I recently received an email from a wargamer who was using one of the versions of THE PORTABLE WARGAME asking me why I hadn’t stuck to single-figure or multi-figure basing throughout. In truth, I didn’t really have a definitive answer for them, and this set me wondering that if by opting for multi-figure bases, I might have painted (and based) myself into a metaphorical corner.
I have opted for multi-figure bases for my 15mm Belle Époque project and my 25/28mm Napoleonic collection, and single-figure bases for my 15mm Dammallia/Mankanika/Marizibar and 20mm World War II collections … and now I’m beginning to wonder if I’ve made the right decisions or not.
From an aesthetic point-of-view, there isn’t a great deal to choose between the two systems of basing … but single-based figures do have a bit more flexibility. After all, I can use sabot bases if I want to group single-based figures into units, but I cannot strip figures off the multi-figure bases.
I don’t think that there is a definitive answer to this conundrum, but I’d be interested to read comments from my regular blog readers.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteAt present I'm Skirmish gaming with about 40 figures per side- Single bases work well for this type of gaming- when I was basing up Armies of over 200 figures each side- I used Multiple Bases....seems that the number of troops involved made the decision for me. Best Wishes. KEv.
Kev Robertson (Mev),
DeleteThat is a very rational and logical way to choose which option to go with. Thank you.
All the best,
Bob
While it's true that single figure basing gives the most flexibility, I have rejected it for anything other than skirmish games. In truth I have gone the other way, rejecting even multiple stands in favour of a single "unit" base as in Impetus and VnB.
ReplyDeleteMy reasons are that the bigger the base, the better protection for the figures; if they can be removed from the edges so much the better. Encourage games to pick up the base rather than model(s).
Secondly, it reinforces the "golden rule" of 12-15 manouvre elements as being the optimum for a player to handle; there's always the risk that 20 individual figures become 20 elements to play with.
At the end of the day it's a matter of aesthetic and personal practical choice.
Neil
Neil Patterson (Neil),
DeleteThat is a very sensible way to go forward, and does reflect much of my own thinking, particularly the one base = one unit of the earlier PW rules.
I’d forgotten to take into account the ‘how many manoeuvre elements can a player handle easily?’ question, and thanks very much for reminding me of it. In bigger games, that is a very important consideration.
All the best,
Bob
Although I like the look of 2mm thick MDF bases, I'm toying with 3mm for that very reason... It might make it easier to pick up from the base rather than using the figures. I've not heard mention of "the golden rule" before. Where does that come from?
DeleteDonjondo,
DeleteI moved over to 3mm thick bases when I started my renovating, varnishing, and basing my Napoleonic collection … and that extra 1mm makes a lot more difference than one would have expected.
There is a load of research into what is termed in business as ‘span of control’, with many favouring a span of control of between 7 and 20 being the most efficient in most circumstances.
All the best,
Bob
Thanks for mentioning that. Good to know!
DeleteDonjondo,
DeleteIt was my pleasure.
All the best,
Bob
This question reminds me of the scene in The Princess Bride where on cup has poison and the other doesn't. My 15mm figures are all based in groups as they are used in bigger games of 12-15 units a side or they are DBA type games. The 28mm figures are mostly singly based so I can use them in skirmish games or put them on movement trays for larger games.
ReplyDeleteDan Foley,
DeleteA very nice analogy!
It sounds as if you have chosen a very sensible way forward, and your’s seems to be another vote for the ‘small figures on multi-figure bases; large figures on single figure bases’ option.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteAs you say, single-figure basing offers greater flexibility but it becomes a pain if one has either large units (as in Charge! or The War Game) or is fighting big battles with a lot of individual units, though in that situation, the individual battalion or regiment might be treated as an indivisible unit and either left in situ so long as it can continue in action or removed when it suffers a certain loss of combat effectiveness.
I seem to remember people such as Featherstone recommending using a variety of base sizes with battalions of, say, 20 figures, so that one might have four bases of 4 figures, one of 2 figures and two single figures, so that as the unit took casualties one could remove/replace bases as necessary to deploy any number of figures on the table. The 2-figure or single bases could also be used to show skirmishers being sent out.
But since PW rules use SPs on a roster as an indication of combat effectiveness, rather than exact numerical casualties, and tend to have a smaller number of figures per unit, one could argue that there is no need to remove figures to show losses of SPs. Indeed, since SPs represent combat effectiveness, to remove, say, three out of four figures or bases creates a unit that appears to have shrunk in size by far more than the numerical losses that would render it ineffective, and is aesthetically displeasing.
