The issues of height compatibility and the need for a standard measurement system were first mentioned by Toby in a letter to the Editor, Hal Thinglum, of the MID-WEST WARGAMERS ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER (MWAN) which appeared in issue #43. The following study has been initiated as a direct response to the sentiments expressed by many readers of both MWAN and THE COURIER since that letter was first published. --DICK BRYANT For many years, as the growth of our hobby has increased in both playing members and manufacturers, a standard review system has been needed to compare newly released figures and equipment. Such as system is necessary in order to match additions to gamers' existing collections before sample figures or large orders are purchased. It is the purpose of this article to introduce a standard method of measurement which can be applied to figures in both height and body thickness - heft if you will - and reported in future product reviews. This standard method of measurement can be applied not only to new releases, but to older more established lines of figures as well. Its use will facilitate attempts to find compatible additions to existing wargame armies and will help prevent mismatches, decrease the level of a few overflowing sample boxes, and perhaps save a little money. All too often I have read figure reviews and new product releases which come up short in revealing important criteria which I need as a wargamer. For example, before I consider making any additions to my collection, I must know how tall the castings are by an exact measurement. It is a simple piece of information often lacking despite the best intentions of figure reviewers. One can add to this dilemma the increasing need to know how hefty the new figures are due to the wide variance in today's choices. Mismatches occur on the game table when the new figures do not blend in well with the veteran members of the collection because they are taller, shorter, too thick or too thin. The standard I formally propose to use - re-introduce to some - is the height measurement from the ground level on a figure up to the level of the eyeballs. These should be the standard measurement marks we use to describe the height of our wargame figures. It is an old and reliable method started many years ago, but one which has been sadly abused on both sides of the ocean. Its roots go well back to the attempts to standardize the size of 30mm flats during the last century. Ground level is defined as the bottom of the feet and does not include the stand thickness. The level of the eyeball is used because the top of the head is not always discernable due to the many different types of headgear used by soldiers throughout history. If this measurement of ground level to eyeballs on a certain figure is 28mm, it should be reported as such. Only by using this method and reporting an exact measurement can a wargamer determine an answer to the question regarding height compatibility with his own miniatures. Heftiness or thickness of a figure, strictly in relation to other figures, is another important factor in describing today's wide market of available castings. To my knowledge, no standard method of determining a figure's heftiness has ever been used to describe new releases. Any method adopted must be kept simple and used only to determine relative sizes of body width in order to make comparisons between different figure makers. It must not be used as a qualitative grade in any fashion. After all, some wargamers prefer a stouter figure, artistically speaking, while others like a thinner style. One effective method can be similar to that used in describing the human build; heavy, medium, or light (H, M, or L). Assigning a heftiness rating for a figure based on an "H", "M", or "P level can be very helpful, assuming "H" to be the heftiest and "L" to be thinnest. By using this letter system, a range of accommodation between two different figure lines can be determined thusly: an "H" would fit with "M" figures to an acceptable degree on the wargame table; or "M" with "L", but never "H" with "L". That difference would represent too much of a disparity between two figure lines and they would clash when mixed on the same wargame table. Once again, assigning a figure an "H" rating would not mean that it is to be considered the best quality wise - just the heftiest. Another important question that needs to be touched upon in reviews and in news releases is whether a manufacturer's equipment line will fit in with our wargame troops. Although it is not possible to use the stand standard measurement process for equipment - such as wagons or guns - that we use on figures, it is possible to report whether the item is in scale to the figures we prefer. Collectors and wargamers have tended to measure miniature figures by a unit of length, such as 21/4 inches, 54mm, 25mm, 15mm, etc. Equipment, ships, and vehicles on the other hand are more easily measured by using a scale system such as 1/72, or 1/700. This translates in the first example to a model one 72nd the size of an original full-sized version and is traditionally measured as one foot of the model representing seventy two actual feet. Some figure sizes and approximate scales for wargaming items can be compared as follows: 30mm=1/55 25mm=1/65 20mm=1/80 15mm=1/100 Using a standard, such as 25mm, to measure our wargame figures and then using a scale such as 1:72 to measure equipment may seem to some like mixing apples with