"Masses effect vs scale" Topic

Now this has been up before.

I'll try not to crosspost to much, only to periods very massed effect is most important(horse and musket)

Now I've done most gaming scales, exept 10mm and 1:72 plastics.

Now the theory goes, smaller lets you have bigger or more units to give the massed effect.
Tho I like 6mm, for it' price and that you can have big battles on a small place, but I feel that on the most "important" sale point of the scale is that it lacks the massed feel, what should look like massed soldiers moving across the field, seems like just blobs, don't get me wrong, it's tones better then say using just colord blocks to reperesnt units, but 800 6mm dosn't seem as impressive as 800 figs should do, mabye when you get in the sevral thosands it will look more impressive, but even when I mass ALL my 6mm, which is about 2600 figs, they aren't as "massed" as I thought it would look.

Then on the other side you got 28mm/40mm I lump them togeather becasue they actauly got about the same footprint,
now there is nothing stopping you from useing 36-72 fig battalions with these scales, but most of us can't do it, even club houses rearly got room for it. also on a side note, when I see those big battalion games in 28mm, the terrain is often very lacking, very sterile, so much time and efort has gone into making a 72 man unit that they don't have money or time to spice up the terrain.

And even then, I never feel the 28mm or 40mm gets that massed feeling, sure you got 36 or 72 figs in a line, but they are spaced just far enough apart so it looses its cohechian.

10mm and 1:72 I've only seen in pics, but 10mm seem to be very close to 6mm in the lots of figs no massed feel.
1:72 seem to be very close to 15/18mm.

And thats were I've been going the whole time, 15mm, you can realy cram the figs tight and it looks good, the detail is more then good enough that it seems like soldiers not tiny lead things with paint on them.
Now all scales I've talked about I like for diffrent reasons, they all got their thing I like, but no scale I've seen seem to have the same massed feeling as 15/18mm when you got 30+ 15mm figs in a unit, it looks like a unit, you can buy that it's a battlion ect.
And for me no look beats it, 36 15mm figs seem more real as a battalion then 72 28mm or 72 6mm or 24 6mm ect.

On the whole I'd agree, but one thing I have noticed (being in the "lots of 25mm" camp) is that it slightly depends on the rules and basing. A lot of older rules advocate a 15mm frontage, which for a modern 25mm figure means the figures are very tightly packed, while more modern rules tend to go for 20 or 25mm frontage per infantryman which does indeed lead to a rather sterile, spaced-out look.

I'm a big fan of 10mm

link

Those are 30mm square bases, with £1-£1.60 worth of figures on each

36 25mm men do look impressive, but that's £40.00 GBP for ONE unit. I can get the best part of a 10mm army for that, and you have to have a huge table to have a decent number of units- 36 figures, double rankes at 20mm each is a frontage of 36cm, meaning you only get 5 units across a 6ft table.

I like my Minden.
I went with the scale because I wanted to paint cool looking individual figures.

But for Minden I think I would have gone for 10mm.

Gunfreak,

I would have to disagree with your statement. Having wargamed in 25mm, 15mm and 6mm I have found that the best mass effect comes from large quantities of 6mm figures used in large scale battles. The wargamer only with space for a 6ftx4ft table can still recreate battles involving numbers of corps on each side without the basic unit of the battalion looking like a cople of figures on a stand. The scale also allows for the battlefield to "sprawl" across the table and offers opportunity for manoeuvre

IR1

I could never figure out why the old Empire system left such large spacing between figures. I mean, the whole point is to maximize the battlefield, right? The obvious solution is to start with the 3-rank infantry, see how tight you can cram the figures together, and then base everything on that.

Personally, I can get by with a 24-man unit, with the larger Austrian formations filling out at 32-36 figures. When I first encountered Empire with it's 12-figure battalions, I was a little dissapointed. I wondered how 12 figures could possibly be made to look like a battalion. And what about the understrength units that would be 8 or 10 figures?

But once the game began, my concerns lay elsewhere. Very quickly, one adapts.

What's most important is the oft-unstated fact:
IT ISN'T UP TO YOU.

Unless you only game solo, or are willing to produce all the figures you ever want in a game, you are forced to the scale and basing of other players who have already built armies and regularly gather for games. That is why the most important consideration is always – what's going on locally?

Toofatlardies got it right, by creating an improved game system based on the Empire basing. That way, lots of players can use that game system without any fuss.

If I were advising a new enthusiast, I would tell him to do the local research first. Then I would advise building a division of Austrians, Russians, and French--or whatever. The point is having a selection of units to bring to a game. You always want to be able to contribute figures to the team effort of wargaming.

