Camp Representation
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
Camp Representation
I just noticed the size requirements for the camp and was surprised to find that my old camp is no where near big enough (4 60x60 bases in 25mm). Now, I understand the 180mm wide will allow three bases to make contact in front, but I'm curious about the 160mm depth, as that doesn't correspond to a 2 or 3 base depth.
So, I guess my question is what's the straight skinny on the odd base depth for camps in 25mm?
Thanks
Cole
So, I guess my question is what's the straight skinny on the odd base depth for camps in 25mm?
Thanks
Cole
-
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
-
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:16 am
- Location: London (S.E.) UK
Regarding the size of 25mm Baggage - I agree it is a bit big and can greatly influence deployment...!
Once deployed touching the rear of the table there is only room for 4 HF or 3 MF infront of it within the 10MU regulation. Prevents rear supporting troops etc. and if not thought about in advance can be a real pain and get in the way.
You have been warned...!
Once deployed touching the rear of the table there is only room for 4 HF or 3 MF infront of it within the 10MU regulation. Prevents rear supporting troops etc. and if not thought about in advance can be a real pain and get in the way.
You have been warned...!
-
- Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:52 pm
-
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:08 pm
- Location: yeovil somerset
No, it wouldn't. The authors seem eminently sensible IMO, and the rules seem very carefully thought out. If they made the camp that big, I suspect they had a reason, even if we can't discern the reason.korvus wrote:So would it be safe to say that there is no game play reason to make the camp 160mm deep?
Cole
Well, I'm not sure I entirely agree. If there is a good reason (which I haven't been able to figure out) I'd like to know so I can make a new camp.
On the other hand, if it is simply because thats the way it was in DBM, I won't be in such a hurry, as I have other painting/sculpting priorities.
Thanks
Cole
On the other hand, if it is simply because thats the way it was in DBM, I won't be in such a hurry, as I have other painting/sculpting priorities.
Thanks
Cole
Maerk,
Thats a very interesting point, and seems to point to the, "that just happens to be the way it was in DBM," or a typo, oversight, or some such thing.
Could I please impose on RBS, TH, or one of the other authors to weigh in on the subject, in particularly, is 120mm deep an acceptable camp depth in 25mm?
Thanks,
Cole
Thats a very interesting point, and seems to point to the, "that just happens to be the way it was in DBM," or a typo, oversight, or some such thing.
Could I please impose on RBS, TH, or one of the other authors to weigh in on the subject, in particularly, is 120mm deep an acceptable camp depth in 25mm?
Thanks,
Cole
The decision on the size of the camp was made on the basis of 6 DBM bases.
This was because there are a number of players who had specially made camps/diaramas of that size, and we didn't want to force players to take a hacksaw to some very nice models.
To compensate for the additional depth taken up by 25mm camps we increased the depth of the deployment zone.
(which was originally only 8MUs)
This does mean that you have to think a little more about your deployment in 25mm - on a 6x4 table.
Players using an 8x5 or larger table (with or without a 40mm MU) don't suffer from this problem.
This was because there are a number of players who had specially made camps/diaramas of that size, and we didn't want to force players to take a hacksaw to some very nice models.
To compensate for the additional depth taken up by 25mm camps we increased the depth of the deployment zone.
(which was originally only 8MUs)
This does mean that you have to think a little more about your deployment in 25mm - on a 6x4 table.
Players using an 8x5 or larger table (with or without a 40mm MU) don't suffer from this problem.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28285
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
The only reason for the specified camp sizes is so that DBM players (who already have baggage for all their armies) can use their existing baggage.Maerk wrote:I'm playing 15mm but I still wonder why the camp depth in 25mm is twice as deep as an 15mm camp (160mm vs 80mm) while its width is only 1.5x wider ( 180mm vs 120mm) ?
However, the camp does form something of an obstacle to redeployment by its own side, so a player would be getting an uunfair advantage if he used a smaller camp than specified.
(That being said, when playing at home we sometimes use beer mats as camps when we can't be bothered to get the proper camps out of another box).
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:03 pm
- Location: Directly above the center of the Earth
I am now going to make a beer bottle indentation for my beer in my camp. Thank you for the idea.rbodleyscott wrote:The only reason for the specified camp sizes is so that DBM players (who already have baggage for all their armies) can use their existing baggage.Maerk wrote:I'm playing 15mm but I still wonder why the camp depth in 25mm is twice as deep as an 15mm camp (160mm vs 80mm) while its width is only 1.5x wider ( 180mm vs 120mm) ?
However, the camp does form something of an obstacle to redeployment by its own side, so a player would be getting an uunfair advantage if he used a smaller camp than specified.
(That being said, when playing at home we sometimes use beer mats as camps when we can't be bothered to get the proper camps out of another box).

Robert Sulentic
The only constant in the Universe is change. The wise adapt.
The only constant in the Universe is change. The wise adapt.
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:12 am