"Elbow-to-elbow look and individual basing?" Topic

I'm becoming interested in games where figures are individually based and then formed up into units. The problem is the base sizes often have to be large enough so the figures won't fall over but then they can't get close enough to get that elbow to elbow look. Or to be in the space their frontage should be in scale.

If any scale and manufacturer was on the table, what would you recommend for getting both a scale frontage per figure and individually based figures?

Or should I be thinking differently about this and looking at having 2 miniatures per the normal one so I can put half on movement trays all close together but then replace them with individually mounted figures when they disperse a little wider or are sent out to skirmish?

28mm figure on a 20mm base

I don't think it's possible to fit 28mm figures into accurate frontages given the heft of most figures.

28mm scale is usually said to be 1/56 scale. The frontage of a British file was 22", which is…56cm as it happens. So a 28mm figure on a correctly-scaled frontage should occupy 1/56 of 56cm, which is of course 1cm.

28mm figures are physically far wider. I struggle to think of many 28mm figures than can be lined up elbow to elbow in 1cm of width. I can squeeze three Elite Miniatures 28mm onto a 4cm wide base. They look fine but they are thus one-third oversized in true scale width. They are actually not far off skirmish-line frontage, which would have been about a yard per man, or 1.6 rather than 1.3cm per man.

It is a very interesting point you raise. 22" is nothing. As a kid we were squeezed onto tables that tight to eat lunch and it was a struggle. GOK what it would have been like loading a musket in the same space, with two guys either side and another in front or behind doing the same…and all under fire.

Are you using 1/56 as your ground scale as well? Highly unlikely I would have thought. I always work on the basis of what frontage would the whole unit occupy on my chosen ground scale; figure scale is irrelevant. Most of us represent a battalion by anything from 12 to 120 figures, depending on period and figure scale. Those figures are then based so that the whole unit has the correct frontage. I do as the OP wants to do for my Dark Age Romano-British and Saxon Armies. Figures are 28 mm scale, I base them on 20mm square magnetic bases and then put 10 figures onto a 10cm by 4cm stell base if I want them as a formed war-band. Cavalry go onto 25mm x 40mm magnetic bases and then four figures on the bigger metal bases. This gives the right look, fits in with ground scale of the game and gives flexibility.

At this point I'm not too concerned about ground scale. What I'm trying to accomplish is having miniatures that take up a scale frontage when in a unit together. For example, 15mm figures at 1:100 would need to fit in just over 6mm. Are the figures that wide or less? 10mm would be just under 4mm. That sort of thing.

At this point I've pretty much come to terms with the fact that I'll have to base them together on a single base to get the elbow-to-elbow look.

Clearly if you have a ground scale in mind, of say 1mm = 1 yard, then my 13mm wide Elite Minis 28mm figure is 13 yards wide, which would be 21 men per figure. That would give you a scale whereby setting out the figures to look right as minis also implies a usable/suitable man/figure scale. It is still the case that the scale width of the figures is wrong though…

for sure – ellbow to ellbow, get the figures as densely psaced as possible on the basis, this then would define the ground scale

This has been a problem with miniatures going back at least to Siborne's Waterloo model (he used a 1 figure: 2 men scale to achieve the correct frontages). 4th Cuirassier's posting (above) has the principle correct. 15mm figures, for example, should be on a 4mm to 5mm frontage, whereas 7.5mm is probably the practical minimum.

Ironically the most accurate depiction, that could be made accurate for both frontage and depth, would be using paper figures or other flats.

I think that the only way miniatures could possibly be realistic is for multi-figure casts to be made of blocks of 4-5 figures. That would look all wrong to most people's eyes!

Still that is no excuse for the near skirmish levels of density that I so often see on the table.

4th, I think your math only applies if the intent is a one to one ratio depiction. Otherwise the actual space occupied by an individual is irrelevant since the depiction is the frontage of a company, battalion etc and then the determination of how many figures will represent said formation.
I get the impression that this question is more about aesthetics of wanting to represent figures individually while still wanting them to appear to be shoulder to shoulder when in formation. Because of the heft of 28's, I do think you will have more success mounting 2 to a stand and keeping the outer edges of the stand tight so that when lined up next to others you get the same impression as you do when you mount the 2 figures on the stand.

As above, base them as tight as you can but ensure the whole line is equally tight. You should get them onto a 15mm frontage per casting and perhaps even tighter, again as mentioned above.

I got my AB 18mm French onto 8mm frontage per casting and some poses are really packed tight shoulder the shoulder. I think this looks good.

cncbump wrote: I get the impression that this question is more about aesthetics of wanting to represent figures individually while still wanting them to appear to be shoulder to shoulder when in formation.

