the bl**dy h**l would want to?), but there are things that can be learned from wargaming for those who engage in it for more than mere entertainment. Chess is a mere game also, but the mental skill of dealing with pressure is quite real. It also involves an art and the more skilled the practitioner the better his chance of winning. So, the "toy solider" may be the tool, but some of us use the tool differently than you do.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Mark

"Not necessarily, but in practice it is almost always the case. Firstly you get more than you are going to have to cram those 12 25mm figures in to fit them in the same space as 48 6mm figures Khevenhuller."

But it is still the unit footprint, not figure, scale that matters.

"Using the same rules as the 6mm, is not really possible to manouevre columns historically in 25mm because they take up too much space. They are too wide AND too deep. You must expand ground scale to get round this, of course -- which leads to the tables being too small."

I do not know which rules you are using, so I cannot directly comment here. Of course there is a trade-off unless you are going to totally represent a 3 or 2 deep company to scale, allow open and closed formations and so on.

"In 25mm you cannot get a good aesthetic look to a town AND keep to ground scale AND have tables that represent any real depth. One or other has to give. Inevitably it is a compromise on all three. (Yes, 6mm compromises too, but not half as much.)"

True, true also of 6mm, indeed why not 2mm or cardboard counters? That is the essence of my general approach: this is a simulation at best with compromises. If, like Lest We Forget argues, this is is more about C2 and decision-making (an argument I have a great deal of sympathy with) then again the figure size is of secondary or tertiary importance.

But if I have my 20 units I prefer then to be units I can paint, see and have fun with. If I wanted to be a purist it would probably involve the old hair-roller armies with different basing approaches for different formations; having half a dozen representations of the same unit because that is the only way to achieve Nirvana.

But the compromises you state are ones I am personally willing to bear because of the other advantages I gain: better painted figures that are more easily recognisable, being able to play and field a division-plus formation which is what you are able to manage as a player (if you play battalion/squadron/battery) and uniforms that are recognisably of a specific battalion or regiment. I am not really looking to recreate Austerlitz on the dining room table.

I am not in the least messianic about any scale, I just know which I prefer, although I do feel a little uncomfortable with the Bacchus argument being presented as case-neutral. They are in the business of selling 6mm after all. Certainly as a scale it has not taken off and obliterated it's larger bretheren, rather it is just one among several scales that some people prefer and others do not. Personally I am not convinced that the gains you argue for are worth the overall sacrifice.

K

When wargaming with 25mm figures I am comfortable with the idea of a unit as a batallion. On a typical table then I can fight a division a side.

At 6mm I prefer to use a ground scale that allows a couple of corps to fit on the table. Maybe there is something in the relationship between figure height and ground scale that appears more acceptable.

Regardless of scale I have a preference for basing that allows units to be representative of the formations. At 28mm you can have 6 stands of 4 figures to represnt the companies of a French battalion but stands of 4 figures at 6mm become impractical to handle.

At 6mm I use different bases for different formations. It means more painting but I prefer this to large square bases as brigades etc. would be wide and shallow when deployed.

It all boils down to base size and figure footprint. If you base enough 6mm figures, you'll end up with units the same size as 28mm.

But in general smaller figures will have a smaller footprint and take up less space on the table, leaving more room for maneuver – although in some periods maneuver is a moot point when armies just lined up and charged straight at each other.

Personally, I did notice that some "ambitious" 20mm WWII games tend to look like fights between whole parking lots of tanks, neatly aligned into phalanxes from one end of the table to the other. If you switch to smaller sizes units start to spread out and units start to maneuver more effectively.

I guess Pete has a very good point, but it depends on what game and period you play.

Patrick

Yep, I have seen similar games but, remember, at Kursk the tanks were crammed into a space in just that way.

Sticking with that theme, though, tanks in reality rarely fought tanks, again a point possibly of more relevance when it comes to realism than what type of figures you use.

K

I was going to give you the benefit of my vast hard-won wisdom, but I see that Extra Crispy and others have already made my points. (How'd they get so smart?)

Khevenhuller:

My issue is not with 25mm gaming. I own 25mm figures too. My objection is to those that insist that the (inevitable) compromises of ground scale are just the same for all figure scales. They are not.

It is not true that a 6mm town has the same compromises as a 25mm one. I can fit a dozen or so 6mm buildings into the space of one 25mm church -- enough to give the impression of "town-ness" in the space of one building. That number of buildings would take up half the table in 25mm.

Trying to place a "too scale" Hougemont on a 25mm battle of Waterloo is a real issue. Either the building is tiny and looks silly or the ground scale is waaaaaay off. There is no way round the issue. Using the same size unit "footprint" in 6mm one can have a far smaller compromise -- something that looks like Hougemont, but isn't 2 km acoss.

