"Base Widths for Playing Lasalle?" Topic

If you're playing Lasalle with 25/28mm figures, what base widths are you using for your units?

And why?

60x40mm with 6 figures infantry, 50x50mm with 2 cavalry plus 2 single based on 25x50 to have 2x5 with a 125mm front. Artillery on 60x80mm. French line infantry on 40x40 with 4 figures per base to separate grenadiers and voltigeurs properly in a 6 base unit, having them 1x6 or 2x3 is exactly the same footprint like the mandatory 4 bases.

We play with BW 2", which is easy to remember and measure on a 180x120cm table and works pretty well.

I don't own the rules, but doesn't the idea of using "base width" as a standard of measurement imply that all units have the same base width?

The BW/MU/UD idea is a 15mm thing, I guess. With 28mm miniatures you have a standard like 20x20mm inf, 25x50mm cav per model (or the dense frontage variant with 15 for Inf and 20 for Cav). And there are plenty of rulesets out there you might be interested to play with. Using 2" BW to measure and the roughly 60mm frontage of each "element" works perfectly well and there is no need to rebase anything as long as the footprint of the units match the mandatory one. There is no casualty removal in Lasalle.

I use 2 inch squares with 4 infantry or 2 cavalry; four of these per unit. Base width is then 2 inches.
So unit "match ups" are easy.

Having said that, the base width you use is up to you; very flexible, as stated in the rules.

Leondegrande, I don't understand how your numbers equate to a standard base width. You wrote that you have a standard of 20x20 for infantry and 25x50 for cav, etc. So what is the length of your standard base width? Am I wrong to assume all units, wether inf, cav, or art, should have the same base width in LaSalle?

60x40mm with 6 figures infantry, 50x50mm with 2 cavalry plus 2 single based on 25x50 to have 2x5 with a 125mm front. Artillery on 60x80mm. French line infantry on 40x40 with 4 figures per base to separate grenadiers and voltigeurs properly in a 6 base unit, having them 1x6 or 2x3 is exactly the same footprint like the mandatory 4 bases.

We play with BW 2", which is easy to remember and measure on a 180x120cm table and works pretty well.

The 2" BW is relatively equivalent to 50mm. So seems like your cav works, and you've increased the "footprint" of your infantry a bit above the cav, although if your opponents are doing the same thing, then it seems good anyway.

Not sure I'm following the other base ideas that form the same footprint as the four bases per unit, although no big deal because I won't be using a 60mm base width.

Instead I'm contemplating using the 50mm because it is so close to 2 inches, and will make for easy measuring. Plus like Ogdenlulimus mentions above, the units can easily match up if cavalry and infantry are the same base width.

I have some minimal troops individually based on 20x20mm for skirmish gaming, and I am considering putting these into a sabot like base underneath the current one to create 50x50mm as well.

I also have a minimal number of troops based on 40x45mm, which is apparently the size of the bases in Perry sets. Have heard this can still work, as long as measurements are done in 1 1/2" increments, and opponents are using the same 40mm base width. However, contemplating re-basing to 50x50mm for use of the 2 inch base width measuring with Lasalle.

Multibases Inf are 3x2 on a 60x40mm base, four bases a unit. In case of French line it is six 40mm square bases 3x2 in attack column or 6x1 in line with exactly the same footprint counting as 4 bases. No casualties removed, so no hassle with that.

Cav four bases on 50x50mm means 8 models plus two single based on 25x50mm. 5x2 models that way in attack column at 125mm base width counting also as 4 normal bases 2x2. Only 5mm above the 120mm needed. Also in line the footprint is 10mm above needed.

Artillery each gun on 60x80mm, wagons with four horses on 60x160 (two 60x80 bases).

So I can have a nearly 60mm base width were needed for the miniatures and 50mm/2" for move and shoot to measure distances, which is ideal for a 6x4' table and easy to remember to multiply by 2 all BW numbers.

Hope that helps. Coming from WAB/WFB the 20mm or 25mm width per model is natural and also the 24 Inf an 10-12 medels per Cav unit for aesthetical reasons.

Ah, I'm understanding now. Did not expect to see such a creative way for doing this. Suspect your bases were mostly set up before Lasalle came along, and as long as this works, bingo! And I hear ya on the ways of WAB/WFB.