Your impression is accurate.

I've pretty much given up on trying to have individual figures that can then rank up into a tight formation. Now I'm finding that even if I base them as tightly as possible, I'm still not getting that close and it'll be all about an impression.

So it looks like a lot of miniatures will fit in about 50% of their height. Here's a 10mm Nassau figure from Pendraken

If the soldier is 5'6" then that 5mm would represent 33", so it's actually quite close to the 24" target. Half height vs 36% of height.

Here's a Victrix Austrian:

42%. That's even closer. Looks like 28mm might be the way to go for the packed in look.

I'm still a bit confused here.

You can't reliably cast correctly-proportioned figures in metal. You can in injected plastic, so HaT (for example) do correctly-proportioned British Light infantry

although if you met the two on the right in real life you'd consider them a bit chubby. Preiser do accurate HO civvies

- but most plastic sculptors design figures that have the exactly the same dodgy proportions as metals, either to blend in with them, or because they've internalised the idea that that is what a model soldier should look like.

Thus the miniatures we game with are all well overscale in width. Looking at the Victrix Austrian above, if he's 11.75mm across, then he's at least 6mm across the waist. If your waist is more than 50% of your height, you're unhealthy. Herr Victrixegger has a waistline of about 19mm, or nearly 68% of his height. He's 5'6" tall with a 44" waist, and must be considered the prime suspect here in the disappearance of all the pies. The Pendraken Nassau guy is even worse: his waist is 79% of his height. He has a spectacular 52" waist.

Essentially these figures are all morbidly obese. So any attempt to create a line of say 20 of these figures, who occupy the correct scale frontage per 1/56 scale man, is doomed to failure, because they're all fat blokes who'd never have fitted into that frontage in real life. The biggest dangers they face in battle are not enemy fire, but high blood pressure, stroke, and obesity-related prostate, cholesterol and triglyceride issues.

What I was getting at above is that in effect you can turn it all at right angles and derive another view of the scale of the figure from its width rather than its height. I.e in the case above, Herr Victrixegger is 11.75mm wide which would have been 22" so he's 1/48 scale.

So he's either a fat bloke or he's mixed scales: 1/56 in height, 1/48 in width (if one wanted to deem him to be 1/48 in all axes, then he's 4'5" tall). If that scale mixing seems a bit weird, consider the Airfix model of La Haye Sainte, supposedly HO/OO scale, but which is in fact a box-scale wargamers' model that is a different scale in every axis, and none of them is HO or OO or 1/72 (ISTR it's a mix of 1/144, 1/168 and 1/220).

Probably the best figures in terms of proportion are the Airfix, ACTA and Italeri 1/32 scale…the bigger they get, the better they are. Maybe just use re-enactors…?

Essentially these figures are all morbidly obese. So any attempt to create a line of say 20 of these figures, who occupy the correct scale frontage per 1/56 scale man, is doomed to failure, because they're all fat blokes who'd never have fitted into that frontage in real life. The biggest dangers they face in battle are not enemy fire, but high blood pressure, stroke, and obesity-related prostate, cholesterol and triglyceride issues.

Best post ever 4th Cuirassier.

I may end up doing 1/72 plastics. They should rank up nicely and should also provide me with enough other poses for if the formation disperses into skirmishers like in games like Sharp Practice.

Though I am being tempted by figures that come in blocks like Irregular.

Line of battle troops had the file interval ("pitch") at 24" to 27". I think our figures should be based that way, rather than the near skirmish spacing that most rulesets prefer. It gives a better look and guards wargamers from assuming maneauvers are okay that would have been impossible. A bad thing is that it cost more to buy and paint more figures.

Unfortuately, you can't even really cram the figures in that close. I use 8mm spacing of 15mm figures (playing General de Brigade), which is as close together as I can stuff the figures. Calculating the scale as 1:108, that 8mm pitch comes out to 33 inches figure-to-figure. Not 24"->27". It is as good as you can do.

It is probably the same for the 25/28mm figures.

"Line of battle troops had the file interval ("pitch") at 24" to 27". I think our figures should be based that way, rather than the near skirmish spacing that most rulesets prefer."

Yes indeed, use a miniature to real figure ration, then place the whole miniatures in a line, that will define your table top ground scale, example, a French battalion of 720 soldiers formed in three ranks would cover 240 men per rank – about 120 meters of real ground – in case you take 1 : 40 miniature to real soldiers ratio, 720 soldiers should be 18 minuatures.
Place them as densley spaced in a row add some extras for bases and you will be able to measure the length those miniatures take, this length would be then 120 meter real scale.