But it is still the unit footprint, not figure, scale that matters.

It is. But you cannot achieve the same things with 25mm as you can with 6mm. While you CAN work on the same frontage, 25mm columns are invariably too wide, and its lines invariably too deep. (And I would add most people don't, in practice, work with the same frontages -- why have a large scale for aesthetic reasons and then compromise will silly little small units?)

I'll say it again. 25mm has its place, but it is fanciful to suggest that merely by adopting the same unit frontage that all the other ground scale issues disappear.

"to scale" Hougemont, sorry

And….we're back to the same old scale "discussion" again. Of the many reasons to prefer small figures, I don't think "more historical" games is on the list.

Don't these always just end up as arguing for the sake of arguing?

"I like blue!"

"I like red!"

"You're wrong – blue is better!"

"No way – everybody knows that blue can't touch red!"

"Oh yeah? Well….I don't think you're very smart if you don't like blue!

"Really? I think anybody that doesn't like red doesn't really know what color selection is about!"

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Can't wait for the same argument next week.

Brent

Mark

"And I would add most people don't, in practice, work with the same frontages -- why have a large scale for aesthetic reasons and then compromise will silly little small units?"

1) For reasons of economy
2)For reasons of unit size related to footprint
3) You do not need as many larger scale figures to make a unit look as good as you do smaller ones, imho.

But you are missing my original point: if you are only able to 'grip' a certain number of units and play to a conclusion in a certain amount of time, then you either choose a scale of figure that suits you or you have more units but simplify the rules. The 6mm argument that you can somehow refight large battles between 2 players because of the figure scale I have always seen as a bit of a fallacy for this simple reason. I am far less exercised about issues such as ground scale than I am about C2, unit 'look' and having a credible and enjoyable game in 3-4 hours.

K

Ok first of all i dont think he was attacking 28mm gamers. He was promoting his vision of wargaming, his figures and his ideas.

Second the whole debate comes down to visuals. You can of course place any numbers of figs you choose to represent a unit in wargaming. Even if units were 1 inch squares you could use a single 28mm mini to represent it. Would look odd but you could do it. However because people like to have at least 12 figs to represent a unit (usually more) the space thing becomes an issue.

A lot of 28mm games look more crowded because people stretch the amount of figures they fit and sacrifice battlefield space. Something I personally dont like.

Yes, except for skirmish games.

I've played games using 6mm, 10mm, 15mm, 1/72, and 28mm figures. You can have room for maneuver in all scales. Any game that lacks room for maneuver has a flaw with scenario design, not figure scale.

For example, here's a Napoleonic game I played today, with 25mm figures, that had plenty of room for maneuver.

link

Scomac,
I think that's the point. Maida is such a small Napoleonic battle that is possible to refight it in 28mm on your tabel (and you use also 1:50 rules). But most wargamers fight (part of) much bigger battles with 1:20 rules on the same table.

"Another fallacy…"

Guys I am registered blind (retinitis pigmentosa, have some central vision, no peripheral) and have to use a 5x magnifier to paint 28mm. Sure you meant no offence, but really 6mm, I just wouldn't see them. I am tempted though to buy some 15mm just to give them a go and see how I get on – I didn't have my magnifier last time I tried.

Pete

If you can't play on a table 24' + long and about 12'+ deep Then "big" games in 25mm (say, 80+ 36man btns) are a bit of a non-starter.
But if you try and play 15mm on say a 12' x 6' then theres no real difference.

What I'm more curious about is whether those graced with a big table (say 20+ x 12') choose to play 25mm or something smaller..(I'm talking regular games here, not a once a year big game at a show or a special) and I bet the answer is they play with 25's.

meant to say 80 a side,

Just to add a few other points and a perspective…

I use "15mm" figures, which are often 18mm high from the sole of the foot to the top of the head. A nappie soldier was usually about 5'5" or so and had a hat on that make him six feet tall. Accordingly, lets use the following:
…
18mm(fig) = 6 feet(real)
0.0197 yards(fig)= 2 yards(real)
1 yard(fig) = 101.6 yards(real)
…
So the "15mm" figure is about 1 to 100 scale.
You put you "15mm" figure on the table and something 36 inches away on the table is 100 yards away in scale. The 1:1 scale is 1"(table) = 2.82 yards (real)

(For a 25mm figure, something 36 inches away is about 61 yards away in scale. For a 6mm figure, it is 254 yards away)

If we play 15mm figures, we start out the battle (at 1:1) with the enemy (playing across the 5' table) 170 yards away: within long musket shot range. At 25mm, across a 5' table is 102 yards away.

