https://mmcvhistory.home.blog/2020/04/14/the-great-basing-debate/
In which I ramble endlessly on about basing issues, and come to some conclusions that I hopefully won't change again after another night lying awake! ;D
Interesting reading Matthew. I've pretty much settled on 25mm square bases for my BP games, with 4 bases to a unit. It just works for me and importantly can be used across several rulesets should I choose to do so.
Quote from: Steve J on 14 April 2020, 05:30:42 PM
Interesting reading Matthew. I've pretty much settled on 25mm square bases for my BP games, with 4 bases to a unit. It just works for me and importantly can be used across several rulesets should I choose to do so.
Thanks, I suspect I'll do something similar for gunpowder where formations and maneuver is so important. I am actually doing the Crimean war in 2mm using 25mm squares and it works well. Just didn't quite sit right with me for ancients!
You have done a lot of thinking about this!
A couple of my thoughts
1) completely agree with moving cavalry from 50x50 to 40x40 bases - the only reason I see for rules having deeper bases for cavalry is that 28mm cavalry figures are big! And 25x50mm bases are the standard - this is seen across lots of rulesets. In 10mm this is far less of a problem
2) Basing - to reduce a large amount of the problems of getting basing material on the figures, I combine the brown paint, adding sand and adding figures into one stage! I mix PVA with brown paint, coat the base with a layer of this, then add the figures, adding a little PVA/paint to the edges and any larger areas of the top of the base, then liberally coat in sand. Let dry for a good while (4+ hours). This then gives you figures based and sanded, with the sand a reasonable shade of brown. I will then do a bit of dry brushing then add flock. I only add flock to about 50% of the base, and use a brush that I can get in-between the figures with to avoid gluing flock to the figures
3) 40x20mm bases - the good old warmaster standard. I've got lots (and had even more) figures based like this, but have moved over the last few years to 40x40mm squares, not least to allow cavalry and infantry to have the same frontage, and to give a bit more space on bases for the figures, rather than cramming them together as per the GW Warmaster basing.
4) If getting armies on the table is your key driver, then the fewest figures is probably most important to you. So getting a balance between figure density that looks OK, and base size is key. Which suggests the smaller the base the better. But I'd probably go for square bases over rectangular ones, as they can be used for more systems.
5) I've gone as small as 20mm squares, but find these a bit fiddly, but you can keep the figure count pretty low!
Good luck!
Thanks for your comments Fred.
1) For sure, down with the tyranny of 28mm sizings! ;D
2) interesting technique, I have a bunch of crusaders to base (on 40x40) so may give it a go. I normally superglue the figs to the base then try and spread out some slightly watered PVA on the base and flock. I've also experimented with modelling paste which works well with the 2mm and single based figures, but would be awkward for multiple figs.
3) deeper units will be on 40x40 where more space is needed, the main reason for the 20mm depth is for grid squares where you can have two normal units to a grid square. At 40mm depth I'd need 100mm grid squares, which would then looks too gappy on the battle line. Advantage of 40x20 is I can use them together to make a 40x40 when needed. I'll likely magnetise them all so can easily sabot base when needed too.
4) I want to find a good balance between look and utility, so finding a figure density on a small enough base size is key as you say. I suspect it's one of those things I won't know until I actually do it and see. Pondering basing up my painted Aztecs in the 40x20 rather than the 80x40 I'd been planning to see how it works out.
5) I did toy with that at one point, but it was a little too small for visual appeal!
For basing I use a mix of wall filler, paint (green) and PVA mixed to a think paste
1. cover the figure bases with PVA
2. spread the basing mix over the base
3. place figures into mix
4. blend mix onto figure bases with a toothpick or similar
5. sprinkle a little brown flock over the base then drench with 'green blend' flock
Let dry overnight and shake off excess flock. I usually end up having to use a little PVA to touch up a few spots of flock
Peasants on 40x40 bases
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49763396971_cb5fa16d68_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iPqqbX)
That looks well Paul. Wall filler mixed in must make for pretty solid bases. My issues with PVA attaching in the past was the tendency for the figures to get knocked off easily. I suspect mixing the PVA with other materials to thicken as you and Fred suggest gives it a bit more strength. My previous attempts were possible too thin on the PVA.
