"Rules moving from single to double ranks of figures?" Topic

This is my experience and observations, so yours may be different … Back when I started gaming in the 70s, other than the big battalion Charles Grant type guys, figures were in a single rank. A unit of 12-16 figures would be lined up in one rank. AWI, Naps, and ACW. It was the norm. At some point in time (and I don't know when) the norm became placing figures two ranks deep. I think two ranks is more pleasing to they eye but, considering problems of ground scale and figure ratios, the single rank better represents a unit's actual footprint.

I'm tinkering with some rules ideas and I was looking at my old figs mounted on single rank stands and comparing them to some double rank figs I purchased off the marketplace and it occurred to me that double rank mounting for the age of blackpowder is the norm, so I decided to make a rambling post …

If you're going to spend all that time and money on an intensely visual hobby, it only makes sense to make it look good!

Scale be damned, I want my games to be pretty.

The Doubling Up started with rules that played with units higher than the battalion. Partly to the "look" partly to the "footprint".

Single rank troops tended to have the right Frontage, but Unit depth was skewed (generally to high).

Stand depth started to increase with scale creep in the figures. You would find it hard to place current 25mm (or 15mm) figures on WRG 6th bases.

Each to his own taste, I guess, but I'm going to mount my current Napoleonic 28s in single rows. With tweaks to the scale, I can do a 1:20 game like GdeB with fairly accurate unit frontages and depths. Big win imho.

I do understand why "make it look good!" is important (I spend a lot of time painting these guys), but to me, French and Russians in ranks of two look equally as far as off as singly-ranked troops.

The number of figures on a base and how they are arranged is largely irrelevant for rules where resolution is by base. Arrange them how you like.

To be clear, I am not asking for opinions on how to base them (but yes, it is something I struggle with). Back in the day, we never played rules in which combat was determined by the base; the number of figures was always relevant. I'm just looking for conversation on the shift (IME) from figures mounted in single ranks to figures mounted in double ranks, if that is something others have observed, and what they think the cause/s for the shift is.

The popularity of Napoleon's Battles and Johnny Reb, then Fire & Fury is what made us start doubling up. Single rank games never took off after that for general Horse & Musket era games.

Age of Reason may be an exception, but then British Grenadier came out, sealing the deal on two ranks.

People seem to enjoy the depth of a unit I suppose. A unit in two ranks somehow looks better to some. I personally think linear warfare is better served by a single rank of miniatures. It does look more like a line of figures, especially when units have a relatively short frontage.

A trend that occurred roughly at the same time is the abandonment of the single pose figures themselves. Old Glory deserves considerable credit for displacing what before had been readily available in the shops: Minifigs, Hertiage, Napoleonettes, etc. How will I get all these lovely sculpts in play?

The popularity of Wargames Illustrated and Miniature Wargames fed into that too somewhere by focusing on Grand Manner style games in their pictorials.

I find the double rank style off-putting to the point it was a major factor in why I did not follow my fellows into playing Napoleon At War.

I've never understood the argument that the depth looks wrong in a double rank.

Whatever size figures you use, the horse figures are at least twice as deep as the foot figures. That's just a fact. And cannon models are deeper still.

So even if you don't double rank your infantry, your cavalry and artillery bases are still at least that depth, and now they look wonky because you've got different base depths all over the place, which in turn messes up rules for things like "flanking" (since deeper bases have more flank and are thus easier to flank.)

Double ranking your infantry means that you can now have them the same depth as your cavalry and artillery bases. That allows you to use a standard base size, which in turn solves a lot of rules glitches when it comes to things like flanking, wheeling, movement rates, and so on.

The depth looks wrong in double ranks, to me, when you start to consider all the historical formations. For example, units based in two ranks make for squares that are a jumbled mass of bases, unless the units are very large. They also look wrong when attack columns are formed on a typical two company frontage as the double ranking makes the column deeper than wide and yet the real thing was wider than deep. This gets even worse if you form an attack column of a single company frontage.

Given how popular Waterloo is as a battle to refight how do you deploy your two ranks of models to depict the four deep line the British used in some places on the battlefield without the model unit looking like a short stumpy attack column?

The other advantage of single ranks basing is that you do actually have more space on the table and the higher formations look far better. So for example, you can deploy a division with front and supporting ranks at the correct interval without it looking daft.

The thing I don't understand is often people will criticise single rank basing saying it looks thin and too much like a skirmish line. But that's exactly how a real battalion in line would look, like a long thin and apparently frail ribbon which would actually have less not greater depth than a skirmish line.

To answer the OP my guess is as noted above – Gilder's Grand Manner and holiday centre seemed to be quite inspiring to many to go down the big battalions route. I grew up playing Quarrie and using single rank basing.

Now when I see double rank basing I think of it as a waste of half an army that's doesn't make for a better playing game. Most armies take so long to paint, why double the pain for no real gain?

I also think that single rank basing is more common and accepted in the US than it is in the UK.

What Timmo said.

Timmo said it quite well.

Also, consider:
1) In ancients, the double rank looks good.
2) in H&M, the double rank looks good if you are forming some sort of attack column. As a line, not so mucch, especially when you see what a line of infantry actually looks like in practice.
3) Double ranked skirmish stands just look wrong.

Interesting comments so far.

I agree with you on ancients, and it is the only time period from "back then" in which I remember using multiple ranks in units.

I have actually moved from Timmo's attitude to Peter Gilder's. I like double ranks. I'm moving all of my ancients to Impetus-size basing, my Napoleonics are all based for GdB, my AWI troops are in single ranks on the stands but doubled in play (RFnF or GoL), etc.

I came to this POV because I started experimenting with computer and board games, and decided that both have much cleaner and better simulation value than miniatures games possibly can. However, in the end the visual aesthetic is what really gets me interested in gaming, so now I prefer the look of massed armies of toy soldiers marching through busy miniature terrain, and when I'm running the game I just use rules mechanisms that mitigate the issues of excessive base depth.

- Ix

It always seemed to me to be part of the 28mm Eye Candy resurgence that started at least ten years ago or so. When I started gaming, 28mm figures were the rarity, but their resurgence – it seems largely fueled by cheap plastics and a move to smaller games – has dominated the print media for quite a while.

Garth is 1000% correct

It's all about pretty … if not … play a board game.

Mike B

But pretty is subjective. As noted above, there are people who find single ranks pretty. Would you pass up a game you would otherwise play because the figures are mounted in single ranks rather than double ranks?

If you find single ranks pretty, go for it. For me it looks like some dudes holding hand, waituing for the merry go round.

A greek phalanx in DBA looks absolutely silly. I have based my DBA elements with two ranks and it looks like an army.

It is a visual thing, but the whole miniature hobby is about aesthetic.

Ancients are another matter entirely.

For me; 2 ranks look prettier in h&m games although 1 rank would give a better/more accurate footprint. Others don't like it. So probably, as a lot of things in wargames, it is a personal thing.

Like the OP I started gaming in the 1970's. I started out with units in multiple ranks as that was what WRG ancients did. Later versions with different grades or weapon types re-enforced the use of multiple ranks as did absorption of push back rules.

I prefer the look of units with more than one rank, but I understand that it plays merry hob with unit footprints, making them overly deep. This in turn impacts the space between supporting lines (if you use them). My solution is to use a base size for a larger scale with multiple ranks of a smaller scale figure. This gives the best of both worlds unless you are using 28mm figures where you would probably need 54mm base sizes and a game table the size of a football field!