Having said that, the debate will forever rage on what is the optimal scale, figure ratio, and ground scale. Those 36-figure battalions in 28mm look great, but you quickly run out of space, and it is the nature of Napoleonic warfare to have multiple-corps battles – refight Wagram or Waterloo.

I personally believe that 15mm is the best in general. It is the smallest scale at which individual figures can be appreciated, IMHO. You can build 36-figure battalions for tactical games, and break them down to 12-figure units for the big battles.

Basing is getting tricky. Empire and LFS use single rank of figures on a move stand. I am intrigued by the idea of 2-rank stands and envisioning a bn as a sort of mini diorama of however many figures, without casualty removal.

But that limits the use of the figures, unless you are prepared to re-base for a different system. Trust me, that is NOT the way to go.

The debate rages on . . .

I agree with everything about 6mm exept for massed "feel" I get, sure it's great to have a table sevral dozen square miles ect. and it does look good, but I don't get the same feeling of seeing 72 or 150 6mm figs moving over the table as I get with just 36 15mm.

Hell even "brigade games" were each battlion only has 12 figs looks good with 15mm, and even if I can't other painters can paint AB better then most people can paint 28mm, so there is no need for "more figs less details"

but 800 6mm dosn't seem as impressive as 800 figs should do

I'm in the process of changing out as much of my 28mm and 15mm figures for 6mm. I keep the same base sizes.

So, a 20mm x 40mm base that holds 4 of my 15mm Legionaries holds 24 of the 6mm figures. The whole force looks like an army, not a skirmish.

Now, admittedly, it is a different style of painting -- painting the whole to look like a unit, with not a whole lot of detail on each individual figure. My Romans get red tunics, silver lorica-gladius-helmet, a single line of brown across the back for the belt, and flesh for the face, arms, and legs. But assembled together, they look like a legion.

Years ago, I traded out my 25mm for 15mm (there were no 10mm in those days). As my eyes got worse, I switched back to 28mm. But frankly, I wish I had instead switched to 6mm because the effect on the table is dramatic!

"What's most important is the oft-unstated fact:
IT ISN'T UP TO YOU."

Absolute twaddle.
It's ENTIRELY up to you.
I spent half my wargaming life playing with rules, scales, sometimes periods purely because someone else wanted to, because thats what the group was doing. A lot of the time it was completely unsatisfying, playing games that deep down, one didn't actually want to. Finally I just went and did what I wanted, and funnily enough, others followed.

At times I muse that we're in the same hobby, sort of. Multiple scales, rules, basing etc. Constraints of money, space and table sizes. Conforming to a group/club norm. I agree with christot. Collecting, painting/prep, rules and whatever are inherintly personal. I've been the route of trying to oonform to a norm of a group or go with what is vogue at the time.

In the end, much of my hobby time is spent solo, so I do what's right for me. And those times when I'm playing with a group, I'll contribute the goodies if I can, or otherwise play with group's troops and rules for a social gathering. If I can oblige them to play with my figures/scales/rules, then that's fine also. Damned if I'm going to overhaul my collection to appease others. I've done that enough times to fit my own preference.

Gunfreak, its your time and money. Please yourself to get the effect you're looking for. If a mass of 6mm crammed together or 12 28MM figures spaced out to represent a battalion appeals to your eye, have fun whatever you choose.

It's ENTIRELY up to you.

Truth.

Do what suits your eye; miniature gaming should be all about the aesthetics, or you might as well play boardgames. Form your units up in whatever fashion pleases you most . . . almost any miniature gamer will show up to play if you put on an attractive game, and some will even follow suit (but don't count on it). Plan on painting up enough of both sides of a conflict to put on a decent sized game, though, just in case your aesthetic sense doesn't coincide with anyone else's.

I will usually paint up enough units to make a significant contribution to a community game that I enjoy playing, but always with an eye to eventually having enough for an independent collection.

You're going to put a great deal of research and painting time (as well as a significant portion of your disposable income) into the hobby; if it doesn't make you happy, then it's all wasted.

Jeff
link

PS: just for the record, after being caught in the tug-of-war between the Small Unit Footprint and the Mass Effect offered by the smaller scale figures, I finally found a compromise between the two and ended up with 24-figure battalions in 10mm. It works for me.

Jeff
link

As a general observation,I feel that if the larger figures are close enough together on the base (spread out looks cack), then large scale gives a better mass effect than small scale ……. because of sheer cubic volume rather than the number of heads in the unit.

Terrain features help give smaller scales a sense of 'mass', as you can get enough buildings or trees togther to look like a small town or wood, but 6mm in a barren landscape can look a little lost.

