Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, but such forces are so widespread because of the realities of modern war that even at 3mm the table feels crowded.

It is not the amount of combatants but the battle front, in "medieval" wars the front was so small in modern and futuristic or sci fi wars the front is expected to be kilometres wide and formations widespread to avoid easy destruction.

In the standard tables we have, a medieval style mass combat game feels good especially at small scales, a modern war feels better as small skirmishes even at small scales.

And "28mm" skirmish wargames capture a feel mass combat games do not because they feel way too crowded.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Yes, but such forces are so widespread because of the realities of modern war that even at 3mm the table feels crowded.

It is not the amount of combatants but the battle front, in "medieval" wars the front was so small in modern and futuristic or sci fi wars the front is expected to be kilometres wide and formations widespread to avoid easy destruction.

In the standard tables we have, a medieval style mass combat game feels good especially at small scales, a modern war feels better as small skirmishes even at small scales.

And "28mm" skirmish wargames capture a feel mass combat games do not because they feel way too crowded.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that last sentence. Surely 28mm is too crowded?

If modern warfare benefits more from spacing out (I agree because of the range and mobility of modern to sci-fi elements) then surely that is an argument for smaller scales? Halving the height of a model, quarters its footprint on the table. Model for model, 15mm takes up a quarter of the table space as 28mm. Drop a model's height to a third (as with 28mm to 10mm) and you reduce its footprint to a ninth.

Smaller footprint can mean either more models or more space around models and actually can be both. Just look at 40k to see how even a small warband is crowded up on a gaming table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just going to put in this estimate of model count for rank 'n' flank style pre-modern armies for a given table footprint at various common scales.
28mm/30mm - 1 soldier takes up 20mm x 20mm. A medium sized unit has 20 soldiers.

15mm - half height of 28mm, quarter footprint. A medium sized unit has 80 soldiers.
10mm - third height of 28mm, ninth footprint. A medium sized unit has 180 soldiers.
6mm - fifth height of 28mm, 1/25th footprint. A medium sized unit has 500 soldiers.
3mm - tenth height of 28mm, 1/100th footprint. A medium sized unit has 2000 soldiers.

For cavalry you have half the soldiers for a given footprint.

A sizable army for a gaming table has the equivalent of 10 medium sized units.

Now for a sample army from history.

The Battle of Carrhae, 53 BC.

Roman Army 45,000 infantry vs Parthian Army 10,000 cavalry (incidentally the parthians massacred the larger roman army)

At 3mm you need 22 medium sized units for the Roman Army and 10 medium sized units for the Parthians to get a 1:1 ratio with the historical battle.

At 6mm 22 medium sized units is 11,000 and 10 medium sized units of cavalry is 2500. Far short of the historical numbers but still looking like many thousands as an aid to suspension of disbelief.

At 10mm 22 medium sized units is nearly 4000 and 10 medium sized units of cavalry is 900. About a 10:1 ratio. 1 model counts as 10.

At 15mm 22 medium sized units is 1760 and 10 medium sized units of cavalry is 400. Woefully short but still decent numbers to the eye.

At 28mm .. 22 med units is 440 and 10 med cavalry is 100. Just a small skirmish, bandits vs highway patrol.

I would argue that a skirmish game in a 4x4 or 4x6 table with roughly 20-30 models on the battlefield, assuming we are talking about modern/ science fiction warfare (again assuming future goes on as we fight today or similar, but not in an "alien" way) is too crowded.

It does not feel crowded, but it is, more than that it is crowded and feels crowded, terrain is also unrealistically too small but feels ok.

if you had the same in 15mm it would be roughly in line with what should be realistically expected, but then it would feel wrong, 15mm feel about right for a platoon level game which is again too crowded, but eh.

For me the more soldiers you put in that footprint the worse it gets, 3mm is 1/600 putting 2000 soldiers in a front line of just 1,1 kilometres? (the standard 6ft table)

Again fantasy, antiquity and medieval battles benefit from a really compact battlefield.

In any case your examples are all coming from that field, not from a modern standpoint, were such packed formations would be unthinkable and the play space needed far wider because of that.

For me skirmish wargames are exactly that skirmish wargames, taking a small snapshot of a wider battle or focusing on really small operations and they are more in line with fantasy and modern/ future settings than historical, medieval, antiquity era settings.

What "feels" right just comes down to what you're used to playing. 15mm for squad level games I think is just fine, but 28mm probably "feels" right because a lot of people were introduced to wargaming via 40k, so have grown accustomed to crowded battlefields representing basically what would be one patrol encountering another patrol at very compressed ranges rather than an actual battle.

I actually think 15mm scale "feels" right for most games, even though it's too big if you want to represent large scale battles.

But very large scale you basically want to use something like counters anyway, if you want to represent a battle that has 100's of thousands of troops over 10's of miles of front that lasts several days or weeks. In which case you could just use a single model of 28mm or even 54mm to represent an entire division, go fully abstract on that mofo.

I like 15mm because it's probably the smallest scale where I enjoy painting individual infantry figures. Smaller than that and they start to become annoying rather than interesting to paint. Of course after painting 40 of anything at that scale it starts to get a bit tiring. 28mm I get bored after painting about 20, lol

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

In any case your examples are all coming from that field, not from a modern standpoint, were such packed formations would be unthinkable and the play space needed far wider because of that.

For me skirmish wargames are exactly that skirmish wargames, taking a small snapshot of a wider battle or focusing on really small operations and they are more in line with fantasy and modern/ future settings than historical, medieval, antiquity era settings.

