Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: AKULA on 03 May 2025, 08:43:51 AM
-
Work continues apace on my horse & musket era project, but i'm undecided what to do about representing settlements on the tabletop.
Given the ground scale of most rule sets for 28mm, most settlements would be at best a couple of houses... i've toyed with the idea of having a ground base, and then having smaller scale buildings (eg 15mm), to give a more pleasing on the eye image of a settlement, but then what happens when you stick 28mm roads, or worse...fences/trees etc on the same table ... or would you have 15mm fences next to your 28mm figures... the idea of small buildings seems like it could work, but 15mm fences.... and maybe even trees seems odd... can't explain why?
What compromises have you made in your table layouts for mass battles?
Has anyone gone the whole hog and used a table of 15mm buildings, roads, and trees with "giant" 28mm battalions looming over them... if so, any photos?
Currently my default is probably still 28mm terrain for 28mm armies, but i'm intrigued by the possibilities of smaller scale terrain... Please note for 28mm "mass skirmish" games i'd use 28mm terrain without question, as one building represents one building... it's the amount of space that everything takes up in a full blown battle with multiple brigades on each side that i'm thinking about.
Any thoughts appreciated...and photos of eye candy are always welcome as well :)
-
I am with you on the mass skirmish, one building (28mm) represents one building.
When it comes to 'Armies' I would place the village/town on the edge of the table.
That way I can convince myself that most of the buildings are just off table. 8)
This does fit in with a lot of battles where armies rested one (or both) flanks on a village/town.
Any enemy who circumvent the urban area can always arrive behind their enemy's rear.
-
What you could do is build some kind of 2D-paper work at the edge of the playing field to give the illusion of a bigger town or whatever being behind. While thinking about your question I recalled last years Partizan show with the Battle of the Five Armies setup at which they used the mountain art work of Tolkiens book to make up some diorama background at the battlefield.
The bats at the image are obviously painted on but the rest is the terrain:
(https://mogsymakes.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/img_3740.jpg)
Here one of the blogs about it:
https://mogsymakes.net/2024/10/05/the-other-partizan-2024-preview-tolkiens-battle-of-five-armies/
-
Both very good solutions, but lets be honest, both trying to avoid the dilemma of placing it on the tabletop lol
Its certainly one way i could get around the problem, but what if i want a small settlement (small in 28mm terms)....lets say 30cm across...smack bang in the middle of the battlefield?
With the footprint of a lot of 28mm models i may only be able to fit one decent size building on the base, but maybe a small hamlet in 15mm. The problem i'm trying to get my head around is that while to the eye the 15mm hamlet might 'make sense' to the eye...even with a 28mm battalion marching into it... i think there would be an 'optical clash' outside of the 15mm hamlet itself.
Imagine 28mm snake fencing next to a 15mm building... or 15mm snake fencing a foot away from the hamlet on the tabletop, but next to a unit of 28mm cavalry - this is what i'm trying to get my head around
-
Might depend on if you want to place it in the middle of the battlefield or at some corner. The edge solution does not hinder you to place a first or second row of buildings with the 2D-work giving the illusion of there being more. For placing it into the middle I have no real idea except for scaling it down which might look odd. Perhaps some kind of step scaling down, like at the first contact it's something like 25 mm scale then 20mm then 15 mm or smaller in the center? Not sure though if your miniatures are supposed to interact with the town.
-
I mean, there's a whole scale between 28mm and 15mm... Would 20mm give a better footprint but less of a visual disruption?
Or make some specifically 'distorted' buildings- small footprint, 28mm scale heights- to fill in the centre of a cluster of regular 28mm buildings?
-
This has all the hallmarks of one of those questions where, in your heart of hearts, you know what you want to do but are just trying to talk yourself out of it.
You should always go with your heart in these things. It's a bummer when your heart tells you to take the awkward option.
Me? I'm not going with that 15mm with 28mm creates perspective and suits ground space. I play with 3D models and not counters for a reason. 15mm terrain with 28mm figures just looks crap. To me.
What I would do is put down a piece of felt that defines the limits of the town and put 28mm buildings on it and shift them around as needed. I'd steer myself toward smaller 28mm buildings so I could get three or four on it, rather than massive townhouse.
Anyway, that's how I feel with it.