Some terrain in the larger scales look much better than the smaller scales, such as hedges and walls, but others can be worse, such a single large building to represent a town.

Some periods are better suited to one scale or the other. For example, I like WWII and while I like the 20mm / 28mm infantry figures, I just feel that the vehicles become too big for a small table, so I go with 10mm.

My decision to go with 10mm for all armies are

1) I like many periods and dart between them all, I could not possibly hope to collect and paint BOTH SIDES of so many armies.

2) I like hexes and squares and 10mm 'sit' in them better.

3) By inclination, I am a gamer rather than a painter … so fast production line paint jobs for me please.

4) storage and gaming space at home is limited, so the smaller scale is favoured and using a consistent scale means that I only have to store 1 scale of terrain.

5) I prefer smaller buildings on the table.

So for me, convenience and practicalities become the main driving force to keep everything at 10mm. If I were driven mainly by aesthetics, I would go bigger and if I were driven by budget I would go smaller (although 10mm is already relatively cheap).

Size -of minis, of units, of armies… are restricted by the harsh limitations of 'The Real Wold™': for the sake of the discussion let's ignore them. In such a case -unless one is ready to play in a period, a scale, using rules… he all dislikes to enjoy social interactions- the choice boils down to pure personal preferences.

An important factor may be the prefered scope / scale / size of the battles: one wishes to be in overall commande of an immsense army, another to directly control a few units. Yet I suspect that -as the importance given to the aesthetical / visual appeal- it's not independent from the fundamental approach simulationist or player of the hobby.

For instance I suspect that to play a large battle a diehard 'simulationist' would prefer to have each battalion in a brigade to appear individually (even if the brigade is the tactical unit, moving, fighting, reacting as asingle entity); while C. Grant refought Mollwitz and Fontenoy with only 12 battalions / side, each 'playing the part' of a brigade. Such tolerant juggling with representational scales is, I suspect, more characteristic of the 'player' than of the 'simulationist' approach.

The 'player' approach may favor larger minis on an indirect manner. Excepted in skirmish / RPG-scale games each mini is the 3D marker of a number of 'real men'. This is explicited in the 'serious' rules favored by 'simulationists'. Then when C. Grant -this archetypal 'player' of a wargamer- wrote his 18th C. rules, he explicitely stated that his 48-mini battalion represented a real one some 600 strong -thus he was fully aware that each of his toy soldiers represented some 12 men. Yet he immediatly ignored it, and his rules treat each mini as an *individual* -just like when children are playing with their indians and cow-boys. This 'individualization' is an important, if often overlooked, component of the 'charm' (or 'laughable childishness', according to your p.o.v.) of such 'Old School' rules. Then I doubt that, when it comes to R&F, minis smaller than 20mm would be granted such 'personality'.

I'm old enough to remember that when 15mm, 6mm, 2mm appeared they were advertised as intended to allow more 'realitic', numbers-wise, units. Indeed *theoretically*, using the scales intended for 25mm, one could play WRG 6th in 1:1 scale with 6mm and WRG 1685-1835 with 2mm. But of course it was NEVER done: to paint, even roughly, so many minis would be boring to death, with regard to the aesthetical result (and those who could offer to have hordes of minis painted for them by underpaid children somewhere in South-East Asia prefer to buy Ferraris and somehow 'rent' the company of top models).
Thus 2mm to 6mm minis were used to display units in representational scale closer to 1:1 in *dioramas*;
but when it comes to wargaming, smaller minis allow:
-either to play on a kitchen table a battle that would require a tabletennis one with 25mm,
-or to field, not bigger battalions but *bigger armies*.

Actually larger minis visually favor larger units: the larger the mini, the closer is it to 1:1 scale; thus for 'visual consitency' the representational scale *also* has to be closer to 1:1. To represent a 600-strong battalion with 12-15 minis *may* work with 6mm – 10mm minis; but it certainly does NOT work with 25-30mm. Looking at a group of 12-15 28mm minis you see a platoon (or a colours party, if to be historically accurate you give it two flags) but certainly not a *battalion*.
(That's one of the reasons I never started wargamming with 54mm, potentially my prefered scale since it was that of my toy soldiers some 55 years ago): a battalion would require some 200 minis).

Regardless of the scale of the minis, the H&M linear warfare adds another requirement: the *front* of the unit deployed in line is fixed by the ground scale, but the *depth* of the minis is hopefully out of scale. Thus below a minimal number of minis (20 / rank?) your battalion looks like a stout rectangle, not as a visually satisfying thin line.
Also for the unit to 'look right' the minis have to be in close order. C. Grant ('The War Game'left) packed his infantrymen far more densely than P. Young ('Charge!'right): compare the photos in the two books link
Grant's lines look quite 'good'; Young's infantrymen are in a kind of 'loose order', and his 'lines' look more like a manipular legion in chessboard formation. Several marvelously painted SYW armies on the web suffer from this 'loose order' syndrome.

