This was a fantastic video. It's honestly given me a lot to think about that I haven't considered before. When I started my Napoleonic armies I just went with 4 figures on 40x40 squares as that's what seemed to be the most common and it's what Black Powder recommended. But I quickly ran into questions such as "What about skirmishers?" "What about Artillery?" and "How is a 12 figure cavalry unit "Standard size"?" Not to mention that I often found myself with so many leftover minis when buying Perry Miniatures plastics or metals. It's always great to see what others are doing and your approach sounds fantastic from a history, gameplay, and versatility perspective. I'll keep it in mind when I inevitably start another army.
Thank you! Like I say, there's plenty of good reasons out there to go with that system even with the problems it throws up - I'd certainly have a lot more units painted by this time if I'd gone with fewer figures!
I'm currently sitting on a pile of Prussian Perry figures and finding you doing this series i think is a godsend lol. Basing alone you described it 100%. coming out of systems that have defined base sizes per miniature... I've been trying to figure out what to do, was leaning to the 40mm square with 4 figs... but I really like your point about Prussian battalions having 4 companies, and those 8 mini 60x40 bases look stellar. Jaeger is the other one trying to wrap my head around. Look forward to more!
Heya, thanks so much for the comment, lovely to hear from others working on Prussians as well! I think for Jäger it'll likely come down to which ruleset you're planning to use, more so than with something like line infantry, since they get represented in so many different ways (as part of the brigade skirmish screen, as little detachments of a single company, etc.), and then you've got the schützen... I quite like the way the Perry's have based theirs as three on a 45x40 base so might try that.
Excellent coverage of the subject, which should be of real help to gamers negotiating the basing puzzle. Thanks again for sharing your experience and knowledge. Looking forward to seeing more from you and Best Wishes for the New Year.
Another really interesting video - please keep them coming. I'm loving this series as I am currently building up 1813 Germany forces. I use WoFun Games 10mm so have infantry in strips of 12 minis and cavalry in strips of 8 minis. I took the decision to go for a standard diorama base - 60mm x 60mm for infantry battalions and gun batteries and x2 60mm x 30mm for 4 squadron cavalry regiments
I find it very satisfying that you are going through exactly the same thought process that I did and coming to the same conclusion. My formula has always been "(200 - 250mm ) divided by the number of companies @ 15mm per figure" TBH 40x40 bases would drive me nuts as they would be very fiddly.
I use a system that works both for skirmish games (like Sharp Practice) AND big battles. Each Group of 8 infantry is based as 1x4 men, 1x2 men and 2x1 men. I magnetise and transport each such group of 2x4 figs on its own sabot or metal sheet. This permits casualty removal for Sharp Practice, while allowing easy movement in mass formations. Combining two, three or four such groups allows me to field a full battalion for GDA. I mount my skirmishers in pairs with two singletons in every six as ‘change’, allowing them to join line battalions if needed. NCOs, officers and standards tend be based separately allowing them to be used as tokens in Sharp Practice, or simply switched into the big formations for battalion games.
Thanks for the comment, that's a clever system you've got - I imagine it's even trickier for someone wanting to play both skirmish and larger battle games with the same collection so good job on finding something that works for you!
@ - It’s a bit of faff, but it works pretty much perfectly. Great to be able to play whichever rules system takes my fancy using my existing troops. Amusingly, I use exactly the same 60x40 base sizes as you do but with 25mm troops. Only my artillery bases are different, since I add magnets to allow for an entire Sharp Practice crew of 5+1.
Loved the reflection on basing! This has already been a significant source of headaches too me as well. While historical accuracy in unit composition is important to me, I think I lean towards prioritizing rule flexibility. For instance, the rules I’m most drawn to-Soldiers of Napoleon-determine the number of bases based on a battalion's "strength" rather than its historical company structure (full or large battalion equals six bases). Other rule sets take a similar approach. My project will focus on the 15/18mm scale, though I haven’t started work on it yet. To narrow my focus, I’ve chosen a small battle from the 1808 Peninsular War, set in Catalonia, between French and Spanish forces. However, this introduced another challenge: the battalions in these armies varied widely men strength. Some battalions weren’t even formal units but rather ad hoc amalgamations of others. I think I can effectively represent these differences by standardizing base size rather than equating each base to a company. This method aligns with the rules, simplifies the process, and allows for visual variety reflecting historical differences in battalion strength. Initially, I planned to model each battalion with six tightly packed bases featuring eight figures per base. But after estimating the money and time costs, I realized this wasn’t practical. Instead, I’ve opted for six bases with only three figures per base. One of the things that made me decide on 15mm rather than 28 is saving space, and having six bases of eight figures saves very little. The Peninsular War's irregularities might work to my advantage from a hobby perspective though. They give me the opportunity to paint a mix of non-standard French troops (some still wearing white uniforms), Neapolitan and Italian forces, ragtag French units like chasseurs de montagne, and of course, the Spanish, with their mix of regular uniforms with bicornes and cool grenadier hats and guerrilla fighters. This variety should make the project more manageable while also adding visual interest and depth.
