"Seeking advice on my basing idea." Topic

I am contemplating moving into some 6mm Napoleonics. I have never gamed this period before but have always liked the idea. However, I have never even seen a 6mm army apart from in photos, but am thinking they could give me the epic vibe I have always imagined, and be cheaper to purchase two reasonably sized armies. I have some sample figures being kindly sent to me by Mr Locke of Adler Miniatures as I type, so soon I will be able to tell if they are my cupof tea or not.

Anyway, before they have arrived I have been trying to figure out how I am going to base if them if I do take the plunge and start putting together a couple of armies. The rule systems I am planning on trying out (i.e. have in my possession) are General de Brigade and Age of Eagles. I do have Chef de Battalion, but figure I would put that aside for my first forays into the period.

Having done a bit of research (and seeing along the way how heated these basing threads can become) I thought through a few basing systems and came up with one that I thought might work. I don't really want to go down the route of 60x30, as I want more bases per battalion, and to do that with the figures needed to fill those bases would be too costly for my initial budget.

Looking at GdB I decided I did not want to use their system of counting figures on bases, as it seemed it would be a bit too fiddly at this scale. Instead I am going to keep track of battalion strength (GdB figures) either on a roster sheet or a unit marker next to the unit, alongside the unit's name etc.

So having laid that groundwork I then went and did some research on battalion line length for British and French battalions, to get some idea of how long they were and how I might try and replicate that. I did toy with each base being a company, but that seemed to entail having too many bases per battalion and so would require my having to purchase too many figures to get the number of battalions I wanted to start with. However, I also wanted a basing system that might allow me to later move to having each company having its own base without having to rebase, so that played into my thinking.

My research revealed that in a battalion of around 600 men, a British battalion in line, in two ranks, would be around 200 or so meters long, whilst a French line, three deep, would be around 125 or so meters long.

Given that, I figured that either a British base needed to be longer than a French one, or a British battalion needed to have more bases than a French one, as I wanted to keep a British battalion in line being longer than an equivalently sized French one.

At the moment I am thinking of having a British battalion of around 600 have 6 base (maybe 7) and a French one of the same size have around 4 bases (maybe 5). I figure four bases is a good minimum for ease of showing different formations, though a really small battalion might well only have three bases.

So, my plan at the moment is I to go with the following:

Battalion size = numer of bases (in brackets my alternative number of bases, which will require slightly more bases per battalion and therefore cost me more to purchase the figures needed,but might be better?).

French:

450-550 = 3 (or 4 bases)

550-700 = 4 (5 bases)

700-850 = 5 (6 bases)

850-1000 = 6 (7 bases)

British:

450-550 = 5 (6 bases)

550-700 =6 (7 bases)

700-850 =7 (8 bases)

850-1000 = 8 (9 bases)

While this does not quite keep the 200m to 120m ratio of a British to French battalion in line, it still does to a good enough degree, at least for me. If I later get enough bases then I can do one base per company as I mentioned above,which would give me 2oomm for a British line and 120mm for a French one.

My next decision is the size of the bases and the number of figures to put on each. My initial thought is that if the bases were 20x15mm (or 20x20, or even 20x10), then if I ever did go to a base being a company, a British battalion would be 200mm long and a 6 company French one would be 120mm, which would be near enough spot on to the real 200m and 125m ones in reality.

I am unsure whether 20mm wide bases will be too fiddly to play with, but I figured I could mount them on battalion sabots, for ease of moving etc, so am hoping that wouldn't be a problem.

By the way, sorry this post is going on so long!!

If I do go for 20mm bases then I need to decide how many figures to mount on each base. My thought at the moment is to have 3 figures wide on a base, the British would be in two ranks (so 6 figures/base) and the French in three ranks, (so 9 figures a base). This would almost be a figure ratio of 10:1 if I eventually managed 10 company bases for the Brits and 6 for the French. I realize that is a bit of an illusion, as once battalions move away from being around 600 men strong that ratio would go out of the window. I also realize that basing the French three deep is not as cost effective as doing them two deep, but I figured the visual appeal may be worth it.

So my questions (finally!) are:

1. Does my basing system make any sense?!?

2. Is there a better one that I may not have thought of?

3. Are 20mm bases too small? Would I be better on slightly wider bases e.g. 25mm, or even go 4 figures on a 30mm base or 35mm base?

Any advice would be really appreciated!

Another idea I wanted to run past people was to have the battalion command and colours section on a different base (maybe 10x10?) on its own. I noticed that a French battalion, with each company in line being 20m in length, wasn't actually 120m long, but was instead around 125m long. This was due to the colours in the middle of the line taking up about 5m themselves. This gave me the idea this might not be a bad idea to replicate, and so I could have the colours on their own base. Has anyone done this, or think it might be a good idea?

I have some ideas on cavalry basing to tie in with the above, but this post is already way too long, so will stop it here.

Any advice would be very much appreciated!

Have a look at my 6mm ACW figures/basing.

link

Your basing was one of the the things I looked at during my research and was a prime inspiration for me! If I can do anything near as good as yours I will be very pleased.

My initial idea was to go for four figures wide per rank, as you do, using Baccus strips of four. However, I found that Baccus are way more expensive than Adler, as they add 20% vat to their prices and postage. Baccus cost £11.40 GBP for 96 figures, whereas Adler is £6.48 GBP plus postage of around £1.30 GBP for 96 figures. So if I am buying a fair amount of figures, Adler is the better choice.

Given that Adler figures need to be based individually, rather than the Baccus strip of four being able to be based as one, I thought that maybe three figures wide, rather than the 4 figure wide base, might work nearly as well, and would allow the same amount of figures to make more bases, so I get more bases for my buck. Having said that, your four wide look great and is making me rethink!!

I can't fault your approach to the financial arithmetic.

I can say that gluing 3 individual figures to a 20mm base is more fiddly than gluing a 4 figure strip. I don't know how good you are with fingers and thumbs.

I've never seen Adler figures so can't comment on them directly.

My calculations of french with color party is 127 thus closer to 130 vs 190m. Not that it makes much difference with 4 bases vs 6 bases for 600 strength.
To get the real look of the period the base width of the FIG per rank should facilitate that shoulder to shoulder informational appearance, especially with the smaller scale can provide.
I no-longer have 6s. So hard to know the number for should to shoulder. My estimate is 20mm x 15mm may facilitate 8 British and 12 french.
A good person to review his collection & contact or perhaps he will post on here is this guy:
18ctexan.blogspot.com
for some good inspritation!
Good luck
MG

I snip Baccus figures down to 3 per strip and base 2 ranks of 3 (6 total) on a 3/4" square or 19mm square. Looks right.