At present I am looking to design a wargame that fits a gap in the market. Fantasy skirmish with big models has KoW and AoS. Sci-Fi skirmish with big models is pretty well covered even dominated by 40k. A true sci-fi wargame on a usable scale for wargaming exists with Dropzone Commander, (and it looks really pretty good - plan to take it up myself and also stock it). Currently Fantasy wargaming on a true wargaming scale is not available as a commercially well supported game system, so that is the genre and scale I am looking to develop on. Oh sure the Warmaster rules are usable, but they are out of print, there are a smattering of fantasy figs available from different manufacturers but nothing comprehensive or well integrated with a particular system. This is why perhaps I am more interested in Rank 'n' Flank footprints in various scales. The argument I make though for smaller scales also does apply for modern warfare just in a different way. Smaller scales for modern armies gives more room to manoeuvre, more and larger warmachines, more plausible ratios between game ranges and ground scale.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But very large scale you basically want to use something like counters anyway, if you want to represent a battle that has 100's of thousands of troops over 10's of miles of front that lasts several days or weeks. In which case you could just use a single model of 28mm or even 54mm to represent an entire division, go fully abstract on that mofo.

I like 15mm because it's probably the smallest scale where I enjoy painting individual infantry figures. Smaller than that and they start to become annoying rather than interesting to paint. Of course after painting 40 of anything at that scale it starts to get a bit tiring. 28mm I get bored after painting about 20, lol

Arguably every model used for gaming is a counter, just with varying degrees of abstraction and prettiness.

It is good to think about the practicalities of modeling on a small scale. I have been thinking of new way of doing 3mm to 10mm minis for rank 'n' flank blocks which would greatly simplify assembly and painting. Currently 3mm to 10mm minis are cast as single figures or as a single rank (called a strip) with as much as 10 minis per rank, sometimes they are run together so that the whole rank is effectively one model. Why not cast a multi rank block of soldiers as one model instead? On a the smaller scales only the front rank need be pretty or have identifiable detail. At 3mm that might be one model on a 20mm x 20mm base that looks like a block of 100 minis. Prime it black, dry brush the tops silver for helmets, dry brush the sides and back brown or similar and just give the front rank a pretty paint job and you have 100 soldiers that looks like 100 soldiers but was no harder (and probably much easier and quicker) to paint than a single 28mm model.

The market at the same time has no gap and is full of them.

Better design what you want to play than looking at what perceived gaps exist, there may exist simply because nobody is interested and there is no market for it.

Regardless of that, usually miniatures will grab attention and then the fluff and rules will keep the customers, people rarely join just for the fluff or the rules.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The market at the same time has no gap and is full of them.

Better design what you want to play than looking at what perceived gaps exist, there may exist simply because nobody is interested and there is no market for it.

Regardless of that, usually miniatures will grab attention and then the fluff and rules will keep the customers, people rarely join just for the fluff or the rules.

Really? Apart from Warmaster I am not aware of any. What titles are you referring to? Also you never did tell me which titles had a hybrid scale system.

The most famous company trying it was GW in the reigns of Andy chamber they tried to make the players hybridise their game systems and the two campaigns run on the WD, famously the "epic 40k" said that the 24cm range was the 40k battlefield and one could play the skirmishes with a 40k army instead of rolling the dice.

And it has been attempted again and again by GW to "inspire" their customers to mix their systems and bring the smaller game systems to the big 40k system (and in fantasy there was an article attempt of bringing the warhammer quest heroes and bloodbowl teams!?) as heroes and regiments of renown.

Other figureless systems have attempted to inject the big and small battle in the same rules, but I will have to look in my library and a bit on the net to confirm which forgotten rule-sets have tried it.

I guess there is another way the GW way of mixing the rules in a rule set that does not know what it is, this is most famously present in 40k, were the rule system does not know if it is a squad based or an individual based system.

What I said, is that maybe the dead warmaster is the only example of 10mm fantasy game system (I do not know never researched that genre) because it is not commercial appealing and committing heavy on it may not be right, on the other hand maybe it is and just nobody did it right so far, but I personally would not design just because there is a perceived "gap" in offering, I would design on what I like and if it happened to be on that gap, so much better.

 SolarCross wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But very large scale you basically want to use something like counters anyway, if you want to represent a battle that has 100's of thousands of troops over 10's of miles of front that lasts several days or weeks. In which case you could just use a single model of 28mm or even 54mm to represent an entire division, go fully abstract on that mofo.

I like 15mm because it's probably the smallest scale where I enjoy painting individual infantry figures. Smaller than that and they start to become annoying rather than interesting to paint. Of course after painting 40 of anything at that scale it starts to get a bit tiring. 28mm I get bored after painting about 20, lol

Arguably every model used for gaming is a counter, just with varying degrees of abstraction and prettiness.

Yeah of course, but I was talking about extreme abstraction to make large battles possible. I don't think anyone wants to paint 1000's or even only 100's of tanks representing 1000's just to play a single game that represents the Battle of Kursk.

https://wargamingmiscellanybackup.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/art-of-tactic-barbarossa-1941-inside-the-box/

It is good to think about the practicalities of modeling on a small scale. I have been thinking of new way of doing 3mm to 10mm minis for rank 'n' flank blocks which would greatly simplify assembly and painting. Currently 3mm to 10mm minis are cast as single figures or as a single rank (called a strip) with as much as 10 minis per rank, sometimes they are run together so that the whole rank is effectively one model. Why not cast a multi rank block of soldiers as one model instead? On a the smaller scales only the front rank need be pretty or have identifiable detail. At 3mm that might be one model on a 20mm x 20mm base that looks like a block of 100 minis. Prime it black, dry brush the tops silver for helmets, dry brush the sides and back brown or similar and just give the front rank a pretty paint job and you have 100 soldiers that looks like 100 soldiers but was no harder (and probably much easier and quicker) to paint than a single 28mm model.

Yeah it's nothing new to put multiple models on a single base.

Even at 15mm, even though the models come separately they're small enough for me to attach 5-10 of them to an icy pole stick and paint them together.

It's just, for me, 15mm is the smallest size I actually find the models interesting to paint and look at. Obviously smaller is faster, but I find it more of a chore. Especially when you have to clean mould lines off the little bastards Beyond that I'm just thinking do I really care if I have models at all, maybe counters would be better

That's talking specifically about infantry though, 6-10mm tanks and aircraft I don't mind. I think 6mm is the perfect size for an aerial combat game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah it's nothing new to put multiple models on a single base.