If this theme has come up before, I've commented like this before.

I tried 10mm for FPW basing 7 figures to the 30mm x 15mm base I'd have used for 15mm. It's a mass effect compared with 15mm but I'm not sure that visually it's necessarily all that more effective.

These from a game this week

link

link

But for once I won't post a link to this link because people must be fed up with looking at it.

With the first arrival of 30mm Staddens years ago, a group I belonged to in Pennsylvania assembled 18-figure French "battalions" (3 grenadiers; 12 fusiliiers; and 3 voltigeurs); British battalions of 15 – either 1 or 2 grenadiers, and the opposite number of light company men, with the rest center company men. When I moved to Texas in 2002, the group was using Old Glory 25's; and other makers, but with 12-figure French battalions. We had marvelous games. Few of us could handle a French division of 9 to 12 battalions (of 12 – or earlier 18 – figures each) well. We eventually went to games with each player getting something like 4 infantry, one battery (a gun with 4 figures)and one cavalry unit of 12. Three or 4 players to a side still made for a wonderful game.

When we were in the mood for "mass," we could put three French 12-man units together in to a battalion of 36. Combining 3 British battalions, we'd have 30 figures, 3 per company. Now that I have no one near to game with, I like 36-figure French with "correct" drummer; drum-major; sapeur; even Voltigeur cording and epaulette colors; uniforms. They look marvelous on our massive living room book shelves.

We got into 7YW in 15mm and had thousands of Freikorps; some Minifigs; etc. Some battles used 12 figures for Prussian battalions, 18 for Austrian. But we could again mass figures using three or more battalions, three-deep, for mass feel. I recall one game that took three full Friday nights (7:30 to 1:00 AM) to complete, one each in a consecutive month. Not easy to find a gamer willing to tie up his gaming room so long! And he had a 7' by 25' table.

GdeP

Just to do some quasi-intellectual theorising for a moment

At the end of the day, once we are into a wargame, the question of mass effect and scale doesn't really matter.

What comes into play is what is known as "suspension of disbelief"

I'll cite the definition in "The Phrase Finder" link

"The temporary acceptance as believable of events or characters that would ordinarily be seen as incredible. This is usually to allow an audience to appreciate works of literature or drama that are exploring unusual ideas….The state is arguably an essential element when experiencing any drama or work of fiction. We may know very well that we are watching an actor or looking at marks on paper, but we wilfully accept them as real in order to fully experience what the artist is attempting to convey."

A wargame is essentially a piece of theatre. Once we are into a game and the dice start rolling and figures are removed, We can re-write part of the above as

"We know very well that we are watching lead figures on a tabletop, but we wilfully accept them as real in order to fully experience what the rules are attempting to convey."

spot on Jeremy.

by way of supporting example.

For me, a small number 28mm figures is not a realistic representation of a unit of English Civil War infantry.

But when you actually have enough of those units to make the battlefield look like a battlefield in scale, that disbelief changes.

link

if you scroll down to their Marston Moor game – that for me works perfectly.

But if you go back through the earlier journals, and find some of the normal club games those guys play, while the figures are individually beautiful, they don't work for me in the same way.

same figures, but the scale of game makes the suspension of disbelief work or not work, for this gamer's eye

"abdul666lw" wrote in part:

An important factor may be the prefered scope / scale / size of the battles: one wishes to be in overall commande of an immsense army, another to directly control a few units. Yet I suspect that -as the importance given to the aesthetical / visual appeal- it's not independent from the fundamental approach simulationist or player of the hobby.

For instance I suspect that to play a large battle a diehard 'simulationist' would prefer to have each battalion in a brigade to appear individually (even if the brigade is the tactical unit, moving, fighting, reacting as asingle entity); …………
Regardless of the scale of the minis, the H&M linear warfare adds another requirement: the *front* of the unit deployed in line is fixed by the ground scale, but the *depth* of the minis is hopefully out of scale. Thus below a minimal number of minis (20 / rank?) your battalion looks like a stout rectangle, not as a visually satisfying thin line.
Also for the unit to 'look right' the minis have to be in close order. C. Grant ('The War Game'left) packed his infantrymen far more densely than P. Young ('Charge!'right): compare the photos in the two books link
Grant's lines look quite 'good'; Young's infantrymen are in a kind of 'loose order', and his 'lines' look more like a manipular legion in chessboard formation. Several marvelously painted SYW armies on the web suffer from this 'loose order' syndrome."

