"Does 28mm gaming have the seeds of its own destruction?" Topic

6mm figures sounds terrible to me. At that point, you might as well use counters and play a board game. I would chuck the whole hobby in the garbage before I would consider 6mm figures.

This illustrates to me how the hobby is very disjointed. Unlike real commanders who deal with the same time and space in their campaigns, many of us do not share a common practical interest. If you've got 8 gamers, and want to play big battles, then you might want 15mm (or even 6mm…I guess) but what about a Solo player? Maybe he wants 54mm games, maybe he is happy with 6 battalions a side at 30+ figures per.

And about this outflanking nonsense. I used to have an 8 x 6 table and we gamed with about 20+ battalions a side in 15mm at 40:1 and the "so called" outflanking was something the other players had actually heard of before which meant they countered the out-flanking maneuver (crazy, I know) and the table's units looked like a galactic spiral.

It's whatever the gamers want. If you dont have a lot of time, then a certain scale and size works for you. if you only game once every six months, then you might want to do a "kitchen sink" game. It's all fine. However, the idea that it's the fault of the figure scale is erroneous. It's more likely because a gamer is overly concerned at being just like Soult.

Have some self control and dont put too many units on the table. Further, flank marches are better off board. You can re-fight Apern-Essling with a handful or battalions and still simulate command and control. It has less to do with "reality" and more to do with a grandiose desire to play a commander. Doesn't seem to hard to figure this out but maybe some people don't want to "get" it.

As usual, the fault lies not in our figures but in ourselves.

Hello MiniPigs!

"6mm figures sounds terrible to me. At that point, you might as well use counters and play a board game. I would chuck the whole hobby in the garbage before I would consider 6mm figures."

Fair enough, our hobby however, does include a vast number of scales. It's my understanding that in a number of gaming circles 6mm is at least the third most popular scale and continues to grow every year. The game dynamics between 6mm and board games are dramatically different.

"but what about a Solo player? Maybe he wants 54mm games, maybe he is happy with 6 battalions a side at 30+ figures per."

I'm aware of a couple of solo players who play guess what, 6mm. They also always play games of more than 6 battalions per side at 24 figures per.

"And about this outflanking nonsense. I used to have an 8 x 6 table and we gamed with about 20+ battalions a side in 15mm at 40:1 and the "so called" outflanking was something the other players had actually heard of before which meant they countered the out-flanking maneuver (crazy, I know) and the table's units looked like a galactic spiral."

We presently play on 9x5 table and every player almost always commands more than 20 battalions. A lot of our games have over 5,000 figures in play. I do, however, admit to never reading about the galactic spiral out-flanking maneuver being used in Napoleonic warfare.

"However, the idea that it's the fault of the figure scale is erroneous."

I don't think the problem is as simple as the figure scale itself. It's how a lot of gamers like to use the scale. In big battalions on big (but not big enough) tables.

"Have some self control and dont put too many units on the table."

Self control is not a problem either. The gamers are simply trying to play a game that has x number of units that don't really fit on a big, but limited table.

"Further, flank marches are better off board."

I think we all agree with that. The problem is the flank march has to end on the table, otherwise it's not in the game. So where exactly do they go on the table if there is no entry point?

"You can re-fight Apern-Essling with a handful or battalions and still simulate command and control."

Yes you can, but you're not likely to simulate anything else about Aspern-Essling.

'As usual, the fault lies not in our figures but in ourselves."

Yes, but the figures are the catalyst!

Best regards,

Glenn

Apologies if what I write has already been covered, but here goes….

My sense of game theory is that space makes for better game. No matter what scale in which a game is played, there is the temptation to line up troops/units;figs from one side of the table to the other, Both sides. A better game happens when there is space between players which cannot be covered easily. There are gaps that can be exploited by the other side. Players have the dilemma of trying to reach out to cover their flanks but don't have enough units to do it. It causes players to make difficult decisions, tough choices. When choices have to be made, mistakes happen, plans unravel, and players have to scramble. Those moments make for good to great games.

Is that a scale problem? For the most part, I don't think so. 28mm figures are an easy temptation to line up an army from one board edge to another, after all larger figures take up more space. But that can be true of any scale. In my mind, it is a case of less is more. Less troops will make for more fun. That issue gets solved when the game is planned; that's where army sizes are determined. The planner really needs to take into account, and plan for it, the important issue of space.

