"How many figures should a Battalion or Regiment have?" Topic

Well? Should stands have two ranks? Should there be 12 figures, 24 figures, 30 figures etc.

I am curios as to what the game community thinks on this matter. I am working on AWI regiments at the moment and, due to the cuffs and such, it is harder to have a very flexible number of figures within a unit. For example, Regimental Fire and Fury has anywhere between 6-20 stands of 3 figures each! My ACW collection works for that as I don't have to deal with regimental distinction (at least for me).

I am torn on how many figures I want to represent a regiment. I have thought about using RF&F for AWI, but it would look rather strange with regiments having a mixture of cuffs.

I am using Blue Moon 18mm Figures.

Thoughts? (I brought popcorn)

They should have 4π figures.

25

In what scale are you working? My 54mm regiments have 14 figures. My 28mm regiments have 24 figures.

@dBerczerk I am using Blue Moon 18mm Figures. Good Question. I will edit my post.

Well, according to the One-True-Rules (All Hail The Grant) you're looking at 30 figures, all individually based. If you're checking the Other-One-True-Rules (WRG 1685-1845) it could be 8 to 16 figures'ish. Any other rules, anything in between until you get to the Rules-With-Bases. These consider the figures to be pretty, like the flock scenery, and so, plus or minus a figure, who cares?

Me? I currently use the RWB approach, so I dense pack. My 15/18mm figures are mounted 8 infantry on a 40x20mm base in two ranks. My 6mm figures are mounted 3 ranks deep, 12 in a line. So 36 figures on a 30x30mm base. It looks 'awesome'as my daughter says.

So, it all comes down to you. Are the combat mechanisms in your rules counting figures or bases?

As Narratio said, it all depends on what rules you use (or want to use). I do not have an American Revolutionary War army, so can't comment directly. For Napoleonics, I like relatively large battles, so I prefer rules which call for small numbers of figures per battalion, based on a figure ratio of one figures = 50 or 60 actual soldiers. I think the current mania for big battalions is daft; they take up too much room on a table, besides the cost and extra time to paint.

Thank you for the replies. I try to base my armies to accompany the most rules possible with limiting cost and painting of course. 30 figures a battalion sure does look nice :)

At least 16 (less doesn't really look like a battalion).
Definitely two ranks (one rank looks like a skirmish line).
If the units are too big it takes forever to paint them and you can't fit many on the table.
I find 16 figures (4 bases of 4) is a good compromise between looks and playability.

All depends on budget, time, table size and rule set. Sorry for the obvious answer, but I always aim for the biggest, often doesn't work out though.

I agree with Dexter. 16 for a battalion keeps units manageable for maneuvering.

IMO it depends on what your trying to depict. An ACW infantry unit could be quite small perhaps 16 figures were as a NAP Austrian Infantry regiment could have has many as say 48 figures. I tend to make regiments/battalions larger that what they need to be in most games as you can always remove a couple of stands to make it smaller and serve as replacements for breakages etc.

Personnaly I would go for "big" atallions, after all the Napoleonic war were all about massed troops. A batallion of hundreds of men should have at least e few dozen of figures in it (24 or even 36) to look right. But that is only my opion.

Whatever balance of "looks good" and ground scale consideration works for you.

I've put on Napoleonic games in the past with tiny 6x 15mm figures battalions, but they were multi-corps affairs where the panorama of scores of battalions was the key. I also regularly play regimental ACW games with an average of 24-36 x10mm figures per regiment – but I cram in 3 figures on a 15mm frontage for a very tight single rank look and better ground scale considerations.

I will say that the recent trend towards double ranked 25mm figures tends to give battalions a much "blockier" look (more thick than linear) than I like, but that's a purely personal opinion.

Cheers,

Christopher

I have serious problems buying anything less than 18 is a battalion, bigger is always better look wise.

If I had a huge table and I didn't have to paint all the figures all my battalions would be like 54 big.

For my GNW project, 18 is the smallest. Most battalions are just over 20 strong.

I tried to have 16 strong battalions for my SYW project but didn't like to look so my battalions are expanded to 24.

This is in 28mm.

18 – 24 six figures to a base 3-4 bases for a unit.

although I think 20 based 4 to a base 5 bases per unit would look good also especially in 18mm.

