Friday, September 4, 2015

On Aerial Basing

As you can probably tell from these pictures

I am not particularly fond of flight stands. Being rather clumsy, I have a tendency to knock them over. Furthermore, I never particularly liked the appearance. Many pictures I’ve seen on the internet look like the planes have crashed into a bunch of trees. Clear poles can alleviate the look issue, but I still knock them over.

I also think that there are many cases where it is not necessary to elevate the vessels above the mat. For example, I think  that flight stands are particularly silly for space games. The game mat is usually black, representing space. One doesn’t need to have spaceships hovering above space. That’s why I mounted by spaceships directly onto the base. 

As you can see, I did a similar thing for my WW2 fighters. The rationale is that I was planning dogfights high up in the atmosphere. Ground forces were not going to appear so I didn’t need to raise the planes above the surface of the game mat. Instead, I made the bases look like sky with wisps of clouds. The intention was to make the planes appear like they are flying. I’m not particularly happy about how they look on a green mat, though, and am thinking about other basing options. For now, though, I will still eschew flight stands.


  1. I use flight stands for my WW1 aircraft, but then I do sometimes have them interacting with ground features. And it wouldn't look right to me otherwise. My spaceships are on very low stands - i tried them without and it really didn't feel right at all.

  2. Makes sense if there are ground features. I may experiment with very low stands for my 1/1200 planes when they come in.