Wednesday, February 23, 2011

1:15 ratios Cavalry feedback required

Recently on a post where I finally came to a conclusion about the basing and figure ratios I would use for my own solo gaming, Jimbo asked the question:

"How do you intend to apply this for Cavalry?"

"It would be the same idea", I thought to myself.

But then last night I was laying awake in bed and thinking, "WOULD it be the same?"

So this morning I did some research and took some pics. My conclusion is neither here nor there and so I require some feedback from you the readers.


First up is a normal 8 figure regiment of 4 x squadrons used in Empire:

And this is 1 x squadron of 2 figures or 120men at 1:60 ratio:

If I follow the same logic as for the Infantry, where I double the width and depth, I get 1 x squadron looking like:

This looks too deep to me when compared with the width. But it is consistent and true to 1:15 ratios and is true to the 15mm basing size which matches what has been done with the Infantry.

This next pic looks better to me from a proportion point of view but it is only 1:30 ratio.

A little research reveals that this may be okay width-wize. In Mark Adkin's The Waterloo Companion, he has a picture of a British square being charged by 1 single squadron of French Cavalry. It clearly shows that squadron well and truly overlapping the width of the square.

My new squadrons do not do that. BUT! This may be because a normal square would be half the width of my square because instead of being deployed in 2 or 3 ranks, the infantry would be in 4 or 6 ranks. So by halving the width of the square, my squadron would look right.

Which means a whole regiment of 4 x squadrons would look like:

If I went back to the original consistent scaling earlier in this post, this regiment should look like:

And when both units are in line:

So your turn!

What do you think? The 32 figure regiment of double rank or the 16 figure regiment of single rank? The width is good, what about the depth?

Click here to see the next part in this dicussion.


Nick said...

My rule of thumb in wargaming is always go with what is more visually appealing. I'd think a table cluttered up with dozens of double ranked cavalry squadrons would be the less appealing option. Though I have been known to be wrong.

David said...

Thanks for your opinion Nick. I too am leaning towards the thinner line rather than the double depth. LEss figures but looks better especially when I begin filling the table with them. Maybe I could glue down 3 horse per stand instead of 2 or something.

Thanks for helping out.

MiniWargamer said...

I like the spectacle of the double ranked miniatures. I think it looks like a real unit that way (but I spent time in three cavalry units in the Army so am probably biased.) OK, so now you have 1 for and 1 against!

David said...

Thanks Mini but I am against.

Or does my vote not count?

he he

Donogh said...

I think double-ranked.
But take a look over here
for some 1:1 pictures (I think a slightly earlier post does the cavalry units)

Anonymous said...

It's an age old problem in wargaming... When you use a large man to figure ratio it doesn't look right. In most rule sets it is the base that represents the troops, the figures are just for window dressing. With some variations depending on the rules, the paradox is something like this...

Your battalion in square is four men deep, your charging squadron is two men deep. To do it right means a single rank of figures for the cavalry and two ranks deep for infantry... which looks wrong.

If you double up your cavalry, you'd need to do the same for your infantry. It would look great but would represent a square eight ranks deep... but you'd get your overlap.

You can't win...

Michael said...

thinner looks nicer.

David said...

Thanks for the comments lads.

That 1:1 scale game looks fantastic but they really need more close up shots.

I agree Jim. Thanksfully Empire finds a balance between figure ratios and accurate footprints.

I am leaning towards a single rank but of 6 minis per squadron instead of 4.