I use the Age of Eagles basing for 15mm figs – 3/4" frontage x 1" deep for infantry, 1" by 1" for cavalry

For infantry I use three ranks of three (and like I Drink You Milkshake I snip the Baccus strips – I use the loose figs for a more irregular look) and for cavalry two ranks of three

I use 6 bases per unit – which I combine for those big Austrian units; I think they look pretty good

I think you are pretty much on the right track. I like the visual for French in three ranks deep and British in two ranks deep as well. I would suggest 3x3 for the French, 4x2 for the British and then 4x3 for the big Austrian battalions. That's what I use but have the same number of bases per battalion. Shouldn't really be a problem is you are going to use a roster to track casualties and adds some fog of war as players don't know the exact strength of a unit by counting the figures.

Hello lorwerth!

Welcome to the world of 6mm Napoleonic's. The road ahead is full of enjoyment and perhaps the odd moment of frustration.

If possible the first thing I would do is reach out to any groups/clubs/friends in your area that are into 6mm Napoleonic's. They can give you all kinds of advice and you might even join them for more enjoyment.

Sadly I see that you have ruled out single basing 60x30, as that decision has now put you on a very long road of basing problems as per your message, and that was just the formed infantry. Should you ever change your mind on this just ask me and I'll gladly explain why so many 6mm Napoleonic players use that basing system.

Once you go down the custom basing route you might find that the basing you choose won't work very well with the rules you choose. Although today most rules are base neutral or can be easily worked with a couple of house rules. So just to be safe I would suggest you select your rules before firming up your basing. However, most people change rules and sometimes find that their basing just won't work and can end up having to rebase everything (a wargamers nightmare). Also keep in mind that some rules aren't really designed for use with 6mm.

Yes you can use sabots, but I've never seen a good looking one. The first minor problem is it raises the figures up which can improve visibility, but puts it slightly out of scale with everything else on the table. The more serious problems are changing formations or removing bases. They always look awkward. You also have the task of making them and often in different sizes etc. I used them for a number of years and even made different ones. I was never happier then the day I dumped them all in the garbage.

Don't worry about formations or line lengths etc. As your quick chart clearly shows this all changes depending on the actual size of the battalions at the point in time that you use them for, and your actual basing makes it impossible to always be historically accurate.

Most people start out small with Napoleonic's and slowly increase the size of their collection as their ultimate goal is to play out the famous battles of the period. So if your aiming for a true "epic vibe" your custom basing actually works against this unless you have a very large table. A simple example is your 120mm battalions could need a table twice the size of 60mm battalions. Unless you are going to try and do some creative accounting of combining units as you scale up your game. Anyways, more potential problems, table size.

There is also a major problem with logistics if you use small bases of say 20mm. The first is they are just way too fiddly for some people. I used them for at least 25 years before I identified all the other problems besides being fiddly. One concern was the concept of changing formation. This means that every turn every player must evaluate every unit under his command for not only this turn but as far into the future as he can foresee. Of course all enemy formations and movements also have to be evaluated. That is a major time lost every turn. If you are not using sabots just the movement of all these little stands is also very time consuming. So you might want to rethink your goal for showing every company. We did it for a number of years and finally figured out it was just not worth all the work. Napoleonic's in 6mm is generally more about the clash of armies not companies. My collection is presently 50,000 figures. Just imagine what a nightmare that would be if they were all on 20mm bases.

We also mounted every country three deep except for the British and finally agreed it was just a waste of figures and now all infantry is two deep. Nobody really cares how you mount them the overall appeal of masses of 6mm figures just makes you blind to the little details. It also screws up any ratios if your rules use the old school style of figure ratios.

I've used rosters for counting casualties and found it too time consuming, a little awkward, and in big games often contains mistakes. If possible avoid bean counting rules altogether and seek out rules that use cohesion or unit status systems. Saves a ton of time and gives a better reflection of combat.

Both Adler and Baccus produce world class figures and they are both in the 6mm market place and have been for many years. I've never noticed a big price difference between the two of them that lasted very long. You also can't just compare one type of figure as both firms package and cost them differently. There is also the problem of how you plan to mount the figures as that can often add up to left over figures. So I would be very careful before ruling one out over a perceived price difference. For me it was always which firm better matched my style of painting the best as that's what I do the most of.

So these are some of the pitfalls that your possibly up against. Hope this helps you out in some way.

Best regards,

Glenn

I just want to say Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to respond to my call for advice – I really appreciate it. I thought, as Glenn's reply was so in-depth I should post some thoughts in reply, explaining my thinking. Perhaps he will convince me about using 60mm bases!

I may join a club, but my aim is to game with a friend of mine and to do a bit solo. My main goal with basing is to have a system that is adaptable, for different rules, especially if I use sabots to create different base sizes that my 20mm bases can be grouped to create. I know you don't believe that sabots look that great, but in some of the photos I have seen they look ok to me – my standards are probably less demanding that your! . I thought JimDuncanUK's sabot bases seemed good to me, and I have seen some others around that also looked reasonable. However, I will do a test before I commit to any basing system just in case, so thanks for the heads-up.

There were a few reasons I ruled out 60x30. I thought with sabots I could do 60mm anyway with my 20x20 bases – just put three of them together on a 60mm sabot. Also, I like the idea of being able to change formation and having to make that decision for my units, rather than just presuming my units are always in the right formation for the situation.Once I am more experienced I may think otherwise, but I think I have to go on that journey myself to learn the lesson.

Truthfully, I did think about using 60mm bases, and having battalions made up of more than one of them, but then in the end that would just lead to bigger unit footprints, so it sort of defeated the purpose of using the bigger bases. I want to be able to show different formations on the table and that needs multiple bases, at least so far as I can see. In addition, I figured that some rules use base sizes like Ύ" or an inch, and so 20cm bases seemed easier to adapt to those basing systems than a 60mm base, which is over 2" long.

I do admit that the 60mm bases look good, and the Baccus figures are perfect for it. I was at first planning on using Baccus miniatures, but the VAT they charge on both the figures and the postage make them so much more expensive than Adler (almost twice as much). It just seemed a financial no-brainer to go with Adler. Given that, basing on a 60x30 seemed even more problematic for me, given that the Adler figures need to be based individually.

Your point about not basing three ranks deep makes a lot of sense, especially financially. I just thought that the visual aspect of them being 3 deep might be more impressive, and help highlight a difference between the British thin red line and the French strength in depth.. I know it will make no difference to how games play, as I am not using rules that require figure removal, or at least can adapt them so that I don't need to do the figure removal. I am still really in two minds about it, as it does make so much sense to only base two ranks deep! It is like my head says ‘don't be a fool and base two deep', but my heart is whispering ‘three deep, three deep!' 

