Latest posts for the thread "What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?"

What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

Hans — GMT

Ok, I've dropped a few hints in the past, read into this what you want. I know where certain aspects will be going, others not so sure. Could be that nothing comes of it, could be a lot, haven't decided yet. If it's done, it will be done how I think is the right way. But anyways...

When it comes to miniature gaming, what do you folks think is the bigger need, or which do you think would be more preferred for you when it comes to size in a wargame? Think along the lines of the following questions....

Big armies, little figures, along the lines of stuff such as Epic, Micro Armour and stuff like that?

Little armies, medium figures, as with Warhammer/40K/War Machine/Starship troopers?

Would you prefer big numbers of generic figures? Or small numbers of highly customizeable stuff kinda like Battletech Classic?

Focus on the Infantry? The Armor? Balance it out?

Thow in your ideas here?

RE: What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

Asmodai — GMT

25-35mm Battalion (75-200 miniatures per side).

Looks good, reasonable painting time and still feels like a battle.

I love armour. Can never have enough of it.

RE: What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

Mannahnin — GMT

I agree with Asmodai, except I'm not as in love with the armor. The scale of Warhammer and 40k is great for me; they're my favorite games. I really enjoy Warmachine too, and particularly love how well the rules are written, but the complexity of the mechanics means that I'd never want to play a game over 750pts. It would just take too long. So for a fun game in a reasonable timeframe, Warmachine will always be skirmish-level for me, which doesn't have the feel of a battle I get from Warhammer and 40k.

RE: What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

syr8766 — GMT

I think it depends, as Mann said, as much on the complexity of the game as the scale.

So Warmachine/Hordes is a 'big skirmish' game in my mind (and a damn fine one at that!), running around 500-750 pts, which is somewhere between a dozen to three dozen figs (12-36).

Warhammer 40k: I've played 1850-2000 pt games, and the system allows for that easily as it's not very complex (rules discrepancies and vagueness aside). However, I find that many points a tad overwhelming, and prefer 1000-1500 points.

Battletech is the smallest scale game I play at around 6mm (the so-called 'classic' version), but the rules complexities are such that I'd NEVER want to play with more than 4-5 bases ( be they mechs, infantry, vehicles, tanks, etc) per side.

RE: What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

Hans — GMT

Oh, it definitely goes without saying that the more stuff you have on the table, the more simple the rules need to be. I can only imagine the total horror of having a 40k 2000pt battle with each figure using a BT Classic style info sheet. I definitely understand that a complex game can only have a very limited number of units and be a skirmish style fight.

But the big question is should I focus on a skirmish style or a grand battle game?

I am steering toward a touch smaller figures than 40k, so a bit bigger of a battle. However with simpler/clearer rules. Initially 2-3 different factions. Less variety of troops within the factions, but more variables within each troop choice.

-Hans

RE: What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

insaniak — GMT

Posted By Hans on 07/23/2007 2:28 PM
But the big question is should I focus on a skirmish style or a grand battle game?

That really comes down to how much competition you want.

There are a lot of skirmish games out there at the moment.
Not so many games that cater for big battles.

Posted By Hans on 07/23/2007 2:28 PM
I am steering toward a touch smaller figures than 40k, so a bit bigger of a battle.

I think you need to be very careful about the scale of the figures if you actually want them to sell.

One of the biggest complaints I've heard about Starship Troopers and Battlefield Evolution is that the figures really aren't to scale with anything else on the market. That's a big turn-off for a lot of players, as it means less customisability. Not just for conversions, but even just for using different miniatures for a specific look.

Additionally, the big advantage that 28-30mm figures have over smaller miniatures is that there's a lot more room for detail, and they're seen as being a little easier to paint. Many people who find 28mm figures difficult wouldn't even consider trying to paint 6mm or 10mm figures.

I'm working on a ruleset myself at the moment geared towards larger battles, with the intention of it being usable for anything from skirmishes to all-out slugfests... and my primary maxim is 'keep it simple'

I see no particular reason that a ruleset has to be complicated in order to be either fun or tactically flexible. I've been playing a lot of Star Wars, Pirates of the Spanish Main and War at Sea lately. All very simple rulesets, and all a heck of a lot of fun.

RE: What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

Alpharius — GMT

Posted By insaniak on 07/23/2007 4:41 PM

I'm working on a ruleset myself at the moment geared towards larger battles, with the intention of it being usable for anything from skirmishes to all-out slugfests... and my primary maxim is 'keep it simple'

Good luck with this!

Rackham's trying it with their latest rule set - CONFRONTATION: The AGE of The RAG'NAROK and, in my opinion, is failing miserably (as the rules are really uninteresting/bad/not much fun at the 'skirmish' scale)...

RE: What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

Da Boss — GMT

I like 'em both.
Something like Gothic, which doesn't have a high model count, is great, but I also enjoy my large army in warhammer fantasy.
I want to get into Hordes and LOTR too, when I magically create a new day in the week to game in...

RE: What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

Osbad — GMT

My head says 6mm, my heart says 28mm. As a "game" I prefer 6mm stuff for sci-fi, probably because the number of models and the scale ranges involved feel a little more convincing. And I don't dig the concept of hand-to-hand skirmishing in the far future. Except of course for the tired old Rourkes Drift/Humans vs. Bugs cliché.

But my heart says 28mm. At the larger scale the figures are big enough to fall in love with the sculpts if they are nicely done, and to be honest I am more likely to get into a game because it has lovely figures I can use with it, than because it has perfect rules.

In otherwords, I get more joy out of the painting and collecting side of the hobby than the playing side, so if forced to choose, I go with the nice toys.

RE: What's your preference in miniature gaming scope/scale?

Kilkrazy — GMT

Most keen wargamers play in a variety of scales. For example, I have 28mm WH40K, 25mm Medievals, 20mm Vietnam skirmish, 15mm Ancients, 15mm ACW, and 6mm Napoleonics.

If you are trying to attract people who are new to tabletop, the bigger figure scales in smaller battle sizes seem to be more accessible.