XVII C. Mighty Empires Campaign Map – Part II
Hi guys,
in this post let's talk about scales, miniatures and tabletop experiments...
In the first post I introduced the campaign map inspired by Mighty Empires, adapted to the 17th century.
In this second part I want to focus on something just as important: how to represent the campaign physically on the table, and which scale actually works best once everything is laid out.
1) From file to table: printing the map on canvas
One of the most satisfying steps was printing the map on canvas, using the maximum size allowed by the plotter.
Seeing it laid out physically is very satisfaying, the quality of the print was beyond my expectations, because is larger than the original size of the game in paper.
The canvas surface works perfectly with tokens, avoids glare, and gives the whole setup an almost period-appropriate feel very fitting for the 17th century.
2) The second step was purchasing 17th-century miniatures in 2 mm, mainly tercios and pike-and-shot regiments from Irregular Miniatures.
The idea was never to use them as tactical units (although I am tempted!), but as army tokens at campaign level.
At this scale, a small block can convincingly represent an entire field army. You lose individual detail, of course, but you gain something far more important for a campaign map: clarity and a strong sense of strategic movement.
For this type of game, 2 mm works remarkably well.
the forts, towns and cities are maybe, bigger than I would like, but I think they will do the job. But of course you can use paper o card counters as in the original game.
These Irregula Miniatures models were not meant for play yet, just to see how they interact visually with the map. Do they help reading the territory? Do they get in the way? Do they add atmosphere or simply clutter the table?
So far, the answer seems clear: used sparingly, terrain adds structure and context without stealing the spotlight from the campaign tokens.
I am not sure of the size of the round bases... for big armies maybe 5mm diameter round bases ? do they hide too much terrain under them ?
The 10 mm experiment: Pendraken order:
Still undecided, I decided to push the idea further and placed a custom order with Pendraken Miniatures, this time in 10 mm.
The concept is the same , campaign tokens, but with far more recognisable formations: visible pike blocks, musket lines, and a stronger visual identity.
The key question is :
Does the visual gain justify the loss of scale and table space?
Early impressions suggest that 10 mm looks great,It becomes more “miniatures-driven”.
At one point I even considered something more extreme: using 1/72 scale plastic figures, both from the Thirty Years’ War and the Nine Years’ War.
The idea didn’t last long, but it’s worth mentioning. The result would be spectacular — but it would probably turn the campaign map into a semi-permanent diorama rather than a practical gaming tool. Still, I wouldn’t rule out a limited test at some point.
My conclusions so far are:
1) 2 mm is excellent for strategic-level campaigns
2) 10 mm is visually tempting, but needs careful balance
3) Terrain should remain minimal and functional, probably I will combine cardboard terrain tokens (forts etc) with 2mm metal and resin.
4)Printing the map on canvas was absolutely worth it
I’ll keep experimenting until I find the right balance between playability, visual appeal and historical atmosphere.
There will definitely be a Part III.
Cheers!