I don't see how you can make a definitive statement for ACW where regiments could have anywhere from 100 to 900 men in them.

I find 24-36 castings in two ranks makes an aesthetically satisfying unit, with the formation and number of men represented varying with a number of factors.

Also worth noting that Grant suggests standard units should take up about 1/8 of the table breadth when deployed and Thomas in One Hour Wargames says 1/6. So my 24 castings might be an ACW brigade in 54mm on a 12' table or in AWI regiment/battalion in 15mm on a 4' table.

I would add three other considerations to the above.

One is that in the Napoleonic era, the battalions and regiments of many or possibly most nations' armies contained within them different and differently-uniformed troop types as sub-units.

Most obviously, you had the light and grenadier companies within British, French and most Confederation battalions. French cavalry regiments, also, comprised in the main a nominal four squadrons each of two companies, one of which companies per regiment was designated elite and had uniform distinctions accordingly. Of course if the whole regiment was considered elite (cuirassiers, carabiniers, most French Guard infantry), this did not apply.

You also had the sharpshooter and grenadier companies attached to Prussian and Austrian units at a regimental level. The 1805 Austrian army was in the throes of a reorganisation that took it from three six-company battalions plus two grenadier companies to five four-company battalions. Both structures apparently co-existed, so you might want to be able to depict both sizes.

The use of battalion guns is also a potential consideration. Austrian battalions typically had a 3-pounder per battalion, three per regiment; do your preferred rules allow you to represent this? It won't be easy, if you go for 10-figure battalions, to represent a single gun in the correct space.

Then there is the propensity in some armies to converge sub-units to make autonomous larger formations of them: British lights, Prussian cavalry in Russia, and so on. This makes it hard to ignore these companies as being of marginal tactical significance and thus unnecessary to depict.

Then of course there is the command element. A lot of rules stipulate that you need one, but there is often no need for a command unit to be taken from the playing unit's headcount. I always have a company with command figures on it, to locate the unit's command element in space, but there is actually no reason I couldn't have a 24-figure battalion with the command figures as non-fighting supernumaries.

So to determine how big a battalion/regiment should be, you may need to consider, in addition to what others have said, whether you want to represent the above internal subdivisions of these units down to half-squadrons of cavalry. To me, a French unit without its elite companies would not look like a French unit at all.

The second thing to reflect on is the current vogue for having battalions of different sizes based on a historical order of battle. This tends to produce units of much smaller size than the nominal establishment, but they were not as often assumed all much the same size as each other. Unless mauled in battle, a campaign-depleted Hungarian battalion of the Austrian army was still bigger than a German battalion of that army was still bigger than a French one. British battalions started out larger than French ones and certain units such as light, rifles and Guards were significantly bigger than line units. Rod Macarthur has an excellent essay on this at his blog:
link

The first set of rules I used – and that I still like – used a 33:1 man:figure ratio so as to reproduce the smallest unit that had a uniform or functional distinction. Thus it took the company rather than the battalion as the smallest unit and built other units up from there. You thus ended up, depending on what part of the period you are depicting, with French battalions of 18 to 27 figures, cavalry regiments of 12, 16 figures or 18 figures in three or four squadrons, and so on. British battalions were 20 figures, Prussian 20 to 24, etc.

The usual charge against big battalions is that you are bathtubbing by building ten battalions of 48 figures and calling that an "army". If, however, you can only fit about 480 figures on one side of your playing space, then you are bathtubbing regardless of whether you consider them to be ten battalions of 48 figures or five corps of 96. I like the larger battalions because the elite companies etc tell you what size of formation I'm looking at, and because I like all the manoeuvring of skirmish screens, lines and squares, which are usually and necessarily abstracted away if you deem your formations to be bigger units. But each to their own.

