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.
This is an opinion poll but please read the following before voting.
First off by wargame I am not referring to games based around squad vs squad small skirmishes, naval combats, or space fleet engagements but more or less any historical, fantasy or sci-fi predominantly land based "large" battle game.
By optimal I mean the sweet spot between practicalities and visual appeal.
The smaller the scale, the more cost effective, logistically manageable and the more "gameable" a large army will be for gaming on a standard gaming table (6' by 4') but the less easy it is paint fine details.
The inverse is true of course for larger scales.
I am posting this poll because I have finally succumbed to the reality that 28mm is just stupidly unworkable for a wargame involving anything more than a few infantry men. I believe this to the fundamental problem with 40k for example. Following this epiphany I am now resolved to sell down my 28mm stock, abandon (probably) my personal projects involving 28mm minis for wargaming purposes, and generally abandon 28mm for game development. In place of 28mm I will be looking to stock, game and develop on other more practical scales: 6mm, through 10mm to 15mm at the largest.
I am interested then in other wargamers thoughts on scale.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/20 14:26:13
I voted 15mm. Looking at flames of war, you can do interesting things, model wise, at that scale while driving costs of infantry way down, and vehicles to a reasonable cost.
6mm, which was the scale for epic, is really ideal for either huge armies or massive warmachines. I didn't like painting 6mm, while I found 15mm still somewhat rewarding.
I voted for 15mm, although 6mm would be an equally valid choice for what you ask, I am not interested in playing a bigger scope game with 6mm scale models and preface to play a smaller scope game with 15mm models.
I broadly agree with all of the above. I voted 10mm influenced by looking at Dropzone Commander. It really depends on the game elements though. If you want big war machines (as in epic) or really large blocks of infantry (as with some historical games) then 6mm is ideal with 10mm being doable. On the other hand FoW is ideal at 15mm as WW2 style of warfare on land didn't have really large warmachines nor were huge blocks of infantry really a thing either. I suppose if you wanted a WW2 game involving really large numbers of tanks then 15mm would be a struggle with 10mm looking more the viable choice.
In terms of visual appeal there is something to be said for the smaller scales too.
At 6mm individual infantry are just specks of colour, not so appealing for modern style squads, but then again at 6mm your infantry can be in a massive block of hundreds which all together look really formidable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/18 14:07:24
All scales really. I have armies in all significant scales except 20mm and they are each as good as the others, they are just different and suit different types of game.
15mm and below are great for making armies that look real(ish) while 28mm are great for small model count games like Mordheim or Frostgrave.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/18 17:54:11
I like big robots, so I voted 1/144 or "10mm" (1/160) scale - this is the point at which I think figure scale is actually of comparable magnitude to ground scale, so you avoid the obvious range issues historical weapons - they're almost plausible on the tabletop.
"15mm" (1/100) is a close second, and it holds up as more of a modeling scale to show off detail.
20mm (1/72) is where large skirmish should sit.
28/30mm is where I'd expect to see a maximum of a half-dozen models per side.
6mm can look good for larger vehicles and whatnot, I don't really like the look of infantry at that scale. If you really want to represent large blocks of infantry, I'd sooner go down to 3mm scale where the models are truly just blobs and how they look doesn't matter. Or go up to 10mm where the models start to look decent, 6mm to me is a weird middle ground.
I do prefer 15mm though because your standard sort of tanks are big enough you can put some work in to making them look cool, but small enough that you can fit a couple of dozen on a table without looking crowded. While the infantry is small enough to be easy to paint and large enough to still look decent.
Funnily enough, I find 28mm a bit like 6mm as being a weird scale for infantry figures. It's small enough that figures don't look good in and of themselves for display purposes (compared to say 54mm) but big enough that it doesn't make for a good wargame.
So I guess my order of scales would probably go...
3mm (large scale battles where individuals don't matter) -> 15mm (good for anything from a small skirmish up to large games with several hundred infantry or a few dozen tanks) -> 54mm (basically just for display purposes).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/19 14:09:03
One thing to point out as a grumpy old man: part of the problem with modern "28mm" is that it's anything but!
