Yellow Admiral | 09 May 2016 7:05 p.m. PST |
…Whether 'tis nobler in the game to bear the shells and salvoes of outrageous protractor angles, or to take action against a sea of mismeasurements and by basing end them… Enough of that silliness. Rather than continue this discussion under a totally unrelated topic, I thought I'd start a new thread so others would see it and perhaps join in. In this thread, I noted that I don't base my 1/2400 scale WWI and WWII naval miniatures, to which A C London responded: Yellow Admiral,I'm with you 90 percent of the way on bases. They get in the way. Unlike figures in land games, ship models tend to be as large or too large for the ground/ sea scale without them. Also, rectangles of sea, 20 or so scale ft above the rest of the ocean and, oftentimes, rougher and a different colour from it spoil the look of things. However… I mostly play ironclads, at 1200 scale. When properly rigged the models are robust-enough to take little damage in transit or play. Distinctive shapes and colours make it hard to muddle one with another. I'm just starting some 1:3000 WWI models and wonder if I can get away without bases? Problem being that there were so many in each class and each class looks so much like the last class. And they were all grey. Thinking particularly of the RN, were there visual clues to help tell a ship from her sister? Prominent funnel stripes would help. Something like turret tops painted in different colours for air-recognition would be even better. Clutching at straws, Alan For me it mostly comes down to size and utility. I prefer not to see wakes on ships that are supposed to be at anchor or drifting. However, when the models get small enough, I do base them. All of my 1/6000 scale ships are based, as are all of my 1/2400 scale AoS miniatures and 1/3000 scale pre-dreadnought era vessels. Conversely, I doubt I'll ever base my 1/600 scale miniatures (Armada period and Ironclads), except maybe boats. I'm still debating about basing my 1/2400 WWI DDs. They're really small, and I'd like to be able to create the forces I need by re-labeling my painted stuff instead of painting hundreds of the little things. There were a LOT of DDs in WWI… I really don't want to collect them all. I also debate about my 1/1200 scale AoS miniatures. I probably will end up basing them, because I have a scheme in mind for tracking damage and status that would benefit from bases, and it would help protect the fragile tophamper during handling and storage. Meanwhile, I probably won't base my 1/1200 ironclads. - Ix |
Yellow Admiral | 09 May 2016 7:26 p.m. PST |
BTW, I totally agree about the appearance of bases spoiling the look of the game. I try really hard to make my bases blend into the sea surface. I prefer to see the ships, not rectangles of blue arrayed across the ocean. - Ix |
Striker | 09 May 2016 7:36 p.m. PST |
I don't like to base my microarmor but I base my 1/2400 IJN ships. I can put labels on them and they're the blue I use is close enough for me. It also helps to keep small bits from getting mashed or bent. For my 1/600 PT boats I'll probably base as well (labels and if I put extra detail on them). |
21eRegt | 09 May 2016 8:15 p.m. PST |
I base all my ship models, regardless of scale. I want to minimize the time spent in contact with my models by my greasy-fingered, ham-handed friends. Move it by the base guys, move it by the base. |
Hazza31B | 09 May 2016 9:21 p.m. PST |
Basing all the way. Be it 1/2400, 1/1200, 1/256 or 15mm figs. Adds more to the model, helps protect it etc. If its done right it shouldnt spoil the look of the game. |
Sailor Steve | 09 May 2016 9:22 p.m. PST |
I base everything I build, but then everything I build is 1/2400. I tend to use thin plastic for the bases, and blue felt for the water. |
Bunkermeister | 09 May 2016 9:25 p.m. PST |
I have vast numbers of 1/2400 scale ships for WWII and I don't base any of them. Too much work, don't like the look, don't like that they sit up on a little pedestal. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
Martin Rapier | 09 May 2016 11:09 p.m. PST |
I base the lot. I can write the names and classes of the ship's on them, and the painted on wakes beak up the monotony of the blue cloth:) |
John Armatys | 10 May 2016 1:53 a.m. PST |
I also base – in addition to the advantages mentioned above it gives a flat surface large enough to fix the magnabase to for safer transport and storage. |
Pontius | 10 May 2016 2:53 a.m. PST |