I agree that it is somewhat dependent on the size of the figs

For my 25/28mm it is 24 figures per battalion

For my 6mm it is 54 figures per battalion

In both cases they are for a six-stand battalion

For R FnF and 3 rank troops (for most of that period) presents a problem regardless of figures available.
For the battalion of a typical 400 strong at 40 per std in R FnF there is 10 stands. for the 3 rank that would be 4 stand by 3 by 3. Even at 1/2 depth stand, this would be 4" by 1 1/2" which would move and look more like a column or phalanx than a line of troops. Probably not what you looking for.
IF you reduce the scale of the stand to 20 or 18 per you have 20 stands but now a need for min 60 figures for one rather small unit. Also not what you are looking to do!
Now might be a good time for some more popcorn!
For a reasonable ground scale for both play and unit size R FnF has a solid scale with the 1" = 25 yrds ( ~33 paces).
3 rank troop density for 1" base would be 92 men should to should plus 8 NCO in rear ~ 100 men.
So the Mounting…
Hard to disagree with 2 rank of figures that are less than a figure width apart (almost shoulder to shoulder) for a good look of the period. For 18s this would be 3 by 3. [I do not understand the approach where a base that could easily fit 6 has only 4. Even with 2 ranks of figs it too looks like a skirmish line.]
Typical campaign strength 500- 600 troops would give a battalion 5 of 1" stand of 6 figs ea. or 30 figures.
With a base depth of ¾ (for stability on the mat) and respectable ratio of ¾ to 5 or 6" line length, this brings a respectable compromise to the hobby's depth problem for "LINES".
The cavalry would then be 2 per 1" by 1" or 1 ¼" or better yet 3 per 1 ½ ".
SO to the question….. but this doesn't work for R FnF?
Well another approach could be that R FnF ( based on ACW) does not work for 3 rank warfare or AWI!
SO how can it be made to work?
Well for one… each 1" base represents 3 R FnF stands for the 3 rank troops.
If you can do 36 figs per a unit ( of same facings ; – ) ) one can mount 4 on ¾ x3/4 for 2 stand and 2 figs on same to represent 1 stand for extra play pcs. Once a unit that loses 1 stand ( or odd number of stands to their start strength) has the 1" x ¾ replaced with the 4 figure ¾ x ¾ base… then to the 2 fig. Not perfect, but a great compromise to messing with the "phalanx" and fiddly 20 stands of a absurd 60 figures qty.
The unit can be used also for other rule sets, where the units are a battalion and for grand tactical, such as ESR or AOE,a couple of stands can be placed together to represent their "unit of play", giving a respectable flexibility too boot!
To address the 2 rank troop density VS the 3 ranks dilemma for Napoleonic's I took it a step further and …
mounted 4 x2 on 1 1/8" base for 3 rank and 4 in single but staggered rank for the 2 rank doctrine.

The problem I find with all 28mm metals is that they are simply too physically bulky to allow an in-scale, diorama-like appearance.

If we assume a 28mm metal mini to be depicting a shortish man 5 feet tall (60 inches), then the standard frontage of 22 inches would in millimetres be 22/60 x 28mm. , i.e. 10.3mm wide. That's what 22 inches looks like in 28mm, even assuming the troops to be a bit undernourished.

Fitting a 28mm figure into a 10.3mm frontage is impossible in almost every case. I can get three Elite Miniatures 28mm Napoleonics onto a 40mm wide base, and that's the minimum – so 13.3mm per figure.

Extended order wasn't all that extended by modern standards; it was about a yard per man as I recall. A yard per man in 28mm is just under 17mm.

So anyone who's mounting their 13mm wide figures 13mm apart is showing them in skirmish order, more or less.

I have given up deciding on the "right" answer to this.

For me, I think anything less than about 24 and it doesn't look like a formed regiment any more. It just looks like a handful of guys standing around.

My standard regiment for my 10mm figures is 40, which I think looks more convincing. I went with 5 stand of 8 figures, since the odd number of stands puts the command stand in the center, and then each stand represents two companies.

I can also do small regiments of three stands (24 figures), which looks okay. But I think you need a decent width of line to depth ratio, and definitely two ranks, for it to look convincingly like a regiment in line.

It also depends the figures. In the below picture my regiment of GHQ figures has 39 figures, but my regiment of Perrin (which are chunkier) has 30, 6 per base, and looks just as good. They are based close enough together to look like a formed regiment, and the overall regiments have the same width/depth ratio as each other, despite the different number of figures.

4th Cuirassiers made a good point above (well several actually). The subgroups within regiments.

To take that further.

I am very early stage in creating a firing line for 71st and 52nd regiments…approx. 24 in each. But I wanted a piper, a 71st pioneer, a bugler (one each), a sergeant for each to show different sash wear, two ensigns for the 52nd colours, at least one fallen in each and one falling in 52nd.