Truescale 28mm is way smaller than the modern heroic scale 28/32mm models that are in the market. A modern space marine, or even a basic Cadian, is huge compared to a historical 28mm model.
15mm/1:100 is probably the largest scale for any sort of direct groundscale. I like it for skirmish, but it is probably still too big for large military engagements. Consider that even at 1:100 a 6x4 table is only 200x133 yards in scale. So forces with modern weaponry are already in engagement range. Probably only really usable for infantry skirmish (special forces actions, police raids, etc.). 1:300 is NATO scale and roughly 5-6mm and that 6x4 becomes 600x400 yds. Still too close for artillery and heavier weapons, but infantry still need to close. Vehicles are doable at this scale. Should cover infantry/armor skirmishes pretty well. 1:600/3mm gets you where you need to be for platoon based combat.
The problem with most "wargames" is that they are restricted to pretty tiny engagements. Modern battles don't involve dozens of actors; they involve hundreds if not thousands of infantry. Most players don't want to assemble and paint up that many figures. It wouldn't be reflective of higher level command to control every trooper anyway. That is where abstraction and unit basing comes in. However, once you reach that point, miniatures are just pretty markers and you need to get away from too much figure literalism (such as bending down for model LOS).
I'd sooner go down to 3mm scale where the models are truly just blobs and how they look doesn't matter.
Not sure I would call 3mm figures 'blobs'. I thought they had a lot of detail, was actually amazed at how much.
"blobs" may have been the wrong word.
At 6mm scale, the models are big enough that on the table top it still stands out if the proportions are off or you painted them poorly, but simultaneously they are hard to paint well and often have bad proportions. Or if they all have the same pose, they are big enough that it stands out that they all have the same pose.
Whereas 3mm scale, they are small enough that on the table top they just need to look vaguely like humans and it's fine. If they all have the same pose or their heads are slightly too big, you don't really notice unless you pull out a magnifying glass.
One of the issues I have with the smaller scale stuff is that the smaller the model gets, the more obtrusive the base tends to get. Looking at those 3mm guys, the bases are as tall as the models themselves...
insaniak wrote: One of the issues I have with the smaller scale stuff is that the smaller the model gets, the more obtrusive the base tends to get. Looking at those 3mm guys, the bases are as tall as the models themselves...
That's true, but it's partly a symptom of people painting the base edges to make the base look like a podium, using a colour that contrasts. If you painted the base edges the same colour as the ground itself, or tapered the base edges and finished them the same was as the top of the base, it wouldn't be much of a problem.
jmurph wrote: 15mm/1:100 is probably the largest scale for any sort of direct groundscale. I like it for skirmish, but it is probably still too big for large military engagements. Consider that even at 1:100 a 6x4 table is only 200x133 yards in scale. So forces with modern weaponry are already in engagement range. Probably only really usable for infantry skirmish (special forces actions, police raids, etc.). 1:300 is NATO scale and roughly 5-6mm and that 6x4 becomes 600x400 yds. Still too close for artillery and heavier weapons, but infantry still need to close. Vehicles are doable at this scale. Should cover infantry/armor skirmishes pretty well. 1:600/3mm gets you where you need to be for platoon based combat.
The problem with most "wargames" is that they are restricted to pretty tiny engagements. Modern battles don't involve dozens of actors; they involve hundreds if not thousands of infantry. Most players don't want to assemble and paint up that many figures. It wouldn't be reflective of higher level command to control every trooper anyway. That is where abstraction and unit basing comes in. However, once you reach that point, miniatures are just pretty markers and you need to get away from too much figure literalism (such as bending down for model LOS).
It is good that you bring up ground scale. I think a wargame that is a game for fun rather than a simulator for work needn't be too exacting for matching up game ranges with ground scale. Still game ranges shouldn't be so short that it makes the models look like they are playing with water pistols (as in 40k) as it just looks ridiculous.
Bringing up groundscale and accepting it needn't and often can't be 1:1 with model scale does pose another question:
What is the optimal ratio between ground scale and model scale?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/20 12:13:18
It depends what you're representing. If you're playing with tanks, even at 6mm a "realistic" engagement range is going to be larger than your average gaming table (700+ metres).