I generally find PVA fine for basing. But you must let it dry throughly. You also need a reasonable amount, I will often put a layer on the figure base as well as the MDF base. One other big advantage of PVA basing, is that you can rebase the figures fairly easily - if at some point in the future you change things up. With superglue you generally have to hack a lot of base off the figures.
For crusaders (or any desert figures) I'd try the add figures and sand to base at the same time, approach, makes things much quicker and simpler. Trying to poke basing material around lots of figures is hard.
For gridded games, with 2 ranks in a box, then rectangular bases are key. 40x20 is probably the smallest you can go. 50x25mm is a lot bigger. With 40x20 you can probably get 10 max of Pendraken figures on them for close order troops - with as few as 3 or 4 for skirmishers.
Quote from: fred. on 15 April 2020, 07:06:58 AM
I generally find PVA fine for basing. But you must let it dry throughly. You also need a reasonable amount, I will often put a layer on the figure base as well as the MDF base. One other big advantage of PVA basing, is that you can rebase the figures fairly easily - if at some point in the future you change things up. With superglue you generally have to hack a lot of base off the figures.
For crusaders (or any desert figures) I'd try the add figures and sand to base at the same time, approach, makes things much quicker and simpler. Trying to poke basing material around lots of figures is hard.
For gridded games, with 2 ranks in a box, then rectangular bases are key. 40x20 is probably the smallest you can go. 50x25mm is a lot bigger. With 40x20 you can probably get 10 max of Pendraken figures on them for close order troops - with as few as 3 or 4 for skirmishers.
I suspect I wasn't using a thick enough amount of PVA in the past, will see how I get on. A lot of my cavalry on the 50mm squares were based with milliput. Not looking forward to rebasing them...
The 40x20 does seem the best way to go, as you say 10 figs close order should look reasonable, then 8 figs for looser order and 4 or 5 for skirmish.
I was rethinking my Aztecs along these lines and hope to base some up in this style soon to see how it goes.
Cheers.
Quote from: mmcv on 15 April 2020, 07:39:33 AM
A lot of my cavalry on the 50mm squares were based with milliput. Not looking forward to rebasing them...
That won't be fun. (Probably)
Milliput's a bit of a swine, because it sets sooooo hard.......Good luck !
Cheers - Phil :)
Quote from: Techno on 15 April 2020, 07:59:50 AM
That won't be fun. (Probably)
Milliput's a bit of a swine, because it sets sooooo hard.......Good luck !
Cheers - Phil :)
I know, I don't know what I was thinking! I rebased some infantry I'd previously done in milliput a little while back and had a few casualties in the process. I'm hoping that the cavalry being bigger and more spaced out it'll be easier to get leverage underneath them without collateral damage to other figs.
The old WRG (15mm) standard for basing - adopted by other rules sets like LaDG, Warmaster, Armati, FoG etc. has been a 40mm frontage and varying depths to represent the ability to fit the models on them - so Elephants and Chariots and wagons being deep enough to accommodate the models.
Some sets used 40 x 20mm to allow double ranked close order infantry - rather than the fiddly 40 x 10mm deep bases, or 40 x 40 for loose order foot.
I've seen some lovely games with 10mm or even 6mm figures on 60mm x 60mm bases - your ancient pike blocks really do look impressive that way.
I am also fast becoming a convert to the Pendraken basing standard of 100mm x 50 mm for 10mm formations.
I base using pre-mixed polyfiller type whit filler - I stick the painted troops to the MDF base, spread the filler on - using a cocktail stick to ensure coverage onto the figure base (great minds think alike paulr :D ) I embed a few stones if appropriate. When that is all thoroughly dry I wash with a number of thin layers of earth brown (vary the colour according to the terrain - lighter id desert or darker if more damp conditions) and when that is dry I put PVA on either in patches or all over and the use static grass and a static grass applicator to put on the base grass - then I add grass clumps/tufts - mainly for my 28mm armies. I usually paint the edges of the MDF bases a dark brown - or if I am doing snow terrain a blue-grey - this is partly for effect but also becuase I have developed a loathing of my fingers smelling of burnt MDF every time I pick up a base.
But basing is a really personal thing ... I did have a period where I based using sand - especially for some of my 15mm classical ancient armies - but it just took so much longer I found.
Each to their own.
Mark
Well, I'm committed now, just put in an order for some bulk bags of 40x40 and 40x20. Plus some scatter and groundcover. Most of my existing basing material is for either the dusty Holy Lands or the lush meadows of these fair isles and off the back of this I've completely revamped my Mesoamerican plans, so need something with a bit more of a tropical highlands feel.
