Help support TMP


"60mm x 30mm de facto standard in 6mm basing" Topic


169 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board

Back to the American Revolution Message Board

Back to the SYW Message Board

Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board

Back to the Basing Message Board

Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

General
18th Century
Napoleonic
American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Ruleset


14,219 hits since 24 Apr 2014
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 

Glenn Pearce10 May 2014 6:47 a.m. PST

Sadly it seems that my good friend Sparker has been "Dawghoused" for comments that he made on this thread. He took a bullet for defending a cause we both believe in.

He and I have been trying to stop the abuse that seems to be active on TMP and is really noticeable on the Napoleonic board. Some people seem to enjoy making "Personal Attacks", "Harassing" people, etc., and seemingly going out of their way to do it. Some are well disguised by those who think they are clever, but it's clearly there once you know who these people are.

Some of these people simply don't like the subject or the person. They will stop at nothing to try and embarrass them. Often they really can't have an open and fair debate because their own prejudices will surface. So they resort to a kind of bullying. There are also those who think they are funny, but it's really at the expense of someone else.

Unfortunately some people don't know about these people and they get caught up in what they are saying and buy into the deception.

I did a basic count on this thread and a good 35% of the messages were dedicated to or trying to stop the nonsense. If you want to take your time and review the threads that are now linked to this one you will see even more of this.

Hopefully everybody involved in this kind of childish behavior will now smarten up and get back to posting threads that are informative, sharing and support adult debating.

CATenWolde10 May 2014 8:53 a.m. PST

No, Glenn – he wasn't unjustly dawghaused because he's part of some Forum Crusade, he was dawghoused because he made a plain, open, and pointless group attack, which you seem to be defending. Honestly, I think he was just caught up in this same pointless process that you seem caught up in, which unnecessarily stores up so much negative feelings.

Glenn, I honestly believe that you simply don't understand what you are doing, and I harbor no ill will. I like your enthusiasm, and your vocal love of 60x30mm bases is an amusing eccentricity in a hobby full of eccentric and amusing habits and preferences (myself certainly included).

However, if you reread your post I hope you will recognize that you are making sweeping personal attacks, regardless of how vaguely you refer to any actual people. I have to assume that I'm included in this group of people, as you've singled me out before. Evidently you think (from the laundry list in your post) that I am regularly engaging in abuse, making personal attacks, harassing people, going to great lengths to somehow disguise my activity, embarrassing people because I don't like them or the subjects they want to talk about, unable to engage in open debate because of my own prejudices, bully people, make jokes at other peoples expense (I might sometimes be guilty of that one), and deceiving other people to get them to join in on all this sort of behavior.

Really?

So, if I stop posting in the threads on the Napoleonic forum you (or Sparker) post in, out of fear that I will be seen by you as somehow engaging in this sort of behavior and eliciting the same sort of overwhelmingly unpleasant response, is that a "win" for the good guys, or is it an example of someone being bullied out of a public forum? I hope you think it's a win for your side, because that's exactly what has happened. Have fun playing in the forum.

Whirlwind10 May 2014 8:59 a.m. PST

No Chris, it would be a real loss if you left. I'm amazed that this topic has ended in dawghousings (on either 'side') – it would be even worse if people stopped posting/visiting because of it.

This is a thread about basing 6mm figures for goodness sake. I can just about see that things are going to get heated when people's life's work gets dissed, but this…

bgbboogie10 May 2014 9:00 a.m. PST

I use the Kallistra bases, each base is a platoon or company, as I see fit to use, the figures are in 3 ranks with and officer and drummer on the flank.

Works for me.

CATenWolde10 May 2014 1:50 p.m. PST

Whirlwind – It is silly, isn't it? And no, I'm not taking my ball and going home – sorry if it came out that way. I'm just not going to play in their games.

kyoteblue10 May 2014 4:22 p.m. PST

DELETED

rmcaras Supporting Member of TMP10 May 2014 6:14 p.m. PST

"60mm x 30mm de facto"

BUT.

what about "30mm x 60mm" ????

hmmmm? That is a different way to look at it altogether.