Thanks so much for the comment, glad to see I'm not alone in dedicating quite a lot of thought to it! I guess it's all about finding whatever works for your time/budget/interest at the end of the day. And definitely agree about finding ways to cover a bigger variety of troops in a project, sounds like a fascinating mix
Thank you! I'm not too familiar with smaller scales if I'm honest - I imagine it'll be a case of viewing everything from one or two levels higher in organisational structure, so thinking in terms of battalions instead of companies?
@@MiniAgnostic My intention is to stay at the same level - battalion - but shrink everything down to 10mm. I hope that ultimately this will allow me to save storage space and not need a huge table to play on?
@@JackSargePainting I'm doing it with 2mm, for 10mm, just work out your figure/man ratio and base accordingly (by company). With smaller scale models, you can better represent the depth of units, not just the frontage.
I am an outlier in that I base everything on 25mm round bases and use movement trays. I do this because I play Sharp Practice, which encourages you to do this, but there’s no reason it can’t work for other games. It isn’t idea for massive scale games though where removing figures from the movement tray isn’t necessary, but you can always just stick them down temporarily with a bit of tape or blue tack. It will definitely make your formations less dense, but it won’t impact gameplay as long as your frontages still work out.
Thanks for the comment, that's probably the most flexible of all if I'm being honest. I've seen quite a few using those sabot bases for Wars of the Roses to be able to play systems like Hail Caesar and Never Mind the Billhooks with the same figures.
@@MiniAgnostic The main drawback of doing it my way I’ll admit is that it’s pretty fiddly compared to dedicated multi basing, but that’s a trade off. The other main issue is that it means you end up with much less dense formations since it’s a 25mm base plus the spacing between each base on the tray leading to something like 30-32mm frontage per figure vs the classic 15-20mm per figure. I think this is ok, but if you like dense formations it might not be the right choice for you. However, formation density changed over time according to changing battlefield tactics and technology. From the Seven Years war to the Napoleonic wars formations became less dense to facilitate rapid maneuvers instead of maximizing firepower and after the introduction of the rifled-musket in the 1850’s formations got even less dense to allow even faster movement. Since I am starting with the American Civil War I think my 25mm basing scheme fits this perfectly.
I haven't collected any 15m Napoleonics myself, but if you have the same preference as me, for tighter based figures, then I'd suggest following the recommendations in General de Brigade.
An interesting video. I would think that the recommendations you have provided actually prohibit new players from joining this glorious part of the hobby and are actually for those with an intimidate understanding of the period. For those wanting to just play the era, the rule sets you have mentioned with standard frontage have solved all the problems you have provided. What happens if I want to play Essling, have Austrian battalions based according to one of your recommendations ie. eight figures per stand for the beginning of the campaign, but now need to consider attrition?
Heya, yeah it’s a fair point about ‘just wanting to play’ - it’s easy to get overly fussy with this stuff, of which I’m probably more guilty than most. Having only started myself a few years ago, and having taken this approach with my basing from the start, I wouldn’t say it’s particularly prohibitive or needs tonnes of research - it just needed me to dig through a few older rulesets and do some wider reading than I would’ve come across had I stuck to just Black Powder. It’s a good point about attrition - my perspective is that a collection is always going to be more suitable for some battles than others, be that through uniforms, composition, field strength of units, state of campaign dress, etc. so we have to make concessions on at least one front. Personally, I’d rather have a collection that I’ve themed around one battle that it represents in a way that satisfies me rather than something adaptable but specific to none. I realise this option isn’t for everyone but thank you for putting down sone ideas so thoughtfully - all given me more to consider.
Excellent points, and exactly why in the system I'm writing, I'm concentrating on 2mm (although it will work for other scales!), as all companies, regardless of size, will fit on the same size base (20x10mm for 2mm!)
Thank you! Wow, not sure that I've come across anything representing companies at that small a scale - sounds like an interesting challenge to get working!
@MiniAgnostic yeah, I'm using Irregular Miniatures for the figure blocks and Brigade for the resin and metal buildings.... The aim of the project is to do Waterloo in true 1:1000 groundscale and units by company so each battalion is represented in its true strength.