I also realised when I sat down to have a go at basing the crusaders yesterday with some of the discussed techniques I was a few bases short, and would want to do them all at once for consistency. Ah well, now that I'm reinvigorated with the Aztecs I'll have plenty of painting to do on them while awaiting basing.
Did a bit if experimenting with basing some eagle and jaguar warriors.
Tried out two slightly different techniques:
1) as suggested by others, mix PVA with brown paint, spread thickly on the base. Add figures and cover with sand/flock.
2) as above but mixed some sand in with the paint and PVA before spreading it on and adding the figures.
1 worked quite well, the figures seem well adhered and coverage was decent, though I did have to come back and do a bit if touchup and another layer as the basing material didn't come up to the level of the bases. I tried 2 to see if additional materials in the base layer would improve the level with the bases. It did but also reduced adhesion with the bases when I checked them dried there, so going to need to use some additional superglue to hold them in. I suspect the grittiness of the sand prevented a smooth adhesion. May experiment with something smoother mixed in to thicken, like the polyfilla suggestion, or some of the modelling paste I've been using for some of my individual figure bases.
Will try and get some pictures up tomorrow.
With your option 2 I think you will have problems with sand getting under the figures bases, which will stop them sticking well.
With option 1 I tend to careful add a bit of the PVA/paint mix to the edges, and any largish flat top areas of the base (avoiding the feet). The style of cast figure base does vary between ranges, some are quite thin, slope up and can be textured. Others can be a bit thicker and have a much squarer edge, these are harder to hide the edges in the basing material.
Quote from: fred. on 26 April 2020, 08:17:12 AM
With your option 2 I think you will have problems with sand getting under the figures bases, which will stop them sticking well.
With option 1 I tend to careful add a bit of the PVA/paint mix to the edges, and any largish flat top areas of the base (avoiding the feet). The style of cast figure base does vary between ranges, some are quite thin, slope up and can be textured. Others can be a bit thicker and have a much squarer edge, these are harder to hide the edges in the basing material.
Yeah I think you're right Fred. One advantage of only doing small bases with a few figures is you can afford to experiment a bit both with painting styles and basing. Had a check there and most of the figures seem reasonably secure, just two needed a superglue touch up.
(https://i.imgur.com/IKEyzJs.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9SATcxX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RMdoFwl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/o5TssR3.jpg)
The reds were option 1 and the blues option 2. Think I need to add a bit more to bring them up to the bases. I like the mix of light and dark brown flock on the blues so will have to add a bit of light to the reds.
I can't compete with the fine examples above, so I'll advocate a simple principle.
The smaller the scale, the less you want to re-base.
By the time you reach 10mm, I'd avoid rebasing entirely.
Some fore-thought can help with this.
a) Select rules which are basing agnostic, or at least ones that use popular basing sizes.
b) If that's not possible consider what can be achieved using movement trays.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 27 April 2020, 06:30:07 AM
I can't compete with the fine examples above, so I'll advocate a simple principle.
The smaller the scale, the less you want to re-base.
By the time you reach 10mm, I'd avoid rebasing entirely.
Some fore-thought can help with this.
a) Select rules which are basing agnostic, or at least ones that use popular basing sizes.
b) If that's not possible consider what can be achieved using movement trays.
Hi Steve,
Certainly rebasing isn't something I particularly enjoy so I'm with you on not wanting to do it much. So far most rule sets I've used are reasonably basing agnostic. I'm also mostly playing solo and producing both sides of a conflict myself so the basing will generally match. The main aim of this is to find what that standard basing methodology is that I want to use.
I don't intend to massively rebase any of my existing collection in this way, this is more just a choice going forwards. The only bits I plan to rebase are some very early ones I did that I'm not too happy with.
Found the first issue with my 40x20 basing standard....anyone with forward-pointing spears or polearms ends up pointing out the front of the base, which becomes a pain when in base to base contact with the enemy. However, keeping to a 40mm frontage and just going to 30mm depth for those that need it should be enough to give a bit of clearance on the front. Will just push me towards a 70mm grid rather than 60mm but that's still reasonable enough by the time you add in various counters etc. And should still be reasonably distinct from a 40x40mm "deep" unit, though I suppose they could creep up to 40x50 or 40x60 when it comes to deep spear and pike units...