Sabot bases are one solution; another might be to retain the rank and file bases at full strength, but have single figures of officers, colour bearers and musicians that could either be removed to show loss of SP, or repositioned around the unit according to a prearranged code to indicate its current SP.
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteThat is an excellent summary of the benefits and drawbacks of both options as well as reminding me of the 1980s solution that used a mixture of single and multi-figure bases. I tried it, but never found it to be very satisfactory.
Your suggestion that one might have the rank-and-file on multi-figure bases and officers, standard bearers etc.,., on single figure bases has certain advantages, especially as they can then be used to show how much the unit has been degraded as a result of enemy action.
Thanks your your very helpful comment. It’s given me something to think about.
All the best,
Bob
I prefer multi-figure basing for units in the age of massed formations. They just seem to convey mass much better. The scenario where a single figure is left of a formation always feels odd to me. Sabot bases might be the best option for those who want the flexibility of using the same figures for skirmish games or games that require figure removal. Another consideration for me is that if the figures are left out, the kids will want to push them around the table. At ages 2 and 4, they're much less careful than the adults. The multi-bases probably hold up better. Because my 3D printed models all overlap, they bolster each other. I'll need to get started on a Teddy Bear Army range for the kids here soon. I can't seem to find anyone selling the Eureka range.
ReplyDeleteRyanRecker,
DeleteI agree that a single-figure unit does look a bit silly, and it’s a very powerful argument against having a set of rules - like some of the early versions of PW - where this basing system is used.
Having young children around presents a whole new set of problems, and your approach - which will be featured in the forthcoming Compendium - is a very sensible one.
All the best,
Bob
Depends on what you're doing. The larger thesize of the forces involved, the more difficult it is to use single figures. Likewise, the larger the size the figure is the less practical it is to use multiple bases. I don't do 15mm but if I did I can't see any way in which I would have figures on single bases. Likewise, if I did 54mm figures I don't think I would use anything other than single bases.
ReplyDeleteRob Young,
DeleteA very sensible summary of the situation. I do know some wargamers who use 54mm figures on magnetic multi-figure bases but as far as I can remember, they don’t use figure removal and treat the bases as units. The figures are removable for storage purposes because multi-figure bases of 54mm figures are just too big to store easily.
All the best,
Bob
As I get older, I find that both multi-based figures and "games that don't rely on figure removal" appeal to me more. I'm not so interested in skirmish games where the actions of individuals is important. To me, the bigger picture is where it's at. Yes, one can use sabots to temporarily move individually based figures as one. However, I find those don't help me suspend my disbelief so much, when I'm imagining them representing battalions and so on. Silly I know, but what can one do? You can't please everyone, but I try and at least please myself. Good gaming to you!
ReplyDeleteDonjondo,
DeleteI could have almost written your first two sentences myself! In fact, I pretty well agree with everything in your comment!
All the best,
Bob
One has more options with miniatures based singly. While generally more fiddly, single SP losses or lossed based on a figure to man ratio are much easier to handle for larger games.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I tend to base in multiples of figures, with exceptions for those intended for skirmish games an scenic images.
Either way, whatever you are comfortable with using in your games is what ought to be acceptable.
Justin Penwith,
DeleteThanks for your very balanced comment … especially the last sentence. When it comes down to it, if one is happy doing something in a particular way, then so be it.
All the best,
Bob
Singly based figures are better if you want to multi purpose. I've done it for figures I also want to use for skirmishers, and in my RPG'S. It's also better if you only have a few figures per unit, but I've only done it with larger scale figures. (1/72 or bigger). For smaller scale figures, 15mm or my Risk pieces I find it too fiddly, and Davout bases just increase the time to set up and take down the game.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteYour vote seems to be in accord with almost everyone else’s; single figure bases for skirmishes and/or larger figures and multi-figure bases for bigger actions/smaller figures.
All the best,
Bob
Hello there Bob,
ReplyDeleteMy 2p worth: Skirmishes using larger figures (28mm plus) up to around a couple of dozen figures a side then singles all the way. Anything using smaller figures or with larger numbers than multiple bases are the new garlic bread.
Back in the day I would use a 24 figure horse and musket unit with four bases of four figures (one of which would feature the officer, standard, musician and a rank and file), two bases of two, a three and a single.
Nowadays for me anything that is not a skirmish game will use multiple figure bases or sabots where needed.
Hope that helps although probably not!