Napoleonic same as any period where army's face each other in close order formations. It's not just the case of an same generic base size for each side. For most in the hobby It's also the look the sence of mass the base size also represents the size of the battalion and how they're where fielded for each nation. Fielding a battalion that on the field would have been shoulder to shoulder looks better on the table actually shoulder to shoulder. Although it is also down to personal preferences. End of the day it's only a game (or is it)...
I am a veteran wargamer and no matter what period I play I like my units to represent what they are supposed to be , in this case Napoleonic close order infantry ! Long ago I learnt to base my figures how I want to base them and not how the rule writers suggest , You can always adjust rules to fit Your basing .. For me it's the look of the unit that counts, rules are secondary in this choice but this only comes from years of playing Wargames , but it's quite liberating ! So seeing well painted Napoleonic infantry based in open order makes me cringe , seeing average painted figures based well shoulder shoulder on dioramic bases wins the day for every time !
I don't know a huge amount about Pike and Shot I'm afraid. Much of what I'm discussing here is specific to the company structure of Napoleonic battalions so you'd probably want to look up the organisation of equivalent units in whichever period you're looking to wargame.
I'm struggling to understand why people get hung up on this. The figures are purely representative. Real battalions vary vastly in strength and are hundreds of men, not 24, 30, 36 etc figures, it's purely aesthetic and really up to you, what you like and what you can afford and is not in any way, shape or form a Napoleonic battalion.
Most of the uncertainty/indecision seems to be down to players overthinking it from the perspective of different rulesets, if I'm honest, when for most it doesn't really matter that much at all. Aesthetics and budget, like you say, are a big factor for some as well, as I discuss in the video. Obviously the figures are only representative - following a precise figure scale as a fixed ratio of one miniature to twenty men, for instance, seems to have gone out of fashion a good few years ago which is why I barely mentioned it.
@@MiniAgnostic I think the General de Brigade rules are excellent and yet the forum is bogged down with people worrying about structuring the companies in their battalions when it is the battalion not the company they are using as the maneuver element.
Finding a ground scale, then getting everyone to use would be difficult. But it is one of the items that separate the Napoleonic game from the Napoleonic simulation.
Hey, yeah I think ground scales can be valuable but like you say, getting everyone to agree and stick to one can be tricky. Unless you collect both sides yourself for a specific presentation game, I think picking where you apply it more rigorously (village sizes, distances between objectives, the scale of rivers etc. in relation to a best guess battalion size) is probably an easier approach for most games.
I’m trying to write my own napoleonic rules. I play solo, but after over 60 years of gaming, I have seen where many rule books/sets manage to slow down play. ( there are some brilliant gamers who write successful napoleonic rules, who are then persuaded to alter the rules to fix a problem, when the problem is often the players who haven’t read and understood the rules or tested what a small change will make to the authors intent. Also are the rules meant to be a game or a simulation. The game has all the nations have the same army with different uniforms. Peter Young’s book Charge! or how to play Wargames I still have some Spencer Smith 30mm plastic AWI figures with paint flaking off every time I open the box. The main problem for me is my typing speed or lack of it . I always take note of new rules by older Wargamers as they have the experience of knowing what problems lie ahead. One thing that always used to be left out of rules is an army list for the protagonists. It should always be decided what campaign are you going to build an army for and what size battles for the rules. Waterloo is a brilliant campaign to refight because of the major battles but look at the Prussian’s in the early days of the campaign ? The Prussian Corps that ran into a French division. Find a board game that matches the action ant you will find a division who was leading the Prussian defence? And the French brigade or division probing for an unguarded river crossing. So I’ll aim the rules for a divisional battle but there may be a lt. cavalry brigade in front of the French ruing a picket line. So you may need a higher level of command and control. Many very good rule sets don’t give specifics of how messages are passed without sticking a paper note rolled up and pushed between the horses legs. Before worrying about the big things perhaps a 1,000 to 2,500 army points per side giving both armies a chance to defeat the other play the game then see what was wrong or a rule that wasn’t there. Ow in my case I will be playing both sides I have Brits and some French, some Prussian all in 15mm. For short games I think halving the possible figures in a battalion will shorten the games a written plan of attack or defence for both sides means that they will have structured orders and the General is the only one who can change the basic plan. I’m looking for a part of 1812/13 where I can recreate an engagement between the French and one of the Prussian or allied armies, but so far I’ve only found corps fighting on the flank of there army.
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response - to add to what you say about many of the 'fixes' gamers try to bring to rulesets, I think another issue is gamers trying to use a set of rules in a way they weren't necessarily intended (e.g., trying to turn Bolt Action into more of a simulation for refighting specific WW2 engagements etc.). When something is being marketed/published, there'll have to be those concessions, but if you're developing rules for your own use then I guess you're free to design them around a single campaign or even one battle if you like!