Even at 15mm, even though the models come separately they're small enough for me to attach 5-10 of them to an icy pole stick and paint them together.

It's just, for me, 15mm is the smallest size I actually find the models interesting to paint and look at. Obviously smaller is faster, but I find it more of a chore. Especially when you have to clean mould lines off the little bastards Beyond that I'm just thinking do I really care if I have models at all, maybe counters would be better

That's talking specifically about infantry though, 6-10mm tanks and aircraft I don't mind. I think 6mm is the perfect size for an aerial combat game.

Well I am not talking about putting multiple models on a base. I am talking about a single model cast to look like a block of 25-100 soldiers. You could think of it as halfway between an abstract counter and a more representative model. I haven't seen it done this way for infantry but the picture below is the same approach done for a rat swarm. A single model representing a large number of entities.

That is an evolution of what GW did with their warmaster line, not sure id it is possible with the current casting methods, but sounds like an interesting idea.

Lets be honest about models and counters, everything in a wargame could be represented with a flat counter or a block or a cylinder, we just love our models.

 SolarCross wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah it's nothing new to put multiple models on a single base.

Even at 15mm, even though the models come separately they're small enough for me to attach 5-10 of them to an icy pole stick and paint them together.

It's just, for me, 15mm is the smallest size I actually find the models interesting to paint and look at. Obviously smaller is faster, but I find it more of a chore. Especially when you have to clean mould lines off the little bastards Beyond that I'm just thinking do I really care if I have models at all, maybe counters would be better

That's talking specifically about infantry though, 6-10mm tanks and aircraft I don't mind. I think 6mm is the perfect size for an aerial combat game.

Well I am not talking about putting multiple models on a base. I am talking about a single model cast to look like a block of 25-100 soldiers. You could think of it as halfway between an abstract counter and a more representative model. I haven't seen it done this way for infantry but the picture below is the same approach done for a rat swarm. A single model representing a large number of entities.

Yeah I know what you meant, Warmaster worked the same way, but with rows of troops rather than full blocks. With full blocks you'll have the problems moulding a whole block and people will have issues painting them (painting the 3rd guy from the right in the 5th rank is going to be a pain in the arse because you won't be able to get your brush in there).

From a speed painting perspective, whether they come cast as a single piece or they are simply small enough that you can mount multiple of them on an icy pole stick doesn't really make a huge difference, which is why I mentioned that's already how I paint my 15mm models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Lets be honest about models and counters, everything in a wargame could be represented with a flat counter or a block or a cylinder, we just love our models.

Yeah of course, I was just pointing out for me personally, I cease loving infantry models when they get too small to paint them to any decent standard.

I don't think I'm the only person that feels that way, I always struggled to get people in to Epic because they didn't like the 6mm models even though they might have liked the rules.

Sure 15mm is the smallest model I am willing to paint and at 40mm is the biggest scale I would care to play.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
That is an evolution of what GW did with their warmaster line, not sure id it is possible with the current casting methods, but sounds like an interesting idea.

Lets be honest about models and counters, everything in a wargame could be represented with a flat counter or a block or a cylinder, we just love our models.

I would say it is surely possible in resin or metal, but with steel molds having zero tolerance for undercuts it would not be possible in plastic, unless it is done a multi-part model. In plastic it would require 5 parts I guess: front rank, sides and back rank glued around a "roof" of helmets for the middle of the block. A detailed 28mm plastic single fig is also multi-part usually: legs, arms, torso, head and weapons accessories. Given that a block of small scale infantry is fairly flat with one side, the base, being entirely flat, it could be cast in resin the same way resin "scenic" bases are cast with a single piece mold rather than a 2 piece mold.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah I know what you meant, Warmaster worked the same way, but with rows of troops rather than full blocks. With full blocks you'll have the problems moulding a whole block and people will have issues painting them (painting the 3rd guy from the right in the 5th rank is going to be a pain in the arse because you won't be able to get your brush in there).

But you wouldn't paint 3rd guy from the right in the 5th rank, only his helmet. Apart from front & back ranks, side files the middle guys are just helmets with their "bodies" inside the model. Look again at that rat swarm mini above, do you paint the rats inside the swarm? do you paint the bodies of rats that only have a head showing?

Depends, these projects sit firmly on the shoulders and mastery of the sculptor and the mouldmaker.

 SolarCross wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah I know what you meant, Warmaster worked the same way, but with rows of troops rather than full blocks. With full blocks you'll have the problems moulding a whole block and people will have issues painting them (painting the 3rd guy from the right in the 5th rank is going to be a pain in the arse because you won't be able to get your brush in there).

But you wouldn't paint 3rd guy from the right in the 5th rank, only his helmet. Apart from front & back ranks, side files the middle guys are just helmets with their "bodies" inside the model. Look again at that rat swarm mini above, do you paint the rats inside the swarm? do you paint the bodies of rats that only have a head showing?

I paint whatever is visible. Even at 3mm scale you can see more than just the helmet of the guys in rear ranks.

Unless you pack them absurdly tight, I think Peter Pig does some figures like that but I've never seen them painted to know if they look decent or not. I imagine it'd just end up looking like a squashed crowd rather than an organised military force.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I paint whatever is visible. Even at 3mm scale you can see more than just the helmet of the guys in rear ranks.

Unless you pack them absurdly tight, I think Peter Pig does some figures like that but I've never seen them painted to know if they look decent or not. I imagine it'd just end up looking like a squashed crowd rather than an organised military force.

Lol, a minute ago you were saying this:

Yeah of course, but I was talking about extreme abstraction to make large battles possible. I don't think anyone wants to paint 1000's or even only 100's of tanks representing 1000's just to play a single game that represents the Battle of Kursk.

One minute you are saying go for "extreme abstraction" and now you saying no abstraction even at 3mm.

