"Black Powder in 20mm / 1/72 scale" Topic

We, overhere, would like to start with Napoleonics using the new Black Powder book.

We were thinking about trying it out with some old 1/72 scale mini's, since we still have quite a few of them from ‘the old days'. So I was thinking: how should we base these? I was thinking 4 on a 40mm square base, or 3 on a 25×50mm base, or a ‘Warmaster' base. What would you recommend? And what about Cavalry?

Thanks in advance!

i base my 1/72's on 60mm wide by 20mm deep bases
with 4 figures, (basically same bases as DBA DBM 25mm sizes)

regards

jim

60mm bases?

that is a lot of base for 20mm figures.

4 x 28mm on 40mm square is pretty standard now I think.

Four 20mm figures on a 40mm x 40mm will work fine.

Or for them closer together go for a 30mm x 30mm.

I also use DBx 25mm bases (60mm wide). It is possible to fit four foot or three cavalry on without too much crowding. Partly depends on poses as I've managed to get four figs of some types on a 40mm base, but not others.

What bases sizes do the rules recommend? My original 20mm Napoleonic armies were based for Bruce Quarries Napoleonic Rules, but I can't for the life of me remember the frontages for those.

mine are also on 60mm x 20mm , cav on 60 x 40 and arty on 60 x 60 .

What bases sizes do the rules recommend?

Well, AFAIK the rules don't. They're written so suit any collection, as I understand it.

30x30 sounds okay to, as they'll be closer together, which may look nice.

About that 60x20mm bases, do you put them side to side? Anyone got some pics of that?

Yeah, 40mm square for 20mm figures is too big. 30mm square should work well.

As an "old school" gamer, coming from the mists of time where there were few written rules on the market, I must say that I am very confused by today's discussion of basing.

In the old days, we started with figure ratio. 1:20 and 1:30 were popular in this scale. It wasn't until 15mm came along that 1:60 and up were even considered. But whatever it is, the figure ratio is going to drive the ground scale of your miniature battlefield.

Using French OB as a point of origin, you can just barely cram 3 x 20mm figures on a base 1" wide (25mm). Using an average 24" per real man, your ground scale is a derivative of your figure ratio.

At 1:30, 3 figures represents 90 men. In three ranks, that's 30 men wide, approximately 20 yards. Ground scale is 1" = 20 yards. A French battalion would be 18 figures.

1:60 would give us a nine-figure battalion, but would jump the ground scale to 1" = 40 yards.

By basing figures 2-deep on a bigger stand, you can, theoretically, double the ground scale. But at this point the depth distortion becomes a factor. A 30mm deep stand means that the formation is as deep as it is wide. With more than one stand of depth in, say, a column formation, this would affect playability.

It may seem to some that the frontage of units can be somewhat abstracted respecting the ground scale, but over the frontage of a large battlefield, it makes a big difference.

In answer to the original question, I would advise using a base with the smallest possible frontage. For 20mm, that is going to be about 1/3" per figure. I've never been able to get it down to 1/4". So I would mount 3 figures to a 1" (25mm) wide base, or 4 on a 30mm base--if you can make them fit. I've never tried.

Am I the only one out here who sees this connection?

Two to a 40x20mm base.

I too am a little puzzled. Are not basing requirement for the various sizes given in the rules?

We gave basing requirements for 20/25/28mm, 15/10mm ans 6mm when we designed rules back in the 1980s.

There are indeed base sizes suggested in the rules, but they state that they are not compulsory. The only thing is that whatever sizes are used should be similar to a degree on each side.

Number of figures per base or per unit matters not a jot, as they are never counted or removed in the rules.

I didn't realise that, I thought they were old fashioned figure removal type rules.

"we started with figure ratio"

The trouble with figure ratio is it ties your ground scale to figure size. Much easier to set a ground scale, determine bases sizes to suit depending on what each base represents, then stuff on as many/few figs as look good.

well said Martin.

The best thing that's happened to rules in the last 20 years is that they have moved away from fixed figure ratios.
It doesn't matter how many figures are on a base; it's just a marker. All that matters is the frontage of your units (their depth will always be out unless you are playing in 6mm)

Dexter, being from the Old School of wargaming, I view the move from fixed ratios as being the worst thing for modern rules. It has moved them from a realsitic simulation or examination of era specific tactics to one of just being a game.
That may be the focus of new systems on fast play and killing but it does not work for all troop levels nor eras of warfare nor even all gamers.

If the bases on the board are simply markers then you might as well be playing a boardgame.

It doesn't matter how many figures are on a base; it's just a marker. All that matters is the frontage of your units

Game wise, maybe. But I'm also talking esthetics and convenience. ;)

IIRC, the base frontages in Bruce Quarrie's rules were something like 10mm per foot figure, and slightly wider for British troops.

If the bases on the board are simply markers then you might as well be playing a boardgame.

I've never understood this line of thinking. Your figures are always just pretty markers. It doesn't make them any less of a marker if they represent a specific number of troops or any more if you use a more impressionist approach.

As an old school wargamer, I don't neccessarily agree with the other old school gamers.

I get that you can just set a ground scale, determine a base frontage for a battalions as a result, and then get as many figures as fit onto it. But now you have to keep some sort of log on how much damage the unit has suffered, rather than the old casualty cap/figure removal method of times gone by.

But there are other complications. Formation changes are problematic, as well as the increased depth distortion. How do you represent that the battalion has formed square? Or line versus column?

Did the late, great Bruce Quarrie not start with 10mm per infantry figure, then revise this in the later version of his book to 8mm (or 11mm for the British)? IIRC he also increased the cavalry frontage in a way which I wasn't keen on (as he calculated it for a single rank of horsemen).

He taught me everything I know, that man. Well, him and Charles Grant.

Rudy wrote:
Dexter, being from the Old School of wargaming, I view the move from fixed ratios as being the worst thing for modern rules. It has moved them from a realsitic simulation or examination of era specific tactics to one of just being a game.
--------------------------------
I've no idea why moving away from fixed figures ratios makes it any less of a simulation. So long as period tactics are modelled, and troops behave as they should, what difference does the number of figures make?

If the bases on the board are simply markers then you might as well be playing a boardgame.
----------------
This line of argument is generally used by people who can't actually justify their prejudices against a particular rule mechanism rationally.

I am not fixated on any one system, but with the "modern" system described above, I am anticipating that a battalion (or other unit) would be represented by at least two stands. When the stands are side-by-side the unit is in line, when they are one behind the other they are in column, and in square they might appear back-to-back.

Not my kind of asthetic, but not that objectionable. Depth distortion would be much worse than the older systems, but since players tend to cram units onto a battlefield, maybe it's not a bad thing.

I have a question about these modern systems.

If you are playing a campaign game, how do you represent the losses from one combat to another?

Depends how losses are recorded.
If they are recorded on a roster (as in Principles of War), you just note them like that, for a stand-based system (Fire & Fury, Age of Eagles) all losses are in stands.