As to using rosters, I take on board your point about it being problematic and time consuming. However, I don't want to do figure removal. My initial thoughts are that if rosters are too boring to do, then I will have unit information bases next to the battalions, similar to those of JimDuncanUK, and record strength on those, or use some overhead projector clear sheets with white paper under them, attached to bases, so I can use an eraser type pen to keep track of strength. I might even adapt things so I keep track of casualties with a casualty figure and then have base removal tied into that. I reckon there must be some way of doing it without figure removal. What system do you use with your 60mm bases to track casualties and base removal?

Finally, I have received my samples from Mr Locke at Adler. I really like them, but the muskets and bayonets are very flimsy. I presume that is just in the nature of 6mm figures. I was wondering how people avoided damaging them when playing? Is it just a matter of being very careful? It seemed like they would break very easily.

Anyway, thanks for all the feedback, I really appreciate it.

A quick additional question:

How important do people think it is to represent on the table that two rank infantry have a wider line than three rank infantry, if both battalions have the same amount of men?

My calculation seem to suggest that the length ratio of a two rank to three rank battalion in line is 3:2, presuming equal number of men. However, when looking around I see that many use basing systems that don't really reflect this, and often use the same width and amount of bases to represent both types of battalions (though they might have three ranks of figures on the base for a three rank base, and two ranks of figures for a two rank base).

Is the difference in width between the two types not something I should really be worrying about with most rule sets?

Don't worry about it.

At Waterloo for example many British and Allied units spent the day in 4 ranks as a precaution against cavalry.

Similarly French units in 3 ranks often deployed the third rank as skirmishers.

Hello lorwerth!

Thanks for giving me your thoughts on my comments. I now have a better idea about what you are looking for.

It's the actual presence of sabots themselves that I find to be ugly and cumbersome. I used a similar design to Jims wonderful creation and various other types over the years. Keep in mind that Jims design might only work for one set of rules. Change your rules and sometimes you will need to at least revamp your sabot design, or make a new one from scratch. You can see that Jims system has seven parts that you would have to make for every unit. That's a lot of time and effort to make and organize, which also increases your cost and logistics problems. These types of systems generally also increase your set up and take down time for every game. Most sabot designs only reflect one formation, so if your rules use formation changes your other formations will probably exceed the perimeters of the sabot. Which looks pretty ugly to me. Or you swap sabots, use markers etc., which means more lost time. If you use stand removal for casualties you now have a big space that also looks ugly to me. The biggest distraction for me, however, is the sea of labels that cover your entire table. It just looks like Times Square in New York city to me, which is a major departure in my table aesthetics. Anyway our transition to 60x30 made the entire concept of sabots redundant. Now the only figures with labels on my table are the commanders.

Using 60x30 does not remove your ability to change formation if you want to use rules that do that. People who still see value in changing formation do it in a few different ways. One way is by using two 60x30 bases so you can show line/column/square. Another way is to use markers. While others simply use creative mounting and change out the odd base to show squares. Most are still based as lines and some of the French are based as columns. Some people with large collections simply have lots of all types of basing styles. Our rules don't require units to actually waste time changing formation as that's taken care of at a level below that of the players. So players are able to concentrate on more important issues like when, where and how to attack/defend, etc. Not to spend time playing rock/paper/scissors.

Please keep in mind that changing formation in Napoleonic warfare is a major feature of some game designs that is often not represented very well. Players can and do abuse the concept and it is generally out of sync with actual time scale. So your often buying into a false set of dynamics that was just not present on an actual Napoleonic battlefield.

Yes, indeed the Baccus basing system is almost breath taking when seen in mass and the skills that some of the people have is just outstanding.

I'm not sure about your comments on VAT. I think all retailers in the UK have to charge it to a customer in the UK. I'm in Toronto, Canada and any orders I get from the UK don't have VAT. So if that's your only price issue I would confirm from Adler that he sells his figures VAT free in the UK before assuming so.

Two rank vs three is simply a personal issue. We did it for years as our hearts said the same thing as yours. The real deciding point for us was that we gradually realised that the middle rank of a three rank was really invisible and a waste of figures. It also allowed us to quickly increase the number of bases that we actually had and would greatly reduce the cost and time to build new ones. So the pocket book won and our hearts lost. The bottom line is nobody really cares. Once the game begins everything on the table becomes a blur.

Tracking casualties is perhaps not the best way to evaluate a units status. Units never said oh my we have just lost X number of men, lets run away! Today some modern rule systems use loss of cohesion, broken moral, etc. as the benchmark for a units behaviour. These are often reflected as levels of "shaken" which are generally tracked by placing markers on a unit. There is no figure or stand removal. The units remain in place until they reach an intolerable level of "shaken".

Yes, a common weakness in some 6mm figures are muskets, bayonets, swords, lances, plumes, flag staffs, ankles and horse tails. Baccus redesigned their Napoleonic's over the last few years that improved these weak points. They also often intentionally design swords, muskets, lances and horse tails flush or close to the body to minimize the problems. You need to obtain samples from all the firms that you are interested in so that you can see exactly which weakness you can live with. However, once again the 60x30 base is an asset as it minimizes the figures exposure to damage. If players pick the base up firmly in the center there is generally no damage. Not firmly, or on the ends you can get damage. So one base can be damaged, multiple bases = more damage.

The length of your lines will depend on which rule system you use. As you have noticed most ignore this, however, in systems that use multiple stands and casualties it can make a difference.

As you can see I've pointed out a number of advantages for using 60x30 bases. Here are a few more.

1) It's a very popular base in 6mm, to the point that some refer to it as "standard 6mm basing". It opens up a bigger market place should you ever want to sell your collection.

2) The actual system is only two bases the 60x30 for infantry, cavalry, limbers and wagons. The 30x30 for artillery guns and crew and generals. There is also an optional 60x60 base for Brigade games or just use two 60x30 bases.

3) Baccus sells their figures to match the basing, so you don't have any leftover figures.

4) You can buy readymade bases and some collections on line.

5) If you hook up with other players/clubs you are more likely to find the same basing. A couple of clubs even have rules that 6mm must be compatible with 60x30.

6) The entire Polemos rule system designed by Baccus is all 60x30.

7) I'm not aware of any popular rule set that you can't use 60x30 as is or with a few basic house rules.

8) It can set a standard for your own collection as you move into other periods. You will probably never have to worry about basing again. It also allows you to set up a basic storage/handling system for everything.

Hope I've addressed all of your concerns. If not just fire away.

Best regards,

Glenn

I have come across another basing system I think may be better and more adaptable than the one I have been considering before:

NEW BASING SYSTEM

This basing system is not my own idea, but instead is one kindly suggested to me by Mr Locke of Adler Miniatures.

