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

"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

Apologies, I assumed too much. My eyesight is poor, fortunately (for me) it's not that poor

Just to add a few other points and a perspective…etc. etc.

Or play Grande Armee and game Waterloo in 15mm on a 8x4 table with plenty of room…

The ground scale/figure scale problem used to bother me years ago too. I got over it

You have 2x wide 6' tables…and as I said earlier I don't know anyone who has a permanent set-up with that sort of depth (at least 6 people just that I know of in the UK) who then says "Goody! I know! I'll play 15mm on this to really use the depth"- they ALL use 25mm for napoleonics

sorry, I typed before brain was engaged.

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

Either you have 2x 6'wide tables -which is a pain in the butt, because you end up fighting over the gap..or more sensibly you have a 6' table and each side has a 3' back table (or some such..might be a 4',or, at a pinch, 2' back board.

The answer is very simple: don't put so many figures on your wargame table if you want some maneuvering or cavalry room in your game. Or have some reserve units come onto the table later in the game. The scenario decides all.

Stick with Jim's Rule of Fours* and you won't have too many figures crowding up your table in a wargame.

When we want to put fulls corps on the table, our group uses ITGM rules and play on three 6ft by 30ft tables, as shown in the link below:

link

* the ideal number of maneuver elements that the average player can comfortably handle in a wargame is 4 units of infantry and cavalry plus maybe one battery of artillery. Anything more bogs down the game because the players cannot control so many elements in a short amount of time.

Its good advice….
not sure about that rule for ITGM though…I would have said about 12 to 16 units (inf btn cav sqn) + artillery is about right for most players and up to twice that for very experienced players.

re Mike the Mug "…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."

I'm not suggesting that a 600man battalion be represented by an array of figures 200files x 3 ranks. I'm suggesting that the number of files (the width in line) be scaled (e.g. one figure = multiple soldiers), but that the number of ranks be 3 (or 2) in order to have the tabletop unit look like the real thing. The unit frontage should be accurate with respect to the ground scale and the historical frontage, while the depth might be large. Granted, if the unit being viewed is a battalion of 600 at 1:100 figure:soldier ratio, then the with would be 2 figures and the depth would be 3 figures. BUT you would then seldom have a single battalion in line, and a brigade would be 8 figures wide and 3 figures deep, which would be a more visually pleasing display. And that is the worse case and all smaller ratios (1:50, 1:40, 1:20) would be much better.

Yeah, well, at the end of the day the 6mm figs still look like crap.

Yeah, well, at the end of the day the 6mm figs still look like crap.

Thanks for the input

28mm figs still look like
25mm figs still look like that time of the month
15mm figs still look like gnomes
12mm figs still look even more gnomic
10mm figs still look like a pile of old furniture
2mm figs still look like a bit of waste spelter

Not very helpful is it? Do you see?

Gents, thanks for some interesting, and for the most part, courteous comments. I actually wasn't trying to ignite a debate about what scale is best, but rather trying to draw out of people who are already convinced and experienced 28mm gamers how they prevent a 'car park' type gridlock.

Since some very cogent points have been made about figure and ground scale, I ought to specify which I use, a 1:20 figure scale, with 36 fig Bn in column taking up a width of 90mm and a depth of 120mm.

The best suggestion seems to be using 'back boards', but to be honest I had already thought of that.

If we can move the discussion on, does anybody have any other suggestions or experience of how to have a large scale Napoleonic Battle using 28mm, scaling down formation so a dvision is represented by say 4 Bn's and a foot battery. I am talking multi player, grand manner games with a the abilty to use multiple tables in a large room. How do you move units across tables, how do you cover flank marches, visibility, recce, etc

Thanks for you interesting points thus far…
Kind Regards,
Sparker

Sparker – in response to your focused question – I think there are two approaches (and I am sure there are other alternative and valid opinions)

Firstly – use existing based figures and use these in a multi-corp battle as components of a division. I would however expect the divison to be used as a single and contiguous unit.

Secondly to consider what formations are required of a division and then make up bases.

I work at 6mm and I use stands of 12 figures (sometimes 8) in a single rank. Four of these make up a division (8000 men) which can be extended (single rank of 48), normal 24 x 2) or assembled in reserve (12 x 4).

I also have stands one figure wide and 12 deep for road and movement by battalion column (company wide). For full distance use 4 but for closer columns and smaller intervals this can be reduced.

Also cavalry and artillery need narrow and long columns for road movement and approach marches.

In my opinion, big games are best handled by a three table system. The central table shows all the forces and only the umpires are allowed to see it. The two other tables belong to Red and Blue.

The umpires move the forces on the centre table according to orders, and when units come into visibility, the positions are transferred to the other tables.

