Terry, If you like the rules, but don't like big units, I suggest counting figures double for casualties etc...(thus getting 1/40 scale). I did this when I had smaller armies. Worked well enough for me. If I remember correctly the author of the rules stated in the Battlegames interview, that he wanted to recreate the look and feel of the "In the Grand Manner" rules when designing his rules, hence the big battalions. Your question could be even expanded in the extreme to: why worry with figures, just use cards to denote ground taken up by models...Some people do, and it works fine for them. I test new rulesets this way, before buying models. I think as already mentioned it has also a lot to do with being creative, modeling, painting... I've learned one thing: if I don't like the look and / or feel of the rules...don't use them and get something you can relate to. Peter

in answer
god was it 3 years ago, well the reason I asked then was that I just could not get a set of rules to match up with my old empire rules. and then as now just did not see the reason for units of 40,50 or 60 figures, If I wanted to move lots of figures around the table top I just called forgot about battalions and moved whole brigades, 3 infantry battalions of 12 figures looks just as good as 36 figures in one unit and if you have lots of hussars then even better using the smaller number units. anyway not much as changed re rules and its mainly the same sets in newer packages. reason for asking again after 3 years, still don,t get it. all to their own, but I think I will sticking to smaller 24 infantry figure units and 12 cavalry or so.apart from the that I like the rules, easy to play etc etc terry

Answering your question of how large should cavalry regts and artillery batteries be: I field 24 figs infantry battalions, just as you do; 17 figs cavalry regiments; and a battery is represented by one gun plus 4-6 servers. Cheers

If 1:20 was good enough for Peter Gilder it is good enough for me; a roundabout way of saying I have used 1:20 ratio since the late 1970s with In the Grand Manner and precursors... Best Ben

"Agreed! I'm a card-carrying 28mm man, and it was photos of Peter Gilder's Leipzig game published in the earliest issues of Miniature Wargames that caught my imagination, so 1:20 has remained my mental ideal of what Napoleonic wargaming is to me." Of course, in his Leipzig scenario Peter Gilder used the standard 32-48 man regimental unit and called it a Division! I was looking at it only the other day in an early Miniature Wargames mag.... so theres an idea for GdeB 3 - put in some higher C&C and move it up a notch as an option for bigger games. Geoff

Others have adequately addressed the number of figures portion of your question. I like the larger units because of appearance. I hated the small 8-12 figure units. I do understand that this is a personal preference. Your comment on the artillery has not been addressed. This is a game mechanic. This doubling up of the artillery bases is done to represent guns deployed in a constricted space--less space between the actual guns than would be normal. This would be the "hub to hub" artillery deployment. This constricted deployment impacts the density of the formation and results in modifiers that tend to produce more casualties if the battery is engaged. I rather like the larger battery sizes since it provides a more realistic representation of a battery's footprint than some other rules.

why so many figures
when i started wargaming in the 70s it was almost all nappies and simultaneous movement. generally the scale used was 1:33 with battalions of 24 and 12 figure cavalry regiments in 25mm and the ground scale was 1mm to the yard. personally i think the 24 figure infantry unit looks about right and fits on a reasonable sized table. all of this however is not a relevant argument because 12, 24, 36 figures etc is only representing a battalion. if you can accept 36 figures is a battalion it is in fact of course not so. of more concern is the ground scale. a column was about 9 ranks deep i.e. less than our line depth so to put 3 stands deep is ludicrously distorting the amount of ground covered by a battalion and the second line is too far back. the worst effect of this is that by exaggerating the front to back depth of formations so little of the table is left there are virtually no flanks and all fights become frontal and determined by dice and not tactics. IMHO stands should be 1 figure deep and stands removed to show the narrower frontage when the battalion forms column. if looks are everything then go on as we are but it is not historical.

some good points made yet again
Hi, I loved the pic,s wish I knew how to put some on. I am sorry lads I still don,t get why the large units, I play with 10 or 12 man units, mainly 2 or 3 units form a regt and this gives me 20 min to 36 max figures per regiment. 2 or more regiments form a brigade and so on, So I end up with large numbers of figures per brigade which gives me the look we all like and also allows me to play at a greater scale so allowing res troops, park artillery etc and corp cavalry units. all look great on the table top, how so you pic,s on this site, terry

Terry1956, to post pictures in this Forum, please refer to the following 'how-to-do-it' thread: http://generaldebrigade.greatboard.com/viewtopic.php?t=3068 Cheers,

thanks for the input
thanks for that, will have a look, terry

I'd go with each to their own on figure scale and basing etc. You can use these rules, and probably lots of others too, with whatever figure scale you prefer. But whats this '12 figure Btns' and 'real men game at 1:20' thing'? If a games worth doing, then do it properly... :lol: ...at a 1:8 ratio. Now that is real manly gaming. :D