Will need to get some pictures done up soon. Have one Aztec army about halfway there, just awaiting an order of basing bits and a couple more units to paint up. Also varnished a bunch of bits I'd done over the past 6 months or so so should really get them photographed! And once the basing order arrives I'll be able to put together 5 big units of crusader infantry plus attached crossbowmen.
Hijacking, but a Conquistador battle today to teach Lee some humility. :)
Oh my, you mean you actually won?!
Nice to see those rare 10mm Incas!
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 27 April 2020, 06:30:07 AM
I can't compete with the fine examples above, so I'll advocate a simple principle.
The smaller the scale, the less you want to re-base.
By the time you reach 10mm, I'd avoid rebasing entirely.
Some fore-thought can help with this.
a) Select rules which are basing agnostic, or at least ones that use popular basing sizes.
b) If that's not possible consider what can be achieved using movement trays.
I am facing this issue in terms of what size to make the grid I am planning on having.
My understanding is that the normal standards are:
Ancients & Renaissance - 40mm frontage
Horse & Musket - 30mm frontage
ACW - done In inches
Modern - 25mm
This could all be rubbish / designed for 6mm / 15mm usage as I would think 25mm / 28mm might struggle with these but it would be interesting to know others take on this.
Quote from: mmcv on 27 May 2020, 12:08:04 PM
Oh my, you mean you actually won?!
'Course he didn't ! ;)
Cheers - Phil
Oh yes he did!
Solo game then ?
just looking back at this thread and 40mm x 40mm calls out to me
Quotejust looking back at this thread and 40mm x 40mm calls out to me
My current "standard" basing for ancients is 40x20 for a standard unit, 40x30 for cavalry then 40x40 for deeper units. Seems to work pretty well and been able to put stuff together reasonably quickly while still looking decent. It's then easy to scale up if I want to make bigger units in future.
I've a few projects doing "diorama-style" basing (usually 80x40 or 100x50 standard) then a couple on 25x25, generally 19th/20th C stuff where manoeuvre is more important.
I just wish I had the time to produce in multiple set ups
I may opt for different formats for different scales
QuoteI just wish I had the time to produce in multiple set ups
I may opt for different formats for different scales
It's generally matched armies, so my 80x40 bases are for the ECW who will only really be fighting each other (or maybe some Scots and Irish down the line) and for the Trojan War which I also see as a bit of a special project, though I am contemplating scaling that one down.
Then my 100x50 are sengoku jidai Japan so again a bit of a special case as they only fight each other and maybe some Koreans if they ever get done in 10mm.
Mostly using bigger bases, e.g. for early modern mixed arms units to get a nice mix of types and look. Will likely do the same for anything up to mid 18th C. Still unsure what I'll use for SYW and beyond.
Then everything else I'm standardising to a 40mm frontage (ancient/medieval) or 25mm (long 19th C/early 20th C)
Of course I might do something completely different when I start another new project down the line... ;D
of course and that's your prerogative or should that be purgative? ;D
Quoteof course and that's your prerogative or should that be purgative? ;D
I could definitely be accused of some verbal purgative when it comes to discussing basing! ;)
Quote from: mmcv on 28 February 2023, 01:03:01 PMI could definitely be accused of some verbal purgative when it comes to discussing basing! ;)
I am hopelessly inadequate when it comes to basing and have less decisiveness than Mavis :(
I have found several styles of basing that I think fit with different periods. I then stick to that basing for everything in that period so they all match.
Having uniform basing hides a multitude of differences between the figures, including painting styles and figures from different ranges.
The downside is that it means anything bought painted and based has to be rebased
I dont mind picking a size for a base its the how many figures to use that gets me afterwards....
Just in case you good people were heading to a conclusion, there seems to be a thread assumption that some fixed base size is the right solution if only we could agree one. Whereas lots of older rules (and even newish ones like ESR) have variable frontages to represent different sized formations. Personally I've tended to stick to 40mm or 60mm widths but its way easier to tweak rules than rebase e.g. if you want to play DBA with your 80mm Impetus based army or have your 120mm base represent two or 4 (depending on depth) 60mm "elements" with some counter to show the true number of bases.
QuoteI dont mind picking a size for a base its the how many figures to use that gets me afterwards....
Yeah I like a well populated base but I also like actually finishing units so there's the balance there between aesthetics and practicality...
