Throughout its short history, wargaming has been the subject of much discussion. The general topics of these discussions have ranged from the span of commander's control, hidden movement, time synchronization, terrain, scales, morale, fire power, and other topics, all of obvious importance to the accurate simulation of combat through the ages. PHALANX OF GREEKS (FREIKORPS 15MM) 16 MEN DEEP. THE CAVALRY IN REAR IS A WEDGE OF THRACIANS One topic, however, has been almost universally passed over (other than as it applies to scale and space occupation), is the mounting of figures to simulate units. What I propose to do in this short article is to examine the standard mounting in some detail, and offer some possible alternatives to the current method of mounting or stand design. The first miniature wargame rules used the size and shape of the stand to do two things: regularize the area occupied bythe figure's represented strength, and assist in movement. Generally all rules since the original have done the same. We have come up with essentially two ways of mounting. The first is a geometric shape, usually a square, with one figure (some rules mount artillery on a triangle to assist in projecting area fire), and secondly, a geometric shape, usually a rectangle, with figures mounted in a line with each figure assigned a regularized section of that line defined as a frontage per figure. The first opinion maximizes the flexibility a player has but requires more playing time to move each figure. The second assists in movement and "accurately" shows troops in a line formation that simplifies movement and placement. The second system of mounting has limitations that don't show up until you place the units in column and realize that the formation neither simulates the depth or width of a column. In combat both systems have disadvantages. Individual mounting allows players to "create" uncharacteristic formations, while the line mounting allows instant turns and less "disadvantage" in frontal firepower while in columns. What I propose is mounting the figures in such a way as to limit or exploit the unit's characteristics. I will look at four basic types of troop units: Greeks or Macedonians, Imperial Romans, Barbarians and Napoleonic infantry. Let's look at the Greeks phalanx first. Current Ancients rules have the Phalanx mounted in neat lines that can wheel and shift facing with great ease. I once watched in horror as an Athenian phalanx of some proportion deftly turned and attacked the rear of my peltasts. Although this event had a particular impact, I am generally unsatisfied with the linear system of mounting when it is used to represent anything other than linear warfare. The mounting that most accurately reflected the limitations and capabilities of the Greek phalanx is the column figures lined up one behind the other (for 15mm one half in frontage, and one inch depth). The figures face the long way of the base (See figure 1). If there are 8 to 12 men in a file then use two figures. For 12 or greater use three figures. (See figure 2.) A Phalanx is made up by placing these stands side by side. When formed, it is unbeatable in a straight ahead attach over level ground. Ah, but to see their weakness, try to turn this monster while trying to maintain an even frontage. Compare this lack of maneuverability to that of the easy line basing. The photographs show a sequence of turning over a four turn time frame. The linear formation make the turn (pivot) in a matter of 1 1/2 moves while the real phalanx lumbers into position. Actually, the phalanx has been displaced significantly and no longer occupies the same point in space. Only now can we understand the nature of Hoplite warfare and the rather set piece battles of Classical Greece. Compare this to the flexibility of the Imperial Roman Infantry at the turn of the Millennium. The Romans based their tactics o the Century, two of which made a Maniple, of which three made a Cohort. Eight to ten Cohorts made a Legion, with the Century being about 80 men. I generally use a scale of 20 to 1, which means I have four figures to a century. Again, rather than a line, I mount these figures on two column stands. But, unlike our normal 90 degree facing world, they are not mounted at a right angle to a stand side but rather at a 45 degree angle. (See figure 7.) The two columns are pivoted 45 degrees outward left and right respectively. (See figure 8a). Although this may appear strange it allows the century to be facing 270 degrees, covering its front and both flanks. This allows the Century to come on line formation again without exposing a flank. (See figure 8b.) The Romans have the advantage of flexibility, but can form into a column for mass when necessary. 3 ROMAN MANIPLES SHOWING OPTIONAL COLUMN MOUNTING Barbarians are more difficult to simulate because they stressed individual warfare over group warfare. This meant they were not able to put as many effective fighters in close to the enemy, or execute sophisticated maneuvers or formations. I find than an "E" shaped stand reflects barbarian capabilities effectively. it reduces the number of castings in contact without having long blank spots on the linear stand while, at the same time, allowing me the capability to thicken the formation, if I desired. The "E" tvpe stand also makes movements of large numbers difficult. The mounting is simpler than it sounds. (See figure 9.) The forks of the "E" go toward the enemy. The castings are mounted once behind the other on the forks. To strengthen the formation, individual castings are mounted on 1/2 inch by 1/2 inch stands and inserted into the gaps between the forks. (See figure 10.) For added density a "T" stand can be used. (See figure 11.) it can also be placed into the "E" (see figure 12). These combinations can be used to simulate two of the major types of Barbarians; the Germans using the denser type formation, and the Gauls using the "E" stands, with some supporting troops. I've heard a lot of rumblings about rules and remounting, and also about the difficulty of cutting out "E" bases for Barbarians. Come on now, any group of people that paints eyebrows on 15mm tall figures cannot be discouraged by an odd shaped stand. To simulate the French and most others of the Napoleonic period, the figures should be mounted in a manner similar to that of the Romans, but with three or four per stand rather than two. (See figure 13.) The 45 degree angle allows for line or field column formations as well as accurately represents road column. The Grenadiers and lights should also be mounted at a 45' angle. The British and other types could be mounted in the traditional line but can also be mounted at the same 45 degree angle for added realism. If you have doubts about this type of mounting and its improved historical accuracy, try using some old balsa wood or card board. Cut some stands and pencil in some "figures" and give it a whirl. I'll bet you'll remount your figures. That is unless you prefer the gaming to the history. To improve your historic accuracy, give the depth of the formation more weight in computing your melee casualties. (A 20 rank phalanx easily handled an 8 rank phalanx). Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. V #2 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1984 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com