Of course to do this properly, you need to have either three sets of figures and terrain, or use counters and maps. However, the fun of a really good hidden movement battle justifies the effort of setting it up for a special occasion. Also, because you need a lot of players and umpires, you probably can find enough figures to do it.

I am not going to attempt a description of command and control since there are so many different options available. Lots of interesting ideas are available -- for example, put the C-in-C in a separate room and let him rely on text messages to receive info and send orders.

The point of doing this kind of game is to try to recreate the fog of war and breakdowns in the C&C system that occur in real battles.

1968billsfan – I reckon we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

When I started gaming single ranks of figures was the norm but I think there has been a tendancy to use multirank bases for the visual appeal in recent years.

We have collections of 6mm, 10mm, 15mm and 25/28mm figures and enjoy all scales. Why does there have to be an either/or answer to this question? Each scale has it's own advantages and appeal. All scales have a place on the game table.

I will say that our club has moved away from 15's and uses either 6's & 10's when we want to do the smaller scales but we still have a large number of 15's in use.

But right now we are playing 25/28mm AWI era and enjoying the heck out of it. But we soon plan to jump back into 10mm when doing Warmaster Ancients…

Read all this ad nauseum. Lets see.. been playing 28MM Napoleonics for 32 years. 1/30 scale. Figures are based in 2 ranks, average battalion size 24 figures, 20 for Brits, with some variation. Cavalry between 12 and 16 figures, 1 rank of figures. Batteries are represented as, typically, 2 cannon model, 6-8 figures. The figures note the amount of guns. One cannon figure is used when I want to represent 4 guns or less. Yup, I use limbers…. incredible depth and a lot of space on the table.

My infantry battalions are based in 2 ranks. Brits are 20mm wide, all others 15MM. Again, depth is grossly exagerated regardless of troop type.

My table is 12'x6'3". Placing a town on the table, of which I have some cool Peninsula buildings, is probably a BIG town.

All that said, my static table upstairs has 10 Spanish battalions, each appx 24 figs, 2 regiments, 2 batteries each of 2 cannon models. Brit Division 6 Brit battalions x20, 5 Portugese x20, 2 cavalry regiments x16, 3 batteries including 1 Portugese.

French 18 battalions in 2 Divisions, 4 regiments of cavalry, 4 batteries

Almost the ubiquitious slugfest, but once on the move, there's plenty of room for reinforcements or flank movement for additional units.

I may be blessed with a table that size, but frankly, it looks spectacular (to me). I know unit depth is 'lost'. I realize I'm limited to 'Corps' size games.

I'm 58 and a veteran. I'm under no illusion that this hobby represents actual warfare. Its representation is vague at best. Frankly, its just fun. My units form line, column, square, skirmish order. The advance, charge, fire, melee on occasion. There's an arbitrary command radius for generals (and I know this should be variant with conditons and terrain, but I keep it simple).

My rules are a hybrid of many. There are stragglers, prisoners, etc if I feel so inclined. Blah, blah, blah…

At this point, I'm looking for a spectacle, a vague notion of horse and musket warfare, and a constant reminder to myself that this is a game only, with NO relationship to the real deal.

A final note, all veterans today that have been exposed to active duty, experienced a different form of warfare than compared to horse & musket or anything in prior history. In essence, veterans experienced 'modern' warfare. However, I can probably say with some certainty, the horror was probably the same.

All this draws me back to the orignial point. Strive as we might for a modicum of realism in our scales, table sizes, rules, etc…. I have to concur with the statement above in this thread, and in threads gone past, what we do is a game. If it was an attempt to capture historical realism, I wouldn't do it.

Looks cool, my favorite thing to do after sex; the added pastime of historical readings is a bonus. A game, and a quest to reach for realism is out. Just a representation with my vast colletion of TOY soldiers. If I miss an inch or milimeter here or there, you'll excuse me if I yawn a bit and swallow the next swig of beer. If my unit has an extra guy in it… I'll just take another drag of my cigarette and ask 'what's your point?' I have a great time with this hobby and pass no judgement on another's approach.

"Looks cool, my favorite thing to do after sex;"

You always have a wargame after sex?…Good idea

Is the sex compulsory before you're let at the table?

Cerdic

That would cut most players out of the hobby, surely?

K

Khevenhuller, it's the ONLY reason I wargame…honest!

Not on the same table, surely!

Ouch! All those bayonets!

Is the sex compulsory before you're let at the table?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

One can only hope.

Cheers,

The Bandit

My solution,

get a bigger table!

we often play on 20ft x 6/6 tables with a corps on each side at 1/20 scale in two lines, this room on the flanks for cav etc, we some times use reversed "E" s ( single table down the middle with three tables leaving each edge) this allows for road for movement for reserves etc, also visability is only 30 inches so all units outside this, behind a hill, in a wood etc are actually tiles,

leaves the opposition guessing as to what is under that tile.

lots of examples on our clubs website

cheers
Matt

Bluewillow,
I like your solution but am green with envy!
However I will be out in Wollongong this time next year so hopefully will get across and see how you do it
Kind Regards
Sparker

Nice Our napoleonic congres will be on again next year around July/ August, stay tuned

The definitive answer to this question: NO. 25/28mm is The One True Scale and WRG 1685-1845 is The One True Rule Set! All else is heresy!

