"Offense and Defense" Topic

Another bothersome miniatures problem.
Doesnt it bother players that the miniatures portray only one set of frontaes and depths?
Even considering units of several stands or models we still have many strange frontages and depths. Examples abound. The platoon frontage in Command Decision is 50 meters and its depth also, which I wouldnt object to if there was some kind of zone of control rules to allow the platoon to cover more area in defense. But thus frontage is too narrow even for the offense. And then theres any set of Napoleonics or Ancients where the infantry and cavalry columns are
5 times too deep, voiding a lot of supporting troops and combined arms
It is the figures. Few could afford several sets of figures to portray the several frontages and delths of the various formations
Realism, playability, affordability

Miniature war is hell.

Forget unit bases entirely and use individually based figures. Problem solved! ;-)

The real problem is ground scale.

It all depends on the scale you want to portray and the stand sizes. [obviously figures have to fit, but it is the stand that is the issue.]

For instance, in my set of rules, a stand is one inch wide or 75 yards. The depth is 1/2 or 35 yards. Now, obviously that can't be used for both a column and line if the stand represents @280-300 men in three ranks. And no three-deep line was 35 yards deep. So, what to do.

If, however, two stands represents a battalion, one of twelve in a brigade, then the problem disappears because the brigade frontage and depth is the issue. For the battalions to form an open column down to a closed column, they need the same depth as the frontage of the battalion in line, or 150 yards. With two stands, a battalion with one stand behind the other, that is only 1 inch or 75 yards deep…even with three or four stands deep, it is still within the norm. It is one reason that a supporting line typically was placed 150 or more yards behind the front brigade.

This can be done with the artillery and cavalry, depending on what you want to represent. The problem goes away with the right scale to organizational relationship.

Change the ground scale to 100 yards to the inch and those stands don't work as well. The two stands now represents 200 yard front for what must be a large battalion [800+ men] in line and the depth is too small, the column only 100 yards deep, needing another 100 yards to form an open column.

Lots of designers simply choose to ignore such issues for a variety of reasons, such as look or the size of the figures. That's fine, but it doesn't render the issue unsolvable. It all depends on what you want. Often the feeling is that a particular visual appeal is more important. The current Napoleonic thread with the Battalion-level battle of Lutzen is a good example of a solution, though there are lots of battalions. And of course, the scale requires 6mm figures.

Best not to think of the base as the unit. In CD, the unit is really the company. It's frontage is based on where you place the component stands. Concentrate them and narrow the frontage, spread them out to widen it.

The real problem is ground scale.

I tend to pay great attention to frontages and ignore depth unless a unit is in road column. As a result I've come to be bothered by rules with fixed units (e.g. single stands), except ancients (mostly because a lot of ancients gaming is hand-waving anyway).

- Ix

Best not to think of the base as the unit. In CD, the unit is really the company. It's frontage is based on where you place the component stands. Concentrate them and narrow the frontage, spread them out to widen it.

In other words, it depends on what the component stands represent compared to the ground scale.

As noted above, in CD the basic unit is the company, you show the different footprint by spreading the stands out.

Having said that, I always thought the suggested base sizes were very small, so I put platoons on 100 yard bases.

For most post 1900 situations I usually assume a single stand represents the centre of an element, with subunits distributed around it.

I play skirmish games where 1 28mm figure stands for a number of actual units (depending on the scenario, forces in play, etc.). We actually move figures around to get different frontages.

I use or tried to use three dolutions to the problem of frontages and depths. For the 1 to 1 WW2 ish skirmish game a 1 to 100 or 200 ground scale with single fihure basing. Problem is that like Crossfire a tifle can shoot across most or all of a 6 foot table so the game is dounle blind umpired with lots of terrain. But introduce armor or artillery and it is no good. And more than a platoon, 35 troops and you get WWI. After a CD game some years ago, someone asked Chadwick, I was there, what he preferred, his CD miniatures or his First Battle boardgane and he prferred the boardgame for infantry.
The frontages in the boardgame are variable and betteras each counter covers a hex 250 meters across and by stacking one can mass for an attack. The same said for the other arms.
But you cant stack miniatures.
So the second solution as Chadwick would not alter basing was for zones of control, which failed after mucb discussion. The idea that the real component element is the company fails as there are usually only four platoo s, not enough to cover the thousand yard of frontage or depth. So the real component is the battalion, reinforced, to cover the gaps and provide the second and third lines in defense, and for the attack, pfovixe the numbers. One of Chadwicks solutions was to increase the firepower and to decrease unit surviability. This helped close the gaps, but with a cost
As fof depth, well years ago when developing Zuparkos Vive L Emperuer, I proposed that columns could represe t true depth by temporarily removing some of the rear stands, to which the playtesters protested, representing as they did, the hobby. But it solved key combined arms issues, too bad
It was the figures as well as ground scale.
And it is also an aesthetic, after all, I painted those figures and they Will be on the table even though the real 20th century general would only see a fraction of his own troops, or even a company commander or an admiral
So I get it. If it isa choice between playable miniatures and perhaps less playable ut certainly a more empty battlefield, well the hobby usually opts for the former, with many more solo games than umpired, many more figures on the table even for skirmish games. The hidden sniper ai t so hidden after all.