"Fixed number or multiple bases per unit?" Topic

With the re-release of On to Richmond I've been thinking about how to organize my units. When playing OtR long ago I used unpainted Airfix figures on green bases and programed scenarios. Then along came Johnny Reb and it's basing of various figures per base but all units having 5 bases. Other rules I've played have had 4 bases per unit. I never played F&F because of the multiple bases.

I've been looking at Lonstreet which is gettting good reviews and this also uses multiple bases.

So the question is which do you prefer a fixed number of bases per unit or mulitple bases? And for those who like multiple how do you paint your figures so the unit has some cohesiveness? For example in my JR units all the figures are in the same type of pose, marching, advancing, firing line.

Other than Volley and Bayonet, most of the games I play have multiple stands per regiment, in which I try to have the same or similar pose.

I use mostly the same pose with multiple stands per regiment as well.

I'm easy either way, some rules use fixed base numbers and some don't and I like to be flexible as rules come and go and I'm certainly not rebasing unless absolutely necessary.

Generally I'll do a 'core' based on fixed number of bases (four is a nice number for many things), and if I need to do variable bases just add in some more line elements from other units. As long as there isn't a huge disparity in numbers (going from four bases fixed to 13 variable or something) the consistent core makes it look OK.

Doesn't work for everything of course, and it depends how fussy you are about things like facing colours, but once the guys are assembled en masse it looks OK.

I have been known to commit the heinous crime of fleshing out some French Napoleonic units with 1815 Prussians (minus standards)….it did actually look OK from a distance.

Matching poses are nice and something to aim for, but when mixing elements up I usually just rely on the players to remember which elements are part of which unit. It is usually pretty obvious if they are close order. Obviously any casualties come off the mismatched bases first.

I think for ACW different numbers of stands per unit makes sense especially given how units were raised and reinforced (on the Union side, often not) as they gained combat experience

I keep the same pose in all my figs in a given unit – e.g. marching, firing, standing, etc.

? I have never seen this as a criteria for choosing game rules to play, so it hasn't ever been a concern. I have enough stands regardless.

For ACW I prefer a different number of stands (we usually play Fire & Fury or Regimental Fire & Fury). That reflects the huge difference in the sizes of units, especially by 1864. Unless I am doing a specific unit for a scenario, I usually paint up ten stands in almost identical poses (OK, I do like to throw in some variety) or ten stands with something distinguishing, like Confederates all in kepis.

Martin Rapier+1 with five bases in double rank.

The difference in ACW units sizes definately causes a problem when it comes to basing. I usually try to keep them pretty close in number, either 3 or 4, combining small units if nessasary. It's also hard to get that line v.s. column look that we are used to with Napoleonics. My armies are made out of the very affordable 1/72 plastics so other than the command stand, I try to keep each unit with the same pose since there is such little difference in uniforms especially with the yankees. For the Confederates I have a bad habit of giving the better units a more uniform apperance than I'm sure was historical. Any ways just have fun. I have been using Carnage and Glory II which is a computer moderated gaming system. The computer keeps track of exactly how many men are in each unit so there is no base removal. Fewer bases per unit makes things less fiddly on the table.

Multiple stands per unit, based on OOB numbers

Unit size is a huge problem with ACW armies, even using 3mm figs. If you're talking the regimental level you need to be able to show 200 man units and smaller all the way up to 900 man units in some Union regiments at the end of the war. With an average size between 250 and 400, generally speaking. I tried doing this with fixed bases but with various sizes. It worked ok but it was a lot of work.

I'm in the minority here, inthat I prefer rules like Volley & Bayonet where one large base represents an entire unit. I'm working on a similar set of rules where each base is 120mm frontage, with 80mm depth. Each unit may be used as either a regiment or brigade depending upon the level you want to play.

I play a lot of Ancients and the rules there which I prefer are Impetus & Dux Bellorum. Both also use large bases with multiple minis per base, and each base represents one "unit".

Back in the old days when our club played ACW we used 6 bases with 4 minis per base (15mm) for a regiment. Actual regimental strength was represented by various factors rather than the number of stands per unit.

