Help support TMP


"Latest blog post on basing choices" Topic


7 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.

Please don't make fun of others' membernames.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Blogs of War Message Board

Back to the Napoleonic Painting Guides Message Board


Areas of Interest

General
Napoleonic

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Bataille Empire


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Profile Article

Report from Bayou Wars 2006

The Editor heads for Vicksburg...


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


873 hits since 27 Sep 2014
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Simon J Kidd27 Sep 2014 12:26 p.m. PST

Starting to turn my thoughts towards what basing convention to use for my napoleonics adventure. My thoughts so far are here .

miniaturesblog.wordpress.com

Cheers

Simon

MajorB27 Sep 2014 12:56 p.m. PST

Black Powder units with 25/28mm figures usually have a frontage of 24cm (24 figures mounted 4 to a base, with each base 4cm wide). If you are going to halve all ranges then you really want to aim at units having a frontage of ~12cm. Wider than that and you will find that you run out of space rather quickly.

Fire at Will27 Sep 2014 11:08 p.m. PST

Option 2 works the best for French 6 company organisation, but option 1 gives better compatibility with cavalry basing (same base width with 2 figs)

marshalGreg29 Sep 2014 11:35 a.m. PST

It is what you feel gives you the most:
1) Looks good
2) compatibility to the most rules ( when there is not a specific one your club plays).
I am in a similiar place except, I am also trying to resolve the issue between forces that fought in 2 rank vs those in 3 and presenting that difference on the table.

To me 3 rank troops were about shoulder to shoulder and crowded- it looks napoleonic ( and less amount of & time adding all that flocking to the base, which is best).
I am contemplating a similar to your OPt1 by placing 6 on a 25mm x 20mm base and 2 rank, 4 on a 25 x 14mm base.
Like Fire at Will said, it works best with the cav., 2 on a similar size base width.

MG

Simon J Kidd29 Sep 2014 12:39 p.m. PST

Thanks,

I was erring to 40mm x 30mm. 8 figures a base. As per lassale 32 figures looks impressive and works with black powder.

But now I'm not sure, will 16cm frontage be too wide for my table.

Interesting decisions

marshalGreg29 Sep 2014 2:21 p.m. PST

ADV to 24 fig unit
1) Looks better for march column and att col. with smaller width to depth per base.
2) more units on your table size.
3) Can make more units at 24 vs 32, for qty of Figs painted.

MG

Widowson02 Oct 2014 12:40 p.m. PST

I use some basic principles when determining basing widths of units. Most importantly, the closer together your figures and smaller the width of your base, the "larger" your tabletop will be. So I begin by determining how close together I can base 3-rank infantry figures. That will determine your ground scale.

Secondly, if you base your figures in 2 ranks, you essentially double your ground scale. But this only works well with 15mm or smaller figures in larger numbers. I would say a minimum 24-figure battalion (or "unit"). This, of course, will drastically increase the depth scale distortion, but it matters less with the smaller figures.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.