oranges. In away it is, but it must be done simply because one can't use the same method to measure figures and then turn around and use it for equipment. The intent is to avoid ending up with incompatible looking equipment with our nicely painted troops. In other words, I don't want the size of apples overpowering the size of my oranges on the game table, or vice-versa. Future articles will attempt to cover the subject on equipment scale and compatibility, but for now I would like to return my focus to the measuring of figures. To offer a clear example of how the two measuring standards - height and heftiness - can be combined into a simple code to describe figures, assume two fictitious lines of wargame figures; manufacturers Y and Z both put out a line of American Civil War (ACW) figures advertised as 15mm. A reviewer measures the average height of manufacturer Y's line as 17mm from ground level to the eyeballs, He also determines that the entire line is one of the stoutest on the market and assigns an "H" for a heavy rating in regards to heftiness. A wargamer anywhere in the country reads the review and sees this rating of manufacturer Y's ACW line as "l7H". This easily translates to 17mm tall and a very heft body thickness when compared to other wargame figure lines. If he has a majority of Manufacturer Z's ACW figures in his collection and wants to check for compatability, all he has to do is to measure the height and gauge their heftiness. Or, he can consult past reviews to determine whether the particular line of figures in his collection was previously given a heftiness rating. If manufacturer Z's ACW line is determined to be 14mm tall and grade L in heftiness or "14L", then he knows the new line will be incompatible in both size and thickness. The above measurement system is about as simple as the process can be made and still be effective. Its parameters can be repeated clearly and briefly in subsequent reviews in order to explain exactly what the code means to a potential reader. This method is not intended to replace the all important picture of new releases whenever one is available. Nothing can replace the image, but we can supplement one with good clean measurements. Nor am I advocating that manufacturers change their advertising or redesign figures in order to match the proposed standards. That would be far too costly and unnecessary for our purposes here. Rather this is an attempt to identify excesses and restore some semblance of order in a most important aspect of our hobby; the miniatures. The following list of manufacturers' figures is provided for use by The Courier readers. The standard measuring system described above was used to determine their size and heftiness in order to aid gamers in matching up suitable additions to their existing collections. Notes have been included for some lines, where applicable, when a special factor involving its overall appearance on the wargame table was an important consideration beyond the guidelines of the rating system. An example of this may be that the stands of certain figures are much thicker than the norm. While not affecting the foot to eyeball height, it will give the impression of a larger figure on the table. P- Plastic, ANC -Ancients, ME D -Medieval, RE N -Renaissance, ECW- English Civil War and 30 Years War, MAR - Marlborough, 7YW -Seven Years War, ARW- American Revolution, NAP -French Revolution and Napoleonic, F&P- Franco/Prussian War, ACW- American Civil War, COL - Colonial, WWII - World War 2. Measurement column applies to foot figures. NOTES 1. One factor that has necessarily become a way of life for wargamers is when makers update a line of figures either by re-doing old figures, adding new figures to an existing line, or both, and the additions or makeovers don't quite match the style or size of the original line. There are many reasons for this difference with a change of sculptors or a simple desire to market a better figure being the most common. This notation applies to the entire range as opposed to one period. 2. Denotes only one or two, poses in the line were examined. The corresponding measurement applies only to those examined and may change when and if more samples are acquired. 3. Denotes the figures came with separate heads which need to be attached to the body. The final head position may be slightly altered in height which will result in slightly different measurements than those reported. This report, although quite extensive, is by no means complete. Several popular figure lines were unavailable at the time of its writing. It is hoped that these lines can be examined in future reports and incorporated into the system. Additionally, this study is not an attempt to review figures with an eye towards critical acceptance or rejection. However, I will try to identify and report on serious problems a figure line has in regards to metal quality, incomplete castings, mold deterioration or any other production/marketing flaws. In short, anything which affects the miniature and its appearance on the wargame table will be commented on. I would like to thank the following for contributing figures in order to initiate this study: Dick Bryant, Leo Cronin, members of the Tidewater Historical Wargamers Association and the Campaign Headquarters hobby shop in Norfolk, VA. Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. IX No. 5 Back to Courier List of Issues Back to Master Magazine List © Copyright 1990 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com