Table/Battlefield Size for 25/28mm
Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:31 pm
Am curious why people are finding the 4'x6' table too small. Am putting together a 700pt 25mm demonstration for HotLead on a 4'x6' table. It does pack in the troops! The Spanish MF do look very mobbish in 3 ranks plus rear support BG. And it does fill the battlefield from flank to flank.
But here's my point/question/pondering:
One thing I've objected to with previous rules sets was the manoeuvering around of small little units, esp. on the flanks, and very little solid battle lines actually connecting at all points. Even in many of the games on here that have photos accompanying them, BG often work individually, with space between them and their nearest buddies. What I've found nice about the 4'x6' table and somewhere around 700pts, is that you finally DO have two solid battle lines connecting...the flanks still have skirmish troops fighting each other...centres have the heavies...
But there is none of the wiggling/lining up of elements/units...basically...it's just fill the table (i.e., the actual space used by the battle lines in the battle) and go at each other...no more wiggling (i.e., no more zipping units around way out on flanks)
Maybe it's just this olde soul who likes to get all the troops connected and see how the combats work out, have units in a second line to deal with any probs, fly commanders hither and thither for a bit of fun...
Are those who like the larger tables (5' x 8') the types who like that manoeuvering around of BG on the flanks? Am curious what you don't like (be specific please) of the 4'x6' tables and 25/28mm...
And, whilst rambling, why the concern to go to 40mm MUs? For more movement on those flanks? To get your lines into contact sooner? Why go 5' width and increase movement rates?
Thanks,
Dan T.
But here's my point/question/pondering:
One thing I've objected to with previous rules sets was the manoeuvering around of small little units, esp. on the flanks, and very little solid battle lines actually connecting at all points. Even in many of the games on here that have photos accompanying them, BG often work individually, with space between them and their nearest buddies. What I've found nice about the 4'x6' table and somewhere around 700pts, is that you finally DO have two solid battle lines connecting...the flanks still have skirmish troops fighting each other...centres have the heavies...
But there is none of the wiggling/lining up of elements/units...basically...it's just fill the table (i.e., the actual space used by the battle lines in the battle) and go at each other...no more wiggling (i.e., no more zipping units around way out on flanks)
Maybe it's just this olde soul who likes to get all the troops connected and see how the combats work out, have units in a second line to deal with any probs, fly commanders hither and thither for a bit of fun...
Are those who like the larger tables (5' x 8') the types who like that manoeuvering around of BG on the flanks? Am curious what you don't like (be specific please) of the 4'x6' tables and 25/28mm...
And, whilst rambling, why the concern to go to 40mm MUs? For more movement on those flanks? To get your lines into contact sooner? Why go 5' width and increase movement rates?
Thanks,
Dan T.