FPW base sizes

[Sunray]

Like many users of this forum I am impressed and inspired by the animated dynamic of the FPW stands produced and painted by
'Mad lemmey' .  If you have yet to see them, treat yourself to the eye candy in the photos section of this site.   He is modest about his skill with a brush, but hey - it all looks very tidy to me.  Indeed it was his images enticed me to play in the FPW era and purchase a few more Pendraken armies!   

My query - and perhaps because I come from a lifetime of 20th century games, with 'small unit' (5 figure bases) and BKC rules which allow a well cluttered table - is , to what extent does  the size of these bases shape the scenery - ie - do roads, streets, bridges and gaps in hedges/walls have be made to reflect these bigger base sizes ?  My roads are 20mm wide and my urban mainstreets about 30mm.

As I type this, I am remembering that until 1918, small units (sections etc) where rare apart from scouting and skirmishimg, so perhaps the bigger units that look so well in 'MLs' photos reflect the tactical dogma of the day when infantry deployed by the company and indeed the battalion.  And boy, those big units of Pendraken 10mm do look so good !

I look forward to comment from ML and indeed the rest of the FPW faternity on your experience with base size and how -if at all it - has impacted on things like 'width of roads' and 'gaps in  hedges'etc.   

Sunray out

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

If I'm making roads for 15mm I make em 40mm wide, as that takes most bases. However your stuff would work reasonably well. There would be rather less in the way of BUA, but the population increase was begining to ease off a bit. Woods may well be a bit bigger, and there would be more hedges.

IanS

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Thanks.
Quick reply now, more detailed later, got to in dancing!
I would say that fpw was fought at battalion level at the least. My bases being 3 inch squares are regiments because they were meant to be for volley and bayonet and are representational. from what I have read of To The Last Gaiter Button are roughly the same idea. Other rules vary but black powder and Fire and Fury varients allows unit flexibility with rules for columns, attack columns and line formations. IF I were to start again (no chance of that now) I would go for three battalions to a regiment as sub units.
I would suggest that you base according to whatever frontage the unit is expected to cover, then build terrain to suit. Mine is timecast and as historically accurate as they can get it at 10on scale!
ACTUALLY most battlefields would be described as open, or hilly. woods were still used for firewood and would be heavily copiced, especially round the edges (which is still evident now), if you are ever lucky enough to visit the area the locals describe it as quite over grown now! Most of the present woods would have been scrub.
While most of the franco prussian battlefields are very open. roads are very different, they would be lined by poplars, alas on more. You have to imagine most major roads were unmetalled until the 1920s, infact the main road Metz Verdun roads that cross the gravelotte plateau was a 17 foot wide gravel track, especially through the gully that Von Stienmetz sent his corps to their doom!
If I was to do my bases again from scratch I would probably in slightly shallower, but i do like the frontage!
Hope that helps.
Mad (and slightly embarrassed) Lemmey

[Shecky]

I'm going with the suggested base sizes for, "To the Last Gaiter Button" - 30mm x 20mm for infantry and 30 x 30 for cavalry and artillery. Personally, I wouldn't change my existing road and steam sizes to match the unit base sizes.. My roads and streams are about 1" wide. As for buildings, I'll just use my 10mm buildings although I have seen some people use 6mm buildings to great effect.

[nikharwood]

(When I finally get round to assembling mine  )I'm going to use 3 bases per unit - because I'll predominantly use FPWarmaster & Black Powder to fight these, but I'm going to increase the base sizes from 40x20 to 50x25 (so the proportionality is maintained) to give a slightly more dispersed feel.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Nik try to think of your formations like Napoleonic units rather than the British dispersion and skirmish lines of the later nineteenth and early twentieth century and no way as dispersed as modern formations. Imagine the classic thin red line and massed infantry charges of the crimea! Formations were not dispersing that much Nik, Prussians used a skirmish line in front of assault columns, French defaulted to lines, which were still tightly packed to allow ncos control of conscripts.

[nikharwood]

Cool - thanks ML: I'm going to try to space 'em like wot you have done on yours - but more linearly...if you see wot I mean 

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Mine were original intended to be lines and lines forming up, I just got carried away with the aesthetics!   

[mollinary]

I also base for TTLGB, but have reduced the width of the infantry bases to 25mm while keeping the depth at 20mm.  Artillery and cavalry on 30mm square.   Prussian infantry have four bases, each with four figures, per battalion, the French three bases. Cavalry regiments are four or five bases, artillery batteries one base.  Not sure I'd entirely agree ML's description of Prussian formations.  It's more a skirmish line, often of up to half the battalion, and usually supporting company columns. These were intended to provide support to the firing line more than being "assault columns"in the Austrian sense.   Further back half battalion columns were used to manoeuvre in the second line of a brigade, but it was a formation more intended to move around the field than to assault.  That said, you can find examples of almost anything at some stage of the Wars in  1866 and 1870!  Now if you want to see a real storm column, then you need the Kaiserlichs.

Mollinary

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Very true sir!
Good points, well made.

[Shedman]

I've based my French, Austrians & Prussians for1859/1870 on 40x30cm bases.  Each base is a battalion with 10 figures in 2 ranks or 8 for Jaeger and Chasseurs

This fits in with Warmaster variants including FWC and the 1859 & 1870 rules

[NTM]

My base widths are governed by the size of the model bridges I own!
Everything else, roads etc, follows on from there.

[wargamesbob]

My base widths are governed by the size of the model bridges I own!
Everything else, roads etc, follows on from there."

Interesting...You don't really need to do that.  You can simply make one or two representative elements/bases to the same width as your bridge and use them as a markers with the unit crossing being positioned at the rear and this is only really needed when assaulting over a bridge.  For normal movement purposes in non-combat situations a unit should really be on one side or the other especially if your bases represent a battalions or regiments.
Bob

[Sunray]

Thanks chaps - really useful discussion- a lot of points for thought.  I think Wargamers fall into two camps: First, those who are primarly concerned with ' the game', and don't mind too much if the base is straddeling the road, or event stacked at an acute angle against the buildings to show the unit occupies the town. Secondly, those of us who like our models to blend with the scenery. I had one such friend who rebased his infantry in rubble to fit with urban setting. (he found the green grassy base jarred with the street )  It is as if we prefer the beauty of diorama as opposed to the game.  I would stress there is nothing wrong with either approach, merely personal preference.   

I must confess I like the diorama school , so never base my tanks, and love my small infantry units on small bases to get into the narrow paths and alleys of my scenery, but acknowledge that Lemmy's approach to 1870s allows a very playable and accurate game.  Your 3 x 3 bases are really dramatic small dioramas of action ! 

Sunray Out

[cameronian]

Hello Sunray this is Echo 11, can we drop the strict voice procedure, over.