Meh, one can't please everybody and some people one can't ever please.

 SolarCross wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I paint whatever is visible. Even at 3mm scale you can see more than just the helmet of the guys in rear ranks.

Unless you pack them absurdly tight, I think Peter Pig does some figures like that but I've never seen them painted to know if they look decent or not. I imagine it'd just end up looking like a squashed crowd rather than an organised military force.

Lol, a minute ago you were saying this:

Yeah of course, but I was talking about extreme abstraction to make large battles possible. I don't think anyone wants to paint 1000's or even only 100's of tanks representing 1000's just to play a single game that represents the Battle of Kursk.

One minute you are saying go for "extreme abstraction" and now you saying no abstraction even at 3mm.

Meh, one can't please everybody and some people one can't ever please.

Huh? I don't think you're understanding me if you think I contradicted myself.

I like well painted models, I enjoy painting models that are interesting. I think other people do as well, which is why wargaming these days tends to favour 28mm, they are big enough that each model is well represented and you can put some effort in to painting it well.

The extreme abstraction I was talking about was representing entire divisions of troops with a single model, probably a 28mm or larger size. If you're going to paint that model, you might as well put the effort in to paint it well. I was talking about games like Zvezda's Art of Tactic.

Likewise, if you're using 3mm models and intend to paint them, you might as well put the effort in to paint them well too rather than just painting the helmets when far more of the model is visible. If you're not going to put the effort in to painting them well, why bother painting them at all? You could just have a base with 100 little nubs sticking out and call it 100 troops, I wouldn't bother painting those 100 nubs though

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Huh? I don't think you're understanding me if you think I contradicted myself.

I like well painted models, I enjoy painting models that are interesting. I think other people do as well, which is why wargaming these days tends to favour 28mm, they are big enough that each model is well represented and you can put some effort in to painting it well.

The extreme abstraction I was talking about was representing entire divisions of troops with a single model, probably a 28mm or larger size. If you're going to paint that model, you might as well put the effort in to paint it well. I was talking about games like Zvezda's Art of Tactic.

Likewise, if you're using 3mm models and intend to paint them, you might as well put the effort in to paint them well too rather than just painting the helmets when far more of the model is visible. If you're not going to put the effort in to painting them well, why bother painting them at all? You could just have a base with 100 little nubs sticking out and call it 100 troops, I wouldn't bother painting those 100 nubs though

I would never find a single big model representing a multitude very convincing, it just doesn't look at all like what it is supposed to be, in that case you may as well use a coin or bottlecap. Surely the way to abstract a legion and yet still have it look like a legion, is with a pretty front rank and "nubs" for backing it up. From three feet away on the gaming table it still looks like a multitude.

Here is a pic of a multitude on the biggest possible scale... lifesize! Middle ranks are just heads, nobody is crying about it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sensible scales for wargaming do seem to be out of fashion, it seems wargaming has become a fashion contest more than a wargame, it is all about who can paint the prettiest belt buckles, buttons, pimples, mustaches and tattoos. At 10mm and below there are no belt buckles to paint and that just won't do.

There again if any one was looking to make a wargame, as I am, 28mm scale is fat with competition. Why buy into new wargame when there is already 40k, AoS, KoW, Infinity, Hordes, Deadzone? Gaming at that scale is very expensive, most people who might be interested in yet another 28mm "wargame" (really just a painting comp with a skirmish minigame attached) have already invested heavily in one or more of the above and too broke to pay out on another.

I reckon I can't be the only gamer that longs for real wargames with masses of troops and doesn't care a hoot for painting belt buckles and pimples and for those people there is not much out there for them at present. Dropzone Commander, out of print Warmaster and Epic, and that is it outside of historical gaming.

It won't interest you or other painter types, okay, but you are already sinking colossal sums in 28mm and probably couldn't be coaxed into paying out more on another 28mm game anyway.

Ideal scale for me depends on just how grand you want your strategy game to be. That's the thing, there is no "Optimal scale" when you get down to it, because what works for a game that's 28mm won't translate as well into a game based in 6mm. The reverse is also true.

Being someone that collects both 40K and 15mm CWC though, I do have to say that smaller scales work better for large "Grand battle" strategy games. Cold War Commander was made to run at 10mm, but at that scale a lot of the vehicles still have around a 48" range. My gaming board is about 4.5x8, and this means that within a turn or two you're shooting dozens of ATGM and tank rounds at each other with very little opportunity to maneuver into fighting positions. Thus, for large scale games I would say that 3mm or 6mm is preferable. At those scales, my table truly feels like I'm looking at a huge interactive map, where there can be areas of total calm in one corner and a massive tank battle of several thousand points going on in another.

I know next to nothing of current 40K rules, as I'm still running 5th Ed but I shouldn't care about updating any time soon from what I've heard of 7th. That said, the rules work well at 28mm and the only real time I've found 28mm doesn't lend itself well is Apocalypse games, which are literally just 28mm Epic, and probably shouldn't have been a thing anyway because how many people own a school gymnasium to hold a board that big?

 SolarCross wrote:
What is the optimal ratio between ground scale and model scale?

IMO, in a perfect world, where one is designing everything from scratch on a clean sheet, one would start with game scale and then work out the engagement size to set engagement grounds before backing into figures. If all the stars align, this gives a 1:1 ratio. However, the world isn't perfect...

In the case of KOG light, I'm using existing 1/144 scale models armed with light anti-tank weaponry on a minimal 3' x 4' tabletop. For what looks good, about the best I can manage is a squad-level skrimish at something like 3:1 ground-figure scale -- 1/144 models & terrain on 1/432 map & ranges. That minimal 3x4' playing area translates into something roughly 400m x 525m. If I expand to a 4x6' wargaming table, then it's 525m x 800m, with a maximum distance of 1 km. That's a little tight, but not completely implausible.

