I'm starting to think what my next project will be. I no longer aspire to building large armies with large units. I'm too slow a painter, I'm not exactly in the flush of youth and there are other things I should also be doing in my life. My SYW, 32 figure Pendraken units will never be repeated. Instead, my mind is turning to 'minimalist' units; units of 9 or 12 figures strong - unit sizes I would have rejected up to 30 or so years ago. Probably arranged 3 figures to a base.
I've browsed Pendraken's Napoleonics, AWI and League of Augsburg. I would like to do them all. Each 9 or 12 figure strong unit should have a command stand of probably 3 figures (officer, ensign & musician). I don't want too large an army (say 12 - 16 units strong) because I've found that too many of my painted units sit in the box, unpicked for most games, plus I want to draw a line and move on to other armies and periods that I'm interested in.
So, I looked at Pendraken's Austrian Naps. Say I wanted 10 foot units of 12 figures each (120 figures). I need to buy 3 packets of NPA1 (German Fusilier) and then a Command Pack (NPA3). Perfect (120 figures). Except, it would be nice to have some Grenadiers and some Hungarian units. So, say I go for one NPA11 (German Grenadier) - great - that's a half pack & includes command - and one NPA5 (Hungarian Fusiliers). However, I now need to buy a pack of Hungarian Command figures. But I don't need 30 figures. I only need 9. And I've still to buy artillery and cavalry and it might be nice to have some Jagers, Grenzers, Landwehr and perhaps even some Hungarian Grenadiers. Phew! This idea is not as easy as I thought. Pity about the Command packs comprising 30 figures; in my case, packs of 15 might have been more helpful. I think I'll look at the League of Augsburg range, instead. Hopefully with this being more generic, this will be easier .... or will it?
A comment was recently made on Little Wars TV that "old school" wargame rules tend(ed) to be very miniatures intensive. I would agree but as stated above, I no longer aspire to building large armies and large units. I'm also attracted to wargaming on smaller tables. It's a comfortable way to game, doesn't require a fantastic amount of figures and can produce very entertaining games that can be played to a conclusion in 2 or 3 hours.
I'm not saying large, epic games will not continue to be played - of course, they will - but I sense that there is a growing momentum towards smaller games with smaller units and smaller armies. Does anyone else feel this way? If so, I wonder how that might impact on gamers buying patterns and how manufacturers should package their products in future. What are your views on the shape of future collecting and gaming?
P.S. The following views may also be of interest:-
Norm's Battlefield & Warriors blog - Pocket Armies.
http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2020/01/pocket-armies-and-4-x-3-project-going.html (http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2020/01/pocket-armies-and-4-x-3-project-going.html)
Brent Oman's (author of Field of Battle rules) idea of "wargaming happiness."
http://wargamesandstuff.blogspot.com/2013/06/ (http://wargamesandstuff.blogspot.com/2013/06/)
I'm definitely heading down this route and in fact was talking about it with Dave tonight. My Battalion consists of 12 figures, 3 to a base, with 4 bases making up the Battalion. This was I can use them for a variety of rulesets, which is a big bonus. These units will be organised in a Division of 2 Brigades, with each Brigade having 3-4 Battalions, with a Jager Battalion, a Battery of Artillery (1 base) and a Regiment of Cavalry (2 units). There will then be say another Regiment of Cavalry and some guns at Divisional level. Not quite 12 units a side, but pretty close and not all will be on the table at the same time.
Remember that Leon & co are happy to do part packs at a small premium, more details here
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,15349.0.html (http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,15349.0.html)
Smaller games and smaller numbers of figures definitely seems to be a growing trend
Am opposite, the current trend for 1 hour wargames with 9 figures representing a regiment or 10 tanks 12" apart representing a battle is anathema to me. The 28mm mafia has a lot to answer for, with it's single D6 based combat resolutions. >:(
Having downsized from 15mm for my Napoleonics and upsizing from 6mm for my 20th Century stuff, I'm using more figures, not less, to a unit. For my Napoleonics I'm using 1:10 ratio. An Austrian battalion might be 80 figures, but I can paint them more easily and in the same time as 40x 15mm that I previously used.
What I am doing is cutting down on the number of armies I have, and building those I do have to more exact OOB.