I much prefer cavalry and infantry units of four 50mm x 50mm bases, each containing either six infantry or two cavalry - although I sometimes substitute two 50x25 infantry bases (of three figures each) for one 50x50. A French line infantry unit will usually consist of six three figure companies plus six command (perhaps containing an officer, standard, drummer, two sergeants, and one other figure such as a sapper or eagle guard). I prefer to think of units as a standard strength, such as 800-1000 for infantry, representing a full strength battalion, a standard regiment, or a weak brigade. Although battalions often started a campaign at full strength (of 700-1000 men), this didn't last very long. As an example, by 1814 most Russian line infantry regiments were down one 300 man infantry battalions , and French line regiments were usually far weaker.
That's a really good point about attrition and the effect of being on campaign, thank you - it's something I'm thinking of covering for a future video from the angle of uniforms as well as field vs paper strength.
Attrition not only affected the overall strength, but also affected the internal battalion strength and structure. Before a battle companies/platoons evened out their strength inside the battalion. In the case of the French, this might mean center company men being attached to elite companies (or any other center company), making company distinctions somewhat superfluous.
We use a standard of 50x25 for all our infantry 3 to infantry 2 to skirmishers and 50x50 for 2 cavalry always and guns on the same..works for just about every system out although we do prefer L'AIGLE from Caliver Games. Trying to keep.it simple is my motto. :))
I’d make one observation. Determining base size on theoretical Regimental manning is a tad unrealistic. No battalion would ever be at its doctrinal strength a week after marching out of its depot / barracks. I think fretting over base size is a bit like worrying if the sun will rise tomorrow. Better, in my opinion, to simply pick a base size based on the frontage a battalion would be expected to maintain ‘in the battle line’. Consequently my units are based in a variety of ways. Some are six bases of 4 miniatures in two ranks on 40mm squares. Others are 6 figures on 4 bases that are 45mm wide by 40mm deep. Bottom line, as long as each battalion has a frontage between 180mm up to 240mm I’m fine with it (regardless of nationality) because no one battalion was ever going to have the same strength as its sister battalions within the Regiment \ Brigade..
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response - I agree fully about field vs paper strength, which is why I didn't get into figure ratios in the video. The typical numbers I mentioned at the end for my own collection are based on rough averages while on campaign, but if you do want to be more precise in following a single orbat or capturing a wider range then what you've recommended re a mix of unit sizes is definitely the best idea.
Surly base size is decided by the rules chosen. I have heard far to much talk on subjects that as far as I believe are totally unnecessary. The choses are 1 stick to which rules you decide, 2 change the set of rules that suits you're way off playing and 3 Stop Bitching and write your own bloody rules for Pete's sake. Happy New Year guys and just enjoy the hobby as you prefer.
Hey, thanks for the comment - the aim of the video, as I set out, is mostly for newer players faced with a ruleset which *doesn't* specify a single method, like I set out at the start of the video. Given the number of questions I've seen over the years, many players do find this conversation necessary, hence why - like you've done in your comment - I've tried to set out some choices to help steer their decisions: among them being to just stick to the game's "recommended" basing if that suits you, or to change it to your own tastes based on aesthetics, figure size, gaming intentions, etc.
“Stick to the rules”? It’s great to have the option to play multiple sets of rules, especially if you’re just starting out and what to explore the possibilities. The dilemma comes when you want to play skirmish games and ‘big battles’ with the same figures. It’s entirely feasible if you’re happy to use magnets 🧲 and have a mix of base sizes.
![Uniforms & Organisation of the Prussian Reserve [Road to Leipzig Ep. 6]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8x6l1IRk7iM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Uniforms & Organisation of the Prussian Reserve [Road to Leipzig Ep. 6]](/img/tr.png)
![Why There's Never Been a Better Time to Start Napoleonics [Road to Leipzig Ep. 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qIdb4v88C7M/mqdefault.jpg)
This was a fantastic video. It's honestly given me a lot to think about that I haven't considered before. When I started my Napoleonic armies I just went with 4 figures on 40x40 squares as that's what seemed to be the most common and it's what Black Powder recommended. But I quickly ran into questions such as "What about skirmishers?" "What about Artillery?" and "How is a 12 figure cavalry unit "Standard size"?" Not to mention that I often found myself with so many leftover minis when buying Perry Miniatures plastics or metals.
It's always great to see what others are doing and your approach sounds fantastic from a history, gameplay, and versatility perspective. I'll keep it in mind when I inevitably start another army.
