Scale, or not.

[Not Connard Sage]

Now I’m not looking at anyone in particular, nor casting nasturtiums.

But, thanks to the power of teh internetz, I’ve noticed that a lot of wargamers just can’t seem to wrap their heads around the concept of scaling.

What scale is 37mm?** is a semi-constant refrain on fora. I came to wargaming via Airfix kits,  did a bit of railway modelling, and my day job involves working with scale drawings, so it’s all rather obvious to me. He said, smugly.</span>

‘Where’s the daft old sod going with this?’ I hear you cry. Nowhere really, just idly musing on a sunny Sunday morning, so feel free to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve been married a long time, so I’m used to that

But don’t get me started on the size/scale conflation

 

**I made it up, although someone’s probably working on their new ranges of 37mm French Old Guard and Early Imperial Romans as I type

 

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Angel Barracks]

I used to refer to 6mm as 1/300th or 1/285th but the simple fact of the matter is they are not.
They are no more 6mm either, but that is easier to write/say.

Why are they not 1/300th?
Well looking at a regular 6mm, sorry 1/300th figure at say 6mm tall that is what, 1.8m tall were it 1:1? Seems legit.
The same figure is about 3 or 4mm wide, which is about 1m wide. hmmm seems like an almost cube shaped mutant.
So even if the height is to scale, the width is not.
Neither are the details, cos at that size they need to be exaggerated to be cast.

So yeah scale is probably what people should use, size is easier, so meh whatever really.
If I understand what you mean then all is good.
Mostly.

Nothing I build is to scale, they are built to fit an aesthetic I have in my head.
Scale them up life size and they would the most odd things you have seen.

Or did you mean like on snakes?

[Not Connard Sage]

As you say. It’s more the concept of scale rather than the actuality that I’m wittering about. Er, I think.

Take your 1/300 scale. 1mm = 300mm ∴ 1mm ≅ 1ft. Which is where a nominally 6mm figure comes from I suppose, being a scaled down 6′ human.

All this seems rather obvious to me. Where it breaks down is the mixing and matching of different manufacturers figures. Yes humans are different heights and builds, but a Land Pattern musket is 59″ (waits) long regardless of whether a fat dwarf or a lanky streak of p*** is carrying it. Except that those differing manufacturers, er, differ on what 59″ (still waiting) scales to.

I notice such things straight away, and it jars. Yes, I realise I’m being over-sensitive and pedantic, but I don’t obsess over the exact shade of ‘aurore’ like some do 😉

 

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[MartinR]

The terms 6mm, 15mm etc are more like generic labels than anything else, however many people seem to insist on using them as if they are something precise (which a scale is).

Often what they actually mean is “will figure range x go with figure range y”.

And don’t get me started on oversized weapons…

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Guy Farrish]

Oh! Curse you – you knew someone would bite – which ‘Land Pattern’ musket are you talking about? Long land – no, Short land – almost, Indian – no, New land pattern? – no.

Know what you mean about ‘scale’ though.

Answer – grin and bear it, or – use counters. If it’s toy soldiers you like – well, they’re ‘toys’ aren’t they, not precise scale models? (although maybe they should be.)

Now – back to that 55″ long New Land Pattern Light Infantry Pattern musket of 1812….

(oh and the exact shade of Aurore… you’re not suggesting that there isn’t a precise, Platonic truth to be discovered regarding late eighteenth century pigments I hope)

[Not Connard Sage]

Guy Farrish wrote:

(oh and the exact shade of Aurore… you’re not suggesting that there isn’t a precise, Platonic truth to be discovered regarding late eighteenth century pigments I hope)

 

I’m suggesting that after all this time ‘accurate’ colours are a chimera.

But that’s another thread

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Guy Farrish]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

I’m suggesting that after all this time ‘accurate’ colours are a chimera. But that’s another thread

I know

I think I remember it from ‘another place’ some time ago.

 

[Piyan Glupak]

Most wargamers don’t concern themselves with scale, because they are not making a scale model.  Often, one figure represents many men, so ground scale (and hence size of terrain features compared to the size of model buildings and trees) is going to be substantially different from the scale appropriate to the size of the figures.  Some people use 6mm buildings with 15mm figures, so that a village looks at least like a tiny hamlet rather than an isolated farm.

Even if you are doing skirmishing, with a 1:1 figure to man ratio, I would be surprised and impressed if you had trees and buildings in scale with the figure heights.

Most wargames figures are not scale models.  Very many (I suspect most) wargames figures have heads and hands much larger than a scale model their height would.  The manufacturers find these caricature-like figures sell well because people can see and paint more detail you should be able to see on a figure of that size.

