Saturday, 11 February 2017

The Portable Wargame - First Quandary

OK, I started basing figures on 40 mm MDF squares so each figure has a 10mm frontage.

They are OK-ish.

I think they are too spaced out.

This is one of my not-7YW units using a 10mm frontage.

It looks fine. I use them with rules that utilise single figure casualty removal so 10mm leaves room for stubby fingers. I also use them with Black Powder which doesn't use figure or base removal.

This is a 32mm base so figures get an 8mm frontage.

They are a bit tighter.

Here's a 32mm base and a 40mm base for comparison.

So Guys, help me answer the quandary, 8mm frontage or 10mm frontage. My original thinking was for 40mm square bases, largely because I had some to hand. Now that I can see the figures ranked up I'm more of an opinion towards 32mm square bases.

Answers by reply to this blog post.


  1. 32mm definitely. Contemporary 10mm are to my mind more like the classic 15mm, so 8 mm for infantry is 'right'. Do you need these models to play against anyone else. If not, it doesn't matter. Go ahead with what looks right.

    1. I am going with 8mm, just ordered 32mm bases from Warbases.

      I will be collecting both sides, British (les rouges) to follow.

  2. Replies
    1. Thanks Alan

      I'm going to go with 8mm frontages although many of the 'mericans on TMP think 10mm.

  3. I agree that 8mm looks better so I've gone ahead and ordered 32mm MDF bases from Warbases.

    I've only had to undo two bases (16 figures) which wasn't too bad.

    I already have two army packs of 10mm Pendraken Marlburlians, one French, one British but the castings are actually identical (one of the reasons I choose this period (simplicity)). I may have to buy some more cavalry and maybe some artillery even if I do a double sized army for both sides.

    I won't be short of matching figures up.

    Thanks for all your comments.

  4. Yep, the tighter the better.

  5. To the best of my recollection, Marburian infantry did not normally fight shoulder to shoulder as later armies did. Their uniforms and accoutrements were looser, the drill not as tight and most armies did not yet March in step making manouvering shoulder to shoulder very difficult. The 10 mm actually looks more in period to me.

  6. Definitely 32mm. Although I would have chosen 30mm because I have never thought of using smaller increments.......Duhhhh!

  7. 40mm would be my choice as it's a 'standard' size for a number of games and systems.

    1. Sorry Kaptain, I'm not trying to make this a 'standard' game.

      32mm bases is derived from a four figure frontage at 8mm each and it looks right (to me that is).

  8. Perhaps a little off the wall here,Jim, but staggering the ranks with 3 figs in the back rank will make them look tighter without actually being so.

    Regards, Chris.

    1. Nice idea, thanks Chris.

      Too late though, I have based all the figures now.

  9. Jim,

    I think it depends on the grid size of your board. If you are using 4cm grid squares or hexes, you should use the 3.2cm bases. If using something larger (2" maybe?) I'd go with the 4cm base.

    I don't have a real preference in the aesthetics. One is marching at "order" while the other is marching at "close order."