Thank you! Like I say, there's plenty of good reasons out there to go with that system even with the problems it throws up - I'd certainly have a lot more units painted by this time if I'd gone with fewer figures!
I'm currently sitting on a pile of Prussian Perry figures and finding you doing this series i think is a godsend lol. Basing alone you described it 100%. coming out of systems that have defined base sizes per miniature... I've been trying to figure out what to do, was leaning to the 40mm square with 4 figs... but I really like your point about Prussian battalions having 4 companies, and those 8 mini 60x40 bases look stellar. Jaeger is the other one trying to wrap my head around.
Look forward to more!
Heya, thanks so much for the comment, lovely to hear from others working on Prussians as well! I think for Jäger it'll likely come down to which ruleset you're planning to use, more so than with something like line infantry, since they get represented in so many different ways (as part of the brigade skirmish screen, as little detachments of a single company, etc.), and then you've got the schützen... I quite like the way the Perry's have based theirs as three on a 45x40 base so might try that.
A great deep dive - well thougt out and articulated. Well played Good Sir!
Thanks so much for the comment!
Excellent coverage of the subject, which should be of real help to gamers negotiating the basing puzzle. Thanks again for sharing your experience and knowledge.
Looking forward to seeing more from you and Best Wishes for the New Year.
Thank you, that's lovely to read! Hope you've had a good festive season and best wishes for the New Year!
Another really interesting video - please keep them coming. I'm loving this series as I am currently building up 1813 Germany forces. I use WoFun Games 10mm so have infantry in strips of 12 minis and cavalry in strips of 8 minis. I took the decision to go for a standard diorama base - 60mm x 60mm for infantry battalions and gun batteries and x2 60mm x 30mm for 4 squadron cavalry regiments
Thank you! That's something I love about smaller scales - the opportunity to be a bit more creative with your basing like you mention.
I find it very satisfying that you are going through exactly the same thought process that I did and coming to the same conclusion.
My formula has always been "(200 - 250mm ) divided by the number of companies @ 15mm per figure"
TBH 40x40 bases would drive me nuts as they would be very fiddly.
Thank you, it's reassuring for me to read as well that I'm not alone!
I wish this had been released before I had based 5 battalions of Russian infantry, I'm locked into a system now! Gread vid, liked and subscibed.
Thank so much, good luck with the collection!
I use a system that works both for skirmish games (like Sharp Practice) AND big battles. Each Group of 8 infantry is based as 1x4 men, 1x2 men and 2x1 men. I magnetise and transport each such group of 2x4 figs on its own sabot or metal sheet. This permits casualty removal for Sharp Practice, while allowing easy movement in mass formations.
Combining two, three or four such groups allows me to field a full battalion for GDA. I mount my skirmishers in pairs with two singletons in every six as ‘change’, allowing them to join line battalions if needed. NCOs, officers and standards tend be based separately allowing them to be used as tokens in Sharp Practice, or simply switched into the big formations for battalion games.
Thanks for the comment, that's a clever system you've got - I imagine it's even trickier for someone wanting to play both skirmish and larger battle games with the same collection so good job on finding something that works for you!
@ - It’s a bit of faff, but it works pretty much perfectly. Great to be able to play whichever rules system takes my fancy using my existing troops. Amusingly, I use exactly the same 60x40 base sizes as you do but with 25mm troops. Only my artillery bases are different, since I add magnets to allow for an entire Sharp Practice crew of 5+1.
Loved the reflection on basing! This has already been a significant source of headaches too me as well. While historical accuracy in unit composition is important to me, I think I lean towards prioritizing rule flexibility. For instance, the rules I’m most drawn to-Soldiers of Napoleon-determine the number of bases based on a battalion's "strength" rather than its historical company structure (full or large battalion equals six bases). Other rule sets take a similar approach. My project will focus on the 15/18mm scale, though I haven’t started work on it yet.
To narrow my focus, I’ve chosen a small battle from the 1808 Peninsular War, set in Catalonia, between French and Spanish forces. However, this introduced another challenge: the battalions in these armies varied widely men strength. Some battalions weren’t even formal units but rather ad hoc amalgamations of others. I think I can effectively represent these differences by standardizing base size rather than equating each base to a company. This method aligns with the rules, simplifies the process, and allows for visual variety reflecting historical differences in battalion strength.
Initially, I planned to model each battalion with six tightly packed bases featuring eight figures per base. But after estimating the money and time costs, I realized this wasn’t practical. Instead, I’ve opted for six bases with only three figures per base. One of the things that made me decide on 15mm rather than 28 is saving space, and having six bases of eight figures saves very little.
