Bases

[opsctr]

How much detail you put on your infantry bases depends on why each gamer uses them...

Some gamers are really into Armour, so infantry is secondary even if they realize Armour without infantry support is at a disadvantage. Many of these gamers do wonderful detail on their tanks and considerably less on their infantry because that is not where there interests are. You will find the "tiger tank fanatics" in this bunch. Many do infantry only because they grudgingly know they need them... consequently their infantry and old game counter bases are usually painted OD with "0" or minimal detail.

The infantry gamers realize war almost always devolves into a CQB struggle so they do tons of well detailed infantry with all the supporting arms with specific armored units for a balanced force. Their bases are usually detailed for the battle or campaign they are fighting at the time and it isn't unusual to find different units set up for different theaters of operation, from the plains to the deserts.



Some gamers are proud of their "troops" and want them to be well detailed no matter what period, theater, or organization their gaming group uses. They tend to do balanced forces with fair to good detail and flocked bases.



The pure modeler, who also games, wants all the detail correct. He wants the correct helmet, cartridge belt, etc..., as well as the correct Sherman for the year, unit, and theater. He is appalled when figures are larger than he thinks they should be or a tank is equipped differently than his research indicates it should be.

Then there is the "gamer" who uses the tanks, infantry, artillery, aircraft, as a means to an end only. They can be painted or not, bases flocked or not, and the equipment can be correct or "close" as long as the label on the base tells you what it's supposed to be, ...it's close enough for them.

So... your call. Our group uses fairly generic bases that help the players tell them apart. Basic flocking lets them know the base is an infantry fire team or squad. A little bit of brush and only a couple of figures tells them it's a support stand, and a stand with lots of "distraction" is a speciality unit of some sort, ...in our group usually a sniper or a scout/observer stand.

The scale of the rules you are using helps determine the level of detail required as well as what you want people gaming with your figures to visualize.

Will

[Cav Dog]

Just a question while we are on the subject.

I have always been of the opinion "less is more" when it comes to Infantry stands. The reason is that many of my troops fight in "every clime and place". While the mini diorama fire teams and squads look great. Isn't it a visual distraction when they move into urban or more arid enviroments?

I have always used a more generic stand that doesn't bring alot of attention to itself.

What are other's thoughts? (Again not critisizing the stands look great.)

You're right, it can look a little odd. If you look on my Baraque de Fraiture post on the AAR thread, you will see that the grass effect on the infantry bases looks very peculiar despite my attempt to cover it up with some woodland scenics powdered snow. The green bases also looked very out of place when i used them for my Omaha beach game a while back. The only solution...

is to buy enough micro armor and base it for winter, urban, desert, martian whatever...

It is the only way to cover all the bases, so to speak,

[voltigeur]

is to buy enough micro armor and base it for winter, urban, desert, martian whatever...

It is the only way to cover all the bases, so to speak,

I'll put a defence appropriation in front of the Misses and let you know how that works out.

[Mk 1]

is to buy enough micro armor and base it for winter, urban, desert, martian whatever...

It is the only way to cover all the bases, so to speak,

I'll put a defence appropriation in front of the Misses and let you know how that works out.

I think I've got a enough on hand already in my "to be painted" box to get as far as winter, urban, and maybe even desert.

My bigger problem is not the funds for acquisition, but the time for painting and basing.

Oh, that and finding a vendor for Martian ballast and flocking.

[Michael.Hatch]

Hello everybody.

When I got back into gaming I wanted to keep my options open.

Since I was writing a set of rules for Divisional battles in North Africa, I started experimenting with various materials and methods.

I could also see that I might want to use the same miniatures for smaller battles with other rule sets like Command Decision, Schwere Kompanie or what ever.

What I settled on for my primary bases where new Canadian pennies. Starting around 2007 or so, there seems to be a fair amount of ferrous metal in them so they will stick to magnets.

I like the cost, size, weight, availability, and mostly the look of them. (I think they really work for dismounted troops and gun but not quite as much for vehicles...)


Engineer Battalion 200 dismounted with their single transport base for mounted movement in the background.



Dismounted Machine Gun Battalion 2 with attached AT gun



Panzer Regiment 5 in line-abreast formation, RHQ in the middle.