Yep. I pack mine in as close together as they'll go, which wny the high port position is so handy.

Von W has the right idea, but unfortunately, when you think it all the way through you are forced to conclude that it means a substantial rewrite of your rules per figure size. For example, 18 x 28mm miniatures will occupy more space than 18 x 15mm miniatures, but in game terms, it's deemed to be 120 metres in each case.

So if your unit can move 120 metres per turn, that's going to be a shorter distance with the 15mm figures than the 28s. And so all the artillery ranges need to be proportionately shortened .

I found exactly this with the old Quarrie rules. He says put 3-deep lines on an 8mm base per figure, but the smallest I can manage is 40mm per 3, which is 67% too much. I therefore need to inflate the cavalry bases from 33mm per two figures to 55mm, to maintain the correct proportions, and the movement distances too. Otherwise the longer lines would not take the right number of moves to wheel.

Gahh. I start to understand why there are people who do trolls and sci-fi.

So it looks like 2mm and 3mm won't really solve the issue either. Even when presented with the opportunity to cram every soldier together into blocks the 2mm stuff still has like a 50% (or more) waist to height ratio. And the 3mm stuff has big gaps between each miniature on the strips.

It might be that I'll have to get into 3d design and then make my own blocks at somewhere between 2mm and 6mm or so and have them 3d printed and/or cast.

3mm can get you to about a 4:3 soldier:casting ratio, check out Forward March Studio's work in 3mm.

4th Cuirassier:
The simple solution to your problem is to make ranges and movement a multiple of your base width.
If you get the width of your units right, the number of figures is irrevelant. Doesn't matter if they are two deep or three deep; just make a battalion occupy the correct frontage and everything will work.

Lion in the Stars: 3mm can get you to about a 4:3 soldier:casting ratio, check out Forward March Studio's work in 3mm.

I've seen his stuff. I think this picture sums up what I'm going for:

So I think I'm just going to design and print my own. I may not go for 3mm. Perhaps they'll end up being true 6mm or something.

Basically I think it's possible that at some height that would work on the table top to design a block of troops that are both close together and proportioned so their foot print is in scale. Perhaps it would be better as a strip:

Obviously I'll be designing from scratch. An advantage of 3d is that I just need to make one of the guys and then replicate them.

A rectangular base, with the short sides as front and back would help you get the shoulder to shoulder look and have stabiity.

I use 25mm square bases and like it but I know what you mean by not looking shoulder to shoulder.

Try cutting some card bases 20mm by 25mm, slap them on some figures and have a go. Monkey with the size until you are comfortable and then either make them yourself or have someone like Sarissa Precision cut them for you.

Bob

@ Dexter

That's an interesting idea. My bases are different per nation. Austrians are five figures per company, based in one three- and one two-figure base. French are three per company, based like Austrian threes. Two-deep British would be on a base the same size as a French or Austrian three, but there'd only be two figures on it.

Constructively I've sort of done what you're saying though. Your way may well work better. So an 18-figure French battalion three-deep would have been 200 men x 22" wide = 122 yards wide. 18 miniatures would take up 24cm so in effect 1cm = 5 yards.

I'd been on 1cm = 10 yards, so in effect this halves the size of the playing space, which has other consequences (eg the whole table is likely to be inside artillery ranges).

Well, looks like I secured access to a 3d printer. It'll be interesting to see if I can make human proportioned miniatures. My idea of ones that can be individually based and rank up is a pipe dream, but strips already elbow to elbow is something I'm going to try at a few different scales.

Minifigs used to produce 5mm figures in blocks. An infantry block was 24 infantry figures in three ranks of 8 files. The block frontage was 0.5" so the file width to file height was 32% or approximately 21" per file. Never caught on, unfortunately.

Allan

Post pics, especially once you get it painted. I'd love to see what you work out.

I'm still fighting between 3mm Forward March style and 18mm AB (and compatible).

The minifigs blocks sound great. I found some pictures by searching and they're definitely in the direction I'm going now that I've given up on ranking up individual figures. The nature of 3d printing and print on demand means it's okay if my own designs don't catch on either. Whether I end up in 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6mm will depend entirely on how design iterations go once I'm printing them. It could be that while I might want 5mm, the layers the printer does might not polish properly but work in 4mm.

I want to avoid the horizontal lines that dominate low end 3d prints and while polishing and slowing the printer down can help eliminate them, there is a design side to that as well. If I can do it right, I might be able to make something that will work at 6mm and then make a modified version for 3mm. Then I'll paint them up and see which I like better.

I will definitely post pictures as I go. I'm also contemplating starting a youtube series to document everything from design to the end result of a painted army.