"New basing help!" Topic

Hey guys

The long weekend has given me the chance to paint some more 18mm figures, and I've decided I want to change my basing style to enable me to use my figures for three rulesets, General D'Armee, DBN and our wargames club house rules

As always, I need your help and input – i've narrowed it down to three options

link

Please let me know which style you think is best?

Kind Regards

J

James:
In any of the three rules sets you are planning to use, is it important to be able to distinguish between close and open columns? If so, option 3 is the way to go. If open columns are represented, then option 2 is the choice. And if the only columns represented in the game are march columns then option 1 is correct (need to ensure a column of multiple units takes up enough road space/deployment time).

Personally, I don't like horizontal labels, as they detract horribly from the aesthetic. But many folks don't feel the same.

I use 40 X 40 for most of my horse and musket units – like the look not only in line but in column; for the wider bases, I see some issues about them being in column

Option 2 seems to be optimal, however i have never been a fan of labels on the actual elements themselves. I prefer to label movement trays and place the elements in those movement trays. You would need two movement trays, a line and column version. Another option is to make the label a seperate base, basically it becomes a counter placed next to your unit.

I have decided that basing is an impossible conundrum for Napoleonics. So go with whatever you feel like but be prepared to be upset with that decision at a later date

I have tried to come up with some rational ideas. No doubt some people will feel them to be irrational

1. The number of bases in a unit is also relevant and can be different in different rules<\li>
   
2. Base to match other peoples' basing to enable large club games. Most recently published rules allow any basing style, so long as everything is based the same <\li>
   
3. Make a clear decision between 40mm frontage and 20mm (Napoleon's battles) and stick with it <\li>
   
4. Be consistent between infantry, cavalry and artillery basing <\li>
   <\ol>

   Looking at your pictures, I would do 3 40x20 bases with a printed label that can be attached to the bottom of one base for unit info

   My own stuff is based for Napoleon's battles, 6 bases for infantry units each 20x25mm

   John

I have decided that basing is an impossible conundrum for Napoleonics.

Very True. This will not assist you in basing, but it provided a view of the history of basing Napoloenic figures.
youtu.be/WUcG0U3NOwA

My principles would be:
- every infantry base the same (no different base for labels, labels can be attached beneath or standing up)
- more wide than deep, because it looks more like a unit when the base is single
- enough depth for my models, so no part (i.e. bayonet) of a model will stick over the base.

Because i like shooting, running and attacking models, i would use 40mm*30mm, so i can model some action on the bases. But your picture shows only marching figures, so 40mm*20mm would work. (And a compromise would be 40mm*25mm).

But your picture shows only marching figures, so 40mm*20mm would work.

I agree. I tried a 3cm deep base so i could form two ranks, but in the end i went back to 2cm deep one rank. I will use 3cm deep, one rank, with some diorama around the figure, as well as the figure varying in pose. That can look very nice.

with our napoleonic armies we use 30*30 mm with 6 figures in 2 rows

with our napoleonic armies we use 30*30 mm with 6 figures in 2 rows

That is the best basing for a range of specific rules and does look good as well. I also like the 3cm square basing, while my 15mm napolonics uses, what i call the standard UK basing, of 4cm width, i am planning on basing my 6mm napolonics on a 3cm square base, in rows and with skirmishers and diorama, for the rules which require 3cm width bases.

I would go with option 3 if you must use labels. Though I would eliminate the one base with the extra width and just add the label to a movement tray as has been suggested.

Well, a little outside the box thinking. We often go through a LOT of adding a lot of rule pages about making different country's armies distinct by different rules and pages of tables. … And then we demand that all the battalions have to be based entirely the same. Most games are not competition tournaments. …. … You DO have a choice in how the combination of rules, and the sizes/basing of units affect the play of the game. …… Why not allow some of the difference of basing AND, mainly, keeping the same rules reflect the "actual" performance of the units?…. …. An example be to might be to consider that that the size of then unit (# stand and # files and file spacing on a stand) reflects the real effectiveness and characteristic of the unit? So (for example), a poor firing big unit, with more poorly trained troop, might have a larger file pitch and lower density of firing figures rather than modifiers in a table. Would this be more realistic? The unit would be more clumsy to handle (bigger in size for its firepower), would fire with lower numbers (reflecting its lack of training) and the "details & crunchiness" would be in the unit on the table that you can see, rather than in tables on your cheat sheets. If some "gamer" players try to mount up super units, you would still have the option of correcting that in the rule tables. … Most of the time, it would not be necessary. ….. ALSO, it would be a low pain method of adding variation in unit capabilitie.