-
I'd wager "right" also depends on the period and table size. A dark age/medieval village could be proxied by a few small hovels and a retaining wall and take up very little space, where a late 19th century village would really cover most of a 6x4 board at any realistic ground scale.
I think a sort of german expressionist tall and thin village could look cool as hell but probably not what you're after if visual realism is a concern. You could perhaps have a small area with two small-ish buildings, or a walled off farmhouse, representing a village, and then when troops enter into that area they are moved to a separate board/removed from the table for the duration of their stay within the village, with any actions taken in the village being resolved on paper.
-
Apologies in advance for the overly-analytical post - I express my incompetence with florid blather.
My thinking is based on the idea that the individual pieces-parts (figures and terrain) model the things, while using them on a tabletop in a game models the action. There are few ahead of me in the line to crouch down to look closely at a gorgeous model…but…gaming has a different focus/goal, and I tend to lean into that when I’m putting something on the tabletop.
The relationship between the size of the models (figures and terrain) and the distances measured during play (for movement and ranges) should ‘look right’, i.e.: Make visual sense to the player(s). Personal aesthetics aside, the purpose of the miniatures is to provide players with information on the units and their place in the battlefield, e.g.: “That guy/group/thing is a whatsit, and it’s around that far from the thingamajig.”
There is often emphasis on the 'whatsit' facet of the miniatures in how well they communicate to the player(s) what they represent - on a scale from completely abstract (as with a token or marker) to exacting reproduction (showing every eyelash and rivet). Their other function (the 'where' facet) is often overlooked/diminished, though it is as (if not more?) important in assessing how well the miniatures contribute to the play of the game.
How far away is that hill? How big is that copse? How wide is that stream? The greater the difference between miniature and ground scales, the more 'wrong' the tabletop picture presented is, and the amount of translation required of players increases to the point where "You may as well just use tokens" becomes a valid response. The less mental/mathematical gymnastics players are forced to do in order to translate what they see on the tabletop into meaningful gaming data that can aid/influence the decisions they have to make, the better.
Specifically to the OP on towns: Choosing building models to match the (what I assume to be?) over-large figures to create a more pleasing vignette could be weighed against the effect it has on the overall tabletop picture of the battlefield. or not...
-
This has all the hallmarks of one of those questions where, in your heart of hearts, you know what you want to do but are just trying to talk yourself out of it.
You should always go with your heart in these things. It's a bummer when your heart tells you to take the awkward option.
True in part, but i'm also trying to see if someone else has come up with a better way than what i have in mind before i spend some cash on it lol
-
Matt, sounds like you just need a bigger table ;)
-
I don't do big battles these days but when I did the rules systems I used mostly designated built up areas, so effectively a single building represented a block thereof. Makes sense, when a stand of figures might represent anything from 50 to 200 men. So a 28mm building might be four or five or more actual buildings. It's the nature of the area that's important not the individual structure.
Adding to others' comments. 20mm or 1/72 buildings can work quite well with 28mm while delivering a smallre footprint. The only real 'tell' is door height. You can either ignore that or easly adjust it. More buildings for the same sized bit of real estate. I've even got repurposed, modified 20mm buldings for my skirmish set up.
Next down the list is 1/87 or HO scale buildings. Some of these work quite well with larger scales, again it's mostly the doors that give the clue to it being as smaller scale. The great advantage to 1/87 is the sheer variety and availability of structures and the Dapol line while not super realistic/detailed are a cheap option.
As for backgrounds and the illusion of off table depth take a good look at the Peco railway backdrops.
As an example:
https://peco-uk.com/products/large-town-backscene?_pos=5&_sid=8738faf3e&_ss=r&variant=7435687755810
-
I managed to squeeze a hamlet into a pretty tight space, which I was pleased with (though I'm now building something bigger, just because lol)
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/45/2031-070420171055-4538563.jpeg)
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/45/2031-070420170747-453691502.jpeg)
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/45/2031-070420170838-453741823.jpeg)
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/45/2031-070420170945-453801776.jpeg)
-
I've long done a hybrid route of what I call 'gaming scale' for buildings for 15mm towns, made much easier these days by 3D printing.
Last century, I scratchbuilt Napoleonic buildings with ~10mm size footprint and ~15mm size height. This way the troops don't loom over the rooftops, and a number of buildings give a nice impression of a town.