I have have 300+ 1/3000 ships for WW2. Originally none were based but I have experimented with various materials for some units. As a result I will probably go for a thin transparent bases in future. The majority of my ships are more than 30 years old and most are starting to show their age, so I shall base them as I get around repainting. As for names; these are currently written on the underside with a draftsman's pen and indelible ink and I see no reason to change. Large ships have subtle differences in paint scheme to tell them apart and for flotilla craft I keep a record of the formation if necessary. Besides when ships are part of an imagi-nations battle they are no longer "Warspite" or "Glasgow" but "Archduke Cutler" or "Diltonia". |
Bill Rosser | 10 May 2016 3:03 a.m. PST |
I am working on basing right now for my 1/1250 scale Pre-dreadnoughts. First tried a tile (6x3) black with a blue painted top. Angled sides (subway tile). Looked to much like a display model, but was easily lifted/carried, had heft, protected the masts and small guns, and had a side that could be used to label the ship. It was close but not what I really wanted. I have since purchased some 5x2 clear plastic stands (1/4" thick). So far I like them, but the thickness does detract from my sea scape table covering. They are easy to pick up, and provide protection, but I am thinking of going to 1/8" thickness. Still looking for an ideal. |
Cosmic Reset | 10 May 2016 4:22 a.m. PST |
I don't base mine, 1/2400 and larger. |
Yesthatphil | 10 May 2016 4:48 a.m. PST |
I always base (just a bit behind at the moment ) Phil |
freerangeegg | 10 May 2016 6:29 a.m. PST |
I base my 1/1200 on the thin clear bases from ODGW, and am very pleased with them. They are unobtrusive, protect the model a bit and let you put a label on to make the ships easily identifiable in a game |
A C London | 10 May 2016 8:15 a.m. PST |
Yellow Admiral, Thanks for posting this. It's a perennial, an ever-fascinating question. As it's largely a matter of aesthetics there are no right or wrong answers and we'll keep on debating it. For me, there are few things are more pleasing than the look of a ship at sea. The attraction lies in the ship, in the sea and the relationship between the ship and the sea. A model, sitting properly on a table at or about its waterline can come close to that. Anything that gets between the model and the table gets in the way. Esp if it's an odd blue rectangular barge with 20 or so ft of freeboard and a turbulence of waves washing over its deck, turbulent waters that don't appear elsewhere on the ocean. But I know that others feel differently about this; and that there are practical arguments for bases, esp for smaller models. Another consideration is the need to conform to what the rest of one's gaming group are doing. I based my 2400 WWII models because everybody else at my club had and, if there's anything worse than all the ships moving around on barges, it's 7/8th of the ships moving around on barges. Tho I'd say that another argument against basing. All unbased models are compatible with all other unbased models and with any sea / table surface. If you move town it's a nuisance to have to rebase to match the cloths / bases at yr new club. I guess that's also a good argument for clear bases, which – to me – look much less bad than any other bases. Alan |
Sundance | 10 May 2016 9:53 a.m. PST |
I based my 1/1250 coastals and associated craft, but not my 1/2400. Just like the look of them as is. |
Shagnasty | 10 May 2016 11:06 a.m. PST |
Base 'em, 1/1200 ACW and !/2400 WW I & II. I use steel bases so they don't stand up. The base can be moved rather than the ship and the bases can be nicely textured with Vallejo's water material. A last benefit is lining the transport boxes with sheet magnet material. The steel keeps them from moving around, highly destructive for the ships. |
steamingdave47 | 10 May 2016 12:21 p.m. PST |
I use 1/3000 for WW1 and WW2 naval. All are based. It makes it easier to store them (magnetic bases) and move them without damage to my beautiful paint jobs! |
Yellow Admiral | 10 May 2016 1:10 p.m. PST |
I guess that's also a good argument for clear bases, which – to me – look much less bad than any other bases. Agreed. Unfortunately, one of the things lost by going with a clear base is magnetization, a clear part of the value of basing. Personally I also refuse to use bases that are 5x the beam of the vessel (I prefer the bases to be just a little wider than the ship), so for small, narrow ships like DDs and some CLs I will basically have to craft my own bases. Since that makes basing into a BIG project, I still haven't lifted a finger to start it… - Ix |
warren bruhn | 10 May 2016 1:15 p.m. PST |
