"The Wonder of Square Bases" Topic

Regardless of what period or genre you game, minis mounted on square bases work so well, because it becomes so easy to transform from column to line… which is almost universal in gaming, even if it's just moving off a road and forming up for combat.

With rectangular bases, it becomes a geometry problem.

It's just a shame that wargaming "units" don't all happen to fit nicely on square bases… battleships, for instance.

I never had to get my battleships off a road and formed up.

But you've probably had to take them out of column and into line formation?

Battleships should never form square!

Unless they are equipped with bricoles.

In my naval games all the admirals prefer the "scrum" formation. Amateurs all, moi aussi.

Actually, it occurs to me that if you just play with small enough mini (scale) and a large ground scale, you can base anything on squares – even ships.

I don't care for square bases for 1:1 skirmish games, preferring circles. The square's right angles looks too unnatural with single figures, drawing the eye to the bases more than I like. BTW right angles do not appear in nature--they are a sign of man's presence.

Lately, I have come to appreciate square basing as well, for many of Bill's reasons.

I am currently using 1" square basing for my 6mm Marlburians.

I base as much as feasible on square bases for the reasons given.

So I concur …

Phil

For 18mm Naps & War of 1812 I use square bases of 2" for 1/2 company. Use the base sizes in Spearhead and Crossfire; have been rethinking using square base size for everything, all scales.

Some semblance of order, I guess, through it all.

But it makes sense in each case.

I have gone to square basing for all of my mass battle games. For skirmish games they are on all sorts of bases, often round.

Came to the same conclsuion many years ago. Most of our units are on 25mm (1") square bases. The Artillery is on 25mm x 37.5mm deep bases as are most of the cavalry. Old 15mm cavalry will fit on inch square bases but all the more recent ones need to be on the deeper ones!

Yes, I'm happy with square basing. I've 10mm 18th C figures, and 15mm WW1 and WW2 infantry all on 30mm square bases; and I'm just putting my 28mm 11th Century figures onto 60mm square bases. With the latter I find there is enough space for 6 foot or three cavalry without it getting too crowded. I can use the elements individually for DBA or Rally Round the King, or use a pair of bases as a single unit for Impetus, Hail Caesar or Dux Bellorum.

Another advantage is that you can usually make space at the back for a unit label or a dice frame for marking status/strength/whatever. With smaller scales there can also be space to have your colour party/officers at the front or rear of your line, as required.

But I agree with CPBelt: skirmish figures – especially 'irregular' types such as for the Old West, look odd on square bases.

Square basing is the future: already adopted for Huzzah! Glorious Empires.

Ian

For skirmish I like close order troops on squares, everyone else on round. So 7th Cav on square, Apache on round.

Otherwise all my horse and musket is based 2/base on a 20x25 base. I can go one rank for games like Le Feu Sacre or 2 ranks for General de Brigade. Since I base on steel, magnetic movement trays are cheap and easy.

A tree growing out of the ground = right angle. .

Although my ships are on rectangles, a couple of my pals base them on squares. Makes it so much easer to do line ahead or line abreast with the correct spacings and alignment as opposed to 'scrum' formation mentioned above.

Scruffy navies (ie anything which johnny foreigner floats on the sea) maye wish to have irregular bases to reflect their lack of suitable naval discipline.

Linear bases take up less storage space and more accurately reflect the width:depth ratio of many units though.

Octagons. The ideal compromise, easy to form into line, column or square and it also works for skirmish ;-)

Maybe I'm a heretic, but I've started putting my 15mm AWI on individual squares, to give maximum flexibility with formations, unit composition, and markers/casualties.

But for fantasy I go with individual circles/washers, and plan to use movement trays for non-skirmish. Not sure why, I guess orcs are just more 'organic'!

I'll be the devil's advocate here…

I used to use squares, for the reasons mentioned, but now for anything where the figure overhangs the base (most 28mm stuff) I use circles because I find them easier to rank up. With squares the figs have to be placed right when they're glued down or the 1st rank get bayonettes/spears/etc right in the back of the head. With circles, the second rank guys can pivot a bit to conform to the 1st rank, but still are facing the right direction. Saves me pulling out what little hair I still have ;)

I find a straight edge along the front of a unit based on circles gets the formation as regular as I want, and 20mm circles fit in movement trays just as well as 20mm squares…

I can think of only 6 instances where I have figs on a square base.
Almost all of them are on circles.

The battleships could form a Lufbery Circle. Not a square but the concept of all-around protection is the same.

The only thing I put on circles is command figures/staff. Everything else goes on square/rectangle. The bases line up better on the table and they store better when not in use.

Square bases make for efficient use of space than circles for skirmish figures. You can often fit a figure onto a 20mm square base but not a 20mm circle, because you can angle the base along the diagonal.

21eRegt wrote:

The battleships could form a Lufbery Circle. Not a square but the concept of all-around protection is the same.

