EXCERPT FROM APPENDIX 1 from Don Featherstone's Battles With Model Soldiers
(The book that got me started.)

"Nothing in these pages is a dictate, no word says you must or you shall do it this way. On the contrary, the book sets out from the very beginning to stimulate the reader to think for himself, and to use what he has read merely as a foundation for efforts and ideas which reflect his own temperament and character. Only in this way will he obtain maximum satisfaction from the hobby of battling with model soldiers."

-Don Featherstone 1918 - 2013

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Sitrep 1812

After a few false starts where I found myself subconsciously circling back to where I was, I spent a day or two rereading relevant bits of various memoirs and reviewing about a dozen small engagements or skirmishes.



That got me back on track  and made it clear that I was actually talking about MacDuff with "companies" as the basic units and scale of 1" to 10 yards and a figure scale of 1 figure to 10 men.
(In otherwords, I reached the same conclusions as I did in 1998 and 2005).

Two companies of the TBDth Infantry, with  new red facings, a fresh coat of gloss and brand, spanking, new bases, assault a small settlement.


In order to fit the figures into that figure/ground scale, and be stable, I have to mount them 2 to a 30mm wide base. Oddly enough,  this is the same basing and organization I selected for my late 19th/early 20th century armies, albeit for different reasons.

Having settled on scales and rules, I will be quite happy to violate the scales when converting historical actions into games for my collection. Some very small, but interesting, historical skirmishes, may be done 1:5 while most of the bigger battles along the Canadian border can be handled at 1:15.

10 comments:

  1. Isn't it strange how we often seek to change our existing systems and fetch up back where we started. I think maybe our inventory of figures can be more influential than we think. I changed from 14-figure to 27-figure ACW units as being more in keeping with the figures I had - particularly the Officer, musician, someone who could be a flag bearer command trio. My Napoleonics also made the successful change from 27-figure units to 24 with no wastage. Otherwise, all thought of change comes to nought...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patterns can be hard to break but in this case its the subject matter not the figures. Th first go was in 54mm, all gone because I needed to downsize, the second go was in new style (chunky) 40's and I re-homed that 2/3 in favour of the older style. Then I made an effort to approach the topic from a different angle. Mismatch!

      Delete
  2. I think if you've come to the same conclusion 3 times then it must be a sound idea!

    ReplyDelete
  3. They look very nice! I love the mounted officer waving his hat!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have two admit that reading this blog is sometimes like a wargaming rule version of Groundhog Day! I agree with Stryker that this is the right solution for this problem. Quit trying to WRG yourself into finding the perfect set of ONE RULES TO BIND THEM in every situation!

    Troops look good.
    Cheers, Peter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, gave that quest up a while ago now, the bigger challenge is not only reducing the number of collections but trying to get each of them to provide a different sort of game. This change brings me down to 8 from 9!

      Delete
  5. Let's see, 1998, 2005, 2017...a rough calculation of the progression would indicate that the next step would come sometime around 2040. Looking forward to it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I'll be in my mid-80's, a review might be in order.

      Delete