If you want to concern yourself with scales, why not get into railway modelling?  If you choose OO (the most popular gauge for models of British prototype) you can enjoy the pleasure of having the Proto-Bores telling you that you are doing it wrong, because your trails are approximately 2.33 mm too close together for 1/76 models.

[Phil Dutré]

Scale only makes sense if you have a well-defined real-life specimen. Such as a vehicle, or tank. Then you can say “This is a 1/72 scale model”.

But for human figures? Humans vary in size (these days) from 1m50 to 2m10. So you have to settle on an average. Moreover, this average changes over time …

As has been pointed out, size for a human figure is more a label rather than something that should be interpreted as a scale. At best it describes the actual size of the figure. But we all know a “25mm” figure these days can be anything between 25mm and 35mm.

[Etranger]

I’m in agreement with the sage one on this. Yes, people do come in different sizes and shapes but their weapons don’t, at least once you get to mass production.

Given that many sculptors make a separate master for weapons (brownbess, SMLE or whatever), which they then cast up to use with a range of dollies for their figures, then they must be using some sort of a scale for that weapon in the first place. Or aren’t they?

As to Aurore, it’s the colour of lobster bisque….

[irishserb]

By the time I was six years old, I wouldn’t use 1/43 scale die-cast cars mixed with my 1/60ish matchbox cars because of the difference in scale.  I didn’t explain it using the word “scale”,   I would just say that the larger scale cars were too big.  Over the years, scale became a big part of my life and livelihood.  I often build scale models, and have had them scrutinized in trial for decades by attorneys and PhDs with micrometers.

When I came to gaming, my expectation was that the miniatures would be to scale, some scale.  It took some time before I came to realize that Mr. Glupaks’ comments above are true for many, if not most miniatures gamers. As I came to know the gaming/designing/sculpting community, I was very surprised at how many of the sculptors were just guys who wanted something they couldn’t get, or otherwise enjoyed making things without any real art or engineering background.  As I started to talk to sculpters in the early 1980s, I found that many didn’t really understand “scale”.  They often talked in terms of “size”.  I suspect that some of the gaming sizes vs. scale issues come from this.

Visual scale integrity on the table is a major issue for me, though I am forgiving about the lengths of rifles, the size of heads and hands.  I struggle more with the dimensions of tanks, buildings and trees.  I research the heights of trees, the sizes of various constructs that I need on the battlefield, and I struggle with the compromises that must be made with roadway widths and the footprints of buildings to accommodate ground scales for movement and ranges.

I think the importance of scale simply relates to how you arrive at gaming.  If your fascination was with models and modeling, you are probably more concerned with scale, than the guy who comes here mainly for the history.  I realize that most of us are somewhere in the grey area in between, but clearly, scale is only an element of concern for some of us, and simply doesn’t impact the pursuit of the hobby for others.

 

On a side note, we almost never refer to scales models as such in court.  They are presented as “fair representations of…” or some other such terminology, as we don’t want to invite arguments about scale and accuracy.

[Angel Barracks]

attorney, trial, court?

Are you an actual rules-lawyer?

 

[Not Connard Sage]

irishserb wrote:

By the time I was six years old, I wouldn’t use 1/43 scale die-cast cars mixed with my 1/60ish matchbox cars because of the difference in scale. I didn’t explain it using the word “scale”, I would just say that the larger scale cars were too big. Over the years, scale became a big part of my life and livelihood. I often build scale models, and have had them scrutinized in trial for decades by attorneys and PhDs with micrometers. When I came to gaming, my expectation was that the miniatures would be to scale, some scale. It took some time before I came to realize that Mr. Glupaks’ comments above are true for many, if not most miniatures gamers. As I came to know the gaming/designing/sculpting community, I was very surprised at how many of the sculptors were just guys who wanted something they couldn’t get, or otherwise enjoyed making things without any real art or engineering background. As I started to talk to sculpters in the early 1980s, I found that many didn’t really understand “scale”. They often talked in terms of “size”. I suspect that some of the gaming sizes vs. scale issues come from this. Visual scale integrity on the table is a major issue for me, though I am forgiving about the lengths of rifles, the size of heads and hands. I struggle more with the dimensions of tanks, buildings and trees. I research the heights of trees, the sizes of various constructs that I need on the battlefield, and I struggle with the compromises that must be made with roadway widths and the footprints of buildings to accommodate ground scales for movement and ranges. I think the importance of scale simply relates to how you arrive at gaming. If your fascination was with models and modeling, you are probably more concerned with scale, than the guy who comes here mainly for the history. I realize that most of us are somewhere in the grey area in between, but clearly, scale is only an element of concern for some of us, and simply doesn’t impact the pursuit of the hobby for others. On a side note, we almost never refer to scales models as such in court. They are presented as “fair representations of…” or some other such terminology, as we don’t want to invite arguments about scale and accuracy.

