|
|
Post by Roland on May 17, 2020 17:35:25 GMT
I have to say that for 15mm the 40mm WRG frontage has proven to be adaptable and successful over the years. Enough so that its my default basing strategy for any 15mm models. I have less nice things to say about 60mm frontages for "25" mm.
It worked poorly for true 25mm models of 30-35 years ago. Since we're now solidly 2 generation into the era of 28+mm miniatures, I'm fairly confused as to why, when DBA was revised circa '14 that the frontage and scale for "25"s was left unchanged?! It seems like the most common sense and mini friendly way of addressing the challenge of fitting models on the base would be to take the 15mm scale conventions and simply double them thus making wargaming DBA with 25+ mm miniatures far easier to meet basing expectations on an 80mm frontage rather than a 60mm one. Never really understood the hanging on to 60s.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on May 17, 2020 20:54:58 GMT
Works beautifully for 6mm though 🤣😉
P
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 17, 2020 21:17:29 GMT
Works beautifully for 6mm though 🤣😉 P it really really does. Too bad that's not my bag ( well that's only half true. I do love Epic Scale 40k which is 6mm) |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 17, 2020 22:27:28 GMT
I actually have had no issues with a 60mm frontage for 25s. It could however be my figure choice... Old Glory, Perry, and Foundry. Both OG and Perry are not overly large. Foundry tends to be more modest size as well. Some of my 25mm Essex are beefy, but they fit.
GW and Front Rank I realize are very large...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 17, 2020 23:28:40 GMT
I actually have had no issues with a 60mm frontage for 25s. It could however be my figure choice... Old Glory, Perry, and Foundry. Both OG and Perry are not overly large. Foundry tends to be more modest size as well. Some of my 25mm Essex are beefy, but they fit. GW and Front Rank I realize are very large... Joe Collins I'm going to respectfully disagree on that one. My collection includes a complete range of Wargames Foundry, vintage Citadel, Front Rank, Old Glory, Mark Copplestone Grenadier, Black Tree Designs, Perry Miniatures, and Gripping Beast ( life is too short to bother painting 25mm Essex). As I pull a Litko laser cut 60mm base out and try to situate 4 Foundry spearmen on it the image of countless DBA tourney games at Historicon where players have to mount their models diagonally on the base to fit the basing protocols leaps from my memory. No Sir, not to my liking. |
|
|
|
Post by judebecker on May 18, 2020 3:05:36 GMT
Yeah, I could never get 60mm frontage to accomodate 4 of anything in the Foundry and its disciples 28mm figures. My view is that most 28mm figures need more room on the bases they have to live on.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on May 18, 2020 12:59:52 GMT
I've been working with 20mm figures, and even there I've sometimes found the basing to be a tight fit - solid foot on 60x20mm bases, for instance. I also don't know how I would fit four horsemen on a 60x40mm base if I ever decided to build an army with cataphracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 19, 2020 18:35:52 GMT
As a major promoter of 25+mm gaming for DBX, I'm satisfied with the mounting system we have created for this "scale":
Heavy Foot (Blades, Pike, Spear): 4 figures
Medium Foot (Bow, Aux, Warband etc): 3 figures
Light Foot : 2 figures
Medium Mounted (Cav, Knights): 3 figures
Light Mounted: 2 figures
All on 60mm frontages. With this scheme you do not need rebase your entire collection and it does not effect BW movement rates.
I use Front Rank, Essex, Perry (lots), old GW and Fireforge and can get four figures to fit with a bit of testing. I tried 3 HF (20mm per) and found they did not look correct as they stood too far apart. Heavy Foot should be shield to shield almost shoulder to shoulder and this works great at 4 per 60mm.
All other Foot (esp Bow) are 3 per 60mm (which is standard GW basing 20mm per - even for their large figures).
Perry Knights come with 60mmX45mm bases and are intended to be mounted 3 per 60mm. They look great as they should be "stirrup to stirrup".
If your worried about "solid" v. Fast just vary the depth: Fast on 30mm deep bases; "solid" on 20mm deep for Foot (this has many collateral historical benefits by the way).
Likewise Mounted depth is 45mm-50mm for normals and 50mm-60mm for Fast (if you use D3H2 and have Fast Mounted).
Our group has large collections of both Fantasy and Historical armies based in this manner with a huge variety of figure manufactures.
Look great, allows figure count to represent type and you can play against legacy armies based in the old "25mm" way as the base frontage has not changed.
We hope this eventually will become the standard for all 25+ armies.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame And Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 19, 2020 22:20:56 GMT
Yeah, again, I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree on that. My first rodeo was a long time ago and I've become somewhat obsessed with solving the 'Grand Unified Theory' when it comes to basing 28mm miniatures for gaming. 60mm frontage is way too jammed up. I would have loved to see the 15mm scale dimensions and distances simply doubled. 80mm frontages played on 48" boards.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 20, 2020 21:22:33 GMT
Yes we will just have to disagree about that. We do play on 48" boards (4'X4'). But I just think 28s on 80mm basing look way too spread out. I like the visual appeal of the 60mm bases and the standardization with most other systems. In addition since the Perry figures come with 60mm bases it lets players use the standard basing scheme right out of the box without having to buy new bases.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 20, 2020 21:29:11 GMT
There are definitely a lot of systems that use a 60mm frontage. I even made a 100 or so 60mm sabot bases to adapt my 20mm, 40mm, and 25mm frontage stands. Where I find it gets sticky is that DBA has such a regimented basing structure as opposed to other games. Were we to disregard strict model counts per base I'd probably be more charitable to 60mm as a DBA standard.
|
|
