Overthinking basing

[mmcv]

I just wish I had the time to produce in multiple set ups

I may opt for different formats for different scales

It's generally matched armies, so my 80x40 bases are for the ECW who will only really be fighting each other (or maybe some Scots and Irish down the line) and for the Trojan War which I also see as a bit of a special project, though I am contemplating scaling that one down. 


Then my 100x50 are sengoku jidai Japan so again a bit of a special case as they only fight each other and maybe some Koreans if they ever get done in 10mm. 

Mostly using bigger bases, e.g. for early modern mixed arms units to get a nice mix of types and look. Will likely do the same for anything up to mid 18th C. Still unsure what I'll use for SYW and beyond. 

Then everything else I'm standardising to a 40mm frontage (ancient/medieval) or 25mm (long 19th C/early 20th C)

Of course I might do something completely different when I start another new project down the line... 

[Macsen Wledig]

of course and that's your prerogative or should that be purgative?   

[mmcv]

of course and that's your prerogative or should that be purgative?   

I could definitely be accused of some verbal purgative when it comes to discussing basing! 

[Macsen Wledig]

I could definitely be accused of some verbal purgative when it comes to discussing basing! 

I am hopelessly inadequate when it comes to basing and have less decisiveness than Mavis 

[Orcs]

I have found several styles of basing that I think fit with different periods.   I then stick to that basing for everything in that period so they all match.

Having uniform basing hides a multitude of differences between the figures, including painting styles and figures from different ranges.

The downside is that it means anything bought painted and based has to be rebased

[Macsen Wledig]

I dont mind picking a size for a base its the how many figures to use that gets me afterwards....

[DecemDave]

Just in case you good people were heading to a conclusion, there seems to be a thread assumption that some fixed base size is the right solution if only we could agree one.   Whereas lots of older rules (and even newish ones like ESR) have variable frontages to represent different sized formations.   Personally I've tended to stick to 40mm or 60mm widths but its way easier to tweak rules than rebase e.g. if you want to play DBA with your 80mm Impetus based army or have your 120mm base represent two or 4 (depending on depth) 60mm "elements" with some counter to show the true number of bases.

[mmcv]

I dont mind picking a size for a base its the how many figures to use that gets me afterwards....

Yeah I like a well populated base but I also like actually finishing units so there's the balance there between aesthetics and practicality...

Just in case you good people were heading to a conclusion, there seems to be a thread assumption that some fixed base size is the right solution if only we could agree one.  Whereas lots of older rules (and even newish ones like ESR) have variable frontages to represent different sized formations.  Personally I've tended to stick to 40mm or 60mm widths but its way easier to tweak rules than rebase e.g. if you want to play DBA with your 80mm Impetus based army or have your 120mm base represent two or 4 (depending on depth) 60mm "elements" with some counter to show the true number of bases.

Absolutely, my goal is more to find a standard that works for me and let's me play a range of games. I'd generally fudge the rules over rebasing to suit a ruleset. As above it's the balance between aesthetics and practicality. I find myself having less and less hobby time these days so want to generally be able to get something done in a couple of sittings. 

I have found several styles of basing that I think fit with different periods.  I then stick to that basing for everything in that period so they all match.

Having uniform basing hides a multitude of differences between the figures, including painting styles and figures from different ranges.

The downside is that it means anything bought painted and based has to be rebased

This is pretty much where I'm at, though I've never bought prepainted armies and no plans to in the near future so not such a concern. It's usually more undoing some poor basing decisions I made early on trying to follow conventions written by 28mm people taking a "do the same bases but more figures" approach to smaller scales.

[Macsen Wledig]

Yeah I like a well populated base but I also like actually finishing units so there's the balance there between aesthetics and practicality...

the matrix that the various figure density/troop types generate from each ruleset EVEN if you find a standard base you are happy with is HUGE

wibble

 

[The Baron]

I used to stick to 40mm frontages but now have switched mostly to 60mm for earlier periods or a combination of 30mm and 60mm for late C19th onwards.
It's depths I have more trouble with especially pikeman at the level or 45 degrees!  I don't like the empty space in front but if the pikes overhang the base they always get damaged

[steve_holmes_11]

I used to stick to 40mm frontages but now have switched mostly to 60mm for earlier periods or a combination of 30mm and 60mm for late C19th onwards.
It's depths I have more trouble with especially pikeman at the level or 45 degrees!  I don't like the empty space in front but if the pikes overhang the base they always get damaged

This.
I'm not a fan of the extra work involved with pikes.
Where I do use them I ensure they're vertical to avoid that overhang problem.

As for basing, I saw the revolution that came with Impetus, where a base was an independent unit.
Some would argue that Volley and Bayonet was there decades earlier.
Some might make the case for DBA (Though it's need for a cohesive line rather reduces the independence).

What really seemed to capture the imagination of hobbyists was the potential for diorama bases.
Not having to pfaff about with 8 or 12 elements was also a bonus to some players.

Obviously such basing doesn't work for every era of warfare, or every scale of battle.
It usually requires some means of status tracking for casualty steps.
It also calls for a bit of imagination where rules incorporate formation changes especially march columns.

I'll close by saying it works very well with 10mm size figures.

[Macsen Wledig]

I am just going to paint a load of stuff and worry about the basing afterwards....

 

[mmcv]

I am just going to paint a load of stuff and worry about the basing afterwards....

 

Not a bad approach! Means you can try out some base configuration and see how it looks. 

I used to stick to 40mm frontages but now have switched mostly to 60mm for earlier periods or a combination of 30mm and 60mm for late C19th onwards.
It's depths I have more trouble with especially pikeman at the level or 45 degrees!  I don't like the empty space in front but if the pikes overhang the base they always get damaged

Yeah, I love the look of pikes at different angles but does result in some frustration with overhang or extra depth. Suspect all upright is the easiest approach even if less visually impressive. Works well for pike and shot style warfare but loses something with the ancients.

[Macsen Wledig]

upright pikes all day long if I am honest for me personally these days.

off to paint a few bits and bobs this afternoon

[paulr]

...
Yeah, I love the look of pikes at different angles but does result in some frustration with overhang or extra depth. Suspect all upright is the easiest approach even if less visually impressive. Works well for pike and shot style warfare but loses something with the ancients.

One option is to use the lower angle pikes in the rear ranks