The end result. However much I pack them together in a line, they still look like a band of skirmishers.

So my question is….for best unit look, should they all be in roughly the same pose, indeed identical figures? (and I also know I must tone down my basing)

I'm partial to 1:1 myself…

One problem is, if your battalions are "big" in larger scales, you are then locked into a very shallow battlefield. I've said it before and I'll say it again…

If you have 24 figure battalions in two ranks on 25mm bases, and you figure your average battalion is 100m in frontage, then a six foot deep table will only be 600m deep.. A battalion could march across that in about 12 minutes. Two skirmish screens deployed from off-board brigades could contest the centerline. Artillery deployed 12" out is already at the edge of cannister range. A brigade can barely deploy with historical depth on the entire table. The list of problems goes on and on. Really, you're better off with 2mm and modelling the larger formations.

@op

The rules you use may dictate the size of a battalion

If not, the rules should dictate the width of a battalion in line. Stack as many figures as you want in that width, to whatever depth you want (or rules specify) and that will give you the number of figures. If you want BIG battalions, choose a smaller figure scale.

Ultimately it has to look "right" to you. With the huge discrepancy between ground scale and figure scale it will not look "authentic" – unless you go 2mm of course :)

John

@marshalGreg,

My solution to the default use of double ranks of bases in RF&F was to simply use smaller bases and then line them up in a single rank instead of two. To whit: in place of the default 1" (25mm) stand, I use 15mm wide stands (3x 10mm figures), so my side-by-side double stands are only 30mm wide, a negligible difference to the front-to-back default stands with a frontage of 25mm.

One take on fiddling with the "look" of the bases to maintain the ground scale and game functionality that you might want.

How big are the regiments or battalions that the figures are supposed to represent?

During the ACW you could have regiments containing as little as 100-120 men and regiments containing 1,000. Even if you assumed that the smallest regiments would operate combined with others and the largest would operate as separate half units, you are still going to have to represent units of between 300 and 500 men. IMO a one size fits all approach doesn't work with this spread, and you need to have units of different sizes available. I would have units of 15, 20 and 25 figures.

It depends entirely on what you want to do. For Napoleonics I chose 18.

Recently I've been working out terrain plans for 25mm ECW and for my units of 28 – 34 figures I'd need about 15'+ of table frontage. It gets more reasonable if I go down to 16's which I think I'll end up doing for bigger battles just to get enough table space. I ought to have thought about this before I bought any figures.

I don't think enough consideration is given to 'game design' and the implications of formations, higher formations and ground occupied. A generalisation on my part, perhaps it's only true for me but usually the decision is how many figures do I like the look of without looking further at the implications of that decision.

Most rules I played with ….

French – 720 men – 12 figures
British – 540 men – 9 figures
Prussians – as per French
Russians – 8 figures
Austrians – 12-18 figures

Thankfully the rules we used did not call for a lot of castings per battalion.

A friend of mine that visits this forum has a 1:100 scale set of rules he plays. Even fewer figures meaning he can build more units/armies.

I played Column, Line and Square once. I commanded ONE battalion of 36 figures. Huge block of castings. 25mm. Just cant get into that.

I have wanted to try Napoleon's Battles. I like the idea of brigade level. Easier to play entire historical battles that way.

Mine has 350 soldiers plus 30 nco plus 20 officers plus drummers, Flagbears, etc.

More or less 400 figures each one.

One Regiment with 3 or 4 battalions

Cavalry has 90 riders 15 nco plus 8 officers plus trumpeters flag etc = 120 per Squadron.

2 or 3 Squadron a Company… 3 Companies a Regiment

Artillery.

Each Battalion with 10 to 15 pieces different calibers…
100 to 120 gunners plus nco, officers, etc.

Amicalement
Armand

The answer, of course, is 42.

And now, at last, we know what the question was…

@CATenwolde

I do not disagree with you.
That does work, looks good and gives the maximum flexibility, one finds difficult to disagree.
I just presented another solution, as the OP is hoping to see (while he munches away on his popcorn). Through experience with 1" by 15mm basing, I am going away from that scheme since dealing with the number of stands [to store at 15/18mm figure size became too difficult as the collect exploded], stability on the table top is not the best ( and I want to avoid the move trays/game time required to move troops), and that the 3/4" depth over a 6" frontage or more looks closer to a line when on the table top with the 15/18mm figures.