QuoteJust in case you good people were heading to a conclusion, there seems to be a thread assumption that some fixed base size is the right solution if only we could agree one. Whereas lots of older rules (and even newish ones like ESR) have variable frontages to represent different sized formations. Personally I've tended to stick to 40mm or 60mm widths but its way easier to tweak rules than rebase e.g. if you want to play DBA with your 80mm Impetus based army or have your 120mm base represent two or 4 (depending on depth) 60mm "elements" with some counter to show the true number of bases.
Absolutely, my goal is more to find a standard that works for me and let's me play a range of games. I'd generally fudge the rules over rebasing to suit a ruleset. As above it's the balance between aesthetics and practicality. I find myself having less and less hobby time these days so want to generally be able to get something done in a couple of sittings.
QuoteI have found several styles of basing that I think fit with different periods. I then stick to that basing for everything in that period so they all match.
Having uniform basing hides a multitude of differences between the figures, including painting styles and figures from different ranges.
The downside is that it means anything bought painted and based has to be rebased
This is pretty much where I'm at, though I've never bought prepainted armies and no plans to in the near future so not such a concern. It's usually more undoing some poor basing decisions I made early on trying to follow conventions written by 28mm people taking a "do the same bases but more figures" approach to smaller scales.
Quote from: mmcv on 01 March 2023, 11:41:56 AMYeah I like a well populated base but I also like actually finishing units so there's the balance there between aesthetics and practicality...
the matrix that the various figure density/troop types generate from each ruleset EVEN if you find a standard base you are happy with is HUGE
wibble
:o
I used to stick to 40mm frontages but now have switched mostly to 60mm for earlier periods or a combination of 30mm and 60mm for late C19th onwards.
It's depths I have more trouble with especially pikeman at the level or 45 degrees! I don't like the empty space in front but if the pikes overhang the base they always get damaged :(
QuoteI used to stick to 40mm frontages but now have switched mostly to 60mm for earlier periods or a combination of 30mm and 60mm for late C19th onwards.
It's depths I have more trouble with especially pikeman at the level or 45 degrees! I don't like the empty space in front but if the pikes overhang the base they always get damaged :(
This.
I'm not a fan of the extra work involved with pikes.
Where I do use them I ensure they're vertical to avoid that overhang problem.
As for basing, I saw the revolution that came with Impetus, where a base was an independent unit.
Some would argue that Volley and Bayonet was there decades earlier.
Some might make the case for DBA (Though it's need for a cohesive line rather reduces the independence).
What really seemed to capture the imagination of hobbyists was the potential for diorama bases.
Not having to pfaff about with 8 or 12 elements was also a bonus to some players.
Obviously such basing doesn't work for every era of warfare, or every scale of battle.
It usually requires some means of status tracking for casualty steps.
It also calls for a bit of imagination where rules incorporate formation changes especially march columns.
I'll close by saying it works very well with 10mm size figures.
I am just going to paint a load of stuff and worry about the basing afterwards....
:P
QuoteI am just going to paint a load of stuff and worry about the basing afterwards....
:P
Not a bad approach! Means you can try out some base configuration and see how it looks.
QuoteI used to stick to 40mm frontages but now have switched mostly to 60mm for earlier periods or a combination of 30mm and 60mm for late C19th onwards.
It's depths I have more trouble with especially pikeman at the level or 45 degrees! I don't like the empty space in front but if the pikes overhang the base they always get damaged :(
Yeah, I love the look of pikes at different angles but does result in some frustration with overhang or extra depth. Suspect all upright is the easiest approach even if less visually impressive. Works well for pike and shot style warfare but loses something with the ancients.
upright pikes all day long if I am honest for me personally these days.
off to paint a few bits and bobs this afternoon
Quote...
Yeah, I love the look of pikes at different angles but does result in some frustration with overhang or extra depth. Suspect all upright is the easiest approach even if less visually impressive. Works well for pike and shot style warfare but loses something with the ancients.
One option is to use the lower angle pikes in the rear ranks
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49979566332_6f33e11c92_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j9wkNU)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49979310326_e36a2b1869_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j9v2H1)
There's relatively few upright pikes in the Flodden range that i'm working with the majority being at an angle or level. But they are lovely little chaps so I decided to increase the depth of the command bases by 15mm to accommodate levelled pike in the second row and put non pike armed officers amongst the points in the "dead" space out front.