"Ratio of base depth to frontage" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the De Bellis Magistrorum Militum Rules Board Back to the De Bellis Multitudinis Rules Board Back to the Horse, Foot and Guns Rules Board Back to the Hordes of the Things Rules Board Back to the De Bellis Renationis Rules Board Back to the De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA) Rules Board
Action Log
03 Jan 2017 5:28 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill
- Crossposted to De Bellis Renationis board
- Crossposted to Hordes of the Things board
- Crossposted to Horse, Foot and Guns board
- Crossposted to De Bellis Multitudinis board
- Crossposted to De Bellis Magistrorum Militum board
Areas of InterestFantasy
Ancients
Medieval
Renaissance
18th Century
Napoleonic
American Civil War
19th Century
World War One
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article Command figures for the 1410 Teutonics.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Book Review
|
| Union Jack Jackson | 01 Nov 2013 9:37 a.m. PST |
I am increasing base sizes to accomodate larger scale figures. I am able to maintain the relationship between frontage and groundscale. However, I am finding I must increase all depths by about 15-20 % to accomodate figure scale. this obviously changes the ratio of depth to frontage, amongst other things. Do you think this will have adbverse consequences on the way the agme plays? One fact which comes to mind is that there are slight variations between 25mm and 15mm ratios any way. Both armies will be the same. |
| MajorB | 01 Nov 2013 9:47 a.m. PST |
What size figures are you basing? DBA is only converned with the base depth in the case of recoil moves. If you find you need deeper bases to accomodate your figures then just put a small mark on one side edge so that you know what the nominal base depth should be. |
| elsyrsyn | 01 Nov 2013 11:31 a.m. PST |
This is why I was REALLY hoping that DBA3 (or 2.2+ for that matter) would do away with the base depth recoils and make them a fraction of base width instead. I'd far prefer the game to be base depth agnostic. That said, I think that as long as both armies are the same, you should be fine, and the good Major's solution should work just fine. Doug |
| Thomas Thomas | 01 Nov 2013 1:21 p.m. PST |
"This is why I was REALLY hoping that DBA3 (or 2.2+ for that matter) would do away with the base depth recoils and make them a fraction of base width instead. I'd far prefer the game to be base depth agnostic. That said, I think that as long as both armies are the same, you should be fine, and the good Major's solution should work just fine. Doug" This was suggested for 3.0 and passed for awhile but several playtesters preferred just using base depth to "measure" recoils. Mounted can recoil a set amount (1 BW) or their base depth. Foot must recoil a base depth OR 1/2 BW whichever is smaller. Hence the only base depth recoil left in 3.0 is for foot mounted on 20mm deep bases (for 25mm). By the way 3.0 has optionally increased the depth for mounted to 45mm to accommodate larger figures. TomT |
| Decebalus | 02 Nov 2013 3:59 a.m. PST |
I use double depth to habe two lines of infantry. Because that looks so much better. I absolutely agree with Major Bumsore. |
 Bobgnar  | 05 Nov 2013 10:02 a.m. PST |
I prefer to reduce numbers of figures on a base rather than change base size. |
|
takes the plunge.