All the best,
DC
David Crook,
DeleteYet another vote for single figure bases for skirmishes and/or larger figures and multi-figure bases for bigger actions/smaller figures!
I well remember my 24-figure ‘regiments’ being organised along similar lines; nowadays, 24 figures is enough figures for for a PW army!
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion! My marked preference is for single-figure bases, but for reasons of standupability (from the Latin 'standupabilius') I often use bases in pairs. Apart from my Prussians - for 'historical reasons' - my Napoleonic armies are all based that way.
I do use 'multibases' for my Byzantines, but that was the WRG influence. I use 'multibases' for my Chromatic Wars, that featured in the 'Blacklands' War and the Kavkaz Campaign. Also WRG influence - my original intention for those fellows was more along the Wellsian 'Little Wars' line.
I have never understood the 'Golden Rule' that Neil Patterson - that 12-15 units is optimal for players to handle. My 'Napoleon's battle' in the middle of last year featured about 23 units a side. All based in my individual or pairs system - 24-figure infantry and 12-figure cavalry. I have no problem at all with it.
Nor do I find individual or pairs based (i.e. 24-figure unit divided into 4 singles and 10 pairs, say) degenerates into (say) 14 separate units. Perhaps they can; they just don't.
My ACW infantry units are actually in threes, with the odd double and single figure mountings. So why not that for Napoleonics? I wanted my guys to be able to form a credible road column. Moving bases in single file, or - shudder - sideways along the road, just looks wrong. So I'm sacrificing depth for aethetics, even so, and army corps of three infantry Divisions, one cavalry brigade an a park comprising just one gun with horse traction, plus command, occupies over a metre of road (3km by my Big Battles for Small Tables scale) , and, travelling at the speed of the infantry, would take more than 4 turns (4 hours) for all to pass a single point along that road.
Finally, in my WW2 and Harad projects, I'll often use a 2-figure stand to represent a single Strength Point. Can't do that with heavy equipment of course. I never think of a 4-stand unit as anything but a unit - be it a platoon or company; or a brigade or Division. There is never any question of the whole thing breaking up and swanning indivually all over the place.
In that respect, the Portable Wargames system imposes, I think, a discipline of its own (though I can't say I have noticed it as such). My WW2 kit is (or was) designed for the Command Decision game system. There, companies COULD devolve into its separate 2-figure-stand platoons. Usually they didn't, but they could.
In Jacko's and my Battle of the Bulge action a couple of years back, I had 15 units just in my lead column, the infantry companies once dismounted, fanning out into the 3-stand companies. In this instance, Neil's observation is correct: one did start to 'fight by element' as that was what the rule set required. So the action ended after 3 or 4 hours inconclusively.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (ion),
DeleteThanks you for your long and very interesting comment.
‘Standupability’ might not be in any dictionary, but it should be as it describes one of the biggest advantages that multi-figure bases has over single-figure ones.
Reading your comment reminded me of an incident many years ago at a wargame club I went to a few times in my early twenties. One evening I played against a slightly older opponent who insisted that figures had to be on single-figure bases. Casualties were knocked over during the fighting and removed at the end of each turn. At least twice I am sure that he kicked the table quite deliberately after my move and before his own to ensure that some of our figures fell over. He claimed that mine must all be casualties (‘Well, old chap, they are lying down after we’ve been fighting so they must be dead’) whereas any of his own were stood up again … including any casualties I had inflicted (‘Sorry, old chap, but I’m sure that they only fell over when the table moved’).
Neil Patterson’s ‘Golden Rule’ does apply in the real world, where it is generally referred to as ‘span-of-control’. Most people have difficulty keeping tabs on what is happening to more than about twenty different entities at one time, be they subordinates at work or units on a tabletop. There are exceptions to this, but they are very rare. I once taught a student who was fighting a massive boardgame about the Eastern Front as a solo game. The maps and counters were kept in the draws of a redundant map chest and it took him weeks to fight one turn of a game that had battalion counters and stretched from Leningrad to the Black Sea. He never kept notes, but could retain all the information he needed in his head!
Truly an exceptional individual!
Road columns are a problem on the wargame table, but I did come across an interesting solution that I ought to try one day. When in column, a unit has a suitably long empty base placed behind it to signify the length on the unit in column. In the example I saw, this empty base had a model dust cloud on it, and it certainly gave the impression of a unit moving along a dirt track or unmade road.
