Base depths

[RichardThompson]

Please could you increase the recommended base depths for 15mm to:

Infantry: 20mm
Cavalry: 40mm
Chariots: 60mm

It can be difficult to fit modern 'big 15mm' figures onto the current bases. This would make armies look prettier and stack better.

The existing base depths must, of course also be permitted.

The same logic would apply to other scales.

[hammy]

Please could you increase the recommended base depths for 15mm to:

Infantry: 20mm
Cavalry: 40mm
Chariots: 60mm

It can be difficult to fit modern 'big 15mm' figures onto the current bases. This would make armies look prettier and stack better.

The existing base depths must, of course also be permitted.

The same logic would apply to other scales.

There is nothing stopping you doing that anyway. The rules cover basing for figures that won't fit.

[RichardThompson]

Please could you increase the recommended base depths for 15mm to:

Infantry: 20mm
Cavalry: 40mm
Chariots: 60mm

It can be difficult to fit modern 'big 15mm' figures onto the current bases. This would make armies look prettier and stack better.

The existing base depths must, of course also be permitted.

The same logic would apply to other scales.

There is nothing stopping you doing that anyway. The rules cover basing for figures that won't fit.

True, but people tend to follow the recommended sizes.

Another advantage of the deeper bases is that columns would be more likely to stay the same shape when they turn 90 degrees.

[hammy]

True, but people tend to follow the recommended sizes.

Another advantage of the deeper bases is that columns would be more likely to stay the same shape when they turn 90 degrees.

I don't think that recommending that all HF be rebased on a 20mm deep base would be popular. If I wanted to follow the new recommended size I would have something like 500 bases of troops that would need to be rebased..... :O

[RichardThompson]

True, but people tend to follow the recommended sizes.

Another advantage of the deeper bases is that columns would be more likely to stay the same shape when they turn 90 degrees.

I don't think that recommending that all HF be rebased on a 20mm deep base would be popular. If I wanted to follow the new recommended size I would have something like 500 bases of troops that would need to be rebased..... :O

I agree, and was very careful in my original post to say that it shouldn't be compulsory.

Are we stuck with the WRG 4th edition (or older) base sizes forever?

[hammy]

True, but people tend to follow the recommended sizes.

Another advantage of the deeper bases is that columns would be more likely to stay the same shape when they turn 90 degrees.

I don't think that recommending that all HF be rebased on a 20mm deep base would be popular. If I wanted to follow the new recommended size I would have something like 500 bases of troops that would need to be rebased..... :O

I agree, and was very careful in my original post to say that it shouldn't be compulsory.

Are we stuck with the WRG 4th edition (or older) base sizes forever?

Actually we are on IIRC WRG 6th bases for 15mm.

As things stand you can if you want use deeper bases. Putting a recommendation in the rules is a little stronger and would I think cause dissent.

[philqw78]

we are on 7th edition bases. 6 were not nearly as deep, nor, for some troop types, as wide.

[RichardThompson]

we are on 7th edition bases. 6 were not nearly as deep, nor, for some troop types, as wide.

If the previous changes went so smoothly that I cannot even remember them, then perhaps further changes can be introduced without causing too much trauma?

[hammy]

we are on 7th edition bases. 6 were not nearly as deep, nor, for some troop types, as wide.

If the previous changes went so smoothly that I cannot even remember them, then perhaps further changes can be introduced without causing too much trauma?

The change in 15mm bases was not that popular but it was a long time ago.

I think the best way of looking at things is seeing how many players have rebased their commanders for FoG onto 40 by 40 bases. I would hazard that significantly fewer than half have done so even though the game has now been around for over 2 years and seems to be getting pretty good levels of take up.

If you want to base your 15mm heavy foot on 20mm deep bases you are by the rules allowed to do so. If you want to enforce or even recommend a change to 20mm deep bases for heavy foot just because some figure manufaturers seem unable to make 15mm figures that are smaller than 20mm tall then expect bands of angry gamers outside your house waving torches and pitchforks.