When I was starting out I was playing WW1 naval games with a guy who had his ships based on 1/8 inch rectangular basswood bases with about 1/2 inch of base around the ship model. That 1/2 inch was about the ramming check distance for the rules we were using. His bases looked great, untextured but with bow waves and wakes painted on, with great looking labels. So that's what I did. But recently switched away from doing so much cutting and sanding of basswood. Now I by 3mm laser cut bases from Litko. Saves a lot of work. 1/8 inch or 3mm is thick enough that the model can be picked up by the base, needed to protect the thin barrels on my mostly C-in-C ships. A lot of my growing fleet is already based this way, so no turning back at this point. However, I can see the merit of leaving a fleet of resin Panzerschiffe unbased. Those models are hard to break. |
yarkshire gamer | 10 May 2016 4:22 p.m. PST |
One vote for basing here, and these are my reasons why, 1. It protects the model. I have trouble keeping GHQ masts in place with a base, God knows how I would get on without it. After hours of carefully layering progressively lighter shades of paint and carefully washing ressessed secondary guns do I want someones grubby oily fingers wearing the paint away picking the model up every turn, simple answer No. 2. It gives consistency in measurements. If all ships of the same class are based on the same size base you can ensure (if your rules have turning circles based on class of ship) that ships will turn at the same rate. If you measure base to base then you haven't got tape ends hanging over ship models. If you ever want to see me cry get an expanding metal tape to automatically retract over one of my ships. 3. It allows a name tag to be added. Even amongst us basers this can be controversial, I prefer a simple Light Grey name on a black tag. Reason simple, on table recognition without the need to move the model. Remember those playing the game are not always Naval geeks like us and don't know a Chatham Town Class Cruiser from a Birmingham. 4. It looks good. For me it does anyway, I think the basing I use blends in fairly well with the surface we game on (see above) if there is a massive contrast then you might have a point. 5. If you magnetise them you can use them as fridge Magnets. Having never used unbased ships how do you conduct a turn move ? with no straight edge to turn from or against I can't see how it could be consistent. Viva La Ship Base ! Off to base some more ships for Jutland. Regards Ken yarkshiregamer.blogspot.co.uk |
Kevin in Albuquerque | 10 May 2016 6:34 p.m. PST |
I base my 1:1200 Age of Sail ships … always. Stability on the table, ease of measurement for movement, and greasy paws. |
The G Dog | 10 May 2016 6:48 p.m. PST |
All my 1/600 ironclads are based. |
Mithlond | 11 May 2016 7:53 a.m. PST |
I base mine for much of the same reasons: - stability - durability/protection - measurement However, in games SOME rules are applied with the base, such as movement, while for others – such as collisions – we ignore the base. |
Yellow Admiral | 11 May 2016 11:17 a.m. PST |
Having never used unbased ships how do you conduct a turn move ? with no straight edge to turn from or against I can't see how it could be consistent. We make do and get as close as possible. It's really no big deal. Real life ships drift and slew and crab-crawl anyway, so the lack of precision doesn't bother me. - Ix |
A C London | 12 May 2016 7:13 a.m. PST |
Yes, I don't see the problem in turning un-based ships. You place the circle abreast of the fore funnel or mainmast and move the model around at a tangent to the circle. It might almost be argued that a base makes turning less accurate. As it gets in the way: you are turning the base, not the ship, which is turning on a somewhat larger circle than the rules intend. Tho the distortion will be small and, if all models are on stands of roughly the same breadth, largely immaterial. Have to say that from the posts here, and what I have seen elsewhere, probably a majority of models are now based. I can see also that there are some good arguments for it, esp for some scales and periods. Can't help thinking, tho, that it's in part of a by-product of most naval wargamers also now fighting land battles. There are solid, practical reasons that make basing essential for most land rules. I can't help wondering whether people start with the assumption that basing miniatures is the norm, without wondering how few of those arguments apply at sea. Still, this is more an aesthetic than a practical question, so there are no right or wrong answers. Yr point made about the difficulty of magnatising clear bases – which are less prominent than other bases – is a good one. I once had to base some river craft for a set of land rules which required everything to be on 40mm wide stands; and found that a sliver of magnetic sheet ("magnabase") concealed under each boat (there were two or three to a stand) worked, tho it is not ideal. I magnatise models