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.

So have some spare 15mm ww2 minis that I'm going to play around with for the battlegroup overlord supplement, but which way do you think would be better to base them using these rules. Multi or single base.

Now I know most of you will say just stick them on the fow bases but am thinking they will look a lot better mounted individually apart from weapon teams and such.

Individually. Then you can also use them for Chain of Command, Operation Squad, or other such games.

Having this same conundrum myself at the moment. In terms of gaming systems, the advantage of multi-basing is you can use with any (just need to track casualties with games like battle group). That said I'm mainly hoping to play Chain of Command and Battlegroup and both use individual models.

Also, the whole reason in moving to 15mm (for me) is to play larger, company-sized, games. From a painting and a practical gaming perspective the thought of individually basing a company worth of infantry has me slightly nervous.

I am pondering having most multi-based and having a few sections individually based for smaller games and to help with marking casualties in larger games? Not sure if that's a reasonable compromise?

Have a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bases...

Yeah am thinking about having teams on the same base and troopers on there own. Getting a small platoon knocked up shouldn't take too long.

Ps are you coming down to bovy this July Big P, any hints at the table you are doing lol.

Yes... Will be at Bovvy this year. Sixth year in a row!

Not sure what we are doing. Last year we held a Battlegroup campaign weekend, so may do that again but set in the desert... or we will do the desert deno game we are doing at Salute.

Ooooh nice am thinking of getting in to that theatre. Will be coming down on the Saturday with my lad, have to get him gaming soon although he'll be 5 then maybe that's a bit young still lol. Couldn't make it last year sadly as is a great show and was gutted not to go down.

I have a mix for ease - singles on 1p pieces, 2 and the odd 3 man base on 2p pieces. This way you get enough 'change' to take casualties off in whatever numbers you need, while still cutting down on the number of stands you need to move around. I will say this works better for Brits/Russians etc than Germans, mainly because of their squad composition - 8 men where there are 2 Mg teams, 2 pz fausts and an NCO only leaves 1 bloke with a rifle!

Yep that's the way I've decided to base them while leaving anti tank guns and such on the fow big bases. Should look ok when done.

I initially based individually on pennies, but went with FoW-style basing and keeping track of wounds because it was much easier to setup and move around.

Individually does LOOK better though!

Yeah that's my thinking, mind you in now wondering how well battlegroup would play with 28mm scale too.

We have quite a few playing in 28mm now.

Our ranges are a bit longer than Bolt Action so people don't seem to find the need to change anything either.

That's the beauty of historicals... One army... Loads of different games!

Somehow I knew it would be Big P that would reply to that one. Lol. Yeah I'm slowly making my way through reading Kursk and overlord in detail. Really like the limited ammo for tanks and such.

 xKillGorex wrote:
Now I know most of you will say just stick them on the fow bases but am thinking they will look a lot better mounted individually apart from weapon teams and such.

For me, individual basing 15mm figures would be a deal killer for me. I have no desire to have to move 50-100 individually based figures per turn. YMMV.

Individually basing ALL of them would be a bit mad - hence my comment that my squads have pairs and triples as well as singles - but note that a single platoon of 40 Infantry is probably going to be the maximum you'll see in regular Battlegroup game - If you're running multiple platoons of infantry there had better be more than one player a side to help move the figures! :-)

Yeah it is only an idea I have for playing around with small point games. So when I get around to doing it il be basing like you said.
That's after I finish painting up some 28mm us guys.

 eddieazrael wrote:
Individually basing ALL of them would be a bit mad - hence my comment that my squads have pairs and triples as well as singles - but note that a single platoon of 40 Infantry is probably going to be the maximum you'll see in regular Battlegroup game - If you're running multiple platoons of infantry there had better be more than one player a side to help move the figures! :-)

Okay. I'm not at all familiar with Battlegroup but a lot of people have been suggesting it as an alternative to the new v4 Flames of War rules, so I assumed it was a similar company level game and would use compatible basing.

Battlegroup scales from Platoon to Company (and larger) so will be comparable.

It has a bit more crunch to it than FoW (assuming v4 is similar to v3), a novel break system that really adds to the fun and I think generally it's much more enjoyable.

As to the topic, multibased infantry really will not make any difference to your game beyond a bit od buggering about as to wound tracking and what weaponry the now wounded squad will have.

Yeah I'd come over to battlegroup. Can't see that il pick up fow v4. The battlefield books are great to be fair and packed full of pics and art work.

How your figures are based makes no difference to Battlegroup as long as you have a way to track casualties.

Ive never played FoW to offer any other comparison Im afraid, but some of our players who also/used to play FoW don't seem to have any issue in using their armies with Battlegroup.