"Dimensions of the Isandlwana mountain in 10mm?" Topic

I've just begun to do 10mm Zulu War and and am doing some basic terrain. I'd like to also do a simple foam replica of Isandlwana.

How big would this be in 10mm scale, give or take? It's hard to get a grasp of its dimensions from period photographs and illustrations and such.

Thanks in advance.

If you have not already seen this (one of the best military history sites in existence, IMHO), here is Jeff Barry's take on Isandlwana:

link

10mm does not give us your ground scale unless you're doing Isandlwana at 1:1, in which case please post a photo of your Zulus.

For any terrain, it's ground scale and not figure scale which counts.

Using some really rough math, I get 23 inches tall. But that's probably 23 inches above sea level, not above the surrounding terrain (can't seem to find info on that).

@robert piepenbrink,

Well, I've never understood this whole ground scale thing. I mean why do companies make wargaming terrain that matches the scale of the minis in the first place?

This topic came up with Warlord Games Epic Scale Civil War. Warlord Games includes the Sarissa MDF Civil War buildings in their starter sets. Those are between 13.5 and 15mm in scale. They match the miniature scale, not any ground scale. And I made a post commenting that Hovels 15mm Civil War buildings are compatible with Warlord Games Epic scale because they are practically identical to the size of the Sarissa buildings.

And then someone said that you can't use either brand for Epic Scale Civil War because the ground scale is wrong! They said that for Epic Scale you would want to use 10mm or maybe even 6mm buildings! I simply can't imagine doing that, it would look silly.

So, you can't use the buildings that Warlord Games themselves sell with their own game for their own rules? What on earth? Do the Black Powder rules ignore ground scale in other words. This is all very confusing to me.

Plus, that would make no sense as to why miniature companies sell terrain in the first place. Every terrain maker I know of makes buildings and terrain that match the miniature scale, not a ground scale!

I simply can't play games where the buildings or terrain are out of whack with the models. I guess I'm used to Warhammer fantasy where you simply use 28mm buildigns and terrain with 28mm models.

I guess I'm looking for approximation here in terms of scale.

I'll probably be using Black Powder rules for Zulu War if that helps. But no, I'm definitely not doing Isandlwana 1:1, that's simply not possible logistically or financially. I'll be doing generic scenarios, possibly some based on historical Zulu War battles but not strictly so.

This is why I'm confused about ground scale. I bought this 10mm Zulu Kraal from Old Glory. This terrain piece matches the size of the miniatures! Sooooo…does that mean it's only good 1:1 SKIRMISH games of Zulu War and nothing else?

Surely gaming companies aren't selling wargaming terrain that matches the mini. size because it's only intended to be used for dioramas. Of course it's being used for wargaming!

I am sincerely not trying to be snarky in my response, I genuinely don't understand this. I mean I GET what groundscale is: You say your game is "1 inch equals 100 feet" on the tabletop or whatever. But if you have to choose a ground scale, how do you reconcile it with terrain pieces that all match the miniature size?

Here is that Zulu Kraal. It clearly matches the mini. scale and not any ground scale:

What I was trying to say in my long-winded post is, for example AWI or ACW in 28mm scale.

I've got two 28mm scale armies. All of my buildings and terrain are…well…28mm scale. They all match the miniature scale, which is how I thought you did it.

I have not seen 28mm AWI or ACW tabletops where the gamers were using buildings that were a full scale smaller than the minis. to match a game's ground scale.

I guess what I'm asking is, so like people actually use 15mm buildings with 28mm armies?

I would think you would visually want the tabletop to all be in sync size-wise and then work out a compatible rules set around that rather than the other way around!

And what about fences? And walls? Those are always in the same scale as the minis, yes?

Like here is Grand Manner's 28mm tavern buildings. They match…the model scale, do they not?

Ok, so doing some reading I now understand that the above buildng on a 28mm scale tabletop has a footprint that would actually represent a village of many buildings taking up space on the table, even though it's only two models.

I get the footprint concept, which is how I guess you can justify having buildings that match the scale of the models for a game.

So, in that regard I guess I'm not looking to have an actual, historical replica of Isandlwana in terms of ground scale. I just want a terrain piece that is shaped like it but that could TECHNICALLY represent a cluster of hills perhaps.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm kind of riding the line between historical and just representative.

My "Isandlwana" I would want it to match the model size as closely as possible but it doesn't have to necessarily BE the size of Isandlwana in terms of ground scale, if that makes sense.

It makes perfect sense, and I guarantee you that if you get the shape correct, everybody who knows the period isn't going to say "oh, the size is wrong", they're going to say "Cool! That's Isandlwana!"

And that's why I was asking about ground scale. Yes, you can do the figure scale/footprint thing with buildings. That kraal, for instance, would have the footprint of a much larger kraal in terms of number of huts. But with mountains, the footprint is pretty much what you have. By all means get the shape correct, but if you screw up the footprint relative to the armies, I can guarantee you that at least one commander will be saying "my plan would have worked if that out of scale mountain hadn't blocked a historically feasible troop movement!" or "they'd never have gotten away if the mountain had been the historical size!"

Not hard to find a map of the battlefield. Work out how big your table is going to be, and make sure the mountain takes up pretty close to the same space in proportion, just as you'd do for the two armies. Otherwise, you've got a Zulu War battle, but not Isandlwana.

Getting back to the topic at hand, if you modeled it in scale, the mountain itself would be about 12.2 feet long along its longest axis (roughly SSW to NNE).

This is why we should have paid attention in algebra class, when everyone around me was complaining, "When am I ever going to need this stuff?"

But to get to the conundrum of ground scale vs model scale in wargaming, I always use the more aesthetic criteria: does it look oool?

I think, for gaming purposes, it is more important to establish a workable ground scale that can replicate the battle you are trying to simulate, and then use a model scale (figures and buildings and terrain) that looks plausible. Even if this means your troops are a little too big for the houses or the hills. Twenty-four figures mounted on stands can look, at least theatrically, like an actual regiment of 500. If you squint your eyes.

Here's a direct link to my article and maps on Isandlwana on Obscure Battles.
link