With all the attention on 6mm vs 28mm I guess my 1/72 plastics are right out. It has taken me almost 40 years to collect and paint what I have. I do not think I have another 40 to get another scale this far, so I go on with what I have.

spontoon: Welcome to the Reformation!

Borrowing an idea from Arty Conliffe's old Tactica rules, we often set up deployment zones on the table and restrict the flanks to either light infantry or cavalry for the set up. After the first turn, any unit can enter the flank zone.

Badger,

Don't get rid of those 1/72. There are others of us out here with the same problem – looking for others with 1/72.

But back at the point, I think a lot of gamers set up these fictional battles and try to cram all the figures they own onto whatever size table they happen to have.

Here's an exercise you might want to try. Using whatever figure and grond scale, figure out how wide your table is. Then, find some battle map from a real battle and use your table to recreate however much of it you have ground scale for. Then put the historical units on the table where the map says they were located.

I'll bet you find you have plenty of manouver room. Most real battles have the units spread out far more than the typical wargame.

I'm also going to be starting 1/72 Napoleonics. I have noticed the larger size gives me a limitation. If the rules I'm using (Fast Play Grande Armee) have certain basing conventions (artillery based on half the width of infantry or cavalry), I become limited in how small I can go with my bases. Looks to be about 25mx50mm for the artillery and 50mm square for everything else.

So that gives me a hard limit for how small I can get the foot print of everything on the table. If I was using 6mm, I could put the infantry right down to an inch or 30mm square like Extra Crispy did with his "Pocket Scale" Grande Armee stuff. This means that on the same table top, you can functionally represent an area 4 times the size of what I can do with my 1/72 plastics and 9 times what someone would have to do with 28mm on 3 inch squares.

To play out Borodino, the 3 inch bases need 12 feet by 5 feet. My 2 inch ones will need 8 feed by 3 ft, 4 inches, and the 1 inch bases can handle it on a 4 foot by 2 foot without any problems.

I can do 8 ft by 4 ft, so it's no problem for me. But I know people who struggle to find room for a 4 by 4 in their place of residence and lots of game shops are cramped to the point of not being able to fit tables. Many people solve this problem by forming gaming clubs that rent premises or space at local community halls/centres.

Damm, caught both ways! I use 1/72, but base them on GdeB standard 25mm base sizes. They look like they actually fit (how you guys squeeze those pumpkin headed, baseball catcher gloved 28mm heroic scale figures on a 15mm wide base is beyond me).

But I on the side of "a game", that looks nice and is a representation, nothing more.

But then, perhaps using plastics is the advantage there, because no one takes them (or me) seriously as wargaming anyway!

So back to another unit of 36 Frenchies that costs less than £4…….

Widowson,
Nice idea about the historical deployment scaled to table and ground scale. Got any examples you've played you can share?

First, 8% or so of a battalion is cadre, officers, ncos, muscians. Thus a 600 man battalion would have about 552 guys with muskets/3 or 184 files x 22"/3 = the front of a battalion in yards. For argument, lets say 110 yards.

The front of a battalion should be congruent with the rule's linear scale. So if one inch equals 20 yards the front in line should be about 5.5 to 6 inches. How the front is divided amongst the stands depends on the rules and the number of figures on the stand depends on the scale of the figures.

It is important that the battalions not exceed the width as determined by the linear scale of the rules by more than 10% else you have wall to wall units with no room to fit the number of battalions between landmarks on the table compared to the number on the battlefield. When this occurs the firepower of units is decreased expecially when compared to artillery which almost always has a front that is congruent with the linear scale. Thus, the relationship between the combat arms is skewed from the battlefield to the table. Also,as widths are unnaturally wider than on the battlefield the relationship between the infantry and cavalry which depends on maneuver and thus open space on the battlefield to exert its influence changes in favor of the infantry.

The problem with rules which dismiss a battalion as being a battalion is units with 400 occupy the same front as thos with 700 men. When attempting to recreate histoical battles this results in wall-to-wall infantry making it difficult if not impossible to logically recreate historical battles.

Good Gaming.

Bob Coggins

I think that the problem is real, not by inherent disadvantages of 28mm but:

a) because we tend to cram anything we have in unrealistically small battlefiels (seen the same with 15mm and even 6mm troops).

b) because we don't understand the different advantagers of each scale and want to refight Leipzig in our kitchen table with bigger figures maneuvering battalions.