3D printing makes this much easier as you can scale each axis independently to scrunch the X & Y for a smaller footprint than the Z for height.
I don't have my own printer, but I've downloaded the free Cura program so I can open up STL files to adjust scaling percentages and see what the resulting dimensions will be. Then I send the files to a friend with a printer and instructions on what scaling to use.
Here's one of my old analog models:
-
I have been thinking about this topic a bit over the past couple years since a pal got me into 10mm Seven Years War gaming. The issue isn’t quite so drastic with 10mm figures, but the figure and terrain scale is still way out of whack with ground scale when you’re representing a whole small battle on the table (which is what we’re doing).
We pondered using buildings that are “one scale down” - 6mm. In the end, we went with using 10mm models, although they’re under-sized compared to the footprint of most real buildings. I’m lucky too, that my friend has a 3D printer and can tweak the size on the buildings. The trees we’re using are also a lot closer to 6mm than proper scale. So, a handful of houses and trees represent urban areas and woods. It’s a trade-off but I like the visual effect.
Honestly, I think the issue is still there even with 6mm gaming. I went that direction for my Napoleonic wars project. It sort of looks old like the figure scale and ground scale are closer, but when I stopped to think about it, they’re still a large multiple out…
The answer I landed on is like what an earlier response said, go with what your heart tells you. For battle level games the scales will be way out no matter what, so go with the visual style that you enjoy!
-
Matt, sounds like you just need a bigger table ;)
Yeah...thats what worries me lol
I managed to squeeze a hamlet into a pretty tight space, which I was pleased with (though I'm now building something bigger, just because lol)
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/45/2031-070420171055-4538563.jpeg)
Now you see ... THAT is inspirational :-*
Think i need to revisit your thread
-
As one of the major proponents of 15 mm, this is one time I'm going to say "don't do it". Either go with 20 mm or follow Silent Invaders lead. 15 mm next to 28 mm is just going to be weird. I have a 10 mm (more like 12 mm) Seven Years War army setup and I use 6 mm buildings and that works fine: 6:10 ratio so a bit over half size. 20:28 is really 10:14 which is really 5:7 so, again, a bit more than half. 15:28 might seem similar but I'm not sure it would work - and no way I would mix different building scales with different fence scales, etc.
The one exception might be some of the larger buildings offered by Old Glory 25 mm - they are way too big for battle scale 15 mm, even 18 mm, a lot closer to 20 mm (though very suitable for 1:1 skirmishing). As a matter of fact, I'd say their Old West buildings are more suitable for 20 mm. The few of their French and Indian War buildings I acquired are similar. Not sure, however, if they have buildings that will fit your setting. Do be aware this does not apply to all their buildings, some are more suitable for 15 mm such as their Boxer Rebellion offerings.
If it were me, I'd follow Silent Invaders route. Though Cat's 3D suggestions seem workable - but then you need to be 3D printer literate and have such a device.
-
Unless it's a single building, or just on the edge of the table, I would go for a smaller footprint, so 20mm for 28mm minis. Personally I think 15mm looks too small, at least to my eye.
When you look at older wargames buildings, they often had a smaller footprint than todays, more realistic?, offerings. I also have a collection of old Hovels 25mm buildings. measuring the doors, they are closer to 20mm scale, in fact I have used them with 20mm in the past. Here is a couple of pictures.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq1aXoUItca2fa8pKF5A-a2W1QS3gDbk-63gzXJGfhR1v-ieRvqYCbGYi35jg3-9_hdxnyORvtzFHe2fVbRCEI5sUVsNZfCFqAiGi902jfinyzbwvQAmpDzw_mwzUV2tBo4BRIZMbHNtE/s1600/11+oct+2017+%25286%2529.JPG)
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnl1Rm7lCfG8hX0Ep43o2hSlitoUlLrUV6ZUHsNTbzOXPBNaTzM1SJgPfl0lyabnqbpDCPBqW0EkPctB9MVdNUVL6y5W66-Cccdlydypwu7NMUub_ZYRPGx4Jj9LrcIuYS2bX58nADwNM/s1600/P1010008.JPG)
-
I use HO scale buildings for 28mm horse and musket, although now with 3d printing I am shrinking footprint even more but adding height.