Hello Normal Guy!

Certainly no need to apologize, as you have simply stated your well crafted point of view.

"My sense of game theory is that space makes for better game."

I think trying to make your space is a better game.

In Napoleonic warfare that space has already been identified as the weak points, so they are few and far between and they did everything possible to eliminate them. This basically means that in most battles the only flanks that exist are at both ends of their respective battle lines. Which don't really exist either if your figures are table edge to table edge.

"In my mind, it is a case of less is more. Less troops will make for more fun."

That's counter to the mind set of almost all Napoleonic gamers. The vast majority of them are in it to be able to control as many troops as possible, i.e. "Napoleon". They also like to replay historical battles which often contain a lot and I mean a lot of troops. This desire to control lots of troops extends all the way down to some of the basic elements like infantry battalions and cavalry regiments. At our peak these were units of 36 figures. Deployed in line in a single rank that occupied roughly 2 feet of table space. On a 12 foot table it only took 6 units to go to edge to edge. In Napoleonic terms that's a single small Brigade. Where could you put the other 20 or more Brigades?

We went through a number of changes that nobody liked, but what other choice did we have? We finally settled on puny little units of 12 figures which allowed us to squeeze some battles onto the table, but none of the bigger battles unless we shrunk the organization of the armies as well. Treating Divisions as Corps etc. We then discovered that pretty much all of the critical dynamics that take place on a battlefield were lost, i.e. moving and controlling large formations. So is this a scale problem? Maybe, maybe not, but the problem is less severe as you move down the figure scale ladder.

The actual problem under discussion is the combination of 28mm figures in units of 30+ figures on a 12 ft table. Reduce the figure size, reduce the unit size and increase the table size and you have a good chance of solving the problem. In most cases a 12 ft table is already too big, so going bigger probably won't fly. In my experience reducing the number of figures in a unit was simply a band aid solution that only delayed hitting the wall again. That just leaves changing the scale of your figures as the only practical solution. We did and we now only rarely hit that wall, and that's because we also reduced the size of our table to 9x5 ft! So we changed the scale of our figures and fixed the problem. So was it a scale problem? Most people that I have talked to seem to think so.

Best regards,

Glenn

Our local group tends to play mostly historical games. Since the bulk of our games are played in 3-4 hour increments, space issues and troop density issues are really critical. The result has been to search for scenarios that we can complete in one evening. The key is troop density which ties in with more open spaces and flanks. A couple of us have noticed that the process has made us better at planning our games.

An additional challenge that has evolved in the last few years is that as we age, some of the guys conk out earlier. The time window sometimes gets shorter.

Hello Normal Guy!

"The key is troop density which ties in with more open spaces and flanks. A couple of us have noticed that the process has made us better at planning our games."

Wonderful, we noticed this as well, but found out that "more open spaces and flanks" were often artificially created by our rules, scale of battle, basing and a general misunderstanding (on our part) of actual Napoleonic warfare.

Most rules have no regimental or Brigade formations and certainly no army deployment requirements either. Players are forced to simply do whatever they think looks good or try and figure out some type of pattern on their table from a vague map in a book. If even one exists. So the actual interrelationship between different units on the table is lost and it's basically every unit for itself. Some people call these "Shotgun" games. Once the game starts the units basically scatter. Most people enjoy these types of games, but there not a very good reflection of actual Napoleonic warfare.

Historical units maintained a tight relationship with each other to not only protect their flanks but to also secure their position within the larger formation, such as regiment, Brigade, etc. They also usually stayed together and moved together. So other then the flanks of an army there should not be too many other "open spaces". Certainly not one that would allow an enemy regiment or Brigade to exploit. In most battles.

So if you're able to often plan your games around more than two flanks and open spaces than your probably having a great game, but you're probably missing the actual problems that historical Napoleonic commanders faced, i.e. only two flanks, with very few other open spaces.

"An additional challenge that has evolved in the last few years is that as we age, some of the guys conk out earlier. The time window sometimes gets shorter."

Now that's a major problem. We now only game one Sunday a month, after church!

Best regards,

Glenn