The basis of the suggested system is that each battalion is made up of two bases of 30mmx15mm, with two additional bases of 15x15mm that represented the elite companies.

These 30mmx15mm bases would be based 4 figures wide, and two or three ranks deep, depending on how the nation set up their battalions in line. A 15x15mm base would be 2 figures wide, and again have two or three ranks, depending.

In a figure count, this works out as:

30mm x 15mm in 3 ranks = 12 figures; and in 2 ranks = 8 figures

15mmx15mm in 3 ranks = 6 figures; and in 2 ranks = 4 figures.

So battalion in three ranks would need 36 figures (2x12 + 2x6), and a battalion in two ranks would need 24 figures (2x8 + 2x4).

Obviously, the two battalions have the same line width. If having different line lengths was important, and I wanted to portray the British battalion with 10 companies, then I would just add two more 30mm bases to the battalion (maybe only add these two extra bases when the battalio0n deploys into line formation, so the column depth is not so huge in comparison to the three rank battalion in column). That would have the effect of making the British battalion in line have a frontage of 150mm, and a three ranked battalion having one of 90mm.

Another aspect I really like of the system is that it distinguishes the elite companies on their own bases, making it easy to reduce the battalion size if either of these companies is seconded elsewhere.

So I think this system has a lot of advantages over the 20x20mm basing system I was thinking of before. In addition, it might be usable with Glenn's preferred 60mm basing system, as I would just combine two of the 30mm bases together!

I have three sets of rules at the moment: General de Brigade, Age of Eagles, and Chef de Bataillion. So below I have gone through each rule set to see how this basing system would work out. By the way, if any one has any other rule suggestions they think I should have a look at, please let me know!

CHEF DE BATTALION

According to the rules, an average peninsular French Battalion, 3 ranks deep, has 3 elements per company, and a Central European one has either 3 or 4 elements per Company. For a British battalion, 2 ranks deep, it would be 3 elements per company. Each element is Ύ", so, whilst each company has the same width, a six-company French peninsular battalion would have a frontage of about 343mm, whilst a ten-company British battalion one of 571mm.

Using the newly proposed basing system, it makes sense to have a 30mm base be the equivalent of two elements and a 15mm base the equivalent of 1 element. So, each French Peninsular company (as well as a British company) would need one x30mm base and one 15mm base. So a six-company French battalion would need 6x30mm bases and 6x15mm bases. It would have a frontage in line of 270mm, so less than the CdB one of 343mm, but that just makes the table I need to play on smaller!

A ten-company British battalion would need 10x30mm bases and 10x15mm bases, and so have a frontage of 450mm in line – again less than the rule frontage, but not sure that matters. The CdB rules have a frontage ratio of 1.66:1, whilst mine has the same ratio.

So this basing system seems easily adapted for CdB.

GENEAL de BRIGADE

GdB has battalions of between 4 and 6 bases per battalion (though has one Russian battalion that can start with 3x8figure bases, rather than 4x6, if desired).

Using the 15mm basing rules, and taking the average infantry figure to take up 10mm width, a 6 figure base in GdB is 30mm wide and an 8 figure base is 40mm.

Using the new proposed system, to work out how many 30mm or 15mm bases a battalion needs, you just need to divide the GdB battalion total figures by 6 to get how many 30mm bases the battalion has, and if any figures remain after this division, add a single 15mm base. E.g. A GdB battalion of 32 figure works out as: 32/6 = 5 bases, with 2 figures left over, so add 1x15mm base, for a grand total of 5x30mm bases and 1x15mm base. With this system the line width of GdB 15mm battalions is almost exactly the same as the line length my system throws out.

24 fig bat: 4x30mm bases = 120mm line width (GdB has line width of 120mm)

30 fig bat: 5x30mm bases = 150mm line width (GdB width = 150mm)

32 fig bat: 5x30mm + 1x15mm = 165mm line width (Gdb width = 160mm)

36 fig bat: 6x30mm = 180mm line width (GdB = 180mm)

40 fig bat: 6x30mm + 1x15mm base = 195mm line width (GdB width = 200mm)

48 fig bat: 8x30mm = 240mm line width (GdB width = 240mm)

For historical battalion strengths, this system is really one 15mm base per 60 men in the battalion.

AGE of EAGLES

In AoE, an infantry battalion 3 deep is Ύ of an inch (so 19.05mm). An infantry battalion 2 deep is 1' and 1/8th of an inch = 28.575mm. That means the 2 rank battalion is 9.525mm longer, so is half as long again as the 3 ranked base.

In my system that would work out as a three rank infantry battalion being 1x30mm base, and a two ranked battalion being 1x30mm + 1x15mm bases.

Obviously the width of my battalions would be bigger than those of AoE, but not sure that really matters much. If I didn't want to mess about with having multiple bases for a battalion in AoE, then I would just make all battalions one 30mm base, and ignore the slight width advantage 2 ranks has. Either way, the basing system would work for AoE, even if not quite as neatly as it does for GdB and Chef de Battalion.

-------------------------------------

So there you have it, a new basing system! If anyone has spotted anything I have missed, mistakes I have made, or has any other advice about the pitfalls (or benefits) of the proposed basing system.

By the way, sorry if all this posting seems a bit self-indulgent, but I want to try and get a basing system sorted before I take the plunge and start buying, painting and basing up, and I can't think of any better place to ask for advice then on these TMP boards!

Hi

I remember basing up 6 mm figures for Empire rules (on small sized bases)and can tell you that having any base smaller than 25-30 mm width (and preferably at least 20 mm depth) will be a real PITA to handle.
It will also make your game slow down due to all the individual component bases needing to be moved/manipulated and make basing the figures time consuming and fiddly.

Thanks for the feedback flipper.

I was also bit concerned that the 15mm wide bases in the system might be a bit fiddly, as they sound very narrow. However, I figured that with sabots it should be ok. In addition, i also thought that if you don't want/need to differentiate the elite companies, you can just exchange the two 15mm bases for one 30mm instead. Really, the 15mm bases are just a form of loose change , a sub-division, should that be useful, either for a particular rules basing system, or for base removal due to casualties.

Still, I take your point about base minimum base depth for ease of use. It would make no difference to the system to base it 20mm deep, rather than 15mm, so far as I can see, so I will definitely have a look at 20mm depth bases.

Sorry Glenn, didn't notice your last post until just now. Thanks again for taking the time to talk me through your experiences.