Maybe not the only reason for a circular formation. I recall one especially silly naval game where one player asked another "Why are your destroyers forming a Cantabrian circle?", to which the answer was "They're just spinning off altitude".

All the best,

John.

We have hordes of unpainted ancient and medieval/fantasy 15mm figures in our basement and recently I got the hankering to do something with them.

The first decision is, of course, basing and so I happened upon this thread while researching decisions.

I have lots of figures already based for DBx. But I've always felt the DBx/WRG system was always missing something. Maybe it felt a little too regimented, especially for medievals.

I've also looked at Peter Pig's 30mm square system and that looks more "dioram-ic" to me (spell check says that's not a word but I don't care).

Here's my idea and I'm curious as to whether or not others have done anything like it: use square bases (30mm x 30mm or maybe 1-1/4" x 1-1/4") with 1 or 2 cavalry figures or 3-6 infantry figures per base.

Another idea is to use 30mm x 15mm infantry bases so that 2, 3, or 4 base units could always form a perfect square when needed. I dunno. Just thinking out loud here.

I suppose we could also use 40mm x 40mm bases for everything but that requires more figures per base, which might be a good thing or bad thing, not sure. I prefer smaller "figures per unit" as it lets us get troops on the table faster.

I know this is an old thread but it still has relevance imo.

I should also mention one more advantage of 30mm x 30mm bases…with 2 cav figures on such a base you only need to get basing material between two horses instead of three. I use a mix of spackle and paint to create dirt and I hate having to push that between figures on multi figure bases…which is another argument for 30 x 15 infantry bases I suppose…

Squares are too fiddly. They allow the gamer to mangle every figure in a formation and press and squeeze them in their grubby claws till the paint wears off and the figures are bent. Cowardly gamers keep moving them around, trying to make an invulnerable turtle and to make up screwy formations. They also allow in a very democratic way, each figure to be manhandled.

My Regiments are 36 men, 2 officers, 2 colors, 2 musicians, 2 NCO's and 30 privates. All of them on one single massive 3.5 by 8" stand. This keeps damage, grease, and gamer slobber to a minimum. If I was a bit more sadistic, the Officer spontons , NCO pikes and color poles are all made from razor sharp surgical probes.

Seriously though, that's what I mount them on. Cavalry are on 7 by 5" bases. The best part is that the troops LOOK like they did in the 18th century, rather than gamers moving the stands all around to try and squeeze out a cheesy marginal advantage. This allows me to make little scenic and personal dioramas on the base and put the unit tag on it.

Column to line? Mounting Dismounting? Limbering Unlimbering? We don't bother about that folderol The player is a general He doesn't get down to that minutia.

Well, as it turns out 30mm x 30mm will be too small anyway.

We bought a bunch of the Black Raven Foundry 15mm fantasy lizardmen at Siege of Augusta (cheap!). As with 25/28mm these guys are bulky. At lunch time I tried putting them on some 30x30 and 30x15 bases and the figures don't fit.

So, I'm going to use 40mm x 40mm and 2-3 cav figures and 4-8 infantry as needed.

@Otto…have always enjoyed your games! Really enjoyed your fantasy renaissance games and those large units. I've been very tempted to take your approach, especially for 15mm ancients through renaissance where "column line square" is less important. It would also make pike and shot units easier to build since you wouldn't get stuck quibbling over fiddly proportions of pike and shot in a given unit. You could simply have a pike block of 9 or 16 figures flanked by two sleeves of musketeers, each of 4 or 6 figures, all mounted on a single large base.

At the small end that might be roughly 70mm wide x 45mm deep up to 100mm wide by 60mm deep depending on number of figures in a unit.

I just don't think I can manage your large regiment size with my limited time! :-D

Heptagons are the way to go.

Guess it depends on how many units a player moves. One of our gamers has his 25mm figures based individually on squares, but creates movement trays so you can push the entire unit forward at once instead of moving each figure. Cuts down on the movement time and he flocks the movement bases as well.

Individual bases, using movement trays, gives the best of both worlds. Individual basing gives the most flexibility in unit formations. Column formation has its advantages, and movement trays still allow faster movement in the game play.

I use strictly square bases, for mass battles, skirmish, and RPGS play, as there is never an argument about facing… Avoids conflicts, and argumental delays. Cheers!

After so many years of wargaming, I have come to see bases as an aesthetic element rather than a game-mechanics element.

Base your figures in whatever manner gives you the best visual appeal. Then adapt whatever rules you are using to your basing system. After all, chances are you will change rules more frequently than you'll change your figures. It makes no sense to build an army to fit a particular set of rules.

It is one of the reasons I am a big fan of gridded rules (hexes, squares, …). Then the grid determines the footprint of a unit, not the base, and the base loses its functionality as a game mechanics element, and the aesthetics take precedence.