"1/3000 base sizes" Topic

Just wondering if there is a 'standard' base size for 1/3000 naval at all? My impression is that there isn't, but I've picked up a few ships and don't want to start on a scheme that might turn out to be a little too 'unique'.

Thanks in advance,
Aaron

I don't think there is a standard size. The naval rules I use measure from bridge to bridge, the bases are just a convenient way of moving the ships around the table and identifying them (I put miniature ensigns on the bases, with the ship's name on it). I standardised mine by class of ship. Will check what I used later today.

I don't have WW1/2 stuff but pre-dreadnoughts. I use a standard 50x25mm and 25mm is a unit of movement in the rules so movement and manoeuvre is made easy. Not all ships fit, some large cruisers need a larger base – but I haven't go to painting any of those yet so not sure how i'll get round it, probably a 75x25 base.

I put my labels along the length of the base.

I have mostly pre-dreadnoughts, and, like Gildas, they are mostly on 50x25mm bases, with the smaller ships on smaller bases.
My WWI stuff are mostly on 75x25, though some ships need 80x25.

Thanks gents, sounds like 25mm width is the way to go, and adjust length as needed.

I've never noticed a standard basewidth across rule sets.

I prefer not to have too much base area around the miniature, so I settled on 20mm width for my 1/3000 scale pre-dreadnought collection. I use even narrower bases (15mm or even 10mm) for the little ships (DDs, TBs, etc.).

Like you suggest, I adjust length as needed. I've never found a good reason to have a standard base length – it causes problems and solves none.

- Ix

Yellow Admiral

What problems does it cause ? I'd suspect that depends on the rules used and whether or not the author had considered basing when writing the rules.

It solves many 'problems' but, if you don't recognise those as 'problems' then you are correct from your own experience.

I'd suggest that, if you are using large scale rules (i.e. for fleet battles between a number of squadrons per side), then movement can be made much simpler and quicker if the base size is made the same as a move 'element'.

I also use it to determine arcs of fire (which are simplified) between corners of the base – no plastic arcs etc.

I won't deny that, for best presentation of the model, a minimal base is ideal but a chunkier, standard-sized base makes handling easier and allows space for easy ID for those of us who have less than perfect vision.

I do cheat a bit with TB & TBD as I put 2 on a base but small merchants, gunboats and subs are on 25mm square bases.

Problems caused, off the top of my head:

• The "standard" size has to be really long to accommodate the longest ships of the era, giving the shortest ships a HUGE footprint, like a toddler in daddy's shoes
  
• Spacing looks wrong on the table
  
• Storage space increases
  
• Various measurements get weird because of all the extra base extending the footprint of the models
  

Meanwhile, the usual advantages of basing can be accomplished by nearly any length base: protection of the painted model, magnetization for storage, straight edges from which to make measurements, space for ID info, space for marks to regularize measurements (shooting arcs, turning points, movement distances, etc.), a surface to paint a wake on, and so on.

You're right that the geometry shifts between different base sizes prevents using opposite base corners as a built-in arc template (unless they're scaled proportionally…?), but I don't think I've ever played a system where this would be useful. It seems like every change in rules requires a new set of templates, so I'm reluctant to base for a particular game system anyway.

- Ix

I suppose I wasn't very clear but, yes, there will have to be some adjustment for the few large cruisers that are too long to fit onto a 50x25 base. To me that isn't very much of a problem – I'd just use a 75x25 base.

I tend to see a base representing the 'operational area' of a unit on land so carry that over to naval games. I will admit that some generalisation has to be made but ships tended to operate at similar distances apart no matter what their size. If we were dealing with sailing ships or galleys I'd agree this would be a problem but not a problem (for me anyway) at this period.

Aesthetics are an opinion, not a problem.

Storage for these is so compact I really think that's a red herring. I fit my fleets into file boxes in two layers but there is adequate room for 3 layers with most ships.

Not sure which measurements you mean but we use fairly simple rules so maybe this is one we don't come across.

Probably I'd agree that problems would start to show as the base sizes approach 1:1 scale with the model but we haven't a table that comes even close to allowing that so it isn't likely to bother us.

Finally got to measure my bases. For WW2, I use 60mm x 20 mm for merchant ships, escorts and destroyers, 80mm x 30mm for lighter cruisers, 90mm x 30mm for heavy cruisers and 120 mm x 40mm for battle cruisers, aircraft carriers and battleships. This gives enough space for a clear label and a bit of scenic development. There are pictures of my fleet on the 1/3000 naval Yahoo group.
I am planning WW1 fleets and may go for slightly smaller bases, as the actual vessels were smaller.

If I remember correctly ships in formation operate at "Standard Distance". For large ships (sorry I forget the definition of large) this is 1000 yds, for smaller ships (frigate etc) this is 500 yds. It makes sense to make the bases equate to the interval between ships, which of course depends on your distance scale.

Thanks again gents, very useful.

With a game today necessity was the mother of invention, and I went with 25mm width and about 8-10mm clear forward and aft. The bases are still temporary, but this is the main idea.

Many thanks again all for your kind assistance!

Cheers,
Aaron