I understand what you are saying about the sabots/movement trays, and you are correct about the added costs and time, and the fact that it may require different sized ones to cater for different formations, base loses etc. However, I have still seen photos of one that have been done well, and they don't seem to look that bad to me. Plenty of gamers seem to use them anyway. As to labels looking like New York city, again you may be right, but I actually quite like the idea of the different battalions have their names attached, as it adds to the immersion of it all somehow to know the names of the battalions. Anyway, I think this is something I will need to experiment with, to really see how cluttered I think it is. Like I said in the earlier post, I might use some form of casualty pieces, with numbers around the edge, to keep track of things like strength points etc – from a distance, so long as the numbers are discrete, they should blend in fairly well, or at least I think they might.

I also appreciate your comments about figure and base removal, and agree with them. I too would prefer some sort of battalion status, rather than Battalion hit points and figure/base removal. However, the GdB rules I plan on trying first, have battalion figure removal/hit points, so I need to take that into account.

I also understand that you can use markers to show formation changes if using 60x30 (or just ignore formations altogether), or use two 60mm bases per battalion to show the formations. My new basing system I am contemplating, which I had not posted before your last reply, has its main base being 30x15, or maybe 30x20. So I could double them to get the equivalent of your 60x30.

As to Baccus, it does surprise me that they seem to be more expensive than Adler, given how everyone says they are very well priced. However, an infantry pack of 96 figures, according to the cart at Baccus is going to cost me £11.40 GBP. From Adler, 96 figures will cost me £6.48 GBP + postage. If the postage was the same cost as Baccus (actually, I believe Adler's is slightly cheaper) that would make the price of 96 figures from Adler £9.98 GBP. If I was only going to be buying a pack or two, then the price difference may be wearable, but when buying multiple packs, like I intend too, then the price difference really adds up. Like I said, it did surprise me that Baccus were so much more expensive, and it is a shame, as I would have liked to check them out and compared them to the Adler figures, especially if they are more robust. Having said that, I think the sample Adler figures I received are pretty impressive!

Moving on to the two ranks or three ranks question – your point about the middle rank sort of disappearing and nobody really caring, has made me think again about it. Obviously going to two ranks is going to enable me to get more bases on the table for the money. But if going to game in 6mm, it does seem a shame not to go for mass effect, so still really stuck in the mind v heart dilemma at the moment! I think I will have to look at in the flesh, so to speak, in order to really judge it properly for myself.

Out of interest, do you think the Polemos rules are the best ones out there, or do you have any other suggestions for rules I should look at? What level are the Polemos rules designed for? I have General de Brigade, Age of Eagles and Chef de Bataillion at the moment. General de Brigade seems to get good reviews from a wide range of people, and is the system I was planning on trying out first. Another system that has peaked my curiosity is Carnage and Glory, but don't know if I would miss throwing dice – still it does sounds very intriguing.

Anyway, thanks again Glenn for taking the time to reply to me.

Hello lorwerth!

Thanks again for looking at my comments.

No question a lot of people enjoy using sabots and have no problem with the way they look.

Pricing in 6mm is not easy to compare as different firms structure it differently. I think traditionally Adler's cavalry, artillery and officers have been higher than Baccus. While their regular infantry has been cheaper. The market is also in motion as Baccus had a price increase this year. I don't know when Adler last had a price increase. In order to get even close to a proper comparison you would have to figure out the cost for your entire project. Regardless most people realize that the cost for 6mm is of tremendous value compared to other scales and therefore don't really bother trying to squeeze out a bottom line value. The main criteria most people use is simply the style of the figures and how they match up to their own individual painting techniques. You are going to spend a lot of time painting and basing figures so it's advisable to use the ones that best match your expectations.

The mass effect in 6mm is not really on a single base. It's more in a mass of bases. Still some people do like to pack the figures onto a single base. It's another thing that is strictly in the eye of the beholder. So by all means experiment and judge it for yourself.

I've played or studied in detail a lot of rule sets and found they all came up short compared to Polemos. When they were written they were clearly ahead of the game and I've still not found anything to beat them. I even recently wrote a version for North American Wars 1754-1815 called "Ruse de Guerre". It was written in an open ended style so it could also be used as "club rules". We use it for all horse and musket periods from the Seven Years War to the American Civil War. I run one of the oldest Napoleonic Wargame clubs in the world (Napoleonic Miniatures Wargame Society of Toronto). Were just finishing our 52nd year. With a membership of over 30 players it's important to not have to learn new rules for every period and or scale of battle every time someone shows up for a game. So obviously I'm a fan of Baccus/Polemos Napoleonics/Ruse de Guerre. The Polemos series of rules were written specifically for 6mm, although you can use other scales.

Most other rule sets were written mainly for the larger scales and some don't even consider 6mm. So the popularity of other rule sets is mainly due to the followings that they have in the larger scales. You can of course convert almost any rule set into use for 6mm.

Polemos Napoleonic's is two rule sets in one book. One rule set covers actions between Divisions and the other between armies. Ruse de Guerre has a sliding scale that allows you to play any size of action that you want. So you can start gaming almost as soon as you obtain some figures and continue to expand the size of your games as your collection grows.

Rules are just like figures, some you will like and others not so much. It takes time and experience before you will be able to confirm exactly what works for you.

Basing is not as easy as just working out some numbers. Most rules evolve around the basing of the figures and how they interact with each other in a variety of ways during a game. Your chances of developing a clever basing system before you even play the rules is pretty low. The various basing ideas that you see in rule sets took a long time to develop. It gets even more complicated when you throw 6mm into the mix. As I said a number of rule sets never even considered 6mm. It was at onetime very common for rules to say "if using 6mm, just use 15mm basing".

One common underestimation in 6mm is just how fiddly and awkward small bases can be. flippers comments on this are spot on. Your use of sabots won't fix the problem as you will still have to deal with the actual dynamics of the small base vs larger bases. My experience in 6mm says anything smaller than 30x20 or 30x30 will create handling problems for some people. For many, many years all there was in 6mm were small bases. People always thought the smaller the better. The creation of 60x30 did not happen overnight. Once experienced people discovered 60x30 a slow explosion started.

So again, hope you can use some of this and of course any questions just fire away.

Best regards,

Glenn

There are two other Polemos variant basing that is used by some who like to use big units. The first is they simply use 3 60x30 bases and the other is closer to your design where they use 1 60x30 and 2 30x30. Each 30x30 is the elite company if they have them, if not it's just an extension of the line companies. For cavalry some use one of the 30x30 for the elite squadron. The other bases cover the regular squadrons. When used they also sometimes consider one gun as a section or half battery.

