Whilst I accept labels can help identify units where memory fails - they never add to the visual appeal of the game.

I used to have problems telling PzIIIH from PzIIIJ in 6mm. To avoid using labels I switched to 10mm where the difference is more apparent.

Unit nametags can be very helpful, and aesthetically they can actually be positive rather than negative. Eg rather than just chugging out a bald black and white nametag, use well chosen suitable colours, and embellish with an appropriate flag or coat of arms.

Having said that, the trade-off is the effort of creating and applying them. Personally that is precious time I'd rather spend doing something else. For my games I let the figures do the work, making sure that different units are easy to identify by means of other visual cues such as command bases, uniforms, poses, etc - which can be easier to recognise from 6 feet away than reading a label. Works for me.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/

I don't think they have to be particularly obtrusive. The following two pics (which Leon has kindly agreed to insert into this post) show what I mean. The first shows a unit of Scots Covenanter infantry, with all the info needed for FK&P. The label is printed on card and then laminated, and glued to the underside of the sabot. This is easy to remove and replace if I wish to use the sabot for ankther unt/battle. The second photo shows my recent replay of Marston Moor in play. As you can see the labels are not exactly intruding into the overall look of the thing - indeed it is impossible to see the labels of the opposing side at all!

That looks rather impressive, M. 

Cheers - Phil

Agreed, it does look good. But that's because I can't see the labels.

No one has ever modelled a battle and then thought it would look better with labels. They're a compromise twixt visual appeal and playability.

Quote from: Dr Dave on 21 March 2019, 07:20:27 PM
Agreed, it does look good. But that's because I can't see the labels.

No one has ever modelled a battle and then thought it would look better with labels. They're a compromise twixt visual appeal and playability.

Agreed, Dave, but that is the point. It is possible to have labels, with all the easy to use info they contain, withiut having a major impact on your visual pleasure!

I guess it may depend on how you think about what you are doing.

I don't think I've ever "modelled a battle" I've played a games based on military history.

Maybe the point of view matters?

I do not use labels. While recognizing their undeniable usefulness, I feel uneasy at their use. I feel it reduces figures to the status of playing pieces, and I wonder why bother to paint and collect figures to play what effectively is a board game. To me, I  feel I might as well use cardboard pieces with a name and combat statistics in the style of the Avalon Hill board games. I sense that games are becoming more and more abstract, - the increasing use of wargame terrain marked with square or hexagonal grids is an example. I am not criticizing those who use this approach - after all its a personal choice.

I'm not sure how having the stats for a unit on a label rather than on a roster sheet or in the rule book make the figures any more or less a 'playing piece'

While I understand the desire not to intrude on the visual impact of a game, carefully done labels can greatly assist the flow of the game and increase the players immersion in the battle/game

In the end we all get to play our games the way we like

Hello

You can use printable envelope labels, which are freely available, sticky and (usually) easy to remove from bases, also handy for standards too.

Cheer

GrumpyOldMan