MG

- Sorry, couldn't resist the Hitchhiker's Guide reference…

More to the point, and contrary to what others have written above, I've found that with 15/18mm figures as per the OP, a unit of 12 in a single rank (on four bases of three) can make for a believable representation of an 18th C. battalion in line, in a way that 12, 28mm figures never could.

Single rank used to be quite common in Horse&Musket wargaming. Adding a second rank makes the unit rather too deep – you'd actually have to upgrade to 48 figures in two ranks in order to preserve the same frontage-to-depth ratio.

The trick with units of 12 is not to use any command figures except for the standard bearer, so you have a credible line of bayonets. Two lines, each of six or more such units, begin to look convincingly like the linear formations of the period.

16 close order (include at least one officer, one musician and one standard) + 4 skirmish figs

French – 720 men – 12 figures
British – 540 men – 9 figures
Prussians – as per French
Russians – 8 figures
Austrians – 12-18 figures

That's very helpful. Thanks HappyHussar. I am using 24-figure French battalions, but haven't gotten to any other nationalities yet. I've been wondering about the approximate number of figures to use for the battalions of opposing forces. I can just double your numbers.

To the OP: For Napoleonics, I chose 24-figure French battalions after reading a lot of posts on TMP as it will work with most Nap rule sets. For ACW, I use Brigade Fire&Fury with 3 or 4 figures per base. The number of bases varies based on the size of the brigade. Can't speak to AWI.

Thanks for all of these great responses! Lining up 18 figures in one rank does not look too bad actually now that you have brought it up. Also looks pretty appropriate for the period IMO.

The table space is always a concern. That is why I was torn between 1 rank vs 2 (in terms of bases). On a 6x4 table it makes the game rather crowded… Oh how I wish I could game on a larger table again.

I always feel it is important for a unit in line to look like a unit in line, not an assault column, which can happen if you have, for instance, 24 figures in 2 ranks of 12, right behind each other.

Forwardmarchstudio's photo illustrates what it should be like.

I game grand tactical in 6mm so, while I might have 2 rows of 12 figures on each 2' base, I do leave a suitable gap between them to suggest that they are separate units in a brigade.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. Find a group of people playing a set of rules you like and base your armies for that. Otherwise the odds are really high you'll end up unhappy with your basing structure, the plethora of popular rules almost dictates it.

@Murvihill

Yes that is always a major problem and I think it should always be the first one addressed. I, however, will be the trend setter, which is why I have been so mentally involved in this process.

@alan Lockhart and others

Yes I totally agree. I don't want my line to look like an attack column. For my Napoleonics I use 24 figures in 2 ranks, and it just passes as a line. I could not go further dense in my opinion. If I were gaming 6mm or even 10mm I would do basing very similar to yours.

Whatever the rules call for.

Is the question one about the unit's "Look"?
About the game scale?
about the ability of a specific-sized stand to represent a battalion and/or regiment on the table top?

Those questions *can* be related, but that depends on the gamer's/designer's priorities.

Not sure which priority[s] prompted the question, though all the issues have been commented on.

crazycaptain?

As McLaddie says, it depends on what you value and it's always going to be a compromise.

I like 28mm for the visual appeal of the uniforms (which is a major draw of the Napoleonic period for many of us) and 18mm is also pretty good for that. But at that scale it takes large tables if you want lots of figures per unit. And at Corp or Army level gaming it means VERY large playing areas, including perhaps multiple tables with gaps for players, because the maximum depth a table can be if you want to reach the centre is about 6 feet.
I also like double ranking to avoid formed units looking like skirmish lines to me, but that means depth of formations is artificially exaggerated, though this will be common to many rules.

The other really major consideration, is how are other local gamers standardising things? Because if you want to play others that is really important to think about.

I've been messing about with various scales in 28mm recently.

Here's a game at 36 figures per battalion, about a division a side.
link

And another at 24 figures per single large battalion or regiment of 2-3 smaller battalions, with a couple of Corp per side:
link

I'll play both, but did like the way the second offered the possibility of larger actions, while still getting a good number of figures per unit.