If we look at something like Agincourt, the defile was only 750m wide. So the ground scale for a 4x6' table is 1/432, as above. However, the battle had something like 50,000 French vs 10,000 English... At 1:1 ratio, that would mean 4mm figures. A 1" square base would hold 100 men, for 500 sqin French vs 100 sqin English. The French could deploy 8" deep, 5' wide whereas the English could deploy 4" deep and 4' wide, comfortably fitting in standard 12" deep deployment zones.

 SolarCross wrote:
10 to 40 persons on the table are not even a street gang.

Is there not something aesthetically impressive in a body of soldiery that actually looks like a serious military, with actual strength in numbers?

Think of the big cinematic battle scenes from Lord of the Rings or even Star Wars. How impressive would they be if the numbers were cut down from 10s of thousands down to a dozen or so?

If you've watched West Side Story, street gangs dance fighting are roughly a dozen per side. The Warriors weren't much larger. Mystery Men is only 7. Alex and his droogs? only 4.

As above, I think doing Agincourt like that would be awesome.

LotR has fairly large battles. Star Wars, not so much - Battle of Hoth had hardly anybody.

 SolarCross wrote:
I have been thinking of new way of doing 3mm to 10mm minis for rank 'n' flank blocks which would greatly simplify assembly and painting. Currently 3mm to 10mm minis are cast as single figures or as a single rank (called a strip) with as much as 10 minis per rank, sometimes they are run together so that the whole rank is effectively one model. Why not cast a multi rank block of soldiers as one model instead? On a the smaller scales only the front rank need be pretty or have identifiable detail. At 3mm that might be one model on a 20mm x 20mm base that looks like a block of 100 minis.

BTW, I've advocated this elsewhere, so great minds think alike. It's exactly the same as playing with wooden blocks, but using really nicely sculpted blocks that have full bodies standing shoulder-to-shoulder for the front & rear faces, with just heads on the tops. I'd want 25x40mm bases each holding 100 horse or 200 men. Front rank has a flag, and the rear of the base has a raised ID strip to label the unit.

 SolarCross wrote:
I would never find a single big model representing a multitude very convincing, it just doesn't look at all like what it is supposed to be, in that case you may as well use a coin or bottlecap.

To each their own. When you're representing actual large scale battles, Stalingrad, Kursk, Somme, etc, especially combined arms battles, I can most definitely see the benefit of just abstracting it so 1 tank represents a tank division or 1 dude with a banner represents an infantry division or 1 aircraft represents a squadron.

Here is a pic of a multitude on the biggest possible scale... lifesize! Middle ranks are just heads, nobody is crying about it.

Err, yeah, because you're viewing them from a low angle Raise the camera a few feet in the air and you'll see more than just heads of the rear ranks.

If you play wargames with your face planted in to the table to get a mans-eye view of the battlefield, sure, just paint the helmets and you won't know the difference

Personally I think if you're going to make 3mm to 10mm models, you want to make them in singular ranks, so you can paint them then assemble them in to a regiment. A block of helmet tops is just going to look weird. I think if you want a wargame to flourish among a wide audience, it has to have an appealing aesthetic.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
What is the optimal ratio between ground scale and model scale?

IMO, in a perfect world, where one is designing everything from scratch on a clean sheet, one would start with game scale and then work out the engagement size to set engagement grounds before backing into figures. If all the stars align, this gives a 1:1 ratio. However, the world isn't perfect...

In the case of KOG light, I'm using existing 1/144 scale models armed with light anti-tank weaponry on a minimal 3' x 4' tabletop. For what looks good, about the best I can manage is a squad-level skrimish at something like 3:1 ground-figure scale -- 1/144 models & terrain on 1/432 map & ranges. That minimal 3x4' playing area translates into something roughly 400m x 525m. If I expand to a 4x6' wargaming table, then it's 525m x 800m, with a maximum distance of 1 km. That's a little tight, but not completely implausible.

If we look at something like Agincourt, the defile was only 750m wide. So the ground scale for a 4x6' table is 1/432, as above. However, the battle had something like 50,000 French vs 10,000 English... At 1:1 ratio, that would mean 4mm figures. A 1" square base would hold 100 men, for 500 sqin French vs 100 sqin English. The French could deploy 8" deep, 5' wide whereas the English could deploy 4" deep and 4' wide, comfortably fitting in standard 12" deep deployment zones.

I think it is quite acceptable to fall short of a 1:1 ratio for a game, looking at your Agincourt scenario, 4mm is certainly viable for model scale/ground scale but a 1:1 ratio between soldiers and models is pretty hardcore well beyond what even the most fanatical of gamers would dare to attempt. I do want a wargame that looks like massed battles of the kind of scale as Agincourt or Carhae but of course what it takes to get "looks like" has to bump up against the reality of what the typical gamer can achieve. I suppose I should not expect to go too close to 1:1 especially for model count. Using Agincourt as a standard, if we cut from 50,000 french down to 5,000 french that would I think still look like a big army on the table and on a small model scale (3mm to 6mm) still be managable for the gamer to muster.

Particularly since I am looking at the Fantasy genre rather than historical there is still more leeway in introducing gamey abstractions to make big battle gaming viable.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
I have been thinking of new way of doing 3mm to 10mm minis for rank 'n' flank blocks which would greatly simplify assembly and painting. Currently 3mm to 10mm minis are cast as single figures or as a single rank (called a strip) with as much as 10 minis per rank, sometimes they are run together so that the whole rank is effectively one model. Why not cast a multi rank block of soldiers as one model instead? On a the smaller scales only the front rank need be pretty or have identifiable detail. At 3mm that might be one model on a 20mm x 20mm base that looks like a block of 100 minis.

BTW, I've advocated this elsewhere, so great minds think alike. It's exactly the same as playing with wooden blocks, but using really nicely sculpted blocks that have full bodies standing shoulder-to-shoulder for the front & rear faces, with just heads on the tops. I'd want 25x40mm bases each holding 100 horse or 200 men. Front rank has a flag, and the rear of the base has a raised ID strip to label the unit.