Mark
I'm tending to smaller scale figures and bigger bases and many more figures per base.
My 10mm WW2 infantry are 6 to a 40mm x 20mm base.
My 3mm WW2 infantry are 30 figures on a 40mm square.
I like a healthy mix.
I have everything from 1 figure on a base Medievals to up to 9 figure on a base for Napoleonics; unit sizes 30 in some periods 70 in others; army sizes - 50 for skirmish games (e.g. WWII Pacific, Spanish-American) through 400-500 figures (ACW, medieval) up to 1000 (Naps). WWII tends to be a platoon or company of infantry (in 1:1), plus a troop/squadron of tanks, plus a troop/battery of artillery, AT, AA etc. The only constant is that it's all done in Pendraken (apart from the 1:600 aircraft, the 1:600 ships and the 1:3000 ships ... and the 1:2400 ships.)
The only period I've "doubled up" is Medieval, where I have a number of Baron's War forces (about 400 figures) plus I've based the TB line as individuals for skirmish games.
What I'm groping for is that I think there may well be a trend towards smaller, quicker games; but big games will always be spectacular and have their adherents. What I would prefer to do meself is to have a smaller number of large units rather than a large number of small units. 12 figures in a bttn is IMHO, visually unappealing. I prefer a brigade game with chunkier units to a corps with lots of flags and few bayonets.
BUT - the beauty of our hobby is that is can accommodate everyone. This is also it's pain - especially for people like Leon, who have to try and sell figures is appropriate pack sizes. This is an impossible task - unless he sells individual figures.
I'm in on both fronts!
I start getting more and more skirmish games, so i can then do 2-3 'big' projects.
For example, i have a truckload of 28mm nappies to paint. This is probably the biggest project i have running since i started wargaming!
Now i know i will be painting years on end for those, so i try and keep the other projects smaller. Skirmish /low figure count games are a good way of branching out into other periods, but keeping your main period/interest an 'ongoing' project.
Agreed, and Leon will do custom orders of figures too.
Quote from: sultanbev on 22 January 2020, 10:14:01 PM
Am opposite, the current trend for 1 hour wargames with 9 figures representing a regiment or 10 tanks 12" apart representing a battle is anathema to me. The 28mm mafia has a lot to answer for, with its single D6 based combat resolutions. >:(
Agreed. Battles are being widely neglected in favour of skirmishes which have more in common with paintball than with meaningful enggements, and 28mm has a lot of apologising to do before it gets into Valhalla.
engagements
I think time available time for a game and space to play said game are also a big factor. I simply have little of both, so a mid-week game of 3 hours is the maximum I can accomodate and on a 4' x 4' board. To be honest I enjoy these games and no longer hanker for a big multi-player all day club game. I do visit a friend who does put on big 'old school' games at his house with a few gamers, but it is a tight squeeze. We enjoy ourselves but I couldn't do this in our house due to lack of space.
Why all the hate towards 28mm?
It's all fun and games, no matter wich scale you know >:<
So's tiddleywinks, but we'd be annoyed at the competition from them.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 22 January 2020, 08:26:42 PM
. . . Pity about the Command packs comprising 30 figures; in my case, packs of 15 might have been more helpful. . . .
Agreed. I'd always thought that was the only 'odd' thing about the way Pendraken do things (I think they do packs of 18 in the European Late Medieval range?). To me, packs of 12 figures would be perfect for the command packs, although I do get it may not be that way from Pendraken's point of view!
A minor quibble, in light of Pendraken's general excellence at all things.
I'm pretty sure it is to do with the number of figures in a mold, one spin gets you about 30 figures...
Pendraken are of course happy to provide any number of figures you require (and probably still at less per figure than many other manufacturers)
Hi
The 'look' of a wargame has always been important for me (it's probably just coming up to 60 years since I got my first box of Airfix figures for 2 shillings). I like the table and troops to look something like what I am trying to portray. A small number of figures (particularly in the smaller scales) representing a battalion or what ever just doesn't do it for me. I have recently gone up from 24 to 40 figures (15mm) representing an ECW foot regiment because I liked the 'look' on a You tube video of a 'For King and Parliament' game. That said I am trying to concentrate on my favourite periods (to be honest I have never been the type of wargamer who flits from period to period and project to project) and use rules that have a good 'balance' (IMHO) between playability and realism (again IMHO) but importantly can be played in a realistic amount of time.