[shadowdragon]

If you want to base your 15mm heavy foot on 20mm deep bases you are by the rules allowed to do so. If you want to enforce or even recommend a change to 20mm deep bases for heavy foot just because some figure manufaturers seem unable to make 15mm figures that are smaller than 20mm tall then expect bands of angry gamers outside your house waving torches and pitchforks.

Not to mention tempting figure manufacturers to take advantage of that greater space to increase the actual size of their nominally "15mm" figures, thereby adding in tons more detail, animation, etc. to the figures to make them irresistable to wargamers and hazardous to bank accounts. An ugly scene!

[timmy1]

Having rebased some 15mm Samurai that some idiot (names changed to protet the guilty) had covered the bases with Tetrion (sp?), even though it would make my life as an ex-DBR player easier, I am against this. As it is makes the transition from other rules easier and long may it remain so.

[david53]

Please could you increase the recommended base depths for 15mm to:

Infantry: 20mm
Cavalry: 40mm
Chariots: 60mm

It can be difficult to fit modern 'big 15mm' figures onto the current bases. This would make armies look prettier and stack better.

The existing base depths must, of course also be permitted.

The same logic would apply to other scales.

There is nothing stopping you doing that anyway. The rules cover basing for figures that won't fit.

True, but people tend to follow the recommended sizes.

Another advantage of the deeper bases is that columns would be more likely to stay the same shape when they turn 90 degrees.

Yes but you could do it no rule change then needed

[timmy1]

Dave

Sorry to have to disagree.

A rule change would be needed for the column to line effect to change. The rules ignore the actual base sizes - the rules specifically state that the geometry is based upon the list base sizes.

Richard

You wrote 'Another advantage of the deeper bases is that columns would be more likely to stay the same shape when they turn 90 degrees'. I think that it is the rules authors intent that this is not the case. With one or two exceptions this column effect that you describe did not become the norm until the 1740s.

[RichardThompson]

Richard

You wrote 'Another advantage of the deeper bases is that columns would be more likely to stay the same shape when they turn 90 degrees'. I think that it is the rules authors intent that this is not the case. With one or two exceptions this column effect that you describe did not become the norm until the 1740s.

Consider a one element wide column of four cavalry.

After turning 90 degrees it will have three elements in front rank and one in the rear rank.

This would prevent them from evading so the player may need to spend another round expanding again.

If the base depths were increased the unit would keep its original shape.

[timmy1]

Richard

As i stated above, I believe that to be intentional.

[pcelella]

Rather than changing the standard WRG base sizes, I would prefer to pressure the manufacturers to go back to making figures that actually fit on the standard bases. One of the reasons that I switched from primarily playing 25mm to 15mm was because of the increasing sizes of nominally 25mm figures. I find the selection of 15mm figures much easier to base in the standard manner. Before I purchase any additional 25mm figures, I always try to make sure that they will fit on the standard sized bases first - or they are a no-go for me. If all gamers did the same, essentially voting with their wallets, perhaps we might get more conventionally sized figures again. Or maybe 1/20 sized figures will have enough scale creep to actually become essentially 25mm figures, and they can get based on the proper sized bases

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[RichardThompson]

Rather than changing the standard WRG base sizes, I would prefer to pressure the manufacturers to go back to making figures that actually fit on the standard bases. One of the reasons that I switched from primarily playing 25mm to 15mm was because of the increasing sizes of nominally 25mm figures. I find the selection of 15mm figures much easier to base in the standard manner. Before I purchase any additional 25mm figures, I always try to make sure that they will fit on the standard sized bases first - or they are a no-go for me. If all gamers did the same, essentially voting with their wallets, perhaps we might get more conventionally sized figures again. Or maybe 1/20 sized figures will have enough scale creep to actually become essentially 25mm figures, and they can get based on the proper sized bases

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

It is partly down to the size of the figure and partly down to the pose. Spearmen with their weapon upright stack fine, those thrusting with their spears less well. Troops with very large shields may need to be staggered to fit them on.

A 20mm base depth would not completely solve the problem but it would help.

The biggest problems are with chariots which almost never fit onto a 40mm base depth.