that can get away without bases by sticking a layer of this stuff underneath them. It's a nice surface to write the ship's name on. It forms a bound strong-enough to hold most ships in transit, provided that you don't hurl the tin at someone, but not so strong as to damage the model when you pull it from the tin. Sailing ships can be a bit unstable, so I usually support them with balks of magnetised packing material. Magnabase is thin, so the slight addition to freeboard is within the margin of accuracy of most models – it shows the ship with slightly less stores / coal / fuel aboard. If the model was riding high already, I will give it a bit of a file to compensate for the thickness of the magnet. Alan PS the Canada is splendid – really well done. Her base is also good, as bases go. I think she'd look even better without it, but do see that Jutland without bases wd be tricky. |
HobbyGuy | 12 May 2016 7:59 a.m. PST |
Personally I have really grown to like these bases because any water service just comes through. They look very nice on any tape and though I thought the reflective nature of plexi would be a drawback but I find it almost never comes into significant concern. When you uses the litko tip of a white crayon on the waves, they really pop out. So easy to base. Glue on, done. Love them. I use a riser matching the width of the base about 1/2 to 1/4 deep depending on the base to put a printed label on. Love them. Great job ODGW. link |
HobbyGuy | 12 May 2016 10:40 a.m. PST |
Wow, some odd typos there sorry. 'These bases' should read 'ODGW bases', 'water service' should be 'water color' and 'any tape' should be 'any surface'. Yikes, must read before submit even when in a hurry… |
hindsTMP | 15 May 2016 7:13 p.m. PST |
Granted that bases can help protect models and make transport easier. However, to my eye, leaving out the rectangles will always "look" better on my table. I am of course referring to the overall view of the battle, and not to single-ship closeups as of those nice models Yarkshire gamer has been posting. WRT to precision of movement, I move using dividers (compass type), and don't worry excessively about precision of turns, which I consider to be relatively unimportant to historical tactics. So if playing my modified GQ-2 with doubled movement allowance (and available again from Navwar in UK), I set the dividers to 5 knot increments, and allow up to a 45-degree turn for each increment if at full speed.
Mark H. (The same old images; maybe I'll take some new ones on the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Denmark Strait). |
CaptainCorcoran | 20 May 2016 4:56 a.m. PST |
I'm very much in the basing camp, for the reason stated above: protecting ships, storage (magnetized bases), enhancing the look of the models, and writing ships names as at 1/2400 telling some apart can be difficult especially for less knowledgeable wargamers. Cheers, Stephen |
49mountain | 20 May 2016 12:31 p.m. PST |
I don't base ACW ships. I do base everything else. Odd? |
devsdoc | 20 May 2016 2:45 p.m. PST |
I'm a baser. Use langton's own for my 1-1200 Napoleonic ships. I add clear Acetate too my 1-2400 ships so I can add the name number of guns and a National flag. The 1-1200 bases let me add the name, keep the ship stable and keeps the ship safe when playing and storing. Be safe Rory |
War Artisan | 20 May 2016 6:31 p.m. PST |
I only base if it's absolutely necessary; that is, if the ships are too small to pick up easily or too tall to stand upright without one . . . and then I make the bases as thin as possible and as much like the playing surface as possible. As far as I'm concerned, the entire purpose of bases, whether for land or naval warfare, is to hold the miniatures upright and then disappear. Wakes, waves, flags and names may make the individual ship look better, but most of the time they distract the eye and detract from the overall look of the game. |
devsdoc | 21 May 2016 4:45 a.m. PST |
For small actions the info on the base is less needed. If you need names etc for "Dual" type game, that is sad. The smaller the scale or the larger the battle (number of ships) the more info you need on the model to help with the flow of the game. It maybe my age, but to remember which ship is which gets harder. Be safe Rory |
hindsTMP | 21 May 2016 11:03 a.m. PST |
It maybe my age, but to remember which ship is which gets harder. This is a common attitude, and the common response is to simplify. However, I have observed in myself and others that memory capability improves with practice, in a manner similar to (but not identical to) strength and cardiovascular capabilities. This is partly due to our need to refresh random memory loss (which probably increases with age), and partly due to our learning improved memory techniques. Hence, deliberately exercising memory capability appears to be worthwhile, especially as we age. Slightly off-topic, but still worth mentioning… MH |
