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.
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...
ReplyDeletePatterns 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!
DeleteI think if you've come to the same conclusion 3 times then it must be a sound idea!
ReplyDeleteSeems like.
DeleteThey look very nice! I love the mounted officer waving his hat!
ReplyDeleteIrregular Mini's, an old one but a good one.
DeleteI 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!
ReplyDeleteTroops look good.
Cheers, Peter
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!
DeleteLet'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!
ReplyDeleteWell, I'll be in my mid-80's, a review might be in order.
Delete