I start by spraying the pennies with Valspar textured stone enamel paint "Santa Fe Sand".

I mount infantry, AT guns, and AFVs onto pennies which are then placed onto card stock covered in the same textured spray paint. The card stock base acts as a battalion-level movement tray that allows me to remove casualties, change the unit's force composition, add attached heavy weapons, etc.

If I want to play a game at a much lower command level, I take the miniatures off of the movement trays and viola, single AFVs, AT guns and infantry sections.

I can see that in future I will go back and dress up the base as Mk 1 was talking about when I have more time to polish them up.

Regards, Michael in Abbotsford.

PS http://s115.photobucket.com/albums/n296 ... Divisions/

[ACWBill]

Bases - I posted this on another thread. It shows the results I am able to achieve using the Liquitex and/or Golden Gel Mediums. I mix in paint as Mk I mentioned above. Due to the static grass I use it is very difficult to see the bases, which I paint with the same color I add to the gel. Either method is fine. I just need to produce mass quantities for larger scenarios. I also prefer thicker bases as I use mine at conventions. If the bases aren't thick enough, guess how the gamers pick up my carefully painted micros.




The matte gels also come with some texture already added. Those are usually referred to as pumice gels. If your local craft store doesn't carry them you can order online or speak to the guys at Renaissance Ink.

[JimF]

I've used pennies in the past (way past!) and it worked out pretty well. I want bases to be as minimal as possible, if I use them (for vehicles) at all.

One of my primary reasons for not liking bases bases is the grass/foliage based vehicle/inf unit moving down a road. That is, the terrain depicted on the base doesn't match the terrain under the base.

Has anyone ever tried clear styrene for bases? Would it allow the actual ground cover/color to show through? Would the plastic shine look bad? Could the shine be reduced by lightly buffing it?

I would experiment, to try and find my own answers (and I will, in the near future), but as of right now, I'm not home long enough, don't have any figures/vehicles yet, and no place to set up even a small bit of terrain. All that should be corrected in the next couple of months, hopefully. And no, I'm not in jail

Thanks.

[Mk 1]

Has anyone ever tried clear styrene for bases? Would it allow the actual ground
cover/color to show through? Would the plastic shine look bad? Could the shine be
reduced by lightly buffing it?

I tried this idea several years ago.

I based some AT guns on clear styrene. I used clear thin sheet styrene -- IIRC I cut the
plastic used in GHQ's packaging. But maybe I had some other source.

The result was not at all as I had hoped it would be. My idea was to create a base that
would allow the colors beneath it to show through, in effect minimizing the visibility of
the base and allowing it to more fully blend into the table. No such result was achieved.

The clear plastic bases are quite visible. At least mine are/were.

They reflect and refract light from any and all sources. Only if viewed from directly
above do you get any impression of the table colors beneath them. All side-angle views
produce the most visible bases you've ever had -- quite the opposite of what was
intended.

I don't know if or how buffing would reduce this, other than by making them appear
white from an angle.

Oh, and the super-glue used to attach the figures to the clear styrene comes out as
quite visible too. The glue I used dries to a clear finish, but as it reflects/refracts
differently, it too becomes highly visible and at a different level of brightness, versus the
base it is set upon.

There may be other ways to use clear plastic. But the way I tried was an abject flop.
Never tried it again.

[Mauser]

I tried the clear plastic to get the bases as thin as possible, painted them with a black wash to look like their showdows and discovered they just looked like unfinished black bases.
I then tried cutting away as much of the base as possible, but that made them way too flimsy.

[Mk 1]

Ah but Mauser, your current thin styrene bases, cut into irregular shapes, painted and
flocked, have come out beautifully! You should re-post some pics here for our
consideration among the other methods.

[Mauser]

Well, I ended up with something of a morphed version of my original intention...a combination of a small, thin base with ground cover.
Keep in mind these game pieces get more look'n than they do play'n...

[WargameHub]

I use 1x1 for everything, infantry and vehicles. For me it's easier to transport (metal bases) and also I put labels on them as I spend a lot of time teaching other people how to play games.

As for basing i also go with the simple approach and flock in a basic green or sand depending on desert or other troops.