Why game in smaller scales?

I suppose a sub title for this post could be are you a modeler first or a gamer first, because that seems to drive the decision as to the size of figures players use.  All of us are wargamers but for the modelers the painting and detail of the resulting figures is a vital ingredient of the hobby.  There is a drive to have groups of beautiful individual figures even if that is at the cost of having 12 men represent a battalion of troops.  For the gamer wing it is the tactical problems and the attempt to create the same decision points that faced historical commanders which is the key.  Both ends of the spectrum want to get toys on the table and roll the dice but the visual aspect of the game is (warning bad pun approaching) viewed differently by both groups.

But there are other issues of course.  Not everyone has the space (or the finances) to deploy a couple of thousand 28mm masterpieces on a huge table.  Of course there are ways around this.  One solution, skirmish gaming has been around since at least the early 1970's.  One of my favourite sets of rules were (and still are) the Bristol Wargamer's Western Gunfight rules which I used to play with 54mm or 28mm figures.  Games such as Dungeons and Dragons or Traveller  werre also played using a limited number of figures.  More recently we have resurgence of games like Saga that allow a smaller number of figures to be used.  The question is are these symptoms or solutions to the cost and space issue.

By now you should be pretty clear that I prefer to fight historical battles (you have been reading the other posts right?) with an option to deploy large formations on the tabletop and to have space to maneuver.  The only way I can do that is to go for smaller figures so that I don't need a playing space the size of Rutland.

Not the size of Rutland when you use 2mm figures

Smaller scales do not have to be less impressive visually than the larger ones.  6mm amd 10mm can be very detailed figures.  Of course the perceived wisdom is that its the look of the unit in these scales not the individual figures which gives the impact.  While I don't disagree that large bodies of troops are impressive that doesn't mean that the individual figures have to be a bit slapdash.

6mm Baccus Anglo-Saxons

I really need to dullcote these

Lets look at the photos above.  The group of Anglo-Saxons looks impressive en mass and at the same time the individual figures, while not being miniature masterworks in the way some 28mm figures are, are still detailed and clearly each differ  one to another.  Yet when I recently timed how long it took to paint them the average (using a batch painting technique) was less than 10 minutes each.

Now I'm the first to admit that I'm not the greatest painter in the world but these are a good tabletop standard that doesn't shame my brushmanship.  I certainly wouldn't be able to paint a 28mm to the same standard in the same time.  For me I can get a 6mm army on the table faster than a 28mm equivalent force.  It needs less space to play and to store, and costs less to purchase the lead.  Mind you, my megalomania off sets the latter point by making me buy more figures but I do get bigger units per pound ( be that in cash or in weight).  For me at least small scale wins on all fronts and I have disposed of my 25mm and larger figures to allow me to concentrate on 6mm and smaller.