The Peninsular War's irregularities might work to my advantage from a hobby perspective though. They give me the opportunity to paint a mix of non-standard French troops (some still wearing white uniforms), Neapolitan and Italian forces, ragtag French units like chasseurs de montagne, and of course, the Spanish, with their mix of regular uniforms with bicornes and cool grenadier hats and guerrilla fighters. This variety should make the project more manageable while also adding visual interest and depth.
Thanks so much for the comment, glad to see I'm not alone in dedicating quite a lot of thought to it! I guess it's all about finding whatever works for your time/budget/interest at the end of the day. And definitely agree about finding ways to cover a bigger variety of troops in a project, sounds like a fascinating mix
Thanks for making this. I think I need to listen to it again and figure out how I could apply it to 10mm Napoleonics.
Thank you! I'm not too familiar with smaller scales if I'm honest - I imagine it'll be a case of viewing everything from one or two levels higher in organisational structure, so thinking in terms of battalions instead of companies?
@@MiniAgnostic My intention is to stay at the same level - battalion - but shrink everything down to 10mm. I hope that ultimately this will allow me to save storage space and not need a huge table to play on?
@@JackSargePainting I'm doing it with 2mm, for 10mm, just work out your figure/man ratio and base accordingly (by company). With smaller scale models, you can better represent the depth of units, not just the frontage.
I am an outlier in that I base everything on 25mm round bases and use movement trays. I do this because I play Sharp Practice, which encourages you to do this, but there’s no reason it can’t work for other games. It isn’t idea for massive scale games though where removing figures from the movement tray isn’t necessary, but you can always just stick them down temporarily with a bit of tape or blue tack. It will definitely make your formations less dense, but it won’t impact gameplay as long as your frontages still work out.
Thanks for the comment, that's probably the most flexible of all if I'm being honest. I've seen quite a few using those sabot bases for Wars of the Roses to be able to play systems like Hail Caesar and Never Mind the Billhooks with the same figures.
@@MiniAgnostic
The main drawback of doing it my way I’ll admit is that it’s pretty fiddly compared to dedicated multi basing, but that’s a trade off. The other main issue is that it means you end up with much less dense formations since it’s a 25mm base plus the spacing between each base on the tray leading to something like 30-32mm frontage per figure vs the classic 15-20mm per figure. I think this is ok, but if you like dense formations it might not be the right choice for you. However, formation density changed over time according to changing battlefield tactics and technology. From the Seven Years war to the Napoleonic wars formations became less dense to facilitate rapid maneuvers instead of maximizing firepower and after the introduction of the rifled-musket in the 1850’s formations got even less dense to allow even faster movement. Since I am starting with the American Civil War I think my 25mm basing scheme fits this perfectly.
That was a cracking video, thank you!
Thank you!
What do you recommend for 15mm?
I haven't collected any 15m Napoleonics myself, but if you have the same preference as me, for tighter based figures, then I'd suggest following the recommendations in General de Brigade.
An interesting video. I would think that the recommendations you have provided actually prohibit new players from joining this glorious part of the hobby and are actually for those with an intimidate understanding of the period. For those wanting to just play the era, the rule sets you have mentioned with standard frontage have solved all the problems you have provided. What happens if I want to play Essling, have Austrian battalions based according to one of your recommendations ie. eight figures per stand for the beginning of the campaign, but now need to consider attrition?
Heya, yeah it’s a fair point about ‘just wanting to play’ - it’s easy to get overly fussy with this stuff, of which I’m probably more guilty than most. Having only started myself a few years ago, and having taken this approach with my basing from the start, I wouldn’t say it’s particularly prohibitive or needs tonnes of research - it just needed me to dig through a few older rulesets and do some wider reading than I would’ve come across had I stuck to just Black Powder.
It’s a good point about attrition - my perspective is that a collection is always going to be more suitable for some battles than others, be that through uniforms, composition, field strength of units, state of campaign dress, etc. so we have to make concessions on at least one front. Personally, I’d rather have a collection that I’ve themed around one battle that it represents in a way that satisfies me rather than something adaptable but specific to none.
I realise this option isn’t for everyone but thank you for putting down sone ideas so thoughtfully - all given me more to consider.
@ As I should have mentioned, I’m loving and am very grateful for these deep dives.
Excellent points, and exactly why in the system I'm writing, I'm concentrating on 2mm (although it will work for other scales!), as all companies, regardless of size, will fit on the same size base (20x10mm for 2mm!)
Thank you! Wow, not sure that I've come across anything representing companies at that small a scale - sounds like an interesting challenge to get working!
@MiniAgnostic yeah, I'm using Irregular Miniatures for the figure blocks and Brigade for the resin and metal buildings.... The aim of the project is to do Waterloo in true 1:1000 groundscale and units by company so each battalion is represented in its true strength.