Cheers
Matt
-
If it were me, I'd follow Silent Invaders route. Though Cat's 3D suggestions seem workable - but then you need to be 3D printer literate and have such a device.
Just need access to a friend with a printer; I bring mine piles of spools of PLA. Literacy is super minimalist: download free Cura program, open file and then adjusting scaling is as simple as typing in a percentage and seeing what the result size is, or typing in a desired dimension and seeing what the resulting scaling is.
-
Houses of different scales just look weird imho, pushes the game from the ,,diorama" feel more toward the ,,map" feel.
I just try to "bathtub-ize" the buildings: feel of the scale without the actual scale. The key is to make the houses themselves small, but with the right height and all the details (doors, etc) in the right size. For more modern themes, Lego sets with buildings are perfect for inspiration, they are the master of this style.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx05zkubMrhMulMjovUmh6VFMgA3MT8mT8cnqdc0OITtcwWbCJj92LDe_RmFN4VnZHT_RMZtSqCwFEBH72bve444pmb7cO1A3FTgvlMyJ12wx-croWD4gNQe8-JSBOHXHFrGbA3FR9Zn5WEduyXYCyBidlsAZYF3CgCbEmQpoSV8MT1JNIrjwkiteJkw0/w621-h466/Csata_1vh_5_005.jpg)
-
This is a problem that has been with us wargamers throughout the history of wargaming and will likely vex us for a long while to come. Unless you're doing skirmish games then it's likely that the ground scale will always be out of scale with the troops and buildings. What I've tended to do is use the same scale for figures and scenery but reduce the footprint - 1 house instead of a small hamlet, 2-4 as a reasonably sized village or small town. It's not ideal but it works. The only other solution might be to make 28mm sized buildings but with the footprint of a 15mm sized one; not a great compromise!
-
Two things I would like to mention.
1) Years ago a friend wanted me to make terrain of the Crimean battle of the Alma.
The Russians were on a blooming big hill.
Going by the ground scale the hill would have been about two inches (50mm) tall lol
Going by the figure scale, it would have been over six foot (2 M) :o
In the end I made it about two foot tall (60cm). It LOOKED believable.
2) When I first wanted to do WW2 in a small scale (10mm 1:200th) I came across the village size question.
What I did was to base the vehicles on 'unit' bases. e.g. a couple of Shermans or a Tiger & a Kublevagen.
Villages were a few buildings, or something like a windmill, & some 'clutter', but each village had an open area that could hold a 'unit' base.
On table it LOOKED believable. e.g. the Tiger & Kublevagen next to a windmill, or the two Shermans in a hamlet.
BUT
Each vehicle base represented a Unit and each building base represented a hamlet (if it just had one building e.g. the windmill) village if it had two/three buildings,
and a town if i put two 'village' tiles together.
So a player moved the Heavy Panzer unit (Das Reich ?) into the village of Darmstad,
while on the table a tiger with a kublevagen took up residence next to two buildings of the same scale. Works for me, how about you guys? :)
-
I think this is all a matter of personal preference and you can get all the opinions you want, but if you like the look, then do it, otherwise don't.
Around christmas, you can look around at Lemax christmas village diorama's to see if you can get past the scale differences, as those all mix large figures and accessories (60mm) with smaller scale buildings (28mm). ;)
Example:
(https://www.whitehallgardencentre.co.uk/cdn/shop/collections/lemax1_1440x.png)
-
...if you like the look, then do it, otherwise don't.
I think is about the sum of it.
They're your toy soldiers and you can play with them any way you want to, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
-
They're your toy soldiers and you can play with them any way you want to, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Thanks mate, good to know you've got my back when the big kids in the playground pick on me ;) lol
Thanks everyone for your thoughts... it has actually helped
Will start a WIP thread in due course :)
-
Will start a WIP thread in due course :)
Excellent; I'm looking forward to that.
-
I personally just put down one or a few buildings and call that a village. Just like we tend to out down a few trees and call it a forest. Everything is in (roughly) the same scale so everything looks right to me. But that's my personal taste. Others like to have the right number of buildings, but personally, I'd also want to have the right number of figures then. And I'm not crazy enough to paint up whole battalions 1:1.
-
Heh - oh, I don't know, I once painted up an entire Roman Century using Warlord plastic figures at 1:1 scale - 106 figures. lol