It’s interesting that a consensus has emerged in the comments I have so far received; single figure bases for skirmishes and/or larger figures and multi-figure bases for bigger actions/smaller figures.
All the best,
Bob
I guess, Bob, I'll have to remain in the minority on that score. But a propos of this discussion, a friend dropped by today (on the way home from a visit to his dentist), and this topic came up. I mentioned the 12-15 unit rule. He remarked that he has watched me play in the past, and noticed that I played at a very quick pace - quick decisions and moves - unlike many a war gamer's slow and cautious approach.
DeleteThis would have been in DBM days. DBM is an element-based rule set. A 400-point Army of my Byzantines might have had well over twenty elements, and a game fought to a finish usually in less than 2 hours. Although element based, one tended to organise and use elements in groups as units or formations, although disorganisation might set in as the battle progressed. Until the rules lawyers wrecked the system by 'over-gaming' the mechanics, I thought highly of the manner in which enduring battle lines would often form.
That raises another interesting topic - suitable for another conversation, perhaps. I sometimes think that the pace of the game ought to be such as to impose upon the war gamer the need to make decisions decisively and quickly - even if it does lead to mistakes. How to achieve this I'm not sure, but Gary was thinking about using a cooking timer to hurry up his opponents! I suggested a chess clock, but they have their limitations, I think.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteI suspect that the terminology we use might be getting in the way of our general agreement on this. My understanding is that as a divisional general, I need to know what the battalion-sized units under my control are doing, but on the tabletop we might be representing each of those units with a number of bases. Therefore, the general’s ‘span-of-control’ is the fifteen or so battalion-sized units which may well comprise upwards of thirty or more individual playing pieces on the tabletop.
Speed of play is important. This was recognised by no less a figure than HG Wells, whose games involved time limits for movement etc., to be completed by players. I’m not sure what he used, but a three-minute egg timer springs to mind.
As you comment, that is whole different but related discussion that we must have soon.
All the best,
Bob
As my name was mentioned ;-) I thought it opportune to comment.
DeleteI referred to 12-15 "manouvre units" not "units". This is not simply semantics. What constitutes a "manouvre unit" depends on the scale of the game. In AP's Napoleons Battles with 23 units per side, how were they organised, as 23 individual units OR 8-12 brigades? Within those "brigades" how much independence do the individual battalions have to act on their own - can they march away to the opposite side of the table or are they tied to a command radius or similar?
That's the crux. Those battalions may have 6, 8 or 12 bases but almost certainly fight and test morale as a single entity, not 6, 8 or 12 separate entities. So it goes up the command chain.
The more the number of MU, the more difficult it becomes and the slower the game. It's not that it cannot be done, it's just slower. Even chess only has 16 pieces per side.....
Neil
Neil Patterson (Neil),
DeleteThanks very much for the clarification.
All the best,
Bob
Bob, it sounds like your table-kicking opponent was breaking gaming's other Golden Rule aka Wheaton's Law :)
DeleteAs for using dust cloud bases behind columns in march, I was just reading about that the other day in Volley & Bayonet: Road to Glory. It's an ingenious idea! So simple and would save countless hours of hobby time. I shall be trying it out in future.
Donjondo,
DeleteIt was people like that opponent who turned me into a mainly solo wargamer.
The dust cloud bases make a lot of sense … and coincidentally I’ve just been given a bag of white toy stuffing that might be suitable for me to use to make some …
All the best,
Bob
I used to base figures individually no matter what. But over the years I have come to lean more and more towards the idea many others here have said, about multi-basing for battles and only singly based for smaller actions, such as "skirmish" gaming. I am also starting to lean towards one stand equals one unit. I find I don't like to spend a lot of time moving many pieces. The thing about 12-15 maneuver elements sounds about right to me. And related to that is the idea of using relatively few figures to create an army - easier to paint, store, etc., and leave more room for a wider variety of armies (with various options/extras, too). As cool as a large massed force of many many minis can look it's not something I'm ever going to manage for a multitude of reasons. A cast of thousands can look epic; I'll have to settle for small back lot, low budget B movies. And I like that.
ReplyDeleteAnother practical point - multi-figure stands can be more stable. Accidentally bumping the table isn't likely to produce a domino effect.
That said, I do still paint up minis singly and don't always put them on multi-stand bases when I am just painting them without any current goal/plan of getting them to the table in any battles.