Napoleonic same as any period where army's face each other in close order formations. It's not just the case of an same generic base size for each side. For most in the hobby It's also the look the sence of mass the base size also represents the size of the battalion and how they're where fielded for each nation. Fielding a battalion that on the field would have been shoulder to shoulder looks better on the table actually shoulder to shoulder. Although it is also down to personal preferences. End of the day it's only a game (or is it)...
Definitely agree about shoulder to shoulder just looking better! And yes, worth taking a step back from time to time...
Excellent informative video. One question, outside of the march -attack pose, have you tried placing 8 Victrix figures on a 60mm base?
Thank you! I haven't got any Victrix figures myself I'm afraid, sorry
I am a veteran wargamer and no matter what period I play I like my units to represent what they are supposed to be , in this case Napoleonic close order infantry !
Long ago I learnt to base my figures how I want to base them and not how the rule writers suggest , You can always adjust rules to fit Your basing ..
For me it's the look of the unit that counts, rules are secondary in this choice but this only comes from years of playing Wargames , but it's quite liberating !
So seeing well painted Napoleonic infantry based in open order makes me cringe , seeing average painted figures based well shoulder shoulder on dioramic bases wins the day for every time !
I agree completely - especially if, like me, you're more into the painting side of the hobby in any case!
I’m assuming this is the same for Pike and Shot?
I don't know a huge amount about Pike and Shot I'm afraid. Much of what I'm discussing here is specific to the company structure of Napoleonic battalions so you'd probably want to look up the organisation of equivalent units in whichever period you're looking to wargame.
Locally we settled on 6 figs on a 50x50 for 28mm Naps
I'm struggling to understand why people get hung up on this. The figures are purely representative. Real battalions vary vastly in strength and are hundreds of men, not 24, 30, 36 etc figures, it's purely aesthetic and really up to you, what you like and what you can afford and is not in any way, shape or form a Napoleonic battalion.
Most of the uncertainty/indecision seems to be down to players overthinking it from the perspective of different rulesets, if I'm honest, when for most it doesn't really matter that much at all. Aesthetics and budget, like you say, are a big factor for some as well, as I discuss in the video. Obviously the figures are only representative - following a precise figure scale as a fixed ratio of one miniature to twenty men, for instance, seems to have gone out of fashion a good few years ago which is why I barely mentioned it.
@@MiniAgnostic I think the General de Brigade rules are excellent and yet the forum is bogged down with people worrying about structuring the companies in their battalions when it is the battalion not the company they are using as the maneuver element.
I base according to Morbey, which is essentially amended "In the Grand Manner"....To me, it gives the proper Napoleonic look....
There's something so distinctive about the whole aesthetic of armies for In the Grand Manner - love it
Finding a ground scale, then getting everyone to use would be difficult. But it is one of the items that separate the Napoleonic game from the Napoleonic simulation.
Hey, yeah I think ground scales can be valuable but like you say, getting everyone to agree and stick to one can be tricky. Unless you collect both sides yourself for a specific presentation game, I think picking where you apply it more rigorously (village sizes, distances between objectives, the scale of rivers etc. in relation to a best guess battalion size) is probably an easier approach for most games.
I’m trying to write my own napoleonic rules. I play solo, but after over 60 years of gaming, I have seen where many rule books/sets manage to slow down play. ( there are some brilliant gamers who write successful napoleonic rules, who are then persuaded to alter the rules to fix a problem, when the problem is often the players who haven’t read and understood the rules or tested what a small change will make to the authors intent.
Also are the rules meant to be a game or a simulation. The game has all the nations have the same army with different uniforms.
Peter Young’s book Charge! or how to play Wargames I still have some Spencer Smith 30mm plastic AWI figures with paint flaking off every time I open the box.
The main problem for me is my typing speed or lack of it .
I always take note of new rules by older Wargamers as they have the experience of knowing what problems lie ahead.
One thing that always used to be left out of rules is an army list for the protagonists.
It should always be decided what campaign are you going to build an army for and what size battles for the rules.
Waterloo is a brilliant campaign to refight because of the major battles but look at the Prussian’s in the early days of the campaign ?
The Prussian Corps that ran into a French division. Find a board game that matches the action ant you will find a division who was leading the Prussian defence? And the French brigade or division probing for an unguarded river crossing.
So I’ll aim the rules for a divisional battle but there may be a lt. cavalry brigade in front of the French ruing a picket line.
So you may need a higher level of command and control.
Many very good rule sets don’t give specifics of how messages are passed without sticking a paper note rolled up and pushed between the horses legs.
