"Figure Scale: Cavalry versus Infantry" Topic

Simple question: do you use rules that use a different figure scale ratio for cavalry than you do for infantry? For example: 1:20 for infantry but 1:30 for cavalry.

If you use rules that don't specify a figure scale, have you done the math from OOBs and found that the ratio for infantry is lower for infantry units than it is for cavalry units?

Thanks in advance.

Across a Deadly Field, John Hill's last ACW rules, use 1:60 for Infantry and 1:30 for Cavalry.

Don't see that a figure : no in a unit scale has any bearing on any of the rules I use. I'd be mildly interested to see why you think it important.

Most of the rules I use are based on bases not individual figures and as such will have variable scale ratios in some cases since it depends on how many figures I choose to put on a base

the number of figures on a base *can* serve several functions.

Primarily, they can indicate the type of unit they represent
eg 4 figures per base for Heavy Infantry, 3 for medium, 2 for Light. In my SYW rules, the number of gunners serving the piece indicate the weight of the cannon &, hence, the number of dice thrown for firing.

I think they also provide a visual reminder of the structure of the unit. A base of closely packed figures representing a phalanx should have more figures than a loose group of Light cavalry.

To answer the OP, in some of the rules I use, there is a different figure ratio. Most notably, the number of figures representing 50 infantrymen, 30 cavalrymen & 5 artillerymen or staff for our Napoleonic set.

If you use figures on bases to play Lost Battles then you have different ratios depending not only on whether they are cavalry or infantry but whether the troops are veteran, average or levy as well.

It's very common with equipment, but less so with different arms. You do get into some problems with tight formation horse & musket because we often don't use the historical numbers of ranks, but usually either there's a set figure:man ratio and the bases are adjusted to match frontage, or as ochoin points out, the base represents a set frontage and the number of castings on it conveys other information, and not a set number of men.

You can still have an answer, even if you have an unspecified number of figures per base by examining the number of infantry or cavalry is represented by a single base. For example, if all of your units use three bases each, and your units represent about 500 per unit, then the ratio is the same. But if you then proceed to put triple the figures on for infantry than you do cavalry then your cavalry ratio is 3:1 for the infantry.

@GildasFacit: did I say it was important?

This question stems from how I have been painting my 6mm units. I pretty much stuck with the old Baccus/Polemos system, which is one base equals one battalion of infantry or one regiment (or 2-3 squadrons) of cavalry. I then went to the Waterloo OOB to see what I have done and what remains. I started looking at the numbers and at the figure counts. The Royal Horse Guards, for example, are well represented by a regiment of 9 figures (at 1:20 ratio), but the 1st Dragoon Guards are not (closer to 27 figures). So, if I want to represent the units at 1:20 my 1st Dragoon Guards actually needs to be three standard Baccus cavalry units.

Which then got me to wondering whether the Polemos rules (which I could not find) actually used a different figure scale than it did for infantry, accounting for the fact that Polemos/Baccus infantry units are almost 3 times larger than their cavalry counterparts.

I remembered seeing other rules use different scales for infantry and cavalry, but now I am finding it was the exact opposite of what I thought, which is that a cavalry figure represents FEWER men and horses than with infantry, not MORE. Even more interesting.

My conclusion so far is that I think I would rather use a more constant ratio. This would result in more cavalry being painted. However, that might upset the balance the gamer designer envisioned when they used only 1/3rd of the figures – or bases – for cavalry than they used for infantry.

Simple no?

My response depends upon the rules being used. For some rules, same figure-to-man scale for both cavalry and infantry. For others, different!

I think you'll very seldom find a basing in which the cavalry figure represents fewer real-life men. The thing to keep in mind is French railroad carriages.

No, I'm not kidding. They used to have capacity marking of "40 men/eight horses." (There were still "40&8 societies of WWI vets in my youth.) But think of a given area being room for 40 infantry or eight horses and ask yourself when you last saw an infantry base with FIVE TIMES the figures as a cavalry base of the same dimensions. Two or three to one is much more common.

Anyway, if you want a constant ratio and the designer didn't use one, your obvious option is not to use those rules.

The short answer to the Op is yes, MajorB has already mentioned Lost Battles, but I generally use it when calculating combat equivalences for units but these vary by period eg Napoleonic cavalry brigades are typically around half th strength of an infantry Brigade, whereas a WW1 dismounted cavalry Brigade barely has the rifle strength of a single battalion.

I tought men:figure ratios as a driving factor for rules design were a thing of the past. It always struck me as very awkward, since you get entangled with figure sizes and hence base width per figure etc.

The right way to go is to decide on a footprint for a unit, then decide how many figures you want on that footprint as a visual representation, then derive the men:figure ratio as a side-effect.

If you build a house, do you compute the number of bricks you need based on the size of the house, or is the size of the house determined by the number of bricks you want to use?

Ratios can be helpful, although I tend to do it by base, not by figure.

It only really matters if combat resolution is by figure (real Old School!).

A uniform figure ratio is a must for me, as much as a defined terrain scale and weapon ranges accordingly.

But that's just me.

It depends on the rules. However, if the attempt is something historical, the forces have to be divided into units, the number of infantry/troopers determines how many units you will have.

Any number of rules [my guess is the majority of pre-20th century rules] have unit strengths/combat power/losses until non-functioning all predicated on the number of men in the unit.

It also has to do with frontages. You simply can't get the same number of horses lined up on a front as infantrymen.

So, numbers of men per stand = numbers of units = combat power = frontages of individual stands.

And then other rules either subsume those issues [including them, but abstracting them, such as three bases is a battalion, any battalion or a division with X men will have five bases compared to a weaker division, though actual men per stand are ignored.]

Of course, some rules and obviously, gamers ignore the issues altogether.

Whatever floats your boat.