Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (
More info?)
Robert S. Dean wrote:
> Since I'm dealing with the 30s and adventure type scenarios rather
> than WWII, the majority of what's available would be 1:43 die cast.
> The eyeball question has to deal with scenery as well as figures, and
> to consider the groundscale distortion.
That's what it all really boils down to. "Does it look right?"
I was thinking about this while driving home from tonight's game and
realized that while there's a lot of wiggle room in interpreting figure
scale (is it measured from bottom-of-foot to eye-level, or
bottom-of-foot to top-of-head? What's the assumed average height for the
"average" soldier, 5'6" or 5'8" or 5'10" or 6'?) there is one item that
should be consistent, and when measured should provide a concrete,
mathematically sound scale for a given figure. The weapons should be
consistent. At least for WWII and other periods when standardized
weapons were issued and the lengths of those weapons are known, you can
measure the weapons on the figures, divide into the known full-size
measurements, and come up with the figure's scale.
Just for yuks I dug out some Battle Honours 25mm WWII British Paras.
They measure between 24mm and 26mm from bottom of feet to eye level, so
I'd say they're a good sample for 25mm figures. The Lee-Enfield rifles
and Bren guns scale out to 1:54. Not bad.
Then I checked out some 20mm metal WWII figures. The Mauser rifles scale
out to 1:74.
> If one goes with the Major General's thesis of keeping buildings down
> to the minimum possible size with the figures, then using overscale
> cars and such is going to look odder than if you're using
> O scale model railroad buildings.
Personally I never cared for that theory, but then I tend to do more
skirmish-level gaming than higher levels so I like the buildings and
terrain to look right for the figure's size. At that level a building is
a building, not representative of a cluster of buildings, and a tree is
one tree.
The "sizing buildings down" theory makes more sense to me if the game is
at a higher figure ratio.
> I should stop in at the Ordnance Museum and the next classic car meet
> and eyeball the sizes in simple terms-- can I look over the deck/roof,
> etc.?
That's the bottom line. Looking at photos, a soldier standing next to a
Sherman should be about as tall as the top of the hull, maybe a tad
higher. If a figure is looking down at the top of the turret, the
Sherman miniature is way too small for the figure.
DLF
--
David Ferris
www.irvania.com
I found my destiny! It had rolled under the couch
and was stuck down there amongst all the dog toys.