But if you're representing medieval archers with longbows, the max range is probably more in the 200-300m range, so you could probably scale it realistically at 6mm.
I like 15mm for tanks, but obviously that doesn't let you represent a large full scale battle like Kursk which might have hundreds of tanks per side across a wide front, but it does let you represent a few dozen tanks per side and you have to reduce the ranges, maybe by a factor of about 5 as far as penetration range goes.
Well, if your figures don't match groundscale, you do get a slight issue with figures having an inordinately large footprint. This is directly related to the issue Insaniak mentions- most figures have pretty large bases. It also means terrain can get a little wonky. Fortunately, most building seem to be pretty undersized, so having a different groundscale can work.
As you mention, 40k looks goofy and crowded because its rules have ranges closer to what you would expect in 1:100 or greater, but is roughly 1:48 scale. Use 15mm minis and it wouldn't look nearly as bad. But I think you could probably also shift to 1:300 scale and still get away with 15mm minis. The smaller the figs, the bigger the shift in scale I think you can get away with. Using 3mm figs, you could probably blow scale out as much as you want.
One thing I have noticed, though is that some of the 15mm stuff is really closer to 20mm. Kind of annoying when your dwarves come in the same height as your humans!
Really, I think it's a toss up between 15mm and 6mm. At 15mm, the models are still large enough that aging eyes can make them look really nice. At 6mm, however, you can have thousands of troops on a 6x4 table.
jmurph wrote: Well, if your figures don't match groundscale, you do get a slight issue with figures having an inordinately large footprint. This is directly related to the issue Insaniak mentions- most figures have pretty large bases. It also means terrain can get a little wonky. Fortunately, most building seem to be pretty undersized, so having a different groundscale can work.
As you mention, 40k looks goofy and crowded because its rules have ranges closer to what you would expect in 1:100 or greater, but is roughly 1:48 scale. Use 15mm minis and it wouldn't look nearly as bad. But I think you could probably also shift to 1:300 scale and still get away with 15mm minis. The smaller the figs, the bigger the shift in scale I think you can get away with. Using 3mm figs, you could probably blow scale out as much as you want.
One thing I have noticed, though is that some of the 15mm stuff is really closer to 20mm. Kind of annoying when your dwarves come in the same height as your humans!
I suppose another way of solving footprint being too big relative to ground scale is to add a layer of abstraction where a given model represents a larger grouping. This of course also is more plausible with smaller figs, as to say 1 fig = 10 soldiers is easier to believe if units already have more numbers than the eye can easily count. To say a block of 100 3mm dudes are actually a 1000 dudes looks far more plausible over saying a single 28mm dude is really a squad of ten.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carlson793 wrote: Really, I think it's a toss up between 15mm and 6mm. At 15mm, the models are still large enough that aging eyes can make them look really nice. At 6mm, however, you can have thousands of troops on a 6x4 table.
Is not 10mm a reasonable compromise if you wanted both large numbers and reasonable looks?
Dropzone Commander is on a 10mm scale. It has big super heavies as well as infantry squads as game elements. The smaller elements like infantry don't look too terrible.
Spoiler:
Warmaster was also on a 10mm scale (loosely).
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/20 14:14:52
I find the best scale for aesthetically impressive infantry is 32-40mm. 28mm are a bit fiddly; larger models look detailed even from a distance. So say stormcast eternal, ironjawz etc
However, i will admit these are only practical or realistic for skirmish level games.
At a certain point you have to ask if you want a diorama or a wargame. By the time you are hitting 40mm tall figures, you are getting into diorama territory. Would be good for boxing/close in duels, though. Even pistol duels.
Tailessine wrote: I find the best scale for aesthetically impressive infantry is 32-40mm. 28mm are a bit fiddly; larger models look detailed even from a distance. So say stormcast eternal, ironjawz etc
However, i will admit these are only practical or realistic for skirmish level games.
At 28mm and above you can paint aesthetically impressive individuals... but with so few numbers that they are not impressive soldiers.