If we ever meet to play, we'll have to use your bases or mine, but not both. ; )

60mm per base. Because that's what the guys in the club armies are based as.

GamesPoet, we easily can play with different basing, it only matters in melee and in case of that we declare the bases having the same width. One unit against one is no problem, multiple unit engagements simply may have a small gap here and there but that makes no difference as long as we use common sense.

Started with March of Eagles (revised)/Republic to Empire, interested in Black Powder but never played, read Bataille Empire and General de Brigade deluxe too like them but unable to start without an experienced player Lasalle2 now is the best possible ruleset for pickup games on 6x4' tables in 28mm and very popular in my club. You simply can start playing, have fun and tactical decisions have to be made on a growing complex level. That makes it attractive for new players plus the use of the Army Maker as simple guideline to built brigades.

40mm base width for my 28mm stuff – 4 infantry or 2 cavalry or 1 gun

USAFpilot,

I don't own the rules, but doesn't the idea of using "base width" as a standard of measurement imply that all units have the same base width?

Basing for Lasalle follows a "trend", set in many rules over recent years, of trying not to exclude as many potential buyers/players as possible, by not a setting fixed basing schema.

There is a style in the rule book where eight infantry in two ranks, three cavalry, or one gun model, share the same frontage. When deployed Artillery is shown as two bases side by side.

The measurement of same is not mandated, to allow for different scale miniatures and existing basing. The old chestnut of it doesn't matter what you choose, providing they are roughly equal, therefore applies.

This does lead to players working out what suites them and their own ideas of what a BW will be, in terms of actual measurement during game play.

Thanks.

How does LaSalle compare to Blucher? I know they are different in scope, battalions vs brigades as the unit of maneuver. But for those who have played both, which is a more enjoyable experience? If you had to choose one, which do you prefer?

Oh, there's a fine question! 😄

Not least because the "casualty" recording and representation, is a straight lift from Blucher into Lasalle.

Of course the immediate visible difference is miniatures on the table, although there are some people who play Blucher with blocks of troops on a single base, rather than the unit playing cards sold for the game.

In either case the information on the cards and damage track ideas for both are, at a first glance, interchangeable. There are other details within the rules to give a pretty clear indication of linage between the too.

That said, it never feels like you are playing Blucher Part 2. The discussion over on the other current Lasalle thread, says it all really. The games C2 is so different it sets it apart. In a good way.

I personally like Blucher a lot. I need to as well, given the amount I laid out on cards and expansions for it but its necessary level of abstraction makes it that little bit weaker for me. Its a really good way of playing thumping great battles but maybe because I have only ever played it with unit cards there is a diagrammatic, or Boardgame, feel to it I struggle with at times.

Had some really entertain games with it though and its nice to play a Napoleonic game where micro management doesn't really have a place. In fact the only thing I don't really like about it is the way it handles Artillery but that's not uncommon gripe in games of this representational size.

It is still a bit of an Apples and Oranges discussion.

Both have a style of their own and both have abstractions to suit their purpose. Getting the game done before everyone loses the will to live, amongst other things. Of course that's not the sole aim but its a pretty strong reason to buy them.

At this point in time, bearing in mind I have played Blucher since it was released and ended up giving the original Lasalle away, un played.

I would go with Lasalle 2nd Edition.

Although, one day I will get around to playing the Blucher ACW variant I made a bunch of cards for! 🤣

At this point, my plan is to definitely use 50mm x 50mm basing, and with 4 infantry figures, 2 cavalry figures, although not sure if I can get an artillery piece and associated crew on a 50mm x 50mm base comfortably yet. At the same time, intending to use Lasalle 2nd Edition as a way to increase my entry into 25/28mm Napoleonics without needing as many bases as I might need for other rules. Even the idea that Lasalle uses 4 bases per infantry and cavalry unit is attractive to me.

Hi there

>>>>>>>>>>>>
How does LaSalle compare to Blucher? I know they are different in scope, battalions vs brigades as the unit of maneuver. But for those who have played both, which is a more enjoyable experience? If you had to choose one, which do you prefer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I find L2 is far more fun to play.

The system of Mo, Orders and Interrupts is superb.

I like that you can build a plan to do x, and maybe the other side doesn't see it coming. But if the other side does something unexpected you might have to start dancing to his tune as control of play swaps between sides.

Regards

David B