Most important rule, do what works for you and have fun. :)

I use a 1:30 ratio for both Napoleonics and 18th Century, normally based on the average for that type of unit, although my Jacobite battalions are on the largest size reached by that particular unit, rounded to even figures. I use 1:72 plastic figures.

My British Napoleonic Line Infantry are therefore 20 figures, whilst Food Guards and some (but not all) Light Infantry are 30 figures. They are all at 15mm per figure in single ranks, and I do not think they look like a skirmish line, as that would need to be at 30mm per figure.

My French Napoleonic Infantry are 18 man battalions (representing their average Waterloo strength). They are at 10mm per figure, to represent real men in 3 ranks, so 3 French have the same frontage as 2 British.

My 18th Century British are based on their tactical organisation of 12 or 16 platoons per battalion, plus two grenadier platoons, each platoon being a single figure. My French battalions are based on 13 companies, including a grenadier company, plus a company equivalent of piquets, so also 14 men per battalion. All of my 18th Century troops are based at 15mm per figure.

Many of these figures can be seen on my website:

rodwargaming.wordpress.com

If you select "Horse & Musket" on the top menu, you can drop down choices of Napoleonics and 18th Century. There are also posts about both on the blog.

I take the point about basing for particular rules but, having been wargaming for over 50 years, I have seen a lot of different rules come and go, so prefer to base in a way I like, and adjust the rules to those, rather than the other way round.

Rod

@Mclardie

It is for looks. Of course rules can play a massive part in this, but I want to set a standard for myself so that way I am consistent.

I am the trend setter for AWI in my area, so I have a pretty flexible basing standard with a 1"frontage on each stand so this works for most rule sets.

I have thought about using RF&F for AWI, but it would look rather strange with regiments having a mixture of cuffs.

I've been using RF&F for AWI for a few years. I based my 15mm figures on 1" x 1/2" stands in a single rank, 3 figures for "dense" units (that couldn't/wouldn't use open order) and 2 figures for units that could fight in open order. The RF&F rules specify "line" is 2 ranks and "extended line" (open order) is 1 rank, which looks reasonably nice with this basing scheme. I never get to 3 ranks, but as noted above, a 3-rank unit would have to be _ r e a l l y _ w i d e _ to look like a line at all.

I would not recommend a 1"x1/2" stand to anyone – 1/2" deep stand is pretty tippy, especially with a lead standard. Use 1"x3/4" or even 1"x1".

Using the 40 men/stand ratio of RF&F, the units can be as small as 3 stands and as big as 15, maybe even bigger. I don't do any mixing of cuffs within a unit, I just have the miniatures organized into units by paint job and leave stands in the box if I want a smaller unit.

- Ix

1 to 60 seems weak I granted, but if one wants to front a corp ( European, Napoleoic era) or two that means a lot of figures. I converted for a short while but knew to reach my goals I couldn't stay with 1 =20 so went back to 1=60

Depends on figure scale and if you're using full strength units.

My AWI stuff is in 6mm, on 20x20 bases. Usually I use 6 to a unit (48 figures) but I can vary it. Figures scale is about 1:7. Units are small, but reflect some of the real sizes on campaign, and it's a convenient number for most rules sets.

18, its the standard AWI rule. Unless you need to have 24, that's the unstandard AWI rule (for Highlanders, Germans, and special cases). Always three abreast facing forward, never four with two in the front and two in the back and never, ever, never single figure basing. That is total sacrilege. Anymore more, any less and there will be a revolution amongst your figures and you will be deposed – and perhaps stretch a rope. Problem solved, moving on.

This is one time the OFM is absolutely wrong regarding the AWI. John, you reprobate.

No fewer than 24. 36 works very well for virtually all units, and if you have the table space, then go for 48/battalion.

In my old club,playing Napoleonics as well as ACW, in 15mm, we used 36 figures/battalion, based 6 minis to a 1" square base. Looked nice and gave a sense of mass to the game.

I currently play ACW with 25/28mm but use 1 base = 1 battalion and the bases are made up more as vignettes/dioramas with varying numbers of minis. When (if) I ever decide to return to Napoleonics, it will be in a similar fashion, with 1 base/battalion, done up as vignettes in 25/28mm scale.

V/R