Dear Paul,
First, "John Company" is currently available in PDF format on CD and, as indicated, you should be able to have the rules print adequately on A10 paper (though possibly by adjusting the scale of the page in Adobe Acrobat Reader).
Second, regarding basing, JC tries not to make basing a problem—though that may be an honest matter of opinion!
Again, while the game is based on a figure-to-men ratio of 1:60, everything in the game is based on numbers of Bases, not figures. That is, you could have as many as 18 6mm figures on a Base, or a single 28mm figure, but all losses, movement, etc, is in terms of bases. The exact base size doesn't matter (within some obvious limits), and can be largely what seems best to you.
However, if I understand your current mounting system, you have multiple 25/28mm figures on each Base, thus by the system as written, that still represents only 60 men—but 60 men who take up an enormous area in terms of musketry and movement ranges/distances.
Of course I don't know what rules system you had in mind 10 years ago, but by any rules a four figure base is not very flexible for casualties (unless, for example, you thought to employ "casualty caps" or similar). Then again, if you expected to take casualties in terms of whole (four figure) bases, you would essentially be doing what JC already does.
May I presume your four figure bases are square (2 ranks of 2 figs?). If so, you might wish to double all Weapons Ranges and Movement distances in order to bring the area represented by each base into proportion. Then again, this makes your table, in effect, half its actual size, something that doesn't recommend itself to most gamers!
Frankly—and I can see why you would be loathe to consider it—I think the most practical solution would be to rebase. The rules suggest (but do not require) 3/4" or perhaps 1" square for Infantry and Artillerists, and 3/4" or 1" wide by 2" or 2.5" long for Cavalry.
The advantages in tactical/formational flexibility and casualty removal are legion and, in effect, quadruple the size of your collection (and number of units) without spending a penny more—something most wargamers would find rather pleasant.
Re-basing can be a pain (believe me, I KNOW!), but I think you can see the advantages.
Still, they're YOUR toys, so you must do what you think best.
While they are nothing like JC for specific representation of warfare in India, your mounting system sounds like it would likely cross over with little need of adjustment to Larry Brom's "800 Fighting Englishmen" which is predicated on four figure stands. Of course, these rules represent the general period between about 1860 and the early 1880's (i.e. the period when the Brits were using single shot breech loading rifles), and don't provide any means of fighting early periods or Native powers.
Still, if retaining your current basing system is crucial, you might buy 800 FE and try to jigger it to fit the Sikh Wars with data in JC. Or, indeed, you might want to order "The Sword In The Punjab," the TSATF Variant for the Sikh Wars, though it calls for singly based figures.
Final observation: If you do re-base to single figures stands, your collection will do double duty for the "The Sword In The Punjab" as a smaller, simpler battle game, AND for JC when you want something more period intensive.
Whatever you do, have fun!
TVAG
looks at a multi-period building.