Just my tuppence worth
Cheers Paul :)
Quote from: petercooman on 23 January 2020, 08:11:05 AM
Why all the hate towards 28mm?
It's all fun and games, no matter which scale you know >:<
Probably two things:
The rational complaint is that the scale is too large for battle (as opposed to skirmish) games.
There are a number of practical reasons for that - Peter Berry from Baccus 6mm has produced a polemical piece on the "small is beautiful" theme.
https://www.baccus6mm.com/includes/news/28mmmyth.inc.php (https://www.baccus6mm.com/includes/news/28mmmyth.inc.php)
I suspect the other one is a natural human reaction against a tyranny of the majority.
If you only attended shows, and bought wargame magazines, you could be forgiven for thinking that 28mm was the only size in town.
My google searches frequently reveal new manufacturers who don't feel the need to state the size of their figures (Hint - check the price, if it's between 4 and 6 pounds per figure then you're in 28mm territory)
I also recall the last 4 or 5 shows I visited were dominated by several large 28mm manufacturers (No bad thing), but then there were 3 or 4 times as many stalls that sold the same suppliers products.
Lots of shopfronts, but disappointingly little choice.
So you could characterise the fans of other scales as hipsters (avoiding the mainstream), luddites (resisting inevitable progress) or reactionaries ("coming over here, taking our games").
Sometimes the nonconformist needs to stand on the street corner and "Preach a little louder, brother".
This really should not fall over into hate, I think often the harsh words are said in jest, and with little consideration for how they're read outside the immediate company.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 23 January 2020, 08:18:06 AM
So's tiddleywinks, but we'd be annoyed at the competition from them.
I think we would immediately fall into a "heated debate" about appropriate scales, painting styles, terrain and house rules.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 January 2020, 10:00:55 AM
If you only attended shows, and bought wargame magazines, you could be forgiven for thinking that 28mm was the only size in town.
I also recall the last 4 or 5 shows I visited were dominated by several large 28mm manufacturers (No bad thing), but then there were 3 or 4 times as many stalls that sold the same suppliers products.
Lots of shopfronts, but disappointingly little choice.
Exactly my experience.
Quote from: Raider4 on 23 January 2020, 08:50:59 AM
Agreed. I'd always thought that was the only 'odd' thing about the way Pendraken do things (I think they do packs of 18 in the European Late Medieval range?). To me, packs of 12 figures would be perfect for the command packs, although I do get it may not be that way from Pendraken's point of view!
A minor quibble, in light of Pendraken's general excellence at all things.
Pendraken are quite happy to supply part packs.
It's not like Old Glory who want to sell you 50 Bren gunners (or none).
Quote from: T13A on 23 January 2020, 09:10:35 AM
...(to be honest I have never been the type of wargamer who flits from period to period and project to project)....
I am shocked...shocked!
Quote from: FierceKitty on 23 January 2020, 11:28:50 AM
I am shocked...shocked!
Well Felines do have a limited attention span ! ;)
Quote from: ianrs54 on 23 January 2020, 11:44:02 AM
Well Felines do have a limited attention span ! ;)
And French captains are easily shocked.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 22 January 2020, 08:26:42 PM
I no longer aspire to building large armies and large units. I'm also attracted to wargaming on smaller tables. It's a comfortable way to game, doesn't require a fantastic amount of figures and can produce very entertaining games that can be played to a conclusion in 2 or 3 hours.
I'm not saying large, epic games will not continue to be played - of course, they will - but I sense that there is a growing momentum towards smaller games with smaller units and smaller armies. Does anyone else feel this way? If so, I wonder how that might impact on gamers buying patterns and how manufacturers should package their products in future. What are your views on the shape of future collecting and gaming?
Once upon a time there was no internet, nothing to do on Sundays, far fewer facilities or amenities of all kinds. Now the competition for our time and attention is much more intense, so people's available time (and space) for wargaming is more constrained. If a game took all weekend, that used to be a positive virtue; now, such longwindedness is mostly impractical. Hence the appeal of games that can be fitted into a 3-hour evening session on a modest table.
