Minimum # of Figure for Attractive Visual "Mass"?

[AngusPodgorny1969]

Games such as DBA use just 2-4 figures for a basic "unit" or maneuver element (excluding the special cases such as 8-bows, etc.).

At the other end of the spectrum there are rules such as FOG which has a significantly higher number of figures in the basic unit or maneuver element (and that number can vary in FOG from unit to unit).

In your opinion, what is the minimum of figures needed to give a basic unit or maneuver element sufficient visual mass to look good? For example, are 12-16 infantry and 6-8 cavalry figures enough? Fewer? More?

This question is intended to apply to periods in which formed troops dominated the battlefield, so from ancient/medieval up through the mid-19th century.

I ask this because we played some DBA last weekend 3-on-3. With 6 armies formed up for the initial battle the visual presentation wasn't bad (28mm btw) but as the troops broke up a bit and individual elements maneuvered on the own it looked a little underwhelming.  More importantly, when still freshly deployed, a single rank of blades just doesn't look right to me. For periods employing masses of formed troops I believe you need at least 2 ranks for formed infantry (I'm ok with 1 rank of cavalry for visual mass).

Assuming the unit includes the usual leader, musician, and standard bearer it seems to me that you want at least 12-16 figures in a formed infantry unit and maybe 6 or 8 cavalry figures.  Your opinion?

[Blue in vt]

Now I come from a Massed Fantasy Battle Background...3red ed WFB...but to me I prefer fairly large units to imply mass.  For Infantry I prefer 3 ranks of 7.  For Missile troops I like 2 ranks of 9...and for Cav 2 ranks of 5.  Some Elite infantry can be smaller (3x5)....and things like pike blocks should have at least 4 ranks IMO.

YMMV.

Cheers,

Blue

[Cubs]

If we're talking Napoleonic type block units, I go for a rule of thumb of around 18-24 infantry for a standard unit and about 8-12 cavalry. Obviously your rule system will have the final say, but those numbers tend to be the sort of 'norm' that I end up working around. Especially large or small unit will obviously differ.

[webhed666]

As a long term wargames cheapskate I've experimented exstensively with this.

For ranked infantry units (Using 20mm x 20mm basing) I've found 12 is rhe minimum, 16 is better but 12 looks ok.

Cavalry is harder, I use 4 but I'm not happy with it.  6 would probably work better but then the bases would be out of scale with the infantry frontage.

[LawnRanger]

I am happy for 15mm games to have 12-16 fig units But when i go up a scale to to 25mm I just Hate seeing small units of 5-12 figs units they just dont look right(in my eyes) with the terrain you just dont get the feel of a battle when  gaming with units of that size moving  around the table ..
    why is that its fine for 15mm but  not for 25mm 
 I must say when you have larger units of 24- 40 figs  on the table its always a eye opener and looks and feel great especially in 25mm and you have around 20-30 battle groups on the table 

Think thats why i like FOG , GdB ,BG  AOE set of rules big 

[Timmo]

I think visual mass is more than purely about the numbers of castings. For example, my Napoleonic French units are 18 figures but I think they have more visual mass than some much larger units because I base them very tight. However in terms of castings other than small units of six rifle armed skirmishers my infantry are 18's and the cavalry 12.

For my Sudan games using Perry I have units of 12s and 6's for the Cavalry. I'd like bigger units but I don't have the will to paint them or the space to use them.

My ECW are 25mm and in units of 28 plus. I felt that a two deep row of pike didn't look right so I had to add that third row.

In summary there are lots of period, casting, basing and painting/colouring specific elements all of which combine to give a sense of visual mass.

[Conquistador]

For 6 mm or 3 mm I like "lots" of figures/stands looking like they are in lines/rows so my 'scientific' answer is, "a bunch."

It's visual, beyond numbers.  An artistic, (for lack of a better word right now,) evaluation.