devsdoc | 21 May 2016 2:32 p.m. PST |
My Father died of pneumonia. He got it after breathing in his food. Dementia stopped him remembering how to swallow. Before he ran a large company with million £ contract's with the M.O.D. Slightly off-topic, but still worth mentioning… Rory |
hindsTMP | 21 May 2016 6:57 p.m. PST |
devsdoc, Well, since you brought it up, I'm sorry to hear that, but it doesn't logically or medically follow that (a) you yourself have dementia (which is not a specific disease), and (b) that even if you do, memory exercise is useless. Of course, the point of my comment was to put a positive slant on having to remember which ship was which, thus making it more acceptable to leave names off the bases, or not use bases at all. Of course, in the end, we all do what we think is best. MH |
devsdoc | 21 May 2016 8:13 p.m. PST |
M H It is still roar for me. What you say does not help. To see a man like my father not know what or who he is a hard thing to see and live though. If he could he would of hated himself. That too is sad. I know a little bit about dementia now. So know about your points (a) and (b). You learn very fast. Lets keep to ships or ship bases in this thread. Be safe Rory |
devsdoc | 23 May 2016 3:05 p.m. PST |
I think bases help movement and turning. For range we use main mast to nearest mast. Line of sight we use the ship model. Be safe Rory |
Ottoathome | 24 May 2016 1:41 p.m. PST |
It all depends on what you want. The biggest problem with naval games is the distance of table top needed to give a "feel" of real ships on a real ocean. In my case this facet interests me the least. I have lots of 1:1200 ship and I like to use them and have gone through several smaller collections which I always found unsatisfactory and gave away. For me, I prefer to have the table top BE a tabletop, like one of those tabletops you see in "Sink the bismark" only with 1:1200 models rather than the simple elipses. I also use a gridded game. I also despise ship cards. they are an unsightly and cumbersome and hugely overcomplicated method that I find irksome and inefficient. So in my rules I put all the stats on the base of the ship using inverted brass rivets on which are colored washers, red for fire factors, white for aircraft, gold for torpedoes, green for non critical damage, black for armor and light blue for speed. Works marvelously well. |
hindsTMP | 24 May 2016 11:31 p.m. PST |
Image for 75th anniversary of the battle of the Denmark Strait. Shows Hood and POW just prior to contact (1/6000 Figurehead ships; no bases (names on bottom of models); 25 knot chalk wakes). The latter illustrates to players previous turn's speed and path of movement. Since I use an abbreviated ground scale for WWII (1 inch = 1000 yards), wakes can extend the full path of the previous turn's movement, without appearing excessively long (IMHO).
Mark H. |
Yellow Admiral | 25 May 2016 1:39 p.m. PST |
I also despise ship cards. they are an unsightly and cumbersome and hugely overcomplicated method that I find irksome and inefficient. I assume you mean the individual vessel rosters used to track damage and individual system failure/expenditure so common in naval and spaceship gaming. I actually dislike rosters too, but most naval games basically require them (esp. after the advent of armor), and I prefer to keep detailed information like that off-table in written records. I'm still determined to invent a system of record keeping that is entirely on-table with aesthetically compatible markers for the age of wind and oars, but I haven't finished that project yet. Of the games I've tried by other authors, only War Artisan's game Admirals has achieved that in a way I like. So in my rules I put all the stats on the base of the ship using inverted brass rivets on which are colored washers, red for fire factors, white for aircraft, gold for torpedoes, green for non critical damage, black for armor and light blue for speed. Works marvelously well. I've actually gone the other direction. I've been getting rid of my cartoonish markers, and I now prefer to have the ships on the table look like ships at sea, and the markers to look like sea battle phenomena (fires, explosions, smoke, splashes, boats, floating debris, etc.). I want it to be easy to clear the table of non-aesthetic impedimenta (rules, templates, dice, etc.) for photo ops. That's the goal, anyway… I still use scads of Litko markers for most games, which are on the cartoonish side but got me at least halfway there without a massive series of craft projects. - Ix |