This was certainly a big part of the motivation for us in creating "Bloody Big BATTLES!" - we wanted to fight the whole of a big battle like Gettysburg, but to finish it in an evening, and without having to set out 5,000 figures on a basketball court.
I'm not a dabbler myself, but I think the many skirmish-type rulesets currently popular are attractive because the small armies required let people dabble in a wide range of colourful periods without huge investment of time or money.
So while the epic game will always exist, I do see the future favouring more concise games.
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/
Quote from: Raider4 on 23 January 2020, 08:50:59 AM
Agreed. I'd always thought that was the only 'odd' thing about the way Pendraken do things (I think they do packs of 18 in the European Late Medieval range?). To me, packs of 12 figures would be perfect for the command packs, although I do get it may not be that way from Pendraken's point of view!
As paulr says, it's really due to the space in a mould and what we can fit in it. If we put 15-18 command figures into a mould then we need a similar quantity of something else to fill the other half, which isn't always feasible depending on the range/period. We could just put the usual 30-35 figures in there and sell them in 15's, but then you're either throwing half a spin away every time you run the mould, or keeping them as spares for a future order. These days we have spares trays for that but we didn't have those for the first 20-odd years!
Some of the more recent ranges have had half-packs where we think there's a lower demand for that troop type, things like the Napoleonics, Indian Mutiny, ACW, etc.
Not a personal concern here, but your SYW mounted officer with sword pointing forward is very dashing and animated. You did five regiments' worth for me as a custom job, but I suspect there'd be takers for a standard pack of them.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 23 January 2020, 11:44:02 AM
Well Felines do have a limited attention span ! ;)
Ever seen a cat watching a mouse hole?
Quote from: FierceKitty on 23 January 2020, 03:00:49 PM
Not a personal concern here, but your SYW mounted officer with sword pointing forward is very dashing and animated. You did five regiments' worth for me as a custom job, but I suspect there'd be takers for a standard pack of them.
Which one's that? Is it one of the officers from a cavalry pack somewhere?
SYA 13 I think.
Interesting stuff, I'd imagine many of us are facing the same issues - wanting to shoehorn more gaming into our schedules, living room tables and budget.
First up, the hobby space is exploding with skirmish games, elves and dwarves have recently been joined by small boats, sailing ships, stompy robots, tanks, ww2 figures and all manner of gang warfare.
Skirmish games tend to be aimed at 28mm (A good use for the scale in my opinion), have a low figure count, but require a lot of effort on the scenery side to compensate.
Rules vary between good and awful (a gimmick, some glossy photos and £30 for the rulebook - and then there's the supplements).
The limited nature of the forces mean that games are quick, you'l often get a "dud" with one side rolling a couple of criticals and it's over almost before it started.
When this happens it's possible to set up again and have another game.
I'm a lot more interested in reducing the time and effort required to put on a battle.
Reducing figure count and table size are an easy way to achieve this, but it doesn't work in all cases.
I believe the Rules hold the key to smaller and faster battles.
Some rules are designed for a "realistic" game, and resist all efforts to streamline a game.
Others lend themselves well to scaling down.
If you're wanting small units on a smaller battlefield, the following features will help.
* Simple streamlined mechanisms that don't depend on matters of millimetres for movement of shooting - if you're scaling down, then those hard to measure distances will become impossible to measure.
* One or few elements per unit, with minimal attention to drill and formations - there's a size below which elements aren't viable, so an easy way to shrink a unit is to use fewer elements, this tends to spol games that rely on element removal for casualties or strict arrangements for formation changes.
* Fairly limited interactions between units: things like 3 units in melee against 4, needing to know how many front rank figures are actually in contact, and over-literal interpretation of "in cover", and representing skirmish detachments all get tricky as the representation shrinks.
So a good set of rules will permit small battalions on one or a few elements, probably uses counters rather than stand removal to show casualties and doesn't get over-obsessive about small overlaps.
Once this is done you can concentrate on your army.
This is where personal taste comes to the fore, with a caveat that some units will look better than others in small numbers.
* Pike and shot looks a bit odd if the infantry are alternating pairs of pike and shot.
* Having a command group for every 3 element battalion can look a bit busy, it's often better to place the flags and drummers with just the senior battalion of each brigade.
* Some items like Tanks, elephants, chariots are usually represented singly, and it's tricky to shrink them further.
