*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 16, 2024, 09:22:50 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Recent

Author Topic: Minimum # of Figure for Attractive Visual "Mass"?  (Read 4225 times)

Offline Dr DeAth

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2879
    • My Little Lead Men
Re: Minimum # of Figure for Attractive Visual "Mass"?
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2014, 12:54:43 AM »
I think for visual appeal of big battles 10mm is perfect. 28mm takes up too much space/money/painting time (unless you're fortunate enough to have unlimited funds, a massive table and a small army of painters)

Couple of photos of a recent 10mm Napoleonic game played on an 8' x 4' table, 5 players and approx 1,000 figures (36 per infantry unit)





Photos of my recent efforts are at www.littleleadmen.com and https://beaverlickfalls.blogspot.com

Offline Cubs

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4923
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: Minimum # of Figure for Attractive Visual "Mass"?
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2014, 09:53:18 AM »
For big battles, they look lovely. But in the quest for absolute realism of scale, where does it end?

Some would argue the board and terrain must then realistically recreate the battlefield 1:1, or the model representation is pointless. What about supply wagons and non combatants? Surely they must be represented? What about the enormous space taken up by artillery limbers behind the guns? Hardly anyone represents that exactly. Supply wagons, messengers, deserters, casualties ....

At some point you have to draw a line and say, "I'm abstracting from here on". Everyone's line is somewhere different and, as already mentioned, some people are just out to have fun with their toys and aren't looking to actually recreate anything.
'Sir John ejaculated explosively, sitting up in his chair.' ... 'The Black Gang'.

Paul Cubbin Miniature Painter

Offline dijit

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3736
  • And when Eric eats a banana...
Re: Minimum # of Figure for Attractive Visual "Mass"?
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2014, 02:39:16 PM »
For big battles, they look lovely. But in the quest for absolute realism of scale, where does it end?

Some would argue the board and terrain must then realistically recreate the battlefield 1:1, or the model representation is pointless. What about supply wagons and non combatants? Surely they must be represented? What about the enormous space taken up by artillery limbers behind the guns? Hardly anyone represents that exactly. Supply wagons, messengers, deserters, casualties ....

At some point you have to draw a line and say, "I'm abstracting from here on". Everyone's line is somewhere different and, as already mentioned, some people are just out to have fun with their toys and aren't looking to actually recreate anything.

Which is why I normally stick to skirmish gaming, all that stuff is off table.

Offline Arlequín

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 6218
  • Culpame de la Bossa Nova...
Re: Minimum # of Figure for Attractive Visual "Mass"?
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2014, 03:29:03 PM »
Some would argue the board and terrain must then realistically recreate the battlefield 1:1, or the model representation is pointless. What about supply wagons and non combatants? Surely they must be represented? What about the enormous space taken up by artillery limbers behind the guns? Hardly anyone represents that exactly. Supply wagons, messengers, deserters, casualties ....

Nevertheless the collections which do feature such things are usually the ones people gush over.

For us mere mortals though, the cost of including that "Vivandiere's cart" or "Surgeon's Tent" against another company of infantry is often a hard call.

Indeed you are right though, for most the need to abstract is essential if they are to live their dreams. Mine is a 1:1 Spanish SCW infantry company, with its farriers, butcher, stretcher bearers, mule train and everything else... but I bet they are the last things I buy for it, if I ever even get that far.

;)

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4015 Views
Last post May 29, 2009, 09:37:11 PM
by uti long smile
17 Replies
5592 Views
Last post November 27, 2009, 06:14:36 PM
by Thunderchicken
10 Replies
1460 Views
Last post December 23, 2020, 09:51:57 PM
by Fremitus Borealis
0 Replies
463 Views
Last post June 06, 2022, 04:59:17 PM
by agregory
2 Replies
1098 Views
Last post July 01, 2022, 06:41:25 PM
by fred