CaptainKGL11 May 2014 2:23 p.m. PST

Keep it in perspective guys. Its just a hobby. Take it all with a grain of salt. At the end of the day it doesn't matter compared to real life. Lets just talk about our toys, enjoy that part and move on.


Glenn we talked 6mm before and it was quite productive. Helped me get into 6mm. Don't sweat this other stuff. Let people voice their thoughts, ignore what you dislike and keep the talk focused on the toys so you have some fun.

Edwulf11 May 2014 3:51 p.m. PST

I prefer 20mm x 10mm stands with 4-8 stands per unit.

A tad fiddly but I like the look.

CaptainKGL11 May 2014 4:57 p.m. PST

Edwulf, do you have an pictures?

At the moment I just use the 30mm x 40mm bases. Pretty sure anyway, bought a bulk bag at a convention. Regardless I like the look and that's all that matters but id like to see your 20x10 basing. The guys I wargame with could care less about basing. They just want to play and we also use C&G so base type really doesn't matter to us. I even make little mini dioramas out of each base. Its artistic and a fun stress release.

Edwulf11 May 2014 9:47 p.m. PST

Not a very good one I'm afraid. If you scroll down you can see my opponents Americans trying to deploy off the road while my lads trudge very slowly across the fields in the distance.

link

My opponent uses 20mm x 20mm I want for less depth as I like the troops abit more packed in while in March column.

link
Stavka's blog has a slightly better picture. In the first post in April. Sadly the troops crossing the field were rushed to the front and not fully based.

Ben Waterhouse12 May 2014 2:58 a.m. PST

It still isn't…

CaptainKGL12 May 2014 3:11 a.m. PST

Edwulf,

No worries. Anything is better than nothing. I get the idea and the general look. Thanks for sharing.

J Womack 9412 May 2014 6:03 a.m. PST

I think this may be the very definition of a First World Problem.

Glenn Pearce13 May 2014 5:53 a.m. PST

Hello Chris!

This thread contains insults, twisted humor, personal attacks, group attacks, confirmed harassment with one DH and at least three harassment warnings. All over a simple yes or no question. Sparkers message was his way of showing his support for my courage in having to deal with all of that nonsense.

My message was intended to highlight this fact and to clearly state that at least 35% of the messages in this thread were dedicated to the nonsense.

If you think you are one of the persons that are contributing to the nonsense and you seem to admit you are. Then all I'm asking is to stop it and start making adult contributions to the forum.

Glenn Pearce13 May 2014 5:59 a.m. PST

Hello rmcaras!

Polemos has that base size covered as well. It's used for limbers, wagons, etc. Yes it's a pain having to order both bases, but from three feet away they both look the same.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn Pearce13 May 2014 6:06 a.m. PST

Hello CaptainKGL!

It's wonderful to hear from you and I'm delighted that I was able to help you in any way.

Great advice, now I owe you something.

Looking forward to hearing about your 6mm games.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn Pearce13 May 2014 6:19 a.m. PST

Hello Edwulf!

Love the look of your games. It looks a little like what ours did when we used a smaller basing scheme. I actually liked moving all the little bases around. The problem for us was that our games got bigger and bigger. The small bases just didn't seem to work very well for the big games.

Were still able to play all levels of games with the 60x30 base. At the lowest level it's part of a battalion. We use anywhere from 1-4 bases, that's a maximum frontage of 240mm. Next level up it's a battalion or regiment. From there we start to group them for brigades mostly just two bases but sometimes more depending on the actual size of the brigade. On occasion for a very, very big battle we do exactly the same thing only call them Divisions.

Anyway thanks for sharing your great games with us.

Best regards,

Glenn

Edwulf13 May 2014 6:29 a.m. PST

Thanks. I can't claim much credit as all the terrain is made by another. All I've done is paint Brits and Hessians.

I have a lot of 60x30mm bases too. I use them for my Romans which are not finished and am planning on using them for my ancient Germans too. 3 to four ranks per base very heavily packed with troops. Not fully painted yet… If I can get a picture up I will. The 6 centuries I have look pretty awesome.

