Help support TMP


"A designer's dilemma, about bases" Topic


9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Game Design Message Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Lemax Christmas Trees

It's probably too late already this season to snatch these bargains up...


Featured Profile Article

Instant Mix Epoxy

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian learns to pay attention to all of the details when buying two-part epoxy...


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


980 hits since 21 May 2018
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Frank Wang21 May 2018 2:30 a.m. PST

After finishing To Arms!, I felt my design was getting harder and harder to carry on. The scale of the figures and the size of the bases bothered me for a long time. I've been struggling with "elements" and "individual base" choices. In the end, I decided to use individual bases in To Arms but now, I think maybe it's a total mistake.

In fact, I like the 15mm figures very much and elements too. An increasing number of 28mm rules are using individual bases. My original intention was to use the most common basing method, so that players can use the same model to play with my rules. I tried to make 28mm models into elements but it didn't work very well(i mean the size).Similarly, the 15mm elements have problems too, such as 4Kn. It is difficult to put four cavalry on a 40mm base. Maybe 20 years ago 15mms were still very standard 15mm, but now they are getting bigger and bigger, almost 17-18mm.

Many people respond that it is more convenient to use elements. So I'm in a very awkward position. I'm thinking of change To Arms! into a rule using elements.

I'd like to know what you think of the bases. Are the individual bases really unnecessary for an set of ancient rules?

Lucius21 May 2018 2:41 a.m. PST

My simple take as one wargames consumer:

If your game is meant to be a skirmish or platoon level game, then you do individual bases.

Any level higher that than that should be an element. To my eye, a massed ancients game of individual figures looks a little off, and feels fiddly.

Jcfrog21 May 2018 4:01 a.m. PST

First of all do allow for the use of gamers existing bases for the scope of your game.
As said if skirmish, idividual,, that can or not be on multiple bases.( allow for the increased spacing due to the tray). Otherwise best to he flexible.
But most people won't re base. Tell them how to use different bases.

3 cavalry to a 4 cm base is ok. Forget the old SHc! In true life I am pretty condifent mellee cavalry over the ages get roughly the same way in frontage for the same reason. If they go in throwing / shooting mode you could imagine spacing them a bit if it is really necessary. But if ancient medieval, do use DBM type elements or Impetus big sizes which are btw multiples of the former. Otherwise you are doomed.
If deployments don't get too fiddly ( foe ex line, column) you can even imagine a counter for big bases stating formation, default being the most used in battle.

Allen5721 May 2018 5:59 a.m. PST

Basing is always a struggle. Single figures for skirmish. Elements for everything else. State a minimum number of figures per element but don't get wrapped up in trying to put too many figures on a base. I have always like the basing conventions of DBA as minimum element sizes.

UshCha21 May 2018 9:22 a.m. PST

I think you need to give guidelines that allow folk to use individual figures or sabotage multi figure bases or base directly as they chose.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP21 May 2018 10:54 a.m. PST

I'm with Lucius. Either individually base and use trays if necessary, or use a common frontage--probably writing things so you can use either a 40mm or a 60mm base. Anyone who wants to use an off-standard frontage is just going to have to learn 8th grade math.

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP21 May 2018 1:45 p.m. PST

The bases are generally supposed to represent 'areas' occupied or used by X number of men or vehicles.

What are you attempting to model, scale etc. ? I would think THAT is what would dictate which kind of mounting you would use.

Or it is just a personal preference representing nothing more than game benefits and/or visual appeal. Your choice.

Rick Don Burnette01 Jun 2018 7:06 p.m. PST

The tradition for basing elements is figures or models glued on a base. The base may represent the element in close order or extended order. Regarding 20th centuty land war there is no way of telling yet elements had a narrow frontage for offensives and extended frontage for defensive
Perhaps the figures should not be glued to a fixed single base but kept unmountd to be placed on offensive narrow bases or defensive extendend bases

Thomas Thomas13 Jun 2018 1:38 p.m. PST

I use the following basing conventions for A Game of Knights and Knaves for both 15mm & 25/8mm.

Frontage: 40mm for 15mm; 60mm for 25/8mm.

Heavy Foot 4 figures per base (in tight shield wall)
Depth 20mm for close order/armored; 30mm for "Fast".

Medium Foot: 3 figures; same depth as HF (20/30mm).

Light Foot: 2 figures; 30mm depth (always Fast).

Medium Mounted: 3 Figures; 45mm depth; 50mm for Fast

Knights: same as Medium Mounted – you just Knght them and give them heavier armor.

Light Mounted: 2 figures per base; same depths as Medium.

The number of figures corresponds to the base Combat Factor so makes it easier to remember and the base depth indicates Fast versions.

Works for any DBX based game.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.