PAPER SOLDIERS vs NORMAL MINIATURES

I present here two images of the same unit — the Danish Fynske Regiment at the Battle of Lund (4 December 1676) — shown in two different versions.
In the upper image, the regiment is represented as a single battalion, while the lower image shows the same battalion depicted using paper soldiers.

The first image is taken from the Black Powder Games website.

The unit shown in the upper image consists of 12 musketeers, 4 pikemen (one of whom is an officer), 2 colour bearers, 1 NCO, and 1 drummer, for a total of 20 figures, representing approximately 320 real soldiers. This corresponds to a ratio of 1 figure = 16 men, which is already a very reasonable proportion.

Nevertheless, I believe that this representation still lacks realism. It is, for example, impossible to reproduce the two guns positioned on the flanks of the unit, which were extremely important in battles of that period. Moreover, the colours alone represent 10% of the total manpower, which is clearly disproportionate.
There is no doubt that each individual figure is beautifully painted and represents a true masterpiece of miniature art. The real question, however, is whether the player prefers to use a stand with a limited number of figures to symbolically represent a unit—leaving its real composition to be resolved by dice—or instead prefers a more faithful and realistic representation of a single battalion, even if the individual figures are less refined.

It is also worth noting that paper soldiers, when deployed together, have a strong visual impact and can closely reproduce the appearance of an army as it would have looked on the battlefield.

The main drawback is that a very large battlefield is required to display all the units properly. That said, the Battle of Lund (1676) offers a fantastic opportunity to recreate a battle at a 1:1 scale, considering that units were typically deployed in six ranks and that the overall numbers involved were relatively limited.

By contrast, it would be impossible to recreate the Battle of