10 to 40 persons on the table are not even a street gang. Crips vs Bloods (for the yanks), Mods vs Rockers (for us Brits) would be a bigger wargame.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/21 16:00:16
I would argue that they would be quite impressive soldiers, not an impressive army though.
Each scale has its own merits and place, in the clips you linked action zooms from large armies to individual combat effortlessly and while this is easy in a book or a movie doing so in a game system can be tedious for the players.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I would argue that they would be quite impressive soldiers, not an impressive army though.
Each scale has its own merits and place, in the clips you linked action zooms from large armies to individual combat effortlessly and while this is easy in a book or a movie doing so in a game system can be tedious for the players.
Indeed, though I would think if a wargame system must choose between depicting the clash of actual armies or small bands of heros then it should choose the former, or else it is an RPG with models not a wargame.
That said I have an idea that might allow both in one system. The main game would be true wargame, on a sensible model scale (not more than 15mm, probably 10mm) with 1000s of figs representing 10,000s of soldiers, however for the herohammer fix a supplementary and optional ruleset could allow certain HQ blocks under particular conditions to initiate a minigame within the game where special characters and their immediate retinue could duke it out mano e mano with an opposing character & retinue on a pretty for pictures 28mm scale... This action would happen on a separate part of the table say a 1' by 1' section with no more than a dozen models per side. I came up with this idea from watching films like Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit from just this thing you mentioned where there are the panned out big battles juxtaposed with the panned in duels between Azog the defiler and Thorin Oakenshield or Gandalf and the Nazgul king for example. Really why not have both in one game?
I stand on the opposing side (obviously) I prefer skirmish wargames, which are wargames as complex and intriguing as bigger scope wargames and not "RPG knockoffs", over bigger scope games especially on my preferred periods witch is modern and above were such huge formations over such a small space make little sense anyway.
For Antiquity, Napeleonics and fantasy, at least one that is firmly rooted in the fantasy and medieval warfare, one could argue that mass battle games are more fitting since the spaces between armies were small and formations were quite packed.
What you suggest is the most obvious solution and has been tried a lot, it usually makes a break of immersion and players will either gravitate towards playing only the part they prefer most.
It's not so much breaking the immersion but breaking the flow of the game. I'd be interested to hear what your idea is, but I have tried to make games that do similar things in the past and it doesn't work well because it interrupts the flow too much.
Paint 1000's of figs.... if you intend people to paint that much 3mm or 6mm is probably the way to go so people can speed paint them. It takes too long to paint 1000 15mm models
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/22 10:54:02
PsychoticStorm wrote: I stand on the opposing side (obviously) I prefer skirmish wargames, which are wargames as complex and intriguing as bigger scope wargames and not "RPG knockoffs", over bigger scope games especially on my preferred periods witch is modern and above were such huge formations over such a small space make little sense anyway.
For Antiquity, Napeleonics and fantasy, at least one that is firmly rooted in the fantasy and medieval warfare, one could argue that mass battle games are more fitting since the spaces between armies were small and formations were quite packed.
Well it isn't a matter of complexity, RPGs can certainly be "complex and intriguing", it is a matter of scale. The modern equivalent of a pre-modern army with a 1000s of infantry, would be an army with 100s of infantry and nearly as many tanks, artillery and aircraft. If anything modern armies need to be on a smaller scale even more than pre-modern because the weapons are rangier and many units are very fast moving.
What you suggest is the most obvious solution and has been tried a lot, it usually makes a break of immersion and players will either gravitate towards playing only the part they prefer most.
Lots of things break immersion, looking up the rules, throwing dice, unpainted armies, small armies that are supposed to be big armies, crappy terrain, taking a break, arguments, yet still we play.. I think scale switching if handled right could increase immersion as much if not more than it breaks it.
Which titles have tried something similar also? I'd be very interested in seeing how it was tried.
Paint 1000's of figs.... if you intend people to paint that much 3mm or 6mm is probably the way to go so people can speed paint them. It takes too long to paint 1000 15mm models
I'm thinking of 10mm. My estimate is that painting 10mm x 1000 is a pretty close equivalent to painting 28mm x100. Wargamers do it:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/22 12:29:32
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