##

 

Ah, finally. Someone else gets it 😉

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[paintpig]

“fair representations of…”

I thought that was what the war gaming table is, fr’instance I much prefer to use HO/OO/72nd/20mm buildings for 28mm games because they are a good compromise between what fits with the figure and what I can represent as a village. Five 20mm size buildings on the same footprint as two or three strictly 28mm size buildings is far more acceptable to the eye…. my eyes. I dont think I have ever had anyone pick up on the scale difference between the buildings and the figures so I think it must look right.

Assuming this is what we’re talking about, or have I missed the point?

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel
Slowly Over A Low Flame

[Etranger]

That would be ground scale Vs terrain scale Vs figure scale. Connard’s head may just explode!

[Not Connard Sage]

Might I suggest that everyone reads my OP again, carefully? 🙂

I’m aware that figure/actual combatant scale is a fudge. I’m aware that ground scale is a fudge. I’m aware that terrain/building scale is a fudge. None of this bothers me.

That ain’t what I’m on about though. I’m on about the average wargamer’s concept of scale as a thing. Et vous, cher Etranger, gave us all a clue with your pics of the comedy Germans, and wot you wrote in that post 🙂

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Not Connard Sage]

Oh, and Louis Vuitton’s French, right?

Well this is what they call aurore

Louis Vuitton handbag

 

 

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Piyan Glupak]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

Might I suggest that everyone reads my OP again, carefully?

Why would anyone want to do that?

[Angel Barracks]

For wargames, aka pushing thing about and moving them around and generally touching stuff.

You can’t make things to scale, they would break.
They would also be lacking detail, as I mentioned above.

If you are not on about things on models being out of scale with the rest of the model/the rest of the world.
What exactly do you mean?

Or do you mean why is bobs m16 bigger than steves when they are both 1/48th?
If that, then the thing about them not being to scale in the first place will be the thing I reckon.

 

🙂

 

 

 

[Angel Barracks]

Scale modelling is the next room down, if you want scale models.

This is wargames! as Gerard Butler once said

[irishserb]

Well, I can’t speak for NCS, he does that much better than I ever could.  But for me, it is something like this:

 

Lets say you buy a new car, a red car.  You go to the dealership to pick up your new red car, and the doors are orange.  And you see they have a stack of red doors on the showroom floor.  And you have the following conversation:

You: “But the doors, they’re orange!”

Salesman: “Yeah, they’re close. Works all the same.”

You: “But you have red doors right there; its easy enough to put the right doors on the car.”

Salesman: “Cars got doors. Work just fine. What are you going on about?”

 

… for me, scale modeling is wargaming, well miniatures gaming, when possible.  I am okay with the idea that there are practical limits to what can be done in any given scale.  That is also true in any scale modeling application.  What takes away (or can sometimes do so) from the game for me (and took away from playing cars at age six) is when accurate scaling is readily possible, but the results are not even close, seemingly for no good reason.

This isn’t aimed at gamers who use what they can find, but more at the sculptor or manufacturer who just doesn’t try.  I’m not bothered that I have 1/100ish Pz IIs that have fenders that are too thick to be in scale, that is a functional thing.  It does bother me that the length is 40% longer that it should be to scale with the width of the vehicle, making it look a bit “extruded” (and longer than my PzIIIs).

In the end though, “the Hobby” is not the same thing to each of us, and I do get that.  So, I don’t get too bothered about it.

[Angel Barracks]

Totally get what you are saying.
Question for you then:

irishserb wrote:

It does bother me that the length is 40% longer that it should be to scale with the width of the vehicle, making it look a bit “extruded” (and longer than my PzIIIs).

How do you stand on say a vehicle that is pretty much spot on in terms of basic shape, hatches where they should be, all that stuff.
But then they have rivets that are much bigger than the supposed scale?
Rivets, that if they were made 100 times bigger would be too big in 1:1.
Rivets to scale on a model would quite possibly not be visible, but would that make for a less interesting model?

(omg we are rivet counting…)

 

[paintpig]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

Might I suggest that everyone reads my OP again, carefully? I’m aware that figure/actual combatant scale is a fudge. I’m aware that ground scale is a fudge. I’m aware that terrain/building scale is a fudge. None of this bothers me.