Before worrying about the big things perhaps a 1,000 to 2,500 army points per side giving both armies a chance to defeat the other play the game then see what was wrong or a rule that wasn’t there. Ow in my case I will be playing both sides
I have Brits and some French, some Prussian all in 15mm. For short games I think halving the possible figures in a battalion will shorten the games a written plan of attack or defence for both sides means that they will have structured orders and the General is the only one who can change the basic plan.
I’m looking for a part of 1812/13 where I can recreate an engagement between the French and one of the Prussian or allied armies, but so far I’ve only found corps fighting on the flank of there army.
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response - to add to what you say about many of the 'fixes' gamers try to bring to rulesets, I think another issue is gamers trying to use a set of rules in a way they weren't necessarily intended (e.g., trying to turn Bolt Action into more of a simulation for refighting specific WW2 engagements etc.). When something is being marketed/published, there'll have to be those concessions, but if you're developing rules for your own use then I guess you're free to design them around a single campaign or even one battle if you like!
I much prefer cavalry and infantry units of four 50mm x 50mm bases, each containing either six infantry or two cavalry - although I sometimes substitute two 50x25 infantry bases (of three figures each) for one 50x50. A French line infantry unit will usually consist of six three figure companies plus six command (perhaps containing an officer, standard, drummer, two sergeants, and one other figure such as a sapper or eagle guard).
I prefer to think of units as a standard strength, such as 800-1000 for infantry, representing a full strength battalion, a standard regiment, or a weak brigade. Although battalions often started a campaign at full strength (of 700-1000 men), this didn't last very long. As an example, by 1814 most Russian line infantry regiments were down one 300 man infantry battalions , and French line regiments were usually far weaker.
That's a really good point about attrition and the effect of being on campaign, thank you - it's something I'm thinking of covering for a future video from the angle of uniforms as well as field vs paper strength.
Attrition not only affected the overall strength, but also affected the internal battalion strength and structure. Before a battle companies/platoons evened out their strength inside the battalion. In the case of the French, this might mean center company men being attached to elite companies (or any other center company), making company distinctions somewhat superfluous.
We use a standard of 50x25 for all our infantry 3 to infantry 2 to skirmishers and 50x50 for 2 cavalry always and guns on the same..works for just about every system out although we do prefer L'AIGLE from Caliver Games. Trying to keep.it simple is my motto. :))
I’d make one observation. Determining base size on theoretical Regimental manning is a tad unrealistic. No battalion would ever be at its doctrinal strength a week after marching out of its depot / barracks. I think fretting over base size is a bit like worrying if the sun will rise tomorrow. Better, in my opinion, to simply pick a base size based on the frontage a battalion would be expected to maintain ‘in the battle line’. Consequently my units are based in a variety of ways. Some are six bases of 4 miniatures in two ranks on 40mm squares. Others are 6 figures on 4 bases that are 45mm wide by 40mm deep. Bottom line, as long as each battalion has a frontage between 180mm up to 240mm I’m fine with it (regardless of nationality) because no one battalion was ever going to have the same strength as its sister battalions within the Regiment \ Brigade..
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response - I agree fully about field vs paper strength, which is why I didn't get into figure ratios in the video. The typical numbers I mentioned at the end for my own collection are based on rough averages while on campaign, but if you do want to be more precise in following a single orbat or capturing a wider range then what you've recommended re a mix of unit sizes is definitely the best idea.
@ I should add I pay using GDA2 where base sizes aren’t a ‘deal breaker’. Close enough is good enough which I also think is historically appropriate
Surly base size is decided by the rules chosen. I have heard far to much talk on subjects that as far as I believe are totally unnecessary. The choses are 1 stick to which rules you decide, 2 change the set of rules that suits you're way off playing and 3 Stop Bitching and write your own bloody rules for Pete's sake. Happy New Year guys and just enjoy the hobby as you prefer.
Hey, thanks for the comment - the aim of the video, as I set out, is mostly for newer players faced with a ruleset which *doesn't* specify a single method, like I set out at the start of the video. Given the number of questions I've seen over the years, many players do find this conversation necessary, hence why - like you've done in your comment - I've tried to set out some choices to help steer their decisions: among them being to just stick to the game's "recommended" basing if that suits you, or to change it to your own tastes based on aesthetics, figure size, gaming intentions, etc.
“Stick to the rules”? It’s great to have the option to play multiple sets of rules, especially if you’re just starting out and what to explore the possibilities. The dilemma comes when you want to play skirmish games and ‘big battles’ with the same figures. It’s entirely feasible if you’re happy to use magnets 🧲 and have a mix of base sizes.