Peter is pretty spot on in saying that the problems of 28mm is the elimination of manuver, but not beacuse 28mm is bad, only because is used in a weird way. Too often we use the wrong rules to represent the wrong battle (also there is the idea tha more low level details equates more realism… and that Napolepon personally directed every battallion at Waterloo… coupled with the fact that few of us want to delegate power to games system or to other players…).

said that I think that smaller scale lookm much better in higher level games. For example a 6mm brigade on a Grand Armee base is much more a brigade than a small grouping of 28mm figures on the same bases. I think that the idea that 8-12 28mm figures represents a brigade is silly an aestethically awful. Many gamers simply tendo to increase unit size (thus owercrowding the table) or adding units at lower size (instead of playing with 8 battalion they play with 80 on the same space… thus overcrowding again).

I own figures in almost all conceviable scales, but have found that the best use for 28mm stuff is for small battles and "pseudo skirmish" and more importantly the use of forces is related to table size. This is a problem more linked to the inability to create good scenarios and read maps (often people simply take the are where the troops are engaged as the "complete battlefield" without consideration about flanks and more often than not they prefer to compress ground scale than to reduce figures (at least in Italy seems that if a table is not covered by figures is somewhat wrong). 28mm Are more prone to this than other scale, but I think it is more linked to the player than to the miniatures themselves. More often than not we see tables where a single part is superior to the whole.

finally what I feel pretty silly are people that try to establish a scale religion and put the scale above everything else (ok a well painted 54mm figure is lovely… but if a 54mm figure is a battalion the whole ahestetic of the battlefield is simply awful…)

My take is the following. The first thing to keep a reasonable connection with reality/history is to have the tabletop frontage of the unit, its movement rate and fighting distance be close to reality. Then it is a matter of personal esthetics as to what size figures to use, how many you can cram into the tabletop frontage and what the resultant men/figure scale is. Personally, I would like to have a 3 rank deep line of battle >look< like a 3 deep line of battle. I have pounds of 15mm's and am starting to wish they were 6mm instead.

A second hobby horse is that most rules use standard cookie cutter template for all nationality's frontage/unit size and insert national difference in the morale and firing tables only. A British battalion should be a longer and thinner LoB for the number of troops than a French. Austrian battalions should bigger in size and have limitations in the formations it can use. A part of the generalship should be the skill in manevuering these different geometric shapes. I don't see that.

The third and final one for today is about reserves. When I read about battles it appears that a lot of the generalship is the timing and location of committing reserves. Multiple waves of attack and counter-attack. Bringing up units to plug holes. Committing columns of attack to exploit weakened enemy positions. Luring the enemy forward to fall on his flanks when he overcommits. Yet most tabletop games have everybody in the first line of attack and defense. Maybe we should allow only a third of the units to be deployed in the first line, have restrictions on committing reserves and use multiple hidden counters and dummy counters to keep the other side (and sub-commanders?) guessing.

I'll comment on the reserves issue.

I see three things going on, all interrelated:

1) depth of table – where are the front lines, and where do I physically put them?

2) movement rates – if I have reserves, can they get where they need to go if I don't start moving them on turn one? Often not.

The third is time of game – when we run out of real time to play, have the reserves gotten involved yet? If not, we've wasted a third of our armies that could have been doing damage to break the first line of the other side. If all his troops are up front, and a third of mine are in reserve he's got a 3:2 advantage then we run out of time without me having a chance to turn the tide with my reserves.

Phil

One thing I think may have gone unmentioned in all this discussion of scales (be it men, frontage or figure) is that having cramped manoeuvre is not necessarily a bad thing.

People have mentioned the relationship between rule, figure size and the game being attempted and this a good point.

Part of the problem, as noted, is that players often attempt the wrong game with the wrong combination and end up hacked off with the result.

In the period, where large actions were concerned, the amount of manoeuvre conducted within a formation was generally in portion to there place in the hierarchy. So the elements of a Corps (Divisions and Brigades) did more than the elements of a Brigade (Battalions).

Let me not confuse manoeuvre with movement here. What I'm referring to as manoeuvre is turning movements and shifting tactically from point to point on a battlefield. Movement is the space you have in terms of distance to travel on a table top.

At different levels of game these can be very different.

If you want manoeuvre to be represented you need table space – so big table/small scale figures. If only a Division or single Corps is represented 28mm figures and a limited movement are fine, as the scale of activity represented by say a Division per side, is not far off directly to their front.

As a result a lack of room to direct your battalions anything more than say, 45 degrees off centre, is a reasonable representation of the difficulty of moving a real units given the limitation of C2 issues in the period.

Just as an aside, having played some games with them now, I think that Shako 2 represents this ‘point the unit at the enemy and let it go' aspect rather well, by controlling players actions to do much else. With 28mm figures you can see better that the lack of space at the sharp end of a battle, gives little outside of the march forward and get shot option.