I reckon it could work. One variant on that might be to have the block cast short of the front rank so that a variety of front ranks can used to face it, some with command some without. I suppose it makes the most sense for 3mm and least for 10mm. It was idea I might never use then since I am not sure that I would go with a model scale smaller than 10mm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 metallifan wrote:
Ideal scale for me depends on just how grand you want your strategy game to be. That's the thing, there is no "Optimal scale" when you get down to it, because what works for a game that's 28mm won't translate as well into a game based in 6mm. The reverse is also true.

I'm looking for grand, LotR charge of the Rohirrim grand, so I guess 10mm tops. 6mm beckons and is tempting, still more bodies, still larger battlefield by equivalent ground scale, but still not sure that the lose of detail resolution at that scale is acceptable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Personally I think if you're going to make 3mm to 10mm models, you want to make them in singular ranks, so you can paint them then assemble them in to a regiment. A block of helmet tops is just going to look weird. I think if you want a wargame to flourish among a wide audience, it has to have an appealing aesthetic.

Aesthetics is important but so is cost both in time and money. Some people game with paper cutouts, surely that has still less aesthetic appeal than a block of nub heads? I think for the 1st ed, I would probably just go with a pdf rulebook & paper soldiers that the gamer can photocopy. Production costs then are negligible and the game system can be punted out for people to try for peanuts. If there is some interest then a line of minis could be made for the 2nd ed with a physical rulebook.



Looks like my block models have already been done in paper! -v

 SolarCross wrote:

 metallifan wrote:
Ideal scale for me depends on just how grand you want your strategy game to be. That's the thing, there is no "Optimal scale" when you get down to it, because what works for a game that's 28mm won't translate as well into a game based in 6mm. The reverse is also true.

I'm looking for grand, LotR charge of the Rohirrim grand, so I guess 10mm tops. 6mm beckons and is tempting, still more bodies, still larger battlefield by equivalent ground scale, but still not sure that the lose of detail resolution at that scale is acceptable.

10mm at the most, yea. Though 6mm still holds decent detail, especially larger stuff. Infantry in grand strats die in droves anyway, so you tend to not get a chance to admire them. It's all about cav/armour/arty in a grand strat.

 SolarCross wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
What is the optimal ratio between ground scale and model scale?

IMO, in a perfect world, where one is designing everything from scratch on a clean sheet, one would start with game scale and then work out the engagement size to set engagement grounds before backing into figures. If all the stars align, this gives a 1:1 ratio. However, the world isn't perfect...

In the case of KOG light, I'm using existing 1/144 scale models armed with light anti-tank weaponry on a minimal 3' x 4' tabletop. For what looks good, about the best I can manage is a squad-level skrimish at something like 3:1 ground-figure scale -- 1/144 models & terrain on 1/432 map & ranges. That minimal 3x4' playing area translates into something roughly 400m x 525m. If I expand to a 4x6' wargaming table, then it's 525m x 800m, with a maximum distance of 1 km. That's a little tight, but not completely implausible.

If we look at something like Agincourt, the defile was only 750m wide. So the ground scale for a 4x6' table is 1/432, as above. However, the battle had something like 50,000 French vs 10,000 English... At 1:1 ratio, that would mean 4mm figures. A 1" square base would hold 100 men, for 500 sqin French vs 100 sqin English. The French could deploy 8" deep, 5' wide whereas the English could deploy 4" deep and 4' wide, comfortably fitting in standard 12" deep deployment zones.

I think it is quite acceptable to fall short of a 1:1 ratio for a game, looking at your Agincourt scenario, 4mm is certainly viable for model scale/ground scale but a 1:1 ratio between soldiers and models is pretty hardcore well beyond what even the most fanatical of gamers would dare to attempt. I do want a wargame that looks like massed battles of the kind of scale as Agincourt or Carhae but of course what it takes to get "looks like" has to bump up against the reality of what the typical gamer can achieve. I suppose I should not expect to go too close to 1:1 especially for model count. Using Agincourt as a standard, if we cut from 50,000 french down to 5,000 french that would I think still look like a big army on the table and on a small model scale (3mm to 6mm) still be managable for the gamer to muster.

Particularly since I am looking at the Fantasy genre rather than historical there is still more leeway in introducing gamey abstractions to make big battle gaming viable.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
I have been thinking of new way of doing 3mm to 10mm minis for rank 'n' flank blocks which would greatly simplify assembly and painting. Currently 3mm to 10mm minis are cast as single figures or as a single rank (called a strip) with as much as 10 minis per rank, sometimes they are run together so that the whole rank is effectively one model. Why not cast a multi rank block of soldiers as one model instead? On a the smaller scales only the front rank need be pretty or have identifiable detail. At 3mm that might be one model on a 20mm x 20mm base that looks like a block of 100 minis.

BTW, I've advocated this elsewhere, so great minds think alike. It's exactly the same as playing with wooden blocks, but using really nicely sculpted blocks that have full bodies standing shoulder-to-shoulder for the front & rear faces, with just heads on the tops. I'd want 25x40mm bases each holding 100 horse or 200 men. Front rank has a flag, and the rear of the base has a raised ID strip to label the unit.

I reckon it could work. One variant on that might be to have the block cast short of the front rank so that a variety of front ranks can used to face it, some with command some without. I suppose it makes the most sense for 3mm and least for 10mm. It was idea I might never use then since I am not sure that I would go with a model scale smaller than 10mm.

I agree that it's OK to fall short of 1:1 figure:ground scale ratio; however, you specifically asked what the optimal ratio would be, and I think that answer is intuitively obvious. If it is possible to play 1:1 ratio of figure scale to ground scale, why would anybody NOT do so?

