Advice on unit labels on bases

TankTracks · Post by **TankTracks** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:14 am

I'm new to GHQ and am building my first armies after playing with a friend for awhile. He has everything based with unit designations, HQ's and platoons marked separately, etc. I understand the helpfulness of knowing what is what. He even said if he was to do it again he would add hits, saves, movement, etc. Again, all useful information.

But I just don't like the look of it. I'm having a hard enough time deciding to base everything in the first place but have pretty much come to the value of that.

I would appreciate hearing folks thoughts on the pluses and minuses of adding some kind of unit designations or specs to the bases.

Thanks for your ideas!

Mike

8ball · Post by **8ball** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:36 am

I'm not a fan of big flashy labels. I make paper labels that adhere to the bottom of the base and extend out a bit--maybe 1/8". That way I can change the labels as needed. Or take them off altogether if they are not needed. I also put only what is necessary on them. I'll try to post some pics this weekend.

WargameHub · Post by **WargameHub** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:12 am

I printed labels on card stock. The one on the left of the vehicle is what it is and the one on the right is a letter/number code. They dont look as good but it's a lot easier to teach people how to play.

hauptgrate · Post by **hauptgrate** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:08 am

I play miniatures for the visual appeal. I rarely play board games anymore because they lack it -- although I got into gaming because of the cool tank sillouttes (sp?) on the counters of Panzerblitz. Unit markers detract greatly from the visual appeal, but something is necessary to aid play. I do not base my vehicles, but they are painted or detailed differently enough to know which is which. Personnel are based on a 1/2" square plastic counter with a 1/8"x1/8" post sticking up from one corner. On the back of the post in a small label with a simple number or name. For example "RIF 5" or "Lt. Smith", or "ENG 10", etc. This is just enough to tell what is what by matching it to my OB on the clipboard, but not enough to turn my minis game back into Panzerblitz.

TankTracks · Post by **TankTracks** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:07 pm

Thanks 8ball. I'll look for the pix.

BTW you're the Pegasus Bridge guy. Absolutely awesome work! Totally impress and want one!

Hauptmann6 · Post by **Hauptmann6** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:50 am

For Command Decision my infantry is mounted on 3/4 squares. I have paper labels glued to the bottom with Battalion/Company/Platoon number. All in a half inch square.

Works quite well. You don't need to look often, just to keep track of bazooka ammo.

opsctr · Post by **opsctr** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:53 am

If you have access to a graphics program you can create interesting identifiers...

Or for more information you can make the label a bit bigger...

The larger labels make it easier to identify units in large battles...

as you can see in this picture of a battle in progress...

The smaller labels may look better on the table but the larger ones make fighting the battles easier because you can keep track of formation. Will

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:27 am

I labelled my units rather extensively for a few years.

This illustrates my old "detailed labelling" approach. Please nevermind the look, in this case. This is my late 1980s painting and basing skill level, never upgraded to my current standards.

I used to label by company, platoon and squad. In this case it was the battalion AA company, 1st platoon, 1st and 3rd squads of a Cold War era US infantry battalion.

While this approach gave me a very good feeling about my TOE skills and the completeness of my collection, I did not find it particularly productive from the gaming perspective. First, I found that the key information I needed for gaming was mostly the identification of the command units. Since one player seldom controls more than one or two companies, as long as I knew this stand was a platoon leader, I didn't really need to know if it was the 2nd platoon of C company of the 601st independant battalion, or the 3rd platoon of B company of the second battalion, 343rd regiment.

And, pre-labelling at a detailed level was restrictive when game-day arrived.

As an example, when I wanted to mix an infantry company and a tank company into two combined arms combat teams ... well everything was mis-identified! My "Team Yankee" was marked 2/3rds as C Company and 1/3rd as B Company, while "Team Item" was the exact opposite.

The detailed labelling did not help at all, unless I was willing to re-label my entire force for each and every game.

I also found that my opponents would occasionally read the labels, and adjust their play accordingly.

So I started using sticky labels applied to the bottoms of my units. But this was a bit awkward when gaming too, as I was constantly picking up 3 or 4 units trying to find the CO for any given unit, and once again I had the problems of mixing my TOEs on game day.

So I switched my approach. Now I only mark my command units. And I do so in ways that are clear to me, but perhaps somewhat less obvious to opponents.

This is my more recent approach. Here you see my Italian WW2 infantry. The platoon command stands are marked with three slashes. The company command has two. The battalion / battlegroup HQ has one slash.

The slashes are pretty low visibility if you don't know what you are looking for. In this case they are earth brown on a sahara sand (beige) base. Easy enough for me to pick out, even at a distance, but not so easily distinguished from the shrubs or stones on the base, if you don't know you are looking for them.

This approach suits my tastes better. It has a very low impact on the astetics of the game, but still gives me all the information I need to control my forces under the rules I currently use.

I don't base my vehicles ... just never liked the look. In some cases I have given them the slash markings on the turret or hull rear plates. More often, I just do some form of distinctive marking or modelling to distinguish the command vehicles.

For example with my Red Army SU-152s I have put commanders in the hatches of the command vehicles.

Whereas, with my US Army M3 Lee tanks the command vehicles have extra stars, on the hulls, while the other troopers just have stars on the turrets. In this case I have also put rolled tarps on the engine decks of the platoon sergeants' tanks, as these tanks can immediately take over as command tanks if the commanders are taken out of action. The company XO gets both stars and extra kit on the engine deck, as he might well command half the battalion depending on the mission.