Fitz-Badger,
DeleteI agree with everything that you have written in your comment, and it struck me that we seem to have had similar experiences during our time in the hobby, I’ve always stood in awe of people who can paint huge armies with thousands of figures as I usually lose interest after the first couple of dozen … as my pile of unpainted lead is testament to! Lots of small (hopefully PW) armies is by far and away the best way to go!
All the best,
Bob
The only single based figures I have are a box of WW2 20mm infantry which I've used around three times for skirmish games and my old Airfix figures from the early 70s I used to use for 'Battle'. Everything else is on multi figure bases, but I have shied away from the modern fashion for huge unit bases. I prefer the flexibility of being able to assemble formations of various sizes and configurations using multiple bases, as rules come and go but figures last forever.
ReplyDeleteMartin Rapier,
DeleteYour approach is very much after my own heart, and your point about very large unit bases chimes with me.
Years ago, Peter Gilder wrote a set of rules for the Sudan Campaign where both sides fielded largish units. However, if you looked closely at the Mahdists, many of their bases were not quite up to full-strength in terms of figures. To stretch his figures a bit further, he added bits of terrain (a rock here, a bush there) to each base in place of a figure or two. As a result - for example - 150 Hadendowa tribesmen on fifteen ten-figure bases became eighteen large bases, some of which had eight or nine figures and bits of terrain on them.
All the best,
Bob
Multi-basing wherever possible:
ReplyDeleteMajority of my stuff is multi-bases, inc PW horse and musket, ACW, Colonial, ECW and heaps of Ancient/Medieval.
The only single basing is 28mm Frostgrave skirmish (a band of approx ten figures), WW2 eastern front (but even they are on 20mm mdf rounds, so they can be multi-based into movement trays for Portable Wargame and One Hour Wargames) and a couple of Lion Rampant retinues, which are likewise on round mdf to slot into movement trays.
The thought of movement by individual figure for anything but small skirmish fills me with dread - I’d much rather use markers for ‘hits’ than go back to figure removal (which I now see as not only fiddly and time consuming but also leading to thinking along the lines of ‘men lost’ rather than ‘unit effectiveness reduced’).
Martin S.,
DeleteYet another gore for single figure bases for skirmishes and/or larger figures and multi-figure bases for bigger actions/smaller figures!
I also base my WW2 figures on round bases, in my case, newer 2p steel coins. I currently use them as they are, but I’ve been toying with buying some sabot bases for them and your argument in favour of this, based as it is on your own experience, is compelling.
All the best,
Bob
Ahhhhh basing! A bit like religion for many, a source of debate ranging from practicality to habit to tradition and almost to 'Faith'.
ReplyDeleteI have used both, or a mix and have often debated the question, long and heatedly,.....with myself! Alas, the closest I've come to an answer is "it depends...."
Ross Mac,
DeleteI don’t think there is a definitive answer but the consensus does seem to be single figure bases for skirmishes and/or larger figures and multi-figure bases for bigger actions/smaller figures!
All the best,
Bob
Ross Mac you may want to edit your display name to avoid publicly sharing your email address. You'll no doubt be getting your fair share of spam and scams because of it!
DeleteDonjondo,
DeleteExcellent advice.
All the best,
Bob
I have an email address on the heading picture of my blog... but it's basically a 'public' email address, Garrisonminiatures@gmail.com - so spam and scam not an issue. I think it's always useful to have a 'throwaway' email address!
DeleteRob Young,
DeleteThat makes a lot of sense.
All the best,
Bob
It would depend on the level of combat you were aiming for and whether you intended to game small scale actions. Not that single figures couldn't be used for division or even army level games. But, multi-figured bases seem more appropriate for larger formations.
ReplyDeleteKhusru,
DeleteI think that there seems to be a general agreement that wargamers prefer single figure bases for skirmishes and/or larger figures and multi-figure bases for bigger actions/smaller figures.
All the best,
Bob
Since my figures tend to go unpainted (I use minis from Risk!) I just use PVA to glue them to paper bases. When a unit takes a hit I can easily pop them off the base and that's that.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm using paper minis then single figure basing is out unless I use a heavy base. The air conditioner is mounted on the wall behind where I play games at the dining room table. If it turns on while I'm playing it can lead to a hurricane that blows single paper minis over.
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteThanks for sharing you idea about using RISK figures glued with PVA glue to paper bases.
I must admit I’ve never had problems with paper figures being blown about … but as I don’t live somewhere where an air conditioner is necessary except on a very few days each year, it would never have arisen. It sounds as if you need to use thick MDF or even metal bases to stop this from happening.
All the best,
Bob