Prussian 15th Division, VIII Corps, 1870

[Ithoriel]

Personally I like the white labels - they are clear and easy to read and simple to make - but there again I play a lot of board games and see figures as rather nicer playing pieces than a cardboard counter which is why I prefer rules that use single "diorama" bases per unit.

I can't be bothered with rules that involve a dozen or more bases per unit these days. Units taking losses seem to me to get thinner not narrower so leaving units on table until they break fits better with my idea of how it should look.

[Ace of Spades]

Units taking losses seem to me to get thinner not narrower so leaving units on table until they break fits better with my idea of how it should look.

I tend to disagree with you on this subject Ithoriel. It really depends on period and occassion I think. Troops in the 'modern' days (starting after, say, 1862 roughly) will take cover when firing and thus will not immediately shorten the line by keeping in touch with the center as troops moving in line would do when taking losses. For moving troops keeping shoulder to shoulder contact is what they were taught and how they would thus move in the field (with adapted but rather strict intervals the system of advancing in a straight line was still taught and in in use by the time of the Boer War and maybe even WW-1?). Gaps would be filled by dressing the lines to the center or left/right depending on orders, not merely by letting the rear rank step up. Taking losses would thus result in lines getting considerably shorter in a relatively short time. Also troops that are in a firing line in cover and that have taken losses will end up with a shorter battleline as soon as they are ordered to redress for an advance or retreat. The length of their new firing line will then be adapted to their 'new' numbers. Although this may seem trivial it will immediately affect the ground a unit can hold. The effects on most games are certainly relevant in my opnion.
There is of course no objection to ignoring this if people feel this is overcomplicating or spoils the fun but I think from a historical point of view it shouldn't be to easily overlooked...

Cheers,
Rob

[Leman]

The older I get the more I want an enjoyable game rather than an absolutely accurate historical recreation. Anyway I wasn't there so I don't really know. Eye-witness accounts are not especially reliable; ask any copper.

[Ace of Spades]

I agree with your remark on eye-witness accounts, but as an experienced re-enactor in a whole lot of different periods (roughly from the early 17th up to and including the 20th century) I've studied a lot of original manuals and handbooks and I feel quite confident in saying that shortening the lines has virtually always been the 'prescription medicine' for dealing with losses in the line up to the 20th century. Indeed; rules were adapted or done away with at certain times (like taking cover when returning fire was a sensible thing to do when the manual forgot to reckon with the increased range and accuracy of the rifled musket!) but on average the manual is what the men in the ranks and their officers stood by.
Again; what anyone feels as an enjoyable game may of course be completely different and, luckily, totally up to them

Cheers,
Rob

[Leman]

To be honest, if you are playing a big game where most units in your army wear the same uniform, then there has to be some way of identifying them. My preference is for rear coloured base edges, but the label with name does take the guesswork out of it.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Given my time again, I wouldn't have done it that way, but 8 corps later, I like it this way...

[Hertsblue]

Over the years I've tried pretty well every system going - colour-coding, inked-on labels, concealed labels - you name it. The conclusion is that the neatly computer-printed paper label is the best yet invented and if you cover it with clear sticky tape you can even write on it with a spirit pen. And then rub the ink off afterwards.

[cameronian]

I prefer discreet coloured dots (paint pen) on the bases; one denotes corps (top left) one denotes division (if Prussian or French) one brigade and one regiment; simples.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55665103@N03/5158035132/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55665103@N03/5157414439/in/set-72157625347117602

[Ithoriel]

I prefer discreet coloured dots (paint pen) on the bases; one denotes corps (top left) one denotes division (if Prussian or French) one brigade and one regiment; simples.

Firstly, nice pictures!

But secondly, being better at reading than dominoes I prefer a written tag to a coloured one.

It is, however, entirely a matter of personal choice and whatever works is fine by me.

[Subedai]

I agree about the pics, some lovely looking figs and terrain. But, I got a bit trippy and psychedelic looking at all the different colours on the bases -so I'm told about the trippy bit, no personal experience. If I was to label anything, it would be along the back edge of the base so as to be less intrusive on the base itself.   

[paulr]

I agree about the pics, some lovely looking figs and terrain. But, I got a bit trippy and psychedelic looking at all the different colours on the bases -so I'm told about the trippy bit, no personal experience. If I was to label anything, it would be along the back edge of the base so as to be less intrusive on the base itself.   

Didn't get trippy but agree with the quality of the pics and having the label at the back 

Given my time again, I wouldn't have done it that way, but 8 corps later, I like it this way...

Makes good sense 

[Leman]

Excellent photos, lovely figures and fantastic terrain. Now the horticulturalist in me is thinking that the colour coding can be disguised as flowers (in pendants' corner someone will be thinking, 'What about winter battles?'). I have seen this done on Fat Wally's ECW bases, although he is just differentiating Parliament from Royalist. Personally I don't think the dots are that intrusive.

[Hertsblue]

I prefer discreet coloured dots (paint pen) on the bases; one denotes corps (top left) one denotes division (if Prussian or French) one brigade and one regiment; simples.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55665103@N03/5158035132/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55665103@N03/5157414439/in/set-72157625347117602

Yes, that works fine so long as you're playing with the same group of people all the time. If, however, you play at a club, particularly if you're trying to get youngsters interested, a more specific system is needed.

Nice pictures of a well-staged game, BTW. And I'm impressed by the chance cards.

[Subedai]

Excellent photos, lovely figures and fantastic terrain. Now the horticulturalist in me is thinking that the colour coding can be disguised as flowers (in pendants' corner someone will be thinking, 'What about winter battles?'). I have seen this done on Fat Wally's ECW bases, although he is just differentiating Parliament from Royalist. Personally I don't think the dots are that intrusive.

Silly me. Only talking about labels I took it literally but DP's post has reminded me that I used the flower style of coding on my 15mm Sassy's. Just painted some dots on clump foliage instead of using the pre-coloured stuff. It looks ok and in my opinion is more in keeping with the whole visual aspect of the game.

Example:

http://www.irregularminiatures.co.uk/images6/SASSCAT.jpg

[Charon]

Looking good Lemmey - think you've just given me the inspiration I needed to finish my Prussian Corps for 1866!

Like the labels too, I've used something similar on my 1/3000 WW1 naval and think it works well