Lucius | 25 Apr 2016 3:32 p.m. PST |
I've got a 20-year-old matched pair of Foundry Republican Roman/Carthaginian armies that I'm breathing new life into by re-basing and adding shield transfers. They are currently mounted WRG-style, about 700 figures total. I've been following the thread on Republican Roman rules with interest. I'm open to trying to find something to make them seem more, well, Roman. So the question is: Should I mount the Romans 1 x 4(rectangular), as in the the old WRG basing, or should I mount them 2 x 2, on square bases? It seemed like heresy to me at first, but I'm warming to the square basing idea. It seems like it would give me more flexibility. Individual basing is out, and I've never been a fan of movement trays/sabots. So if you only had two options, 1x4 basing, or 2x2 basing, which way would you go? |
Phillius | 25 Apr 2016 5:31 p.m. PST |
I think, as do other gaming buddies, that the 2x2 approach has a lot going for it. Using the wonderful sabots from Shogun Miniatures, you could use them for To The Strongest, Impetus, or many other sets (or just go without sabots if you really don't like them). All of my ancients and early Italian Wars figures are based for DBx, which I enjoy, but they don't have the flexibility. |
Johnp4000 | 25 Apr 2016 5:32 p.m. PST |
I always find the 2 x 2 option is the most flexible, fortunately nowadays rules aren't always as strict to base sizes as in the WRG days.I tend to play WAB and sometimes Hail Caesar and this base size fits both with no problems. |
Oregon01 | 25 Apr 2016 6:16 p.m. PST |
2 X 2. Triarii you may want to go one deep as I believe (from memory so double check) they deployed in half the depth of the other heavy infantry. |
gavandjosh02 | 26 Apr 2016 2:42 a.m. PST |
yes – reportedly 3 ranks vs. 6 (but fewer in number so same frontage). |
BigRedBat | 26 Apr 2016 4:17 a.m. PST |
I think the 2x2 but with shallower triarii 2x1 would work nicely. You might even try 4x2 and 4x1- bigger bases save time and wear when getting the minis on the table. |
Mars Ultor | 26 Apr 2016 5:45 a.m. PST |
2x2 works well for no movement tray |
Decebalus | 26 Apr 2016 6:38 a.m. PST |
I am a big fan of BigRedBats basing style, i.e. WRG width but more depth. I base 6cm wide and 5cm deep, using from 5 to 8 miniatures. It looks really good and is even usable for DBA: |
BigRedBat | 26 Apr 2016 6:48 a.m. PST |
I've been kicking around a different basing idea for a similar task that lies ahead of me. I'm thinking of basing 7-8 hastati along with 3-4 velites on the same 10cm wide, 8cm deep base. The velites would be in front and to the right of the hastati. 10 such units would form the front line of the legion. Behind them would be principes, each on the right of a similar sized base so as to cover the gaps in the front line. The triarii would be on a much shallower base to the rear, in a single rank. Essentially the hastati and associated velites would act as a single unit with both javelin and melee capabilites, as would the principes/velites. Big bases, though; probably not what you are after! |
BigRedBat | 26 Apr 2016 6:49 a.m. PST |
|
Lucius | 26 Apr 2016 6:56 a.m. PST |
Thanks to all! I'm finally liberated from WRG basing. Which is strange, because I never played WRG games, but played Tactica and Armati instead. At any rate, I'm looking forward to experimenting with my 2x2 Roman army. Oregon01 – thanks for the suggestion on keeping the triarii in one line. |
Soldat | 26 Apr 2016 7:04 p.m. PST |
I based all my Romans on washers. So if I want to rebase them all I need are new bases with sabot holes. |