I use black powder for the AWI so I don't mind the smaller bases as my games will most likely not be bigger than what we've done yet. I can see the virtue of a battalion per base but am not a big fan of it… I like to see the lines and columns. In 6mm I like to see long thin lines aswell.

I have Napoleonics in 6mm. I'm not sure what I'll do with them yet, I think I have them orginized for 40x20mm stands, with 4-6 stands per unit. But I've toyed with smaller and larger bases.

Glenn Pearce13 May 2014 9:52 a.m. PST

Hello Edwulf!

Baccus Hessians, certainly one of my favorites to have painted, those miters wow! The entire Baccus AWI is just amazing. I'm presently writing a Polemos rule set for them.

Romans on 60x30, okay now your driving me crazy, bring on them pictures boy.

I understand your desire to see the lines and columns. We have those, they just look different then yours.

Basing is always a bit of a dilemma, no matter what size you end up choosing there are compromises. Good luck on picking yours.

Best regards,

Glenn

wrgmr113 May 2014 6:30 p.m. PST

People getting dawghoused over Napoleonic bases! Holy Moly…. It's a good thing no one mentioned bricoles!

Whirlwind14 May 2014 9:11 a.m. PST

I think Bandit has been pretty hard done by here.

Glenn Pearce14 May 2014 11:31 a.m. PST

I think he got off way too easy. Have you read TMP Talk about "That's Harassment????"? I think the Editor should also have charged him with a "Personal Attack".

Charlie 1214 May 2014 5:20 p.m. PST

Glenn- Do us all a favor (and show a little maturity) and JUST LET IT DROP, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD… Your endlessly playing the 'victim' card has gotten really old and really tiresome… (Moreso, since its totally unwarranted.)

J Womack- Spot on!

Ben Waterhouse15 May 2014 3:37 a.m. PST

^ Seconded…

nsolomon9915 May 2014 5:00 a.m. PST

Thirded

Glenn Pearce15 May 2014 5:57 a.m. PST

Hello coastal2!

You must have sent your message to the wrong party. I didn't get a card to play. Interesting though your the first person to say I'm a "victim", but then you also seem to say it's not true. Very confusing. I do know that someone was DH for harassing someone, but according to you there is no "victim". Honestly I don't think the Editor could make such a big mistake as that.

I am curious though, this is your second message on this thread and neither one even mentions the subject. So why are you here?

I must say the endless nonsense that is being generated by people like you is extremely old, tiresome, insulting and clearly pushes you into the danger zone. If people like you never sent such immature messages a lot of the nonsense would stop.

Bandit15 May 2014 7:29 a.m. PST

I think he got off way too easy. Have you read TMP Talk about "That's Harassment????"? I think the Editor should also have charged him with a "Personal Attack".

Reading that thread indicates a majority of posters disagree with such a conclusion. There is a parallel to be drawn.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Glenn Pearce15 May 2014 10:58 a.m. PST

Hello Bandit!

Looks like another survey. You know that got you in big trouble last time. Deleted by Moderator

I can't help but notice, however, that there is no mention of "he got off way too easy" or "should also have charged him with a Personal Attack", anywhere in that thread. It's not even the topic of the thread. Well I guess that's what to be expected.

Best regards,

Glenn

Bandit15 May 2014 11:53 a.m. PST

Glenn,

I must say the endless nonsense that is being generated by people like you is extremely old, tiresome, insulting and clearly pushes you into the danger zone.

Looks like another survey. You know that got you in big trouble last time. Deleted by Moderator

Threatening members for disagreeing with you is not permitted by the forum rules.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Glenn Pearce15 May 2014 12:44 p.m. PST

Hello Bandit!

I sincerely apologize.

I never intended to threaten you or anyone else. My intentions were only to offer some guidance.

Bandit15 May 2014 1:21 p.m. PST

Glenn Pearce,

You have called me names, stated that you have a vendetta against me and will work to prevent me from expressing myself, threatened me with trouble if I respond to your posts, made a long list of accusations about me, stated I should receive harsher punishments for the wrong you say I've done you and complained about me when I remain silent.

And you don't do it only to me. You have now done it to many members.

