"Micro Armor Scale Basing Question" Topic

I'm writing a set of rules for Micro Armor Scale Minis which will cover WWII thru Modern and I don't want people to have to rebase their minis. I was wondering what the largest bases in predominant use are. Largest I can seem to find is Spearhead with 1 1/4 inch square basing. Are there any other major rules that use a larger base size? Thanks for your help! Lee

Many of us don't base our microarmour at all.

After decades of having based & rebased, now within the past year, I've attached rare earth magnets underneath my Micro Armor, using 2-part "twist epoxy" for those models with casting cavities (the magnet recessed into the putty), or super-glued between tracks and/or wheels for half-track, trucks, and various soft-skins, etc.
Now I can base them onto any stand size or shape that I've made with metal plates underneath (I cover the stand tops with hobby railroad, grass mat sheet, and just trim along the base edges to complete the effect).
Lee, the only reason you might want to "enforce" a particular stand size, is if you're wanting to exert a formation spacing between AFVs, or to reflect an average frontage of whatever your typical infantry/hvy. weapons unit indicates in your rules (if you have a ground/unit scale).
My fav. WW2 collection are my 1/144th scale models, these I've also affixed with magnets, and I mount these on 2" textured hex bases, which when placed together exert a standard spacing distance, protect the minis too, and actually make the models appear as if they're in some type of formation order (rather than in fender-to-fender "linear warfare" ranks, typical of what many gamers will do with their commands if given the chance).

Link to a BGG thread (where I can post pictures w/o "Photo-Bucketing")
link

Back in the 1970s, we never based our tanks. At that time tank vs tank was the thing. Bases imply both an area od occupation and control. Since tank focus on distance fire bases were not considered necessary.
Our Fire! OGON! Freur! was a tank vs tank system, so we did not use bases except for the infantry squads.
later in the 1980s, a few platoon-company level systems came out and used based since the base was a platoon or company of tanks. Platoons were more common.

Often micro armor is played in 1:1 scale on 3D terrain so a big stand doesn't hold onto a hill slope. If your game is played that way you may want to think about that.

I developed my game while playing only on carpet tiles with felt terrain features. So all the first gen rules were about rules for flat features. Then I started playing on sand tables and had to come up with a entirely new ground feature rule set.

I don't base my vehicles either, but I play 1:1 company-scale games with micro armor. If you're playing a bigger scale game, where a base would be a platoon or company, then I would base (but I'd probably use 3mm too).

It would be good if you could make your rules base size agnostic. Many rule sets are these days.

My bases are 6 x 4.5 cm.

They can represent either platoons or companies.

Two inches may be the largest base in use for micro armor. There are some rules that use that size. In Division Commander they represent a battalion. In PanzerKorps they represent a company. For other rules they could represent a platoon. The ground and unit scales that your rules will use will have some bearing on the base sizes.

This site lists ww2 infantry frontages
link
A Russian tank battalion could have a frontage of 1km when attacking

NATO and WarPac unit frontages can be found at
link

When I played Spearhead I used 1" bases

In Rommel you can use what ever size base you would like as long as you can fit 3 of them in a 1 km square.

As I am using 15cm squares to represent 1 km, I am using 70x45mm bases to represent a company.

John

the problem with "frontages" per se is that they change and depend on deployment. A single base can never represent this difference.

Much of what defines a defensive "frontage" is that area which can be effectively covered by fire. Although manuals can stress these frontages, military imperatives can force units in the field to perform in more, shall we say, "elastic" terms. The use of strongpoint defenses, with patrols ranging in between the array of strongpoints is an example of the requirement to guard overly-extended sectors, and a tactical method of performing outside of prescribed [by the book] practices when neccessary.
Still, in rule book terms, average frontages for units (game pieces) can be assigned – then in game terms, it will depend on the forces involved, and the scenario designs being played, whether the scaled ground presented can be ideally defended, or require the use of hedgehog deployment……isn't this what makes some game situations interesting to play after all.

Thanks for the great input! I'll keep checking this thread every day for the latest. As much as possible I am writing the rules to work with almost any size basing including no bases. The primary unit is a Battalion where each miniature tank etc represents a company. The rules are meant to be divisional or corps level. We've been playtesting using some of the engagements at Kursk, Gazala using the full DAK and Bulge the battle of Celles. We're now down to fine tuning and I'm trying to relax the basing requirements so more people can play with their minis "out of the box".

Thanks again! Lee

"GHQ Microarmor:The Game" has basing. So does "Look Sarge: No Charts". Both are large-ish.