For Agincourt, I proposed 1:1 figure:ground scale ratio. In my initial response, I was thinking multi-basing blocks of 100 men per block; however, I further clarified multi-basing at 200:1 men:model ratio for the bulk infantry (on 25x40mm bases). My Agincourt game would have as few as 250 French vs 50 English blocks. For the scale we are talking about, this is like painting 250 WFB Undead Skeletons: spray, touch & dip. That could be knocked out pretty fast, and would look pretty awesome on the tabletop. Add some trays to further aggregate the bases into units, and you might only be looking at wrangling 20-30 French vs a dozen English units. It would play just like a "large" WFB battle scenario.

For KOG light, I'm thinking it's a 3:1 figure:ground scale ratio, which is what I'd consider the upper limit of what might be to still look halfway plausible to an informed observer. In KOG light, I don't bother with a maximum range, just an effective range representing "point blank" shooting.

OTOH, consider Flames of War which is obviously implausible with a 25:1 figure:ground scale ratio (looking at the standard issue Springfield bolt-action rifle performance). And Bolt Action is even worse, at 33:1. I find these games unsatisfying, and prefer Memoir '44 to either of them, even if it's multi-basing 100 of 1/100-scale men.

I suspect the crossover point for moderns to be around the 10:1 figure:ground scale ratio, and might set the crossover point around 5:1 for Napoleonics, and 3:1 for ancients. But really, if we could play 1:1, that would be the best. By far.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I agree that it's OK to fall short of 1:1 figure:ground scale ratio; however, you specifically asked what the optimal ratio would be, and I think that answer is intuitively obvious. If it is possible to play 1:1 ratio of figure scale to ground scale, why would anybody NOT do so?

For Agincourt, I proposed 1:1 figure:ground scale ratio. In my initial response, I was thinking multi-basing blocks of 100 men per block; however, I further clarified multi-basing at 200:1 men:model ratio for the bulk infantry (on 25x40mm bases). My Agincourt game would have as few as 250 French vs 50 English blocks. For the scale we are talking about, this is like painting 250 WFB Undead Skeletons: spray, touch & dip. That could be knocked out pretty fast, and would look pretty awesome on the tabletop. Add some trays to further aggregate the bases into units, and you might only be looking at wrangling 20-30 French vs a dozen English units. It would play just like a "large" WFB battle scenario.

For KOG light, I'm thinking it's a 3:1 figure:ground scale ratio, which is what I'd consider the upper limit of what might be to still look halfway plausible to an informed observer. In KOG light, I don't bother with a maximum range, just an effective range representing "point blank" shooting.

OTOH, consider Flames of War which is obviously implausible with a 25:1 figure:ground scale ratio (looking at the standard issue Springfield bolt-action rifle performance). And Bolt Action is even worse, at 33:1. I find these games unsatisfying, and prefer Memoir '44 to either of them, even if it's multi-basing 100 of 1/100-scale men.

I suspect the crossover point for moderns to be around the 10:1 figure:ground scale ratio, and might set the crossover point around 5:1 for Napoleonics, and 3:1 for ancients. But really, if we could play 1:1, that would be the best. By far.

I agree absolutely, if 1:1 is doable then why not indeed do it? Agincourt would look awesome at 1:1. Painting up 100-200 3mm soldiers is not harder or time consuming than painting up 1 or 2 28mm soldiers, I agree and I am encouraged that at least someone on this thread is gungho for true mini wargaming scales but the poll results are encouraging me a lot less...

At present 42% have voted for 28mm as the optimal scale even with my discouragement in the OP against people to call "skirmish" as large wargame. The still too big 15mm scale ate most of the remaining votes in at 30%.

Only one person voted for a scale (3mm) that would enable agincourt with a 1:1 body count and 1:1 ground scale. Even 10mm arguably the top end scale for large wargaming only bagged 12% of the vote.

If we were to take this poll as a kind of crude market research then large battle wargaming with realistic ground scales and body counts are just not what the punters want and hence it is looking exceedingly dicey as a commercial project. It appears the punters are very tolerant of warped ground scales, numerically trivial "armies" but very intolerant of a lack of belt buckles and pimples to paint.

On the other hand I suppose the whole hobby is an exceedingly small niche, and there is little competition on those small scales, so punting a 3mm game system might still do okay as a small niche within a small niche. Somewhat counter-intuitively it may be that with the right marketing 3mm scale could break out of the hobby niche into the much larger gamer niche. How many people don't get into the hobby because of the time and expense of painting big models for an end result of a laughably small army at the end of all that effort? For those that are gamers more than they are painters wargaming with computers looks massively better, cheaper and more satisfying. Correctly marketed 3mm / 6mm wargaming might tempt them where 28mm does not, maybe..

I don't think 3mm was an option when I voted. I probably would have flipped a coin between 3mm and 15mm.

15mm because I think it's best if you can actually see what the models are from across the table, even if it's not practical for truly large battles. 3mm because the models only need to look vaguely human so are fast to paint.

I don't think anyone logically could believe 28mm is actually a good scale for large battles. I can only imagine the 14 people who voted for that either didn't understand the topic or are thinking of games like Art of Tactic or Memoir '44.

The the original topic was a bit vague though, in the sense I don't think there is such thing a singular optimal scale for historical, fantasy and sci-fi. Even if you just talk about historical, there's a big difference between representing the Battle of Bosworth Field and the Battle of Kursk.

There are many smaller battles throughout history that in wargaming terms would be considered "large" and you might be able to represent close to 1:1, there's other larger battles that are completely impractical to do that.

 SolarCross wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I agree that it's OK to fall short of 1:1 figure:ground scale ratio; however, you specifically asked what the optimal ratio would be, and I think that answer is intuitively obvious. If it is possible to play 1:1 ratio of figure scale to ground scale, why would anybody NOT do so?

For Agincourt, I proposed 1:1 figure:ground scale ratio. In my initial response, I was thinking multi-basing blocks of 100 men per block; however, I further clarified multi-basing at 200:1 men:model ratio for the bulk infantry (on 25x40mm bases). My Agincourt game would have as few as 250 French vs 50 English blocks. For the scale we are talking about, this is like painting 250 WFB Undead Skeletons: spray, touch & dip. That could be knocked out pretty fast, and would look pretty awesome on the tabletop. Add some trays to further aggregate the bases into units, and you might only be looking at wrangling 20-30 French vs a dozen English units.