One way to compensate for smaller units is to step down a scale - replace those 28s with 10s or 6s and avoid some of the issues of small batalions.
My experience is that you don't get much of a game with a handful of formed units on each side.
Army (should that be regiment) break points are threatened by one bad morale test, and the game is over before it has started.
You want to retain scope for players to send an attack to a flank, deploy a reserve etc, and this requires a decent unit count - perhaps 8 minimum and 12 or a few more for a typical game.
Finally the issue of ground scale.
Smaller battalions imply a greater disparity between figure scale and ground scale.
* It's good practice to reduce movement and shooting ranges in line with battalion frontage, otherwise you'll find ultra agile cavalry and cannon enjoying the run of the field.
* Ground features, occupy far more land than intended - the city-block sized cottage.
At this point it's worth mentioning that grid based games like Square Bashing, To The Strongest, Blood Bowl have no specific scale.
The grid takes care of all measurement, so they should be among the easiest rules to shrink.
So far, it's all looked like bad news for Leon.
An exciting way to play games with far smaller armies.
And smaller armies mean smaller sales.
I'm here to say it ain't so, and explain why.
First up, gamers are gamers, and usually bloat their projects.
Westmarcher's initial post illustrates this in the third paragraph.
He begins contemplating a brigade of Austrian infantry, and quickly adds Grenadiers, Hungarians, Artillery (several types), Cuirassiers, Chevauleger, and I'm sure there were some Grenz and Landwehr in there too (if not there soon will be).
The smaller table does mean fewer figures in each battle, but the gamer knows that having a range of different figures on the "sub's bench" means that the next battle can feature a rather different force composition.
Variety staves off familiarity and boredom, maintaining interest in a game.
The other thing about gamers is the love of the new and shiny (even the best mate varnish cannot put them off).
If it takes 6 months to paint a large army, it will be a year before opposed forces are ready.
If a smaller army can be prepared in 6 weeks, you're ready to go in 3 months.
And when you enjoy those games you'll soon think about adding in some allied forces (OK this doesn't apply for the American Civil War).
Syracusans, Numidians and Spaniards can join the usual Rome Vs Carthage bust up - so you may end up buying more, but you'll be getting a lot more gaming.
So, to summarise:
* Shrinking a battle wargame does not result in a skirmish.
* Some rules are more shrinkable than others, and the key lies in the rules measurement, basing and casualty mechanisms.
* Keep en eye on the look of your units en-masse.
* Scale movement and range distances in proportion to unit frontage.
* Grid games are generally easy to scale.
* You'll get your armies on table faster.
* You'll likely want to collect extra armies.
A load of interesting views above, none of which is wrong. :)
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 January 2020, 04:04:38 PM
* You'll get your armies on table faster.
* You'll likely want to collect extra armies.
Indeed, two of the attractions, my friend. :)
So, most likely you need not worry about future sales, Leon (as Steve suggests). :)
p.s. I would also like it noted that Dave and Leon have always gone that extra mile and accommodated my requests for extra officers, musicians and standard bearers in the past. :-bd
I own and play in all scales from 6mm to 28mm. Although I am using 6mm less and less now as I get older.
I like to see a battle line look like a battle line, so in most cases 28mm does not really do it. Sunjester and I do manage a battle line it in 28mm lord of the rings stuff, simply because we can field 1000+ figures a side, although this takes a very large table and a ful day.
so for most things 28mm is a skirmish or small battle scale. This is fine for a club night
15mm is good for getting large units, although having resurrected my 15mm stuff recently, I was shocked at the cost of getting some additional units.
10mm is great for large battle lines and figures that you can actually see, also the cost is far more manageable, although I am not sure Mrs Orcs would agree ( I have convinced her that Pendraken figures are astounding value at £1.50 a pack ;) ).
As my preference is for good looking games with proper battle lines 10mm has become my primary scale. Plus as I am fortunate to have the space and an accommodating partner that allows me to to have a large table up in the dining room, sometimes for months on end, I have the luxury to indulge myself.
That said I have played some cracking games with half a dozen figures aside.
As I have said before I am a "wargames slapper" any period , any rules, any scale. Its the fun that counts
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 January 2020, 04:04:38 PM
So, to summarise:
* Shrinking a battle wargame does not result in a skirmish.