The larger the regiment was, the longer its frontage was, so multiple bases make the most sense.

Not sure what the OP means by "Multiple Bases." I generally completely mix the posses. With the Rebels, unless it is some kind of special unit, I like to have different everything, Hats, poses etc.

I like to vary the size of the units by adding or subtracting bases. Johnny Reb is and has always been a basing nightmare. When I use to play it we did all the infantry 7/8 x 7/8 with four figures per base and then just varied the number of bases and yes I know that the number of bases lost is a big deal.

But if you start with three bases you lose one your down one base. Did it that way for I think 12 years with not a single problem. Didn't matter. But this drives hard core JR players crazy.

Now we use "Mr. Lincolns War" it took a little work to organize the sequence of play to make the rules work better. It varies the number of bases and all the infantry should be based the same. We have played maybe ten games using them and we like these rules.

If I remember correctly, OTR is a brigade game. Which is a deal breaker for me. I always considered the ACW as a regimental war. How can you have an entire brigade of Zouaves?

The larger the regiment was, the longer its frontage was, so multiple bases make the most sense.

And the smaller regiment has a shorter frontage. Exactly my point! I never understood why five bases for every unit was important. Still makes no sense.

I use multiple bases of the same pose. Regts. have from two to five bases depending upon regimental strenghs. For keeping it easy to identify the brigades all of the regiments in the same brigade have the same pose. All the regiments of the Irish Brigade are at the right shoulder shift, all the regiments of Caldwell's brigade are firing and loading, etc. John Miller

when i think of acw egiments, i think of lines of men struggling in battle. i always use mixed poses in my johnny reb armies. theres no way those lines held once combat was joined.

I use 3mm at approx 3:1, so one base is 100 men. I use the number of bases I need, ie 300 man regiment is 3 bases. For odd numbers I have half-sized bases as endcaps with various numbers of minis which allows me to do 340, etc.

Well the issue here really boils down to two things.

1.) What is more/most important you in the game. Do you want to be a regimental commander? Brigade? Division? Are you overly nerdy about whether rifles, rifle-muskets, rifled-muskets or muskets are being used? Type of gun in use? Rifled or smoothbore? Canister? Shell? Spherical case?

2.) Which part of the word "wargame" do you want to emphasize? "War" or "Game"?

Myself, I prefer the latter part, emphasizing the "game" part. I like simple "beer & pretzels" rules, fast play with a minimum number of charts, impedimenta, etc. That's why Volley & Bayonet appeals to me.

I like to play with my toy soldiers, not run convoluted simulations of actual battles & campaigns, etc. Did that for real back in the day.

Thanks for all the comments.
Rallynow, multiple bases probably wasn't the right phrase but what I meant was games where units consist of 2-10 (or more) stands to represent unit strentgh F&F being the rules like this that I'm familar with. JR has each unit be 5 stands and varies the number of figures per base to represent unit strentgh. (I have to agree with basing nightmare) Piquet uses 4 stands per unit and says each unit represents a range actual strentgh.

I'm considering rebasing my figures this could give me more units. However it is tough to have 1/2 a brigade of wheat's zoaves or Berdan's sharpshooters.

It's funny that I only see this as a problem for ACW and AWI. Other periods WWII, SYW and Colonials and just use stardard sized units. I've got to break the JR paradigm :-)

john hill is set to release a newacw set call "across this deadly field". might want to wait fot that…

I waited for JR3 assuming he would fix the basing issue. What he did was keep everything I didn't like and took away everything I liked.

I really did like the detail artillery charts of JR2. Just about every type of gun used in the war was listed. But with JR3 he tried to compete with F&F and change the scale and abstracted the artillery.

Charges were different but they still were complicated and it sometimes took 15 to 20 minutes to resolve a charge. While all the other players stood around and lost interest.

"Across this Deadly Field" will probably use the same basing system. Unless it is a skirmish game.

Found this regarding "Across a Deadly Field"

link

And this
link