"Is There A Definitive 1/X vs Ymm chart?" Topic

It's a silly fact we will never escape that we have 6mm this and 1/600 that. I do not want to rekindle the flame wars over the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two, I'm just wondering if there's a good, complete chart of widely accepted equivalences somewhere. I've looked, haven't found something complete.

This might help: TMP link

link

Scale is a real problem for figure wargames as we use figures which are not usually to any specified scale.

There are also compromises such as in 15mm.
Peter Pig matched 15mm figures (which are about 112th scale) with 1/100th tanks (1985) because the figure bases and enlarged proportions made the two look fine. Al the other makers eventually fell into line with the PP match but there are still a fair few not 1/100th vehicles out there. The non 1/100th are more accurate as a match to 15mm but aesthetics won out.

The other problem with matching scale to figure height is the common misconception that the average man is 6ft tall. Obviously a bit stupid, but none the less a widespread belief.

Wargaming figure scales are more art than science in my opinion.

Micro armour also has problems with figure size as even a mm makes a large proportional change.

A lot of wargaming periods started with the figures and then built equipment that looked good with those figures.

Most wargaming buildings are over-scale for windows and doors but underscale in footprint. This is aesthetics again. Players expect a man and base to be able to walk through a hovel doorway without bending.

martin

Wargaming figure scales are more art than science in my opinion.

I hold the same opinion. Ultimately, the table has to look right for the game to work for the players. "Looking right" is pretty subjective.

Interesting that both links--and they're both good links--are very careful with fine distinctions between, say 25mm and 32mm, but get very hazy around 5/6mm. I don't care what it says on the label, no one's going to use H&R or Irregular infantry next to Adler or Baccus.

WSS regularly does this in discussing scales for a period, too: very careful mentions of 1 or 2mm differences in 15-28mm, but they get down to where 1mm really makes a difference and say in every case "scale 6mm; figure size 6mm" even when one line is a head taller than another.

A further complication is the terrain scale. If you are using a rule system in which one figure represents more than one person or vehicle, it means that the terrain can either match the ground scale, or the figure scale, but never both.

This is mostly an issue with buildings. Few people seem to really register visually, very much, whether the trees are "in scale" since trees vary so much anyway, and likewise hills and rivers. Buildings, on the other hand, usually are scaled such that the doors, windows and floor heights look more or less right for the figure scale, but the buildings ground coverage is usually more appropriate to the ground scale.

What one usually ends up with is an overly tall structure with a simplified interior having many fewer rooms than would really be present. Large houses become cottages, in effect, and cottages become sheds. This is only really a problem, at least visually, in skirmish games where the ground and figure scales are the same, since building models are rarely (perhaps never) designed differently for skirmish and non-skirmish.

This isn't really a major issue for me, just an oddity that struck me while painting some buildings for skirmish gaming. The buildings all suddenly looked too small, and had what felt like tiny, cramped interiors.

"no one's going to use H&R or Irregular infantry next to Adler or Baccus."

Speak for yourself, not all of us are that picky. The visual difference between them is not as large as most people make out. Yes, they look quite different held up next to each other at eye level but not so bunched together on a base as part of an army.

A further complication is the terrain scale. If you are using a rule system in which one figure represents more than one person or vehicle, it means that the terrain can either match the ground scale, or the figure scale, but never both.

Actually, I split the difference on my buildings for 15mm Napoleonics.

In the past, I've scratchbuilt models with the footprint scrunched as much as possible but still looking plausible, and the height tall enough that shouldered bayonets and cavalry do not tower over buildings.

These days, I have a friend starting to print 3D buildings for me, and it is super easy to adjust the X, Y, and Z axes independently of each other.

Whoever thought Ymm was a great idea did us all a great disservice that may never be undone. Especially since the definition of Ymm in and of itself is often up for debate. How those that use it do not see how it hurts sales until we actually see an example in our hands is beyond me. Then again marketing has never been a great skill we possess.

Gildas, if you do this, then obviously I was wrong to say "no one"--and I might stretch a point for moderns, anyway. But I'll stick to the main point. "Not so bad looked at directly overhead" might also be said of 25mm vs "large 28mm" or 20mm vs 25mm, which are distinctions the same sites maintain. Once you have castings which don't come up to the other's shoulders, you're talking different scales. I think most of the scale reviewers don't actually build microscales, and so fail to make a proper distinction.

Thanks, everybody!