This doesn't make a very good game unless you play on a big floor. We usually play on a 5 foot wide table and inflate the distance scale compared to the figure height scale in order to make things viable. Some common rule sets use 1"= 20,40,50. or 100yards for the |||||horizontal distance inflations/figure height |||||| 15mm {~25mm} [~for 6mm] ):

1"(table)= XX yards(real)….horizontal distance inflation
----------------------------------------------------------
…………………………"15mm"…..25mm….6mm
1"(table)= 20 yards(real)…. 7.1 X……{12}…[2.8]
1"(table)= 40 yards(real)….14.2 X……{24}…[5.7]
1"(table)= 50 yards(real)….17.7 X……{30}…[7.1]
1"(table)=100 yards(real)….35.5 X……{59}…[14.]

Now that that's over, our next job is to realize that we can't represent each actual soldier in a rank with a figure. You can't cram them in or paint that many. Working with the 15mm figures, we realize that the distance between files in a rank is typically 27" or 0.75 yards. So for the "15mm" figures in line formation, we should have this many soldiers crammed into one inch(table top) of rank:

1"=20 yards(real)….implies……26.7 soldiers per inch
1"=40 yards(real)….implies……53.3 soldiers per inch
1"=50 yards(real)….implies……66.7 soldiers per inch
1"=100 yards(real)…implies…..133.3 soldiers per inch.

So at 1"(tabletop) = 50 yards(real), one inch of tabletop represents 67 soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder in one rank. I figure you can cram 3 figures into a single rank of width 1 inch. Then each figure would then represent 22 soldiers. Working it out for different distance scales:

Yards/in distance/height soldiers/in soldiers/fig
20………….…7.1X……………26.7…………8.9
40…………….14.2X……….…53……………17.8
50………….…17.7X………….66.7………….22.2
100……………35.5X……….…133………….44.4

My opinion is that we wargamers should represent 3 rank line formations by three ranks of figures and British two rank lines by two ranks of figures. You do bring a depth of formation error into play and also a depth of column formation error into play but it is not really that serious. (Lines of battle usually had a considerable spacing between them and columns were often half or full interval- but that's another posting)…… However, the norm is to represent everybody by two ranks of figures or sometimes one rank of figures. Therefore for these the soldiers/figure ratios that are appropriate to represent a true 3 rank formation are:

…..…………line of battle represented on table by
Yards/inch….1 rank…..2 ranks….3 ranks
--------------------------------------------------
20…………26………13.3……..8.9 soldiers/figure
40…………53………27……….18 soldiers/figure
50…………67………33……….22 soldiers/figure
100……….133……..67….…….44 soldiers/figure.

Personally, I like to use 3 ranks to represent 3 ranks and like to have the length of the line of battle for a nationality correct for that nationality- but that again is another long posting.

Culled from elsewhere:
Country Year Battalion Length
Austria 1807 228 to 254 yds
Britain 1792 213
France 1791 187
France 1808 160
Prussia 1792 120
Prussia 1808 115
Russia 1802 123

In the end, you can quote ground scale/figure ratios ad nauseum, that has actually little to do with figures used or table size, but the way rules are written, (which admittedly will itself have an impact on figures used and table size)

A/-- Wargamers will fight battles with whatever rules (commercial or home-grown) suit their (and possibly their friends/opponents) idea of a napoleonic battle.
B/-- They will then buy figures that suit their needs.

(This rules/what figure equation is interchangable, it could be the other way round).

Things which govern what figures you buy are (in no particular order):
Price,
space, (storage and table-size),
Asthetics (or lack of),
Time (to play or paint)
Ability to find opponents.
The set of rules you will use

Things which influence your rules choice are:(again in no order)

Price,
space, (table-size),
Asthetics (or lack of),
Time (to play)
Ability to find opponents.
Historical interpretation/complexity
The figures you will use

You will play on the biggest table you can comfortably fit in your games room/is available at your club. Mitigated by the amount of time you have to play if the game has to be taken down immediately after.

Thats wargaming!

Just a practical question – how do you move figures in the middle of a table 12 ft deep?

I find the idea of using two or three ranks of figures is too much of a constraint on game design. It could be argued that a battalion of 600men in three ranks has 200 files and three ranks so you should represent this by 200 figures to get the frontage correct. Why does the correct representation of the ranks deserve the emphasis over the "correct" representation of the frontage of the line. It could be argued that managing deployment space is the true are of a brigade commander and you get more problems if the scale frontage os more correct than the scale depth.

If you accept a square based figure as 9 men (3 files by three ranks) the the 600 men of the battalion become 67 figures in a single rank.

It is always some form of compromise in the end.