I never intended to threaten you or anyone else. My intentions were only to offer some guidance.

But you did threaten both coastal2 and I, you warned me that disagreeing with you will cause me to get in trouble:

Looks like another survey. You know that got you in big trouble last time. Deleted by Moderator

And you warned him that he was entering "the danger zone."

What objectionable act did I commit in this post:

Reading that thread indicates a majority of posters disagree with such a conclusion. There is a parallel to be drawn.

The thread referred to is TMP link which you'd cited when saying that I should get harsher punishment for the offenses you allege.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Glenn Pearce15 May 2014 2:59 p.m. PST

Hello Bandit!

I never called you any names. I can assure you I have no vendetta against you and have never stated any such thing or a long list of accusations. I also have never tried to stop you from expressing yourself within the guidelines of the forum. I already explained I never intentionally threatened anyone, and apologized, since you seem to have interpreted my words of guidance as such. You didn't commit any objectionable act in your parallel post.

Sparker15 May 2014 6:56 p.m. PST

I don't make this post lightly, but I am getting a little annoyed by the personal comments from some people on this forum, and I think the wrong people are getting caught up in it. So apologies for revisiting this pathetic schoolgirl snippery, but I think its worth reminding ourselves who started down the slippery slope, and it clearly wasn't Glenn:

I have no idea why you have such a bee in your bonnet about this.

Posted 25 April at 10:13, about a quarter of the way down the first page.

Now clearly 'a bee in your bonnet' is the mildest of pejorative comments, but it does denote disrespect. The poster could just have easily have said 'I think you have exhausted this subject, please don't carry on about base sizes on a thread about base sizes' or something similar…One thing leads to another!

But to then castigate Glenn for defending his right to ask the question and present his views on the thread he started! Really!?

Charlie 1215 May 2014 7:20 p.m. PST

(Lord knows, I'm going to regret this and probably get DH'd, but it has to be said)

Glenn- Bandit (and others) have shown an immerse amount of restraint in their responses; all showing them to be true gentlemen. Now, since you have decided to smear me, I feel that I must respond (and it will not be gentlemanly nor restrained. I claim neither trait…)

Now, you claim to never threaten nor launch personal attacks. Yet how am I to interpret this 'gem' from you:

"I must say the endless nonsense that is being generated by people like you is extremely old, tiresome, insulting and clearly pushes you into the danger zone. If people like you never sent such immature messages a lot of the nonsense would stop."

That sounds awfully like a threat and a personal attack to me. Oh, you call that 'guidance'. Some 'guidance'…

Now, to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you don't intend or realize your postings come off as so aggressive and confrontational. But the fact is, they DO. And its annoying.

This thread has devolved into a titanic dumpster fire. Due, in part, to your actions (yes, others had a part). And this isn't the first time. There are two other threads which imploded in the same manner. That's some kind of record (even by TMP standards). You might learn from that…

Anyway, my .02 (with interest)

To the Editor: I await my fate with true humility…

John the OFM15 May 2014 8:46 p.m. PST

I cannot recall a more inane topic/thread to get thrown in the DH over.
Some people, naming no names, have gotten it into their heads that disagreement is somehow a " personal attack".
I even started a thread called "Harassment ?" which never made it to the front page due to the infamous lock file error. It's still there under TMP Talk, though.

Nothing that I have seen can possibly be called a personal attack. And that includes telling the OP that he just might possibly be in error. The main argument is that anecdotal evidence is just as easily countered by further anecdotal evidence.

John the OFM15 May 2014 8:52 p.m. PST

For the record, I have long thought that Ancients players, particularly WRG/DBX gamers missed the boat by not basing 15mm and smaller figures on 25mm base sizes and using 25mm distances. That would have greatly to some extent have resolved the figure scale to perceived ground scale problem.
Coincidentally , that base would have had a 60mm frontage and 30mm depth would have been perfect.

John the OFM15 May 2014 8:55 p.m. PST

For AWI, naaah.
I do not see that working.
Gee, I sure no one considers this a personal attack!

Sparker15 May 2014 10:57 p.m. PST

Due, in part, to your actions (yes, others had a part).