I suspect the crossover point for moderns to be around the 10:1 figure:ground scale ratio, and might set the crossover point around 5:1 for Napoleonics, and 3:1 for ancients. But really, if we could play 1:1, that would be the best. By far.

I agree absolutely, if 1:1 is doable then why not indeed do it? Agincourt would look awesome at 1:1. Painting up 100-200 3mm soldiers is not harder or time consuming than painting up 1 or 2 28mm soldiers, I agree and I am encouraged that at least someone on this thread is gungho for true mini wargaming scales but the poll results are encouraging me a lot less...

Only one person voted for a scale (3mm) that would enable agincourt with a 1:1 body count and 1:1 ground scale.

If we were to take this poll as a kind of crude market research

3mm scale could break out of the hobby niche into the much larger gamer niche. Correctly marketed 3mm / 6mm wargaming might tempt them where 28mm does not, maybe..

IMO, your poll here is kinda meaningless because you didn't ask the right question, nor have the right answers available (3mm), nor place it in the right context (SF / moderns vs Napoleonic / Fantasy vs ancients) while also differentiating which scale (figure vs ground, skirmish vs grand battle) and multi-basing (singles vs strips / blocks).
- 3mm wasn't an option when most people (I) voted.
- Figure:ground scale ratio wasn't brought up.
- There was no notion of multi-basing. And even you immediately reacted to my Agincourt proposal by thinking that I was proposing people build and paint 60,000 individual models.

I wouldn't read anything into your poll aside from "what size models do I currently like to play with".

I might have instead asked:

For a (Warhammer) Fantasy Battles game of 100-200 bases per side, would you prefer the standard (~1") base contain:
- a 28mm individual multi-part figure (a la Warhamer Fantasy)
- a 15mm group of 4 singles (a la Flames of War)
- a 10mm group of 2 strips of 4 (a la Warmaster)
- a 6mm group of 4 strips of 6 (a la Warmaster)
- a 4mm block of 49 (2:1 figure:ground ratio)
- a 3mm block of 100 (1:1 figure:ground)

That is a very different question that places things in a common context (WFB, 100-200 bases), and distinguishes multi-basing (10mm and smaller), while differentiating strips vs blocks.

It's not any sort of market research for future product, because you didn't ask that question. If that was your intent, I might have said:

* I'm interesting in Kickstarting 3mm-scale bulk infantry blocks to replace 28mm individual multi-part models for Fantasy battles, and wanted to gauge interest in moving to 1:1 figure:ground scale ratio.

That's another, completely different topic, but it's in proper context, and it's framed as a starting point for discussion.

Quite frankly, I don't think people know what it is, until they see it for themselves. If you were to lay out Agincourt on a 4x6' table, all 60,000 "men" (300+ bases), to *show* people, that would dramatically change things.

And I'm not kidding about Kickstarter. This is the sort of gamechanger that needs to be Kickstarted.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

IMO, your poll here is kinda meaningless because you didn't ask the right question, nor have the right answers available (3mm), nor place it in the right context (SF / moderns vs Napoleonic / Fantasy vs ancients) while also differentiating which scale (figure vs ground, skirmish vs grand battle) and multi-basing (singles vs strips / blocks).
- 3mm wasn't an option when most people (I) voted.
- Figure:ground scale ratio wasn't brought up.
- There was no notion of multi-basing. And even you immediately reacted to my Agincourt proposal by thinking that I was proposing people build and paint 60,000 individual models.

I wouldn't read anything into your poll aside from "what size models do I currently like to play with".

I might have instead asked:

For a (Warhammer) Fantasy Battles game of 100-200 bases per side, would you prefer the standard (~1") base contain:
- a 28mm individual multi-part figure (a la Warhamer Fantasy)
- a 15mm group of 4 singles (a la Flames of War)
- a 10mm group of 2 strips of 4 (a la Warmaster)
- a 6mm group of 4 strips of 6 (a la Warmaster)
- a 4mm block of 49 (2:1 figure:ground ratio)
- a 3mm block of 100 (1:1 figure:ground)

That is a very different question that places things in a common context (WFB, 100-200 bases), and distinguishes multi-basing (10mm and smaller), while differentiating strips vs blocks.

It's not any sort of market research for future product, because you didn't ask that question. If that was your intent, I might have said:

* I'm interesting in Kickstarting 3mm-scale bulk infantry blocks to replace 28mm individual multi-part models for Fantasy battles, and wanted to gauge interest in moving to 1:1 figure:ground scale ratio.

That's another, completely different topic, but it's in proper context, and it's framed as a starting point for discussion.

Quite frankly, I don't think people know what it is, until they see it for themselves. If you were to lay out Agincourt on a 4x6' table, all 60,000 "men" (300+ bases), to *show* people, that would dramatically change things.

And I'm not kidding about Kickstarter. This is the sort of gamechanger that needs to be Kickstarted.

Aye well I not sure you would get a very different answer to your more specific question. I do agree that it is worth punting all the same, and there may well be a bigger market for it than any market research would suggest because as you say, sometimes people don't know they want something till they see it. I'm game for a project like this, though I think I would hold off on a kickstarter until a 2nd ed. 1st ed can be ebook with paper counters sold for peanuts with totally trivial production costs (just time really). Then for 2nd ed when you want to start punting out physical books and actual resin/plastic/metal miniatures you can look at a kickstarter or other source of funding (bank loans actually are cheaper than crowdfunding if you can get them) with the added bonus that you already have some profile and funds from the 1st end before soliciting for extra funds.

I want to say it really depends on the scale of battle you are looking for.

skrimish level works great at 28-32 scale
company scale works better at smaller scales.

it just depends.