I think it does tho, your becoming aggressive, you dont fool me with your emotes

Not Connard Sage wrote:

That ain’t what I’m on about though. I’m on about the average wargamer’s concept of scale as a thing. Et vous, cher Etranger, gave us all a clue with your pics of the comedy Germans, and wot you wrote in that post

Pah, everyone knows that, it is the way the world works…. except for ze Germans. Now let get back off topic (smile)

Amicalement

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel
Slowly Over A Low Flame

[Not Connard Sage]

Angel Barracks wrote:

For wargames, aka pushing thing about and moving them around and generally touching stuff. You can’t make things to scale, they would break. They would also be lacking detail, as I mentioned above. If you are not on about things on models being out of scale with the rest of the model/the rest of the world. What exactly do you mean? Or do you mean why is bobs m16 bigger than steves when they are both 1/48th? If that, then the thing about them not being to scale in the first place will be the thing I reckon.

I was on about.

 

Wargamers not understanding what ‘scale’ a figure nominally is, and not being able to do the maths***. As evidenced by  questions like ‘what scale is 37mm?’ or ‘will these 1:29 scale vehicles go with my 37mm minis?’

Scale modellers don’t have a problem, and wargaming is kinda, sorta, allied to scale modelling. Maybe not as much as in my youth, when it was all ‘Airfix, Airfix, Revell…oh, Roco’, but it still is. It certainly is chez NCS

It was that simple. No agenda, no finger pointing, no trolling, just idle curiosity. If I’d have known it was going to raise this much ire I wouldn’t have bothered. I probably won’t in future.

 

***some wargamers, not all, not even most.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Angel Barracks]

Don’t be sad, I still love you.

I even did a new topic inspired by your musings.

 

🙂

[paintpig]

*man hug*

Well war gamers aren’t scale modellers, they blur the lines in the appearance of their toys in artistic sense . Evidence you ask? News agent, I reply.

Are war gamers really interested in talking scale as opposed to overall appearance, the evidence suggests no, not that much. Do they do the math, can they do the math… no and, I suspect, yes but evidence for the latter is harder to find.

Personally I still referred, until quite recently, to 1/56th figures as my preferred scale to game and paint, 99% of the time my next line would be “28mm”. Frankly I have just about given up using scale talk and as far as 1610 or 1730.

So, the next musing, if you would allow me to muse with you, would be ……do sculptors understand scale, do they care, do I care? They certainly need to understand ratios and proportion (with the basic unit being the head) …and anatomy (maybe) and whether the figure is required to be 37mm to the eye or to “1730”. Do they get anymore sale/size information from the commissioner of the figure…..

Dentist appointment, will muse later

 

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel
Slowly Over A Low Flame

[irishserb]

Regarding rivet counting, I take a completely subjective “practical” approach.  I would prefer some attempt to represent the rivets, and would prefer them to be as close to scale as possible.  If scale isn’t possible, I would hope for a “practical limit” in over-sizing.  If the actual detail can’t be managed, I think the next best thing is to try to successfully create the illusion of it being detailed.  I don’t tend to approach this from  particularly intolerant or militant perspective, as much just seeing it as a lost opportunity.

Regarding sculptors understanding scale, I know that there are some who do not.  This is from first hand discussions with them at conventions.  When castings of some of my masters were first being sold at Historicon (big US historical miniatures convention) many years ago, I had some very surprising and enlightening discussions with manufacturers and sculptors. Some were very concerned about scale and accuracy, others could not have cared less, and still others had very little understanding of scale, just running on a “looks right to me” method.

 

Sorry if anyone has been aggravated by the discussion here.  I find the diversity in approaches to be interesting.  When I started gaming with others in high school, all of the gamers came from military modeling, and all of them more or less just expected a fairly high degree of technical accuracy.  I was surprised when I started going to conventions just after high school, and found this approach to be in a minority (which it clearly was).

In the end, as long as we all pursue the part of the hobby that feeds each of us, and we each enjoy what we are doing, it is all good.

[paintpig]

Dentist over….

I’ve had time to ponder (it’s okay it doesn’t leave a stain), unless your sample wargamer is in a job which requires basic maths skills and mental arithmetic then I must concede that…..

….thanks to the power of teh internetz, I’ve noticed that a lot of wargamers just can’t seem to wrap their heads around the concept of scaling.

I would also add if your sample wargamer is in a job which requires basic maths skills and mental arithmetic they are more than likely to be too lazy  take the time to understand when they can use social media/teh internetz to ask someone just as lazy “does this look right”

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel
Slowly Over A Low Flame

[Author]

Posts