* Some rules are more shrinkable than others, and the key lies in the rules measurement, basing and casualty mechanisms.
* Keep en eye on the look of your units en-masse.
* Scale movement and range distances in proportion to unit frontage.
* Grid games are generally easy to scale.
* You'll get your armies on table faster.
* You'll likely want to collect extra armies.
And the most important one: we never stop at one period so repeat the process.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 January 2020, 04:04:38 PM
So, to summarise:
* Shrinking a battle wargame does not result in a skirmish.
* Some rules are more shrinkable than others, and the key lies in the rules measurement, basing and casualty mechanisms.
* Keep en eye on the look of your units en-masse.
* Scale movement and range distances in proportion to unit frontage.
* Grid games are generally easy to scale.
* You'll get your armies on table faster.
* You'll likely want need to collect extra armies.
I started years ago with 25/28mm as they were the only figures available. Then came 15mm and I switched. Finally 6mm and 10mm.
Scale of figures is now determined by my ability to paint them. 10 years ago I could comfortably handle 10mm but now as I move north of 70 this is becoming more difficult so now I have moved back to 15mm.
Scale of games is now determined by economics. Obviously 10mm quantity/price is the most attractive option for big games but would involve considerable expenditure. I now favour small to mid sized uncomplicated games.
Similarly new projects are determined by economics and availability of figures and while I might have interest in possible new ranges from Pendraken time is not on my side to wait for them.
I'm not widely read when it comes to wargaming rules, certainly compared to many on the forum, but in the rule sets I have looked at units relate to base size and model count doesn't come into it. I can fully understand having fewer models per base. Less time, less expense.
Personally I like as many models on a base as can comfortably fit as well as having a strong bias to metallic models. There's something very satisfying about the weight in the hand.
I moved to 10mm because I had no space for further storage. I doubt I will return to 28mm, particularly now everything is plastic but largely because it takes much less time to paint 10mm and also at a significantly lower cost to achieve the desired mass effect.
IndustrialTrousers post reminded me of another scale based clincher.
28mm now has a significant supply of hard plastic figures.
This certainly mitigates the sting of £1.80 - £6.00* per metal infantryman (* Non evil-empire alternatives are available).
The upside (or downside as I see it) is that the plastics come in multi-pose kit form.
Bonus, plenty of flexibility to create your unit with variety of poses and weapon options, while bringing costs into the reals of sanity.
Bogus, the need to glue a load of fiddly bits (smaller then 10mm figures) together before you can embark upon painting.
I'd have loved this option as a kid: Reduced costs, and conversion possibilities - I also had agile hands and eyesight like a hawk.
As a middle aged gent I see a ton of unenjoyable work for my poor eyes and wobbly fingers.
I think my sweet spot lies in the 10mm to 15mm range.
I'm increasingly coming to regard 6mm as another "Big battle" scale.
Its individual figures aren't really suited to single, or small group basing.
Where 6mm excels is producing close order bases of massed troops.
For example
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-elWqcpi7tMg/Ww70J7o-MkI/AAAAAAAAQAI/UKfYLlbeEU0D_xUISTIb9-jq6IWkJ9QVACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_8444.JPG)
Battalions of 120 infantry (or 80 jager) figures, and a half-regiment of 32 hussar figures.
The equivalent stands would accommodate 12 small or 8 28mm infantry, and the cavalry stands are too shallow, but have the frontage for about one and a half.
Zoom out a bit and you get something that looks like a battle.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O5O6lqXjN4Q/Ww77GsNjSZI/AAAAAAAAQA4/3OA45aisvAIBKsLD8fEaCZE4YyvKQ1pFACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_8468.JPG)
It's the vision of Altdorfer's painting, compared to 28mm hiving you a Lady Butler vision.
Neither is wrong, but I prefer the 6mm vision.
I suppose my rather clumsy point here is that I see 10 and 15mm as the "Future vision" scales, while 6mm and 28mm tend to suit the older "Big army" vision.
:-bd =D> :-bd =D>
Great looking game
Another interesting discussion :-\
One of the many things I like about this hobby is the many different ways you can do things :)
We are certainly a broad church Paul, which is no bad thing IMHO.