> You don't need to modify the existing rules to make manuever all
We talked about using centimeters in our games. But some our miniatures
are 6 centimeters long, or even those not so big will get tangled up trying to
stay within 6 for ADFC effects. Since most of my mini's have "warp nacelles"
that fall off if you sneeze I'm reluctant to cause miniatures to be closer
together.
Also, errors in movement will be exaggerated. One example, two of us are in a
tight formation fleet for ADFC but when he moves his mini's and I move mine,
all going in the same direction and in a straight line, can end up
further apart. I noticed that his ruler laid out to move his mini's was not
perpendicular to my ruler (of course, mine was correct <g>).
Glen
We minimize the human error in moving ships by using a hex grid.
We don't limit ourselves to the hexes, but each of the clock facings is either
parallel or perpendicular to a series of hex edges, so those 10 degree errors
are reduced (just don't make a 30 degree error).
Other problems creep in when people can't read a ruler, or rulers are
inaccurate (bent or incorrect lengths).
Yes, I would like to see some of the tables using cm scale with an ESU Komorov
or FSE Foch on the table. (Does anyone have pictures?) Do they use proxy
stands for the miniatures when in close? Do they use one figure to represent a
ship and its escorts? I assume that theydon't stack the miniatures.
Most combat would place all ships within 1 1/2 feet of each other (36cm
range of Class-3 beam).
Even playing in inches, we often take advantage of the fact our ships are
mounted at different heights, with escorts on shorter pegs than capitals.
This allows escorts to be base to base with capitals (well, NAC, FSE and some
ESU) even though they couldn't if mounted to the same height. The problem is
that it's the cap ships that need to be mounted low if they are tippy.
> Yes,
While not a full solution I've adapted an idea posted on this list a while
back to help with too many miniatures in a small space (helps when using
inches too <G>).
Someone(s) recommended dispensing with the plastic posts when mounting ships,
using instead square brass posts. These posts allow the
craftsman/craftswoman (wouldn't want to leave out the ladies on this
list <g>) to mount a smaller piece in the miniature and a slightly bigger in
perimeter piece on the base to allow the miniatures to be detached from the
stand when in transport and storage.
I've created a number of bases where the square mounting piece is of a
varying height. I use three sizes; 1 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm - allowing the
smaller miniature to cluster in close with the bigger ones. I highly recommend
putting the larger figures on the shorter bases as 3 cm high is quite a bit
different that 1 cm when dealing with the center of gravity.
Of course this does nothing with the problem of bases resting on top of other
bases. If you've ever planed a WWI or WWII fighter combat game with miniatures
you know what I mean <BG>
Bell, Brian K
> I would like to see some of the tables using cm scale with an ESU
You may want to give the Foch an extra high base. An extra cm can do wonders
<g> Or reduce the other ships' bases by a cm or so; that gives
the same effect but usually takes more work :-/
> I assume that theydon't stack the miniatures.
It happens, yes. Two coats of varnish is preferred around here to avoid
chipping, but not necessary IMO (I have still to chip any of my models
with single-coat varnish).
> Most combat would place all ships within 1 1/2 feet of each other
So? Unless you have 40+ ships per side (or you use Starfleet Wars
miniatures like the Victory-class beasties), this isn't a problem. 40+
ships per side is a pretty big battle IMO.
The real problem is when you have 40+ ships, all within *12* cm of each
other (massed SubPack strikes <g>) :-7
Regards,