Help support TMP

"6mm and the desire for larger games" Topic

16 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 remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the 6mm WWII Message Board

Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Featured Ruleset

A Sergeant's War

Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Profile Article

1,576 hits since 16 Jun 2021
©1994-2023 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

captaincold6916 Jun 2021 9:31 p.m. PST

So, let's see your tables!

I'm a 15mm WW2 gamer but I've been thinking about larger battles and going the 6mm route since I can keep my table up as long as I want.
I like 15mm, but when I meet someone at their place or a shop the games don't last that long and are smaller scale engagements. I really want to get into the larger wide open spaces for larger combined arms battles and I think 6mm would be ideal.

Wackmole916 Jun 2021 9:47 p.m. PST

A 6mm WW1 Battle of Cambrai Game from Historicon


monk2002uk16 Jun 2021 11:12 p.m. PST

**Snap** Battle of Cambrai put on the Bovington Tank Museum:


monk2002uk16 Jun 2021 11:16 p.m. PST

The First Battle of the Marne 1914 on 50' of tables with more than 10,000 figures:

French and German troops clash on one of the tables:


monk2002uk16 Jun 2021 11:19 p.m. PST

Another WW1 combined arms game on large table, featuring the Battle of Matz 1918:


monk2002uk16 Jun 2021 11:22 p.m. PST

And the infamous Battle of the Somme July 1st 1916:

Lots of other examples referenced here:



monk2002uk16 Jun 2021 11:27 p.m. PST

Lots of WW2 examples on Keith's excellent website here:

A taster photo of table set for a 6mm combined arms engagement:

In summary, 6mm is a great way to go. Like you, I have the ability to keep a table set up. This allows me to replay wider-scope historical engagements multiple times too.


Martin Rapier17 Jun 2021 12:06 a.m. PST

I fight larger scale engagements in anything from 2mm to 20mm. It is just a question of ground scale….

Sidi Rezegh in 6mm link

Operation Goodwood in 6mm link

Kasserine Pass in 15mm link

Battle of Amiens in 20mm link

olicana17 Jun 2021 4:01 a.m. PST

You can do quite big games in 15mm too. Why change?

Sidi Rezegh 1941




And 15mm looks so good



79thPA Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2021 7:08 a.m. PST

OP, what size table do you have, and what rules are you using?

captaincold6917 Jun 2021 7:25 a.m. PST

@ olicana…I can't agree with you more. 15mm stuff looks so nice, but on a table of 8x4 or even a little larger the armor look too close to each other. That parking lot look just bothers me. Mind you, this is ONLY when there are 10+ vehicles on the table. A troop of tanks on each side, then it looks ok, but for several troops of tanks each side, 15mm doesn't look right (for me).

@ 79thPA…..I can have up to a 10x6 table and I'm using IABSM and Mein Panzer.

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Jun 2021 7:34 a.m. PST

6x8 Table. The CDs at the edges are movement trays.


Gauntlet17 Jun 2021 9:32 a.m. PST

I agree that 6mm is preferable for any large engagements. If you want room to maneuver down multiple possible attack lanes, 15mm is just way too big.

I started with 10mm and I'm dropping down to 6mm because I want multiple platoons of armor on each side and I want space between individual tanks.

NCC171717 Jun 2021 9:43 a.m. PST

6mm War of Spanish Succession on a 4ft x 6ft table:



Mark 117 Jun 2021 9:55 a.m. PST

Here are some views of a game I did at a con some (many) years back.

First, the challenge -- always wanted to do some gaming of Kursk, and in particular some reasonable portion of that swirling set of actions that have come to be called the battle of Prokhorovka.

For this case, I chose the engagements of the 3rd SS Panzer, which was continuing to push back the remnants of the 52nd Rifle and 9th Airborne Divisions when they were struck by the 24th Guards Tank Brigade, all of which took place on the other side of the River Psel from the main actions that are so often described.

For the gaming con action, I prepared player briefings for each side. These were provided to the commanders prior to the game. Here is the commander's briefing for the German players:

I also prepared a map of the actual table, which covered a smaller area than the overall briefing maps. This was give to players only at game time.

The table itself was then only a subset of this map -- running roughly from Kliutchi to Polyashaev, focused on the high ground that the Germans designated as Hill 226.5 (Hill 222.6 to the Soviets) running from SW to NE, with the Psel and the bridges at Mikhajlovka to the SE.

(This pic shows the table as seen from the North, which was a corner view as the table ran SW to NE.)

Through this process I hoped to challenge the gamers to orient themselves on their maps, giving them one more issue to deal with that is common to commanders.

In my games I use paper chits in place of the miniatures to provide some measure of hidden movement. Each chit gets replaced by a model only when that element is spotted. This has a substantial impact on players who are more frequently accustomed to making tactical decisions with a "God's Eye" view.

In this view down the Psel, the game area edge is marked by a masking tape border, which also gives gridline indications. This should have been done with a different colored tape, as I was also using masking tape for the dirt roads. My game terrain techniques were not as well developed at this time.

Often missing from the popular mythology of Kursk is that fully 1 out of 3 Soviet tanks were light tanks. Pz IVs could, and did, do deadly execution of T-70s on this day.

Tigers in hull-down positions were almost impossible to counter for the Soviets.

The mass rush was about the only tactic that showed any likelyhood of results.

Even with all the space this table provided, gamers who have played larger scales were still inclined to place their miniatures bumper-to-bumper. Tsk tsk. If the Germans had been able to get their artillery on target fast enough … but would these gamers learn even then?

After all is said and done, with tables and games as large as I like to create, the core of the game almost always focuses down to an action by a company or even a platoon, at an area that is less than 1/8th of the total game area. In this case the vital action was a platoon of German Pioneers who charged through the hail of tank fire in their Hannomags to get to, and blow up, the bridges over the Psel, thereby achieving a critical victory condition for the Germans and winning the game.

I see larger scales as being very appropriate for actions like the Pioneers at the bridge. But for all of the maneuver that took place around that action, and for the question of WHY there were no T-70s to in place to slaughter the halftracks as they made their rush, I need more maneuver room and larger formations.

I don't want to get units to deploy, or reinforcements, at some magic beam-me-down position because some die role on a table says I get them. I want to get units or reinforcements at some location because, in the game, the player(s) recognized the requirement, made the tactical decision to move those units, and suffered the costs and met the challenges that those decisions entailed.

At least that's what makes the gaming so engaging for me.

(aka: Mk 1)

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP17 Aug 2021 4:20 p.m. PST

That's my kind of setup.


Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.