Triple Standards

[Unlucky General]

For many years I was completely sold on figure removal in all game systems. I based my units accordingly and rejected alternative concepts. Something changed and now my new standard is that I can't be bothered with fiddling about with anything other than at least a four figure base. My standards have changed. I don't think this is a rules led change - or perhaps it is. Has anyone else experienced a reversal in their previously strongly held preferences?

Another is my bases. I always used 3mm MDF, chamfered to blend the unit better with the table-top terrain. Apart from 20mm WWII I now reject this completely after many years strict adherence. For all my 28mm armies and even my 15mm FPW I have gone for square cut 5mm MDF and 3mm for my 15mm figures because I find I handle the elements by the base and not by the figures. I saw this for the first time two years back and it made a gradual impression on me.

My third standard is rigid and I've kept to it. I personally abhor movement trays. I think they look awful and awkward but so many people go for them.

Am I mad or does anyone else have any foibles when it comes to their armies?

[Reed]

Well, I have some aversion to square bases.

[Elbows]

I've been pretty fortunate about being consistent.  However my hobbying took a huge break between high school, college and the past few years.  So I'm sure some stuff has changed.

I have a number of established practices and aesthetic choices which are consistent (so far).

[Sunjester]

Depends on the rules I'm using, but over the last few years I have standardised my 28mm infantry onto 2p coins/25mm washers. I play a lot of skirmish games, so having them based individually is a requirement for that. Then I do use movement trays for anything that requires larger units or for rules that work on stands, the irregular shaped trays that Warbases produce are very nice. I now base all my 28mm in the same style, a mix of pva, brown paint and sand, than flocked with static grass and various coloured tufts, a mix of browns or greens depending on the environment they will be used in (drier looking tufts for Africa, greener for Europe).

My movement based are treated the same way without the tufts, so everything blends in.

The only problem is that I've only come to this decision in the past couple of years. I now just have to rebased 25+ years worth of 28mm minis to match!

[Christian]

I think my biggest backflip was on miniatures, going from GWs millennial aesthetic (before LAF) and then developing a taste for the older stuff (from when I actually started playing). I went from being averse to anything "unrealistic" to the cartoon style of Flintloque, Pax Boche etc. in more recent years. I even own a copy of Super Dungeon Explore which I originally thought was rubbish...

I now await two Soda Pop KS projects, checking status updates incessantly like an idiot 

[Charlie_]

Interesting topic. I like to consider these sort of things, and am always interested in how other people approach them.

Personally, I like individual basing, and I like casualty removal, and this is for 'massed battle' games.
I realise I am going against current trends here.
My reasons are...
1 - I like to see units visually reduced in size. I don't like them to be all there, apparently fighting at full strength, and suddenly *POP* they are gone! I want to glance at the table and be able to get an instant assessment of the strength of the forces on the field.
2 - I like to be able to play with the same models for different size games. Having them all on one big base means I can't really use them for skirmish games. Individual bases on (tasteful) movement trays means I can do both.
3 - I want to be able to go back to models and improve them, re-do parts at a later date. Having them all based together limits how much of this I can do. I also am constantly re-arranging how they are grouped into units, and at later dates will re-arrange them plenty more as more gets painted.
4 - Of course units look great based in groups, and it has the potential to have them look particularly realistic rather than lined up in perfect ranks. But looking at my models on their movement trays, lined up in 'perfect' ranks... Well, they look great like that too!

So I'm all for indivual 20mm square bases on movement trays. That's how I like it!

Something I am quite keen on is keeping the bases simple, but good. My basing technique is very easy - sand, not painted, just sealed with watered-down-PVA. Then with patches of one particular sort of static grass. That's it. Looks good. And it COMPLEMENTS the models, rather than distracting from them with colourful flowers and bushes and such.

However I do like my battles to look REALISTIC as best can be, and I don't like the idea of 10 models representing a huge regiment.... Obviously there has to be a compromise. So what I'm settling on is 'small battles', using my own ruleset which allows any unit to be in either open or close formation, and the latter works best when lots of units are linked up in a battleline. And when these ranked up groups are broken up and reduced to small numbers of men, the rules give them no bonuses for being ranked up and they are instantly 'un-ranked'. So rather than lots of random rectangles of 10 or 15 men spotted around the board, it's more likely to be one or two larger battleline groups, (consisting of several ranked up units), with smaller open formation units here and there.

I think these pics are a good example of what I've just described, and how I like it!

[Parrot]

I also have a preference for 20mm squares, and most all of my 28mm figures are on that size.  My reasoning is much the same as Charlie_'s.  I also prefer smaller skirmish type games where figures can be represented at a 1:1 ratio.  I was playing Victory Without Quarter recently and I just think it looks a little underwhelming to see 2 units fighting that are supposed to be hundreds of men, when in the table its just 18 vs 18 men.

[Charlie_]

I also have a preference for 20mm squares, and most all of my 28mm figures are on that size.  My reasoning is much the same as Charlie_'s.  I also prefer smaller skirmish type games where figures can be represented at a 1:1 ratio.  I was playing Victory Without Quarter recently and I just think it looks a little underwhelming to see 2 units fighting that are supposed to be hundreds of men, when in the table its just 18 vs 18 men.

In regards to ratios, I really don't like 1:100 or anything as you've just described.
But as I said in my first post, it's about compromises.
So I'm willing to accept a 1:10 ratio... My 'army' of 200 men representing 2,000. That's big enough to be called a battle.
I'm leaning towards 1:5 though. It means it will definitely be 'small battles' I'm representing, but what you see on the tabletop isn't too far off....

Funnily enough, I find myself really overthinking this sort of thing. Something that puts my mind at ease is looking at medieval paintings of battle scenes, which most certainly are not 1:1 scale!!!!! If it was ok in the middle ages, it's ok for wargaming today. : )