"10mm basing advice" Topic

So, a good friend of mine and I have pledged to finally embark upon a project that we've been interested in for many, many years. The Rifle and Sabre period in the second half of the 19th Century in Europe. This is an entirely new period for us (and rest of the gaming group), so we're not burdened by existing collections, and have therefore decided to also jump into the 10mm figure scale.

Anyway, as neither of us have ever owned a 10mm figure, we're at a bit of a loss for basing, so I'll throw the question open to collective TMP wisdom, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

We're thinking of 30mm base frontages. My partner in crime is thinking a 20mm base depth, but I'm liking a nice deep square 30mm x 30mm.

How many figures will look nice upon this base? We're going to use Pendraken, possibly bolstered by Irregular. I'm thinking perhaps 7 figures in a solid rank will look good? Is 20mm deep enough for two ranks? I'm thinking – with the deeper depth of 30mm – of putting a single rank at the rear, and four or five skirmishing figures in front. Would that work?

I'm liking the idea of skirmishers, since this is the dawn of the rifle after all, and more open formations. And I'm not raising the Austrians but rather the French for 1859.

Thoughts? Photos?

There have been some recent threads on this matter.

TMP link

TMP link

In my opinion there is no substitute for doing a trial run. Buy a pack of 10mm, have a pint with your mate, and lay out a bunch of options.

Second the notion of a trial run. But I'd also consider what you want a stand to represent. If the stand were, say, a company of infantry, you might want the skirmishers on a separate stand. And there is always the vexing question of artillery limbers. The lower the level of representation, the more depth you want for your artillery.

In fact, buy several packs or a smallish army. You'll want to lay out the options for each arm.

And it also depends on the rule set you want to use.

Jim

I'd advocate for a 40mm front. Preferably 20mm deep, cav and artillery on a 20mm front 40mm deep. This was the standard basing for Warmaster, which is a solid fantasy rule set that has been adapted to about every period you can name. With a 2:1 ratio to standard to command bases, you can make nice building blocks for larger units. This is also basically compatible with WRG rules should you choose to use it, although base depth may be an issue.

Not yet got around to basing my mid 19th century 10mm, but I have my Napoleonics based 3x2 on 20mm square bases for infantry and 2x1 for cavalry on same frontage but 25mm depth. Skirmisher infantry bases will have only 3 figures. I think there is some advantage in the 20 mm frontage as it does allow compatibility with several different rule sets.

I use the Bloody Big Battles ruleset and base all of my troops on 25mm square bases

Line infantry are 6 figures in 2 ranks of 3

Skirmish bases are 4 figures staggered

Artillery is 1 gun and 2 crewmen

Light Cavalry are 2 figures to a base

Heavy cavalry are 32 figures to a base

"And it also depends on the rule set you want to use."

Well, yes. But if Tony S had picked a set of rules which prescribed a basing, he wouldn't be asking us--I hope. Anyway, I'm increasingly of the opinion that a first look for what basing I'm comfortable with, and then what rules work with that. It's not as though there is a rules shortage. In a pinch, I'd rather write or adapt rules than rebase troops--and I'll do either before I play regularly with an unsatisfactory basing.

Shedman, can you get us a photo of those heavy cavalry bases?

Wow! Thanks for the helpful and fast replies. The links from Bandolier were great – I don't know how I missed seeing them when they first appeared. (And I really miss the TMP search function).

As for some more specifics on our little 1859 project, they aren't exactly written in stone. It will definitely not be for skirmish warfare, although the idea of having separate skirmish stands is something I've done for my 15mm Napoleonics, for smaller scales I like the idea of a single base being integrated, like my 6mm Napoleonics.

Right now the rules we are looking at are Neil Thomas' Nineteenth Century warfare. Like some of have suggested, the author also suggests 40mm frontages, but after pushing around some cardboard, his suggested assault column single stand width, four stand deep, and his line formation of two by two stands, just looks to our eyes as a column of route and an assault column respectively. We tried changing the formations to half as deep, which fitted our personal aesthetic tastes, but the rules didn't seem to work as well. So our current theory is smaller base frontages should fix that, and still look OK. For the record, Mr Thomas also is dead set against any form of rebasing. It's that kind of gaming philosophy that makes his rules so charming.

Also, for some reason, recently I've been basing my 15mm armies on 30mm square bases. (Great Northern War, The Men Who Would Be Kings and ACW if you're morbidly curious). Perhaps I should blame the Peter Pig rules which I'm quite fond of, as they all suggest such a size base.

I have found that most modern rulesets rarely require hard and fast base sizes, which is a relief. Many are even generic and flexible enough that the unit of measurement is entirely by base width. I really like rules that do that! I do admit that I will rarely, if ever, buy a ruleset if it requires rebasing.

40mm frontage is quite common, and the de facto standard in ancients, and admittedly all of my Napoleonic 15mm, ancients and Marburlian armies are based that way, but I think 30mm should suffice for most rules. The single exception might be Phil Barker's Horse, Foot and Guns, but having tried it for both the SYW and Napoleonics we found it wasn't our cup of tea and can easily take a pass on those rules. On more pragmatic level, a 40mm frontage means more figures, and therefore more time and money.

I completely agree with Piepenbrink about rules and basing. Even if we end up disliking our intended rules, I'm confident we can find something else that we can agree on. (Oddly enough, of the relatively few specific rules for the period, none of them really inspire us to play them. Except perhaps for Bloody Big Battles). Some of the Nordic Weasel titles look quite intriguing.

steamingdave47 mentioned 20mm bases being quite flexible. My 6mm ACW are based on 20mm square bases for that very reason, and he's quite right in my opinion. Oddly enough, my 15mm ACW collection is based on 30mm square bases. I'm not sure that 10mm is small enough though, that those bases will "feel" right.

Bottom line – and as a far, far TL;DR post – I think I will take the general consensus and buy an army pack and just see with my own eyes what looks good. I just like planning my purchases out carefully, but ordering twice won't kill me!

Thanks again everyone!

My WW1 10mm are on 30x20mm bases with 3 Magister Militum figures per base. I like the look and allows me to give what appears to be proper spacing. For my late 19th century stuff, I use 30x15mm bases with either 4 Pendraken or 3 Pendraken figures per base in a single rank. Hindsight being 20x20, I probably would have doubled the base some to 30mm square and had 5-8 figures per base.

link

link

link

Thanks Prince Alberts Revenge! Those pictures are exactly what I was hoping for. Not only are they the manufacturer I'm going to use, and the correct period, but you're even using them for the same rules!

Your figures are most inspiring. Absolutely fantastic brushwork.