I think in this instance mate, timing is everyting, as Talleyrand said about treason! As you can see from my post above, others did indeed have a part, and the initiation part at that!

Peeler16 May 2014 1:52 a.m. PST

I'm amazed that chaps are falling out & getting d'housed over base sizes .. :)

For my own part, being into DBN, I use 40mm frontage by 25/30/40 deep, but intend to use 60x30 for my Marlburians (as & when) to indicate the more linear ways of warfare for that period. I'd also use that size for plastic 1;72 ancients etc.

Glenn Pearce16 May 2014 5:58 a.m. PST

Hello coastal2!

Please let me apologize to you directly. I never intended to threaten you or to launch a personal attack against you. I also have no idea what I could do to you.

"Yet how am I to interpret this 'gem' from you:"

That's very interesting as I tried to use as many of your words as I could from your "gem" to me. How was I to interpret your message?

"Oh, you call that 'guidance'. Some 'guidance'…"

I was trying to prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot. Obviously I failed as your very next message your asking to be "DH".

"Now, to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you don't intend or realize your postings come off as so aggressive and confrontational. But the fact is, they DO. And its annoying."

If you want to waste your time and carefully read through this thread I challenge you to show me one posting of mine in an aggressive and confrontational manner that was not provoked. I'm sorry if you see that defending myself is annoying. Don't read my posts then.

"You might learn from that…"

Yes indeed I have. I learned that when someone is determined to harass you they will follow you everywhere and continue to do so. I've also learned that there is a number of people who intentional try to stir things up and they will also go out of their way to do it.

Best regards,

Glenn

Bandit16 May 2014 6:08 a.m. PST

Yes indeed I have. I learned that when someone is determined to harass you they will follow you everywhere and continue to do so. I've also learned that there is a number of people who intentional try to stir things up and they will also go out of there way to do it.

I think if you were to stop pushing this point right here that a more genuine peace might ensue.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Lion in the Stars16 May 2014 10:39 a.m. PST

This thread is still going? Seriously?!?

*headdesk*

CATenWolde16 May 2014 11:46 a.m. PST

picture

wrgmr116 May 2014 12:08 p.m. PST

John the OFM has a point.
We base all our Napoleonic 15mm figures on larger bases and play with 25/28mm measurements.

forwardmarchstudios16 May 2014 12:48 p.m. PST

3mm on 28mm basing is almost 1:1, a pretty awesome way to go IMHO, haha. I've tried using 16x 3mm figs on 20mm bases, it's definitely got some potential although it is admittedly kind of fiddly.

Whirlwind16 May 2014 12:52 p.m. PST

For the record, I have long thought that Ancients players, particularly WRG/DBX gamers missed the boat by not basing 15mm and smaller figures on 25mm base sizes and using 25mm distances. That would have greatly to some extent have resolved the figure scale to perceived ground scale problem.
Coincidentally , that base would have had a 60mm frontage and 30mm depth would have been perfect.

I think is pretty much the exact reason why Baccus 6mm ended up pushing it.

Regards

Bandit16 May 2014 12:54 p.m. PST

John the OFM & Whirlwind,

I'd presume that this is because we [wargamers in general] are always chasing larger ground scale because we want to have a bigger table and longer arms than we actual do.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Whirlwind16 May 2014 1:04 p.m. PST

Maybe. I think it was possibly more because having, say, an Early Saxon DBA army of 400 – 500 or so 6mm figures looks quite good compared to 46 28mm figures, showing the small figures off to their best advantage. I think it works quite well for HFG too.

Beacuse DBM typically uses many more elements, you are probably just as well sticking to the smaller base sizes there I think.

Regards

Charlie 1216 May 2014 6:14 p.m. PST

I do recall a friend using the smaller (40mm?) bases for ancients (he was a DBA player until he designed his own rules. Kept the same base size since rebasing had as much appeal as root canal work). When he switched to 6mm he kept the same base size (just more figures per base). I recall his Macedonians were particularly impressive (a Macedonian phalanx block in 6mm is an awesome sight to behold).

Pages: 1 2 3 4