|
Post by grizzlymc on Nov 28, 2014 22:17:33 GMT
I am with Subs here. I have seen Bruce Weigle's work and the stuff above and it is all very impressive, but if I can suspend belief enough to make a 6mm figure equal to 10 X 1:1600 scale men in a single rank, I can handle the idea that a 6mm building represents a group of buildings. Obviously, this becomes a challenge if your rules deal with a building as though it is a building, but then I would change my rules.
The way I would handle a refight of waterloo is to take a leaf out of the toy trains book and compromise my scale. You can put together a reasonable setup on a Hougomont footprint (or La Haye Saint) which is a smaller version of the original, but in the right style. At least this is possible in 6mm. I well recollect a "Waterloo" refight in 25mm in my youth in which Hougomont and La Haye Saint were somewhat like Stalingrad and the French could not attack between them.
Or you can go with tac and use a 1:300 original as the basis for a 1:300 scale skirmish game.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 8, 2015 2:39:05 GMT
I agree.It is visual and I think personal preference. My table is 4 x 12 and I look for smaller footprint buildings so there is room to move troops around, add little scenic touches like an orchard or farm pond. Leven does a good job of providing these, with many small to medium buildings that can be made to work for the period. But as Mick brings out his Waterloo building complexes, I am reminded of just how big some of these layouts were, and as the anniversary approaches I am wondering how those of you re-fighting the battle are dealing with the actual 6mm versions of the more famous landmarks. They look great, but they also seem pretty large to me, suggesting that the gaming might be done in stages or sections for some folks.
Luckily, or unluckily, for me I have finished only my French and Austrians and am still stuck in in 1809. But whatever, I am more interested in the tone and feel of a layout, than actual scale ratios and such and approach scenic elements accordingly. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by curlerman on Apr 8, 2015 6:37:37 GMT
But as Mick brings out his Waterloo building complexes, I am reminded of just how big some of these layouts were, and as the anniversary approaches I am wondering how those of you re-fighting the battle are dealing with the actual 6mm versions of the more famous landmarks.
You might be interested in this thread that talks about a new range of buildings from total battle miniatures that are deliberately compacted to give very much smaller footprints. perfectsixps.proboards.com/thread/252/new-100-days-rangeyou can see the buildings here www.totalbattleminiatures.com/bigbattalions/6mm/100days.htmlbob
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 8, 2015 14:59:24 GMT
I am plannign to use the Leven Hougoumont for an attack on Hougoumont scenario - the larger size and lots of space for orchard etc. all work then. The Leven La Haye Sainte is fine for D'Erlon attack scenario but TBM will be the way to go for a larger piece of the battlefield with both farms. Ligny has a lot of villages so TMB again is the way to go to have all the villages but have room for anything else!
Steve
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 9, 2015 1:48:28 GMT
Thanks guys, I had not checked out TBM for a while. The new stuff looks amazing with the reduced footprints a great option. I am assuming they still look pretty much like 6mm, just not as sprawling as the actual scale layouts. If I can just get my Brits and Prussians painted by June, along with some buildings, I can escape 1809 and catch up with the rest of you! Bruce
|
|
|
Post by ian on Apr 9, 2015 16:36:32 GMT
I agree.It is visual and I think personal preference. My table is 4 x 12 and I look for smaller footprint buildings so there is room to move troops around, add little scenic touches like an orchard or farm pond. Leven does a good job of providing these, with many small to medium buildings that can be made to work for the period. But as Mick brings out his Waterloo building complexes, I am reminded of just how big some of these layouts were, and as the anniversary approaches I am wondering how those of you re-fighting the battle are dealing with the actual 6mm versions of the more famous landmarks. They look great, but they also seem pretty large to me, suggesting that the gaming might be done in stages or sections for some folks.