Hi Iorweth

I've been through a very similar debate. Like you, despite the very helpful advice of the likes of Glenn, I didn't want to go with the larger bases, as I still want to show formations etc. I also wanted the number of bases to have a relationship with the number of companies normally used by the unit (either 1:1 or 2:1); and ideally allow frontages in line etc to feel right. I knocked it around for a while and concluded the only way to do all of that is to go for a 1:1 figure ratio! Ultimately I think you're going to have to compromise somewhere. I ended up planning to go for a 1:10 ratio, along the lines of the following:

I decided to use a variety of base sizes, depending on the unit, 15mm deep and 5mm wide for every figure. So for British line I was using 12 figures, in two ranks of six, on a 30x15mm base. See attached pictures.

I don't find the 30x15mm bases too small to handle but smaller might well be. The whole project has unfortunately stalled because of a baby arriving a year ago. However, I'm now looking to restart and once again pondering on the basing. Am thinking of potentially going down to 1:15 ratio to reduce the painting requirement and the footprint on the table. Here we go again…

cheers

Mike

Hello Mike!

I really like what you have done, looks fantastic. I've painted lots of those Brits and enjoyed ever one of them. Your project looks very similar to what we did 40 years ago. Except our bases were even smaller roughly 22mm x 16mm as we could buy them that size from a craft store.

Although some people always complained that our bases were too small and fiddly we simply lived with it as we didn't realize that there were other ways to base 6mm. The few people that we knew in 6mm (pre internet) also used small custom sized basing. That's how it was in the early days of 6mm. After all the only way to play Napoleonic's was to change formation. To not be able to show formation changes was just unthinkable. Besides our collection was small and fully manageable.

Over time we gradually noticed that the wheels were starting to fall off the cart. The first was as our collection grew the simple logistics of dealing with a few thousand small bases every game slowed everything down to a crawl. Every player had to analyze and possibly move every base under their control every turn. Not to mention do a full analysis on every relevant enemy unit.

By that time our understanding of Napoleonic warfare had substantially improved. Napoleonic commanders did not play rock/paper/scissors with their formations. In fact most units were deployed in line and stayed that way. So we found a major flaw in the design of most rule systems that were in use at that time.

The next major problem we uncovered was the concept of figure ratio basing systems that use small sections of battalions as the foundation for their units. These systems generally assign uniform or even scale values to every base. This creates a standard scale of strength either individually or collectively that automatically gives one side an advantage in almost every situation. In other words size matters big time. Which is simply not true in Napoleonic warfare. We used a very similar design for years.

So when I look at your chart I see that a British Line or Light unit will have five bases for 600 men and a French Ligne of just 100 men less will only have three bases. This gives the British a five to three advantage. Even Dutch Militia also with 600 men get six bases for a two to one advantage! Am I understanding your chart correctly?

A lot of players simply believe that the British and their allies (under their control) were just better than the French, so they should win most of the time. So they merrily roll along accepting the status quo.

I vividly remember playing in a game a few years ago where the Game Master mentioned to all of the players that the Prussian Grenadier battalions had fewer bases compared to the French, so they were pretty much useless in the game. I said that didn't he think that something was wrong, as I didn't think that historically the French thought that the best battalions in the Prussian army were useless. I also didn't think that the Prussians thought that their crack units were useless. He simply said, well that's how the game works! This of course supports the false concept that the French were always better than the Prussians. So why change anything!

Best regards,

Glenn

Hi Glenn. Thanks for the nice comments.

Yes, I realise my thinking is probably a bit out of line with most 6mm Nap players these days – legacy of growing up playing 15mm divisional-sized games. But I'm probably going to persist for a while.

I do agree with you on size not mattering that much in Napoleonics. In the the rules I intend to use (home-grown by my Dad), the number of bases a unit has has no impact on its fighting ability. Rather each unit has class/morale and skirmish values, which allow smaller but more powerful units to more than hold their own and larger but poorer units to be less effective. There lies the crux of my dilemma – I want the bases for aesthetics and historical geekery, rather than to have any impact on gameplay. So I can definitely see the advantages of moving to something a bit more generic, which might speed things up too. There's just a big part of my that really doesn't want to go there, for no rational reason!

I'll keep knocking this around in my head for a bit and see where it takes me.

cheers

Mike

Thanks for all the replies, I really appreciate the help and advice. Sorry for not posting sooner, but real life got in the way.

I decided to do some research on battalion size and line frontage, to see if that might help me in my understanding of how I might want to base things. I also had in the back of mind Glenn's points about how fiddly small bases can be.

What I did learn was that the stated strength of a battalion was not how many men it would and could shove into line, as around 10-15% of a battalion would be made up of sergeants, drummers and officers who stayed behind the line. The actual number of these non-muskets varied in different battalions, but I settled for a simple % of 12.5%. It is not perfect, and breaks down slightly if battalion size is very large, but it seemed a reasonable number to use.

Having worked out a way of determining the amount of muskets per battalion, I then needed to work out how much space each musket took up in a line. It seemed that 22" spacing per man was mentioned in a manual of the time, a French manual I think, and the French inch (pouce) is actually 1.07" (2.71cm). So 22 pouces comes to 23.5" (60cm) – I got this information about pounces from this thread on TMP: TMP link

Anyway, using the figure of 60cm per musket in line seemed a sensible way to go. On top of that companies lined up with a around a 4-5m gap between each one, and you also had the colour party in the middle of the line, splitting the line into two wings, and probably adding another 2-4m on top of the natural 4-5m between the two companies either side of them. I decided that the frontage of the colour party and the gap they inhabit stretched to 8m, though ended up rounding this to 10m (see below).

Without going too overboard, using those figures I could work out the rough frontage of a battalion in line.

E.g.

Working out a British Line battalion of 640 men (the average size in the battle of Waterloo according to Adler). It would have a total of muskets in line of around 560 (640x0.875 i.e. the total minus 12.5%). So, when put into line in two ranks, each rank was around 280 muskets. 280 men at 60cm per man = 168m. There are 8 company gaps, (not including the gap where the colour party resides), which at 4m per gap, comes to 32m. Add the colour party 8m, and we get 168+32+8 = 208, so let's add another 2m to the colour party to bring the total to a nice round number (making the gap the colour party fills up being 10m in total), makes the total frontage of the battalion 210m. Out of interest, this 210m frontage for the 640 man battalion in line corresponds exactly to the frontage Adler states they would have – when I talk about Adler I am referring to Mark Adler and his book ‘Waterloo Companion'.

A 640 strong battalion with 3 ranks would be: 560 muskets. Three ranks = 186.66 muskets per rank = 111.99m. Four company gaps = 16m. Add 10m for colour party = 137.99m, so round up to 140m.

I then figured that I wanted to work my basing off a ground scale of around 1mm = 1m, or roughly 1" = 25 yards. I figured, with the basing at this scale, it would be easy enough to shrink down the number of bases should I want to go to a larger scale, like 1" = 50 yards, or even 1" = 100yards. I was not concerned with figures per base, but rather with getting a frontage in bases that was a reasonable match for the frontage in reality on a 1mm = 1m scale.

