Oh How Base...

 Things are going to get very base in this post...

Basing, it is something which can get gamers into an advanced state of frothery in short order, but for the life of me, I really don't understand why.

When I started out, in the days when Clive Sinclair thought that pocket calculators were something special, I slavishly followed the prescribed base sizes for the various rules commonly played at SWS. In my defense, I was young, and when you are young, the precision and exactitude are one of the things (along with dice and strange shaped templates) that mark you out as different - yes, I know that talking to a girl about cataphracts, well, talking to a girl at all had the same effect, but that's not under debate here.

As I got older, I started to realise that I increasingly moved in more circles than just SWS, (and as I have written before, by age 16 I was going to 6 different gaming clubs or groups in a week, playing all sorts of stuff) and so the idea of not being so hung up with basing began to creep into my army creation and thinking in general.

Initially, I moved towards element basing a la Gilder et al, but then I realised that ranked up models could look way too neat and actually looked quite false on the table. Posing of units mitigated it somewhat, but when I got into reenacting, I soon found out that even a body of 50 men, does not keep the kind of perfect formation we assume and depict on the tabletop.

So, for me the next move was to use one less figure per element, perhaps having full front ranks, with a ragged rear rank on the base. At this time, I still used elements which generally conformed to the combined frntage and depth of 'X' number of  models. The late Ian Smith was the master of this approach, because he created dioramas within units, a particularly effective way of making otherwise identical units, appear to have a sense of personality.

However, in the last two decades or so, even the specific sizes have gone to the wall. I have chosen bases which look right or at least feel right to my aesthetic sense. And this is important, bcause at the end of the day, 'Rule 1: My Money. My Army. My way.' is the cardinal guiding directive for me. 

There are aesthetic parameters which instinctively trigger for the experienced gamer, with regards to what troop order can be depicted on what size base.

My ECW use a standard 60x40 element for shot and 80 x 80 for pike blocks. The shot have 5 models in two ranks and the pike have 12 giving me a nominal 36 figure unit using 32 figures, which looks beefy but allows room for posing, and lots of flags:

By now, I guess that some people will be incandescent with rage at my heresy, but  the minutiae of frontage actually becomes less important, when you are playing with large armies of 500+ models, because the sheer mass of models as well as the reduced importance of a cm here and there, which is more important when you are using 1000pts on a prescribed table size, and you're a button counter. 

With large games, you need to know, the formation, order, armour and morale/training.  You can look at how your units are composed, and you have a pretty good idea of how they will perform. It gives you a natural 'general's eye view' . If you look at an enemy formation, you can perhaps say ' Ah yes, a 3 regiment brigade, in Dutch formation. 3 large pike blocks who look fairly well armoured and 6 wings of shot, who are in regular order. Oh, and hang on there's a Forlorn Hope skirmishing ahead.'

That is all you really need, because the rest is just numbers.

You also, if you do it sensibly, force historical formations and tactics onto the table, and stop the button counter opponent from manipulating single bases - in large battles this does not matter.

Moreover, if you plan carefully, you can spend the same money and field more units, without any aesthetic loss.

I buy a lot of Perry Miniatures, which as you know are only available in packs. So I want to use as many figures as possible whilst not just lining up models in those old fashioned tight ranks, of course.

So, If I want a brigade of 3 x 30 man units, I will traditionally require 15 x 6 figure packs.

What I actually buy is 3 packs of command and 10 packs of rank and file for a total of 78 models which when carefully positioned gives you 3 x 26 figure units with a full command in the centre and an NCO here and there.

I have also saved on the cost of two packs per brigade, which multiplies up when you are buying several brigades at a time. This means that you can either build more brigades or fund other elements of the army (or pocket the cash you saved - not something I do because I want to spend as much as possible and get as much for that money as possible).

The aesthetic diference between 26 and 30 models is zero, when you use dynamic posing and the same sized bases as you would for 30 models. And it actually shows your painting off much better, and makes room for the large and beautiful pre-printed flags which the discerning gamer tends towards these days. My Scots for example have 4 flags per infantry unit. It is expensive, and visually stunning, so I want to be able to show them off. 

So, perhaps I may have caused an aneurism or two, but I also hope that I've given some of you who may have been on the fence, to consider innovative ways to present your units. Even the most 'old school' rules will not implode if you decide to ignore their basing strictures. Gaming should be about fun and aesthetics, not whipping out a micrometer every phase.

TTFN