Luckily, or unluckily, for me I have finished only my French and Austrians and am still stuck in in 1809. But whatever, I am more interested in the tone and feel of a layout, than actual scale ratios and such and approach scenic elements accordingly. Bruce My answer is a 6x16 foot table. We re-mapped it out over the bank holiday and the base sizes we have for the battalions (60x60mm) will fit with the boards. OK more sane people may have other idea's
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 9, 2015 19:49:26 GMT
Ian: 6x16 sounds great, and still comfortable to reach everything. Sanity is not what's important here in any case! I have been frustrated by my 4x12 at times, its turned out to be kind of an odd shape for some scenarios.
In any case, I am really looking forward to seeing photos and reports from everybody on all the Waterloo action - plans sound well thought out and there should be plenty of great stuff to share in the coming months! Another great plus for this forum. Bruce
|
|
richard
New member
Posts: 14
Favorite army: British
Favorite battle: All of them!
|
Post by richard on Apr 12, 2015 12:12:27 GMT
This just makes my brain hurt! Everything is a compromise to some extent. I like having more figures to give the mass feel and ratios of 1:5 or 1:10 in figures are good for me and more than enough painting. I appreciate the logic of smaller buildings but to my simple mind I expect a figure next to a door to be able to fit through it!
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Apr 12, 2015 12:52:35 GMT
This just makes my brain hurt! Everything is a compromise to some extent. I like having more figures to give the mass feel and ratios of 1:5 or 1:10 in figures are good for me and more than enough painting. I appreciate the logic of smaller buildings but to my simple mind I expect a figure next to a door to be able to fit through it! Agree
|
|
|
Post by Sho on Apr 12, 2015 13:37:52 GMT
Yes, of cource. With this figure:men ratio buildings must be in 6mm scale too. Indeed. I said this on first post.
My game units will be then 40cm wide and looks great.
Unfortunately I don't have table big enough for such units. And all my present army are smaller than one such unit.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Apr 12, 2015 13:43:12 GMT
I'm sure I have said this before but ground scale in wargaming has always been (and always will be)a matter of fudge and compromise unless you are working on a 1:1 figure representation. Sooo while you have to compromise I want it to look good. As stated a 6mm fig must be able to get through a 6mm scale door (a dont mind a reduced footprint like TBM) but if you are going to use 3mm buildings with 6mm figs why not use 3mm figs to start with? or do you then use even smaller buildings?.....baffled!!
Tim
|
|
|
Post by grizzlymc on Apr 13, 2015 15:42:40 GMT
Tim, whilst I agree, I like my toy trees and toy houses to look as though they come from the same world as my toy soldiers, that is just a different kludge to using 3mm scenery. The answer to your question might be that they like the detail of the 6mm figs and they don't care much about detail on houses.
Also, 1:1 is a kludge. It is difficult to fit Adlers on narrower bases than 3.75mm per figure. This represents 45 inches per man in 1:300 which is about twice the frontage per man required for close order infantry or, in British terms, open order.
I am not joining the Waterloo rush, but am seriously thinging of getting a TBM complex to see how good their scale kludge is.
|
|
|
Post by Orlog Subedai on Apr 13, 2015 18:06:55 GMT
I still maintain that cereal box card and possibly balsa make the best buildings...then you can make them in whatever scale you wish. Sorry, but I cannot get my head around using markedly smaller scale buildings with any scale, it's just wrong. Others obviously think differently but it's not for me.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 13, 2015 20:24:03 GMT
I'm with the door guys, I usually use the doors of model buildings to figure out if they are right for my men, and with H & R figures the smaller footprint buildings do work well. While I am not doing Waterloo, I can see where the battle's iconic structures are critical for most gamers and should look their best. I cannot see 3mm with 6mm etc. for this or anything else but to each his own. My philosophy is to try to do scenery to scale that looks good but remains flexible and playable - meaning I can easily reuse and move things around to create a variety of scenarios, and I don't get too cluttered or fancy so the games play smoothly.
I love looking at Bruce Weigle's layouts, but they make me think - diorama or game? Especially if you like to switch around your scenarios quickly and easily for the next fight. But I also think many of you are very good, running complex games with diorama settings. The photos and battle reports usually remind me of this and I love seeing them. I am happy a slight step down from this but I still get the same charge out of doing it. Again, it comes down to personal preference. Bruce
|
|