I would like to add something to his discussion, about the "scaling representation of battles." What I mean is that many rules for large army-level battles are actually screwed-up, bastardized rules adapted from division/brigade level rules. In the army rules, a single stand (one inch in length on the tabletop) might be a brigade, which might have 4 battalions in its table of organization. Since the maximum effective range of an infantry musket is about 150 yards, you would expect that this brigade shouldn't be able to issue musket fire untill the enemy is within a battalion's width (~150 yards) of it. This would be one quarter inch- about a quarter of a stands length….. Have you ever seen such rules? What you see is that the firing starts at 4 to 8 inches- the equivalent of 600 yards to 1200 yards- up to 2/3 of a mile!

What has happened is the army rules are calling one stand a brigade whereas they are acting as a quarter battalion or even company. (from the ratio of length to effective musket range). Right away, I think the army-rules start to delve into unreality. How does maneavue rules mesh with attack and melee rules when napoleonic units come into effective musket range at half a mile? From there the army-level rules have to get real screwy to abstract the effect of flank attacks, squares, and calvary because the fundamental relationship between firing range and maneavue has been violated. If your frame of reference is beaten zones set by heavy machine guns and mortars, then everything may look okay to you. But expect disconnects or arbitrary rules.

This is why I prefer to play at the lower command range with multiple stand companies with 24 or 48 files per battalion. Also, a battalion in line is starting to look like a picture of a battlaion in line. (8:1 or 16:1 length to depth ratio for close files (3 15mm figures per 1" stand).

1968billsfan – Volley & Bayonet gets musket ranges close to right. A 3" (300 yard) stand only shoots 2" (200 yards). That's longer than 150 yards, but given the abstraction level of the game, you can forgive the extra 1/2 inch (nothing in V&B is in fractional inches).

In effect, you are either in close assault (touching) or in firing range (almost touching) for musket armed troops.

(LOL, two V&B posts in one day, and me having only infrequently played the game!)

For the 'Army'/'Divisional' level games then there should be no distinction to fire and melee- units become engaged when they touch. Whether the unit charges or just gives fire should be abstracted into the combat resolution method. The player – as the CinC doesn't need to know how it is happening, just that it is happening. It is the Battalion and Brigade commanders that are making these decicions.

For the 'Army'/'Divisional' level games then there should be no distinction to fire and melee- units become engaged when they touch.<.> The player – as the CinC doesn't need to know how it is happening, just that it is happening.

For the second point, a possible alternative is a multi-players game.
But those of us who prefer 'big battalions' of ≥ 22mm minis can play army level games / large battles 'in full scale' only under *very exceptional circumstances*: e.g. on this 'battlefield' of 24 x 28 feet (yes, 8 X 9.3 yards, 7.2 x 8.5 meters!):
link
link
link
link

Thus routinely (very few of us would call an encounter with 12 54figs btons of 28mm minis / side a 'routine' one, actually!), one should search for an alternative approach. I really like the way C. Grant refought Fontenoy and Mollwitz with 12 btons ('counting as' brigades) / side and his 'normal' tactical rules. Previously he had assessed very 'seriously' the relationships between battalion frontage, musketry range, move lenght… so was perfectly aware that:

A single stand (one inch in length on the tabletop) might be a brigade, which might have 4 battalions in its table of organization. Since the maximum effective range of an infantry musket is about 150 yards, you would expect that this brigade shouldn't be able to issue musket fire untill the enemy is within a battalion's width (~150 yards) of it. This would be one quarter inch- about a quarter of a stands length….. Have you ever seen such rules? What you see is that the firing starts at 4 to 8 inches- the equivalent of 600 yards to 1200 yards- up to 2/3 of a mile!

And then IT WORKED.
Why so? Rather than talking of 'scaled up' units (1 bton 'counting as' a brigade), one could talk equally of a 'scaled down' terrain. The refight is actually a 'scale model' of the battle (which it is, anyway). Then any 'intellectual difficulty' / 'scales inconsistency' disappears… What is actually 'extended' when such a battle is part of a campaign is its *time scale*.

Masses…to scale. ;)

abdul666lw

I agree completely with what you say. As long as the players realize the concept, I'm happy. I get unhappy, when 1" long brigades have a 4" firing range AND the rules don't allow any benefit for a flank attack because of something like " at this scale flank attacks are abstracted". It may still be a fun game, but I get frustrated because what is then done in practice on the tabletop, violates what I know from my historial studying. In addition, I may play the game with an eye on achieving an advantage based on my historical knowledge (not super extensive but still valid, only to find that the rules ignore it. To each his own.