Just my approach. Different rules might require more detail. But this is what works for me.

Donald M. Scheef · Post by **Donald M. Scheef** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:05 pm

I really recommend the method of Mark I.

If you are playing competitive wargames, having large detailed labels slants the play. For rules in which Command and Control is not significant, there is no reason to differentiate between units of a given type - a Pz.Kpfw IV-F is a Pz.Kpfw IV-F. For rules in which C&C is significant, an opponent should be able to distinguish specific units the same way it works in the real world: for Napoleonic and American Civil War, command units have horses and more gold braid. For WWII-era infantry, its the base with a radio man or a figure with binoculars. For armored units, its the vehicle with extra radio antenna. If you want to find the exact identity of a unit, capture some prisoners.

Personally, I do a lot of naval gaming. Although most of the rules I use do not include C&C, I try to place the equivalent of an Admiral's pennant or special funnel markings on the command ship.

Don S.

TankTracks · Post by **TankTracks** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:54 am

All great ideas guys. Thanks!

Mike

Xveers · Post by **Xveers** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:26 am

Additionally for WW2 stuff like tank units, you can use turret numbers and then just write down which tank is actually a command track. Gotta love it when being realistic pays dividends in interesting ways

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:26 pm

I think it depends on a number of factors; I started out putting ID marks on the bottom of tanks and trucks, but my eyes can't cope with the small area under a jeep, for example. I also have units at 1:1 figure ratios and at brigade level (for example, I have 13 vehicles on my table being painted that are a single command group for a WW2 cavalry recon troop). Basically if I could get the command and control info I want just from turret numbers I would, but I can't. I also base for an unusual aesthetic reason; it helps put the infantry closer to the proper height with the vehicles. I base infantry on styrene sheet .75mm thick, and vehicles on 1mm thick styrene to take up some of the base under the individual troopies.
I do agree that too much info on the base can slant a game, and a large base can get in the way, so I make mine as small as possible to allow the minimum ID data to be shown, preferable as close under the rear of the vehicle as possible. The example I have below shows the base size and the old and new tags I'm using. What I haven't done with the halftracks is put the tag behind them. That was a consideration of base sizes... just my choice at the time.
BTW, the new base identifies the halftrack as being from 31st Tank Battalion, B company's mech support element.
Just another option...

P

TankTracks · Post by **TankTracks** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:09 pm

I wonder how much the ruleset you are using has anything to do with this topic one way or the other We have been playing BKC. And having all this infor doesn't seem to effect things one way or the other as far as I can tell. Commanders/HQ units cannot be targeted. They just exert command activation. Yes they can get killed but not by direct targeting.

In BKC hits, saves, points, etc would be the helpful stuff to put on bases. Or if that info is on a list somewhere (like an Army Builder list) then the reference to the vehicle.

What other rules are you using that would call for this type of detail? Does Micro Armour: The Game call for this level of detail?

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:18 am

I think the rules you play with do indeed affect the information you need to know on each stand.

This is an additional challenge for those of us who have gone through multiple rulesets over the years we've been collecting micro armor. Worse yet for those of us who find they play more than one ruleset on a regular (or semi-regular) basis.

I believe that rulesets with 1-to-several unit scales are likely to require more information than 1-to-1 unit scales. As I choose to play mostly at 1-to-1, my approach and my observations relate almost exclusively to that unit scale.

Mein Panzer is my preferred ruleset, and when I organize a game that's what I use. But I also game with a pal James (PAGrognard on this forum) who prefers Jagdpanzer.

With MP the unit organization is organic to game play. You activate and play your troops by platoon (or sometimes by other sub-units). One might think this would make it more important to know who was in which platoon, but in fact I find it to be quite the opposite. Since I am moving and shooting one platoon at a time, I find that it is quite easy for me to keep in mind which units are in which platoons through the course of a game. All I need to know organizationally is who the unit and sub-unit commanders are. The rest of the organization is quite easily kept in mind.

But with infantry stands it is also important to know what the stand represents, and the figures themselves at this scale are not particularly easy to distinguish at gaming distances. So this is more difficult than the organization. Does one particular stand represent a rifle squad, or SMGs, or does it have an LMG, or a flame-thrower, etc. etc.? To address these issues I have developed some personal standards of basing.

As I base my figures, four troops to a stand = standard squad. Rifle squads may be composed of any of a variety of figures and poses, but ALL SMGs = SMG squad. (It is surprisingly easy to see when a squad is composed of 4 identical figures, even if you can't easily see that they are SMGs.) Usually I can also see the difference for LMGs. In most cases with squad basing the LMG is mounted on the stand with the rifle squad.

Three figures = special-purpose squad. This is most often engineers, but could be a full HQ squad (where HQs are large enough to be full strength squads). Most of my crew stands (gun crews, etc.) are also based as special-purpose squads.

Two figures = half-squads/fire teams. Often MGs, light mortars and observers are based as half-squads. Sometimes HQs or LMGs are half-squads. Sometimes tank hunters are half-squads. I do NOT base my standard infantry squads by fire-team, and I try to avoid rules that call for infantry squads to be fire-team based.

Fortunately my visual ID skills are good enough that I can tell various vehicles and guns one from another (I can distinguish even different sub-marks of the same tank at game scales and game distances quite handily, nevermind being able to tell a Sherman from a Stuart). So I don't need information on what kind of vehicle a model represents.

Using the approach of consistant basing of my infantry, and identifying the command units for both infantry and vehicles, seems to give me all the information I need to organize and play my forces quite fluidly.