Gracias,

Glenn

[dijit]

For me the model scale always has to be 1:1 one model equals one man, anything less and it just feels wrong. So if you're doing historical gaming, forget Waterloo.

[Conquistador]

For me the model scale always has to be 1:1 one model equals one man, anything less and it just feels wrong. So if you're doing historical gaming, forget Waterloo.

Maybe the 3 mm scale size figures would make that achievable?   

Gracias,

Glenn

[Arlequín]

Obviously it might be an unpopular view, but I really can't see a 'battalion' of 24 figures representing 500 or 1,000 men, no matter how hard I try. Like dijit I go for 1:1 mainly, or I might go as far as 1:5, possibly at a push 1:10, so games involving more than a battalion are out of the question for me and my blinkered view of things.

Glenn's suggestion for more numerous and smaller figures is the ideal fix to bridge the 'mass' gap obviously, but I like big figures. 

The pic below is the 1st Battalion DCLI in extended column of companies, in 1895. For me it would take a lot of figures to get anything even approaching the 'mass' conveyed there. 

[Conquistador]

Obviously it might be an unpopular view, but I really can't see a 'battalion' of 24 figures representing 500 or 1,000 men, no matter how hard I try. Like dijit I go for 1:1 mainly, or I might go as far as 1:5, possibly at a push 1:10, so games involving more than a battalion are out of the question for me and my blinkered view of things.

Glenn's suggestion for more numerous and smaller figures is the ideal fix to bridge the 'mass' gap obviously, but I like big figures.  

The pic below is the 1st Battalion DCLI in extended column of companies, in 1895. For me it would take a lot of figures to get anything even approaching the 'mass' conveyed there.  

Nothing wrong with this viewpoint but as  observed it does limit size of games on table less than 7 feet deep [6 foot is about as much as I can reach without leaning on table (did that inadvertently once to 'glorious' finish of thwe last scheduled turn.)]

Gracias,

Glenn

[warlord frod]

Obviously it might be an unpopular view, but I really can't see a 'battalion' of 24 figures representing 500 or 1,000 men, no matter how hard I try. Like dijit I go for 1:1 mainly, or I might go as far as 1:5, possibly at a push 1:10, so games involving more than a battalion are out of the question for me and my blinkered view of things.

Glenn's suggestion for more numerous and smaller figures is the ideal fix to bridge the 'mass' gap obviously, but I like big figures. 

The pic below is the 1st Battalion DCLI in extended column of companies, in 1895. For me it would take a lot of figures to get anything even approaching the 'mass' conveyed there. 

So you would agree with this gentlemen and say if its not 1:1 its just not a true image of the battle 

http://www.wargamesillustrated.net/Default.aspx?tabid=221&art_id=4340

I will admit that I like 6mm to 10mm for massed battles because you can build a huge army.

[warlord frod]

Just an example - here is my 10mm Ork and goblin horde for warmaster 

[Conquistador]

So you would agree with this gentlemen and say if its not 1:1 its just not a true image of the battle 

http://www.wargamesillustrated.net/Default.aspx?tabid=221&art_id=4340

I will admit that I like 6mm to 10mm for massed battles because you can build a huge army.

I believe that is the Baccus miniatures display I always wished I could see, (I live on the wrong side of the pond, alas, for that,) but whatever it is, it is magnificently obsessive!

Gracias,

Glenn

[Arlequín]

So you would agree with this gentlemen and say if its not 1:1 its just not a true image of the battle 

http://www.wargamesillustrated.net/Default.aspx?tabid=221&art_id=4340

I will admit that I like 6mm to 10mm for massed battles because you can build a huge army.

That is pretty spectacular and does indeed look more like a battle than a few petite units masquerading as an army. 

Me though, I just play with a few toy soldiers and call it a game and don't even make any pretence that it's anything resembling a battle. If I did though, it would have to be something resembling your's or that guy's.


To me though, size matters... maybe I'm compensating?