Anyway, I worked out the frontages in reality for 2 and 3 rank battalions of various sizes:

480 = 2R:170m / 3R:110m
520 = 2R:180m / 3R:110m or 120m
560 = 2R:190m/ 3R: 120m
600 = 2R: 200m/ 3R:130m
640 = 2R: 210m / 3R:140m
720 = 2R:230m / 3R: 150m
800 =2R: 250m / 3R:170m
880 = 2R: 270m / 3R:180m
960 = 2R: 300m / 3R:200m

I went through various basing sizes to see which fitted best, and in the end it seems that a combination of 40mm and 20mm bases worked out and fitted quite nicely. For a battalion of 600 men (200m frontage for British and 130m frontage for French), a British battalion would consist of 4x40mm bases (each stand would be equivalent of two companies) and 2x20mm bases (one light company, one grenadier company, each 20mm a single company), making the length of line of all the bases 200mm, so spot on for the 200m in reality the battalion would take up (if want to dispense with the 20mm bases, would just be 5x40mm). The French would be pretty close as well: 2x40mm (each base is two companies, like the British), with 2x20mm bases, one for the light company and one for the grenadier company (or 3x40mm if don't want to use 20mm bases), so came to 120mm.

Working through the other sizes, it roughly works out at the following:

Two rank:

under 400 = 3x40mm
400 – 449 = 3x40mm + 1x20mm
450 – 524 = 4x40mm
525 – 599 = 4x40mm + 1x20mm
600 – 679 = 5x40mm
680 – 759 = 5x40 + 1x20mm
760 – 839 = 6x40mm
840 – 919 = 6x40mm + 1x20mm
920+ = 7x40mm

Three ranks:

424 and under = 2x40mm
425 – 519 = 2x40mm + 1x20mm
520 – 639 = 3x40mm
640 – 799 = 3x40mm + 1x20mm
800 – 879 = 4x40mm
880 – 959 = 4x40mm + 1x20mm
960+ = 5x40mm

All in all, it seems a reasonable way of reflecting the frontage of different sized battalions in line at a 1mm = 1m type scale. What I might do is only have extra bases when the battalion forms line (maybe square as well). When in column I would then keep the extra bases off the table. I was thinking that this would help with fog of war to an extent as well.

Moving to bigger scales, using the 600 strong battalion as the example size, at 1m = 2mm (1"=50yards) a British battalion would be 2x40mm + 1x20mm (100mm total), while a French battalion of the same size would be 1x40mm + 1x20mm (60mm total). At 1mm=3m (1"=75yards), it would be British 1x40mm + 1x20mm (60mm total), and the French 1x40mm (40mm total). At 1mm=4m (1"=100 yards) it would be British 1x40mm and French 1x20mm. However, at this larger scale probably better to just make each battalion 1x40mm.

So, having a basing system using 40mm and 20mm bases seems to work out, and roughly models battalion frontages at 1mm=1m scale (at least according to my rough and ready calculations) and can easily be scaled up or down if the ground scale changes. In addition, having 40mm and 20mm bases allows for base removal reasonably easily, if the rules call fr it.

While 40mm is not as easy to move around as 60mm, and you need more of them to represent a unit than you would with 60mm bases, having looked at a 40mm base, it seems a reasonable size to handle. While the 20mm bases might prove fiddly, with movement trays I am not sure how much of a problem that would be. After all, many seem to be moving around 15mm bases and not struggling with it, so 20mm would just be that much easier.

Again, all still a work in progress, but that is where my thoughts are at the moment.

Hello Mike!

Thanks for explaining where your at. Following in your Dads footsteps is just wonderful, and now putting your own spin on things. You can't be in a better place. Please keep us posted as you move things along. Certainly looking forward to seeing some pictures when your finished or even as you make progress. It's always a pleasure seeing other peoples masterpieces.

Best regards,

Glenn

For Napoleonics in 6mm i base 10 Adler infantry in two ranks on a 25x10 mm base. I have 3-4 bases for each batallion depending on size. All are based on 0.8mm plywood from litco with magnetic basing beneath.

I have flexible steel bases (two back to back) cut out for 3 and 4 base lines and columns. That units bases can be moved around easily "en bloc" making handling of a corps for each player possible.

I like the thin lines without a lot of base space cluttering the tables. The visual prsentation of miniatures with a lot of base showing does just not work for me.

I thought I would post an update on my thinking on basing, based on new calculations I made on the historical lengths of battalion frontages in line (I learned a lot from this thread over on TMP: theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=469336 ).

As I was unsure of exactly how I would base my figures, I thought having a look at what realisitic battalion frontages would be might help, especially if thinking about a scale of 1mm = 1m (1" = 25 yards). If I could find the basing for that, I reasoned, then to go to a different scale should just be a matter of shrinking the amount of bases I use.

Anyway, first off here are some calculations of British (two ranks) and French battalions (three ranks). For the British the theoretical maximum battalion size was 1000 rank and file, at least for Peninsular and 1815, though they rarely were at that size. For the French a full strength battalion (1808+) was 840 all ranks, not including non-combatants. These are for normal line battalions, not guard etc.

So, for British two rank battalions:

Calculation for frontage is battalion stated strength, divided by two for the two ranks, = the musket files. Add 14 additional files for officers and colour party. Multiply by 22, for width per file in inches, and then divide by 12 to get the frontage of the battalion in feet. From there I worked out the yards/meters.

1000 = 514 files = 942' (314 yards / 287m)
960 = 494 files = 906' (302 yards / 276m)
880 = 454 files = 832' (277 yards / 254m)
800 = 414 files = 759' (253 yards / 231m)
720 = 374 files = 686' (229 yards / 209m)
660 = 344 files = 631' (210 yards / 192m)
640 = 334 files = 612' (204 yards / 187m)
600 = 314 files = 576' (192 yards / 176m)
480 = 254 files = 466' (155 yards / 142m)

Interestingly, when a battalion's strength is mentioned by the British is was the rank and file strength given, not the all rank strength. For the French it varied as to whether strength reported was rank and file or all ranks, and I have been advised that to really know which you have to go to primary sources, when you can find them.

So, given that, I worked out two different frontages for the French, one based upon the battalion strength being rank and file and another on it being all ranks. However, the one I used for working out basing was the rank and file frontage, as from what I could tell that in most wargames if two battalions are the same size, then the game considers them to have the same amount of muskets i.e. rules use battalion strength as rank and file and not all ranks.

French (all ranks):

A French full strength battalion was 840 all ranks combatants, in 256 musket files (768 muskets in total i.e. rank and file). Then ten files of officers/NCOs, making 266 files in total for the battalion.

Calculation uses the 20 french pouces per file width, which comes out at 21.13" imperial inches, and so I use 21.13 in my calculations. So, calculation is battalion strength minus 72 (72 men not in ranks – drummers, file closers etc), divide by three (three ranks), add 10 (officers and colour party in the line), multiply be 21.13 (width per file), divide by 12 = frontage in feet. Once I have that then I work out frontage to the nearest yard or meter.

1000 (50) = 319 files = 562' (187 yards/ 171m)
960 (48) = 306 files = 539' (180 yards/164m)
880 (44) = 279 files = 491' (164 yards/150m)
840 (42) = 266 files = 468' (156 yards/143m)
800 (40) = 253 files = 445' (148 yards/136m)
720 (36) = 226 files = 393' (131 yards/ 120m)
640 (32) = 199 files = 350' (117 yards/ 107m)
600 (30) = 186 files = 328' (109 yards/100m)
480 (24) = 146 files = 257' (86 yards/78m)

French (rank and file):

If the French battalion size was rank and file, then divide strength by three, add 10, multiply by 21.13, and divide by 12.

1000 (50) = 343 files = 604' (201 yards/ 184m)
960 (48) = 330 files = 581' (194 yards/177m)
880 (44) = 303 files = 534' (178 yards/163m)
840 (42) = 290 files = 511' (170 yards/156m)
800 (40) = 277 files = 488' (163 yards/149m)
720 (36) = 250 files = 440' (147 yards/ 134m)
640 (32) = 223 files = 393' (131 yards/ 120m)
600 (30) = 210 files = 370' (123 yards/113m)
480 (24) = 170 files = 300' (100 yards/91m)

By the way, the numbers in brackets are figures sizes for General de Brigade, so can be ignored.

There were two options at this point for basing:

1. A different number of bases for a two rank battalion and a three rank of the same strength.

2. Have the same number of bases in a battalion of a set strength, regardless of rank depth, and just have two ranks bases being longer than three rank bases, to account for the longer line length.

Both are valid choices, but I have gone for option two – equal number of bases for same strength battalions but two rank bases have wider bases than three rank bases.

I also decided that I did not want different sized bases within a battalion. I wanted the base size to be standard for each. It may be that I might split a standard size base down into two half-sized bases if it was advantageous, but my guiding philosophy was that I would have a basing system where this was not necessary.

Another choice I had to make was whether I wanted to represent companies as single bases in my system. Obviously, my preference was to do so, but it became apparent that this was not going to be possible given the previous choices I had made, at least not easily. So I decided not to fixate on that. Certain battalion sizes would have a company a base, at least for three rank battalions, and for other sizes a half-sized base would approximately be a company, but I was not going to have my basing system be determined by having to have a company represented by a single base, or half a base.

Looking at the frontages, what really sprang out at me was that 20mm wide bases for three ranks and 30mm wide bases for two ranks were going to be the easiest fit. Having a three rank base being 2/3rds the width of a two rank base was going to be the most realistic, and 20mm and 30mm sized base seemed an obvious choice in this regard.

After fiddling around with various numbers, I settled on each base representing around 115 men, as this gave me the closest matches to line frontage in mm to line frontage in meters. It works out as follows:

115 men per base:

1-115 = 1 base
116-230 = 2 bases
231-345 = 3 bases
346-460 = 4 bases
461-575 = 5 bases
576-690 = 6 bases
691-805 = 7 bases
806-920 = 8 bases
921-1035= 9 bases

I also wanted a bit of leeway within it, if a battalion strength was, say, within 20 men of a higher or lower base bracket, so I could adjust up and down if that seemed sensible (both sides would have to make the same adjustment obviously). So, for example, in General de Brigade, a 24 figure battalion is 480 men. On the table 480 men requires 5 bases, but it is only 20 men more than four bases, so I could choose to represent such a battalion with four bases rather than five, so long as all forces in the battle do the same at this battalion size.

Hope that all made sense!

Anyway, using the above gets the following results:

TWO RANKS (30mm/base):
1000 = 514 files = 942' (314 yards / 287m) 9 bases =270mm
960 = 494 files = 906' (302 yards / 276m) 9 bases =270mm
880 = 454 files = 832' (277 yards / 254m) 8 bases =240mm
800 = 414 files = 759' (253 yards / 231m) 7 bases =210mm or 8 bases=240mm
720 = 374 files = 686' (229 yards / 209m) 7 bases =210mm
660 = 344 files = 631' (210 yards / 192m) 6 bases=180mm
640 = 334 files = 612' (204 yards / 187m) 6 bases =180mm
600 = 314 files = 576' (192 yards / 176m) 6 bases =180mm
480 = 254 files = 466' (155 yards / 142m) 5 bases = 150mm or 4 bases =120mm

THREE TANKS (20mm/Base)
1000 (50) = 343 files = 604' (201 yards/ 184m) 9 bases =180mm
960 (48) = 330 files = 581' (194 yards/177m) 9 bases =180mm
880 (44) = 303 files = 534' (178 yards/163m) 8 bases =160mm
840 (42) = 290 files = 511' (170 yards/156m) 8 bases =160mm
800 (40) = 277 files = 488' (163 yards/149m) 7 bases =140mm or 8 bases =160mm
720 (36) = 250 files = 440' (147 yards/ 134m) 7 bases =140mm
640 (32) = 223 files = 393' (131 yards/ 120m) 6 bases =120mm
600 (30) = 210 files = 370' (123 yards/113m) 6 bases =120mm
480 (24) = 170 files = 300' (100 yards/91m) 5 bases =100mm or 4 bases =80mm

So, as can be seen the frontages in mm to meters is pretty close. If playing at a scale of 1mm = 2m (1"=50 yards), then should scale downreasonably well.

As to how many figures a base, I haven't decided yet, as it depends which manufacturer I go for, and even what scale if I decide to move off 6mm e.g. could go for 3mm. You could even use this basing system for larger than 6mm as well.

I would be interested in any feedback, as I may have missed something etc. I haven't actually started painting or basing anything, so it is all still up in the air really. However, I think this basing system seems to work on paper, and at least in keeps close to what might have been the case in reality.

Regarding pricing, are you in the UK? If so, I don't see how Adler wouldn't charge VAT. Probably worth emailing to confirm. If you're out of the UK, Baccus doesn't charge VAT although their shipping is higher. The total internationally actually comes out to a little bit less than within the UK.

I've based my 6mm on 2" squares. Each base represents a brigade. That's obviously not the kind of game you're looking for, but I'd still think long and hard about doing a complicated multi-base scheme just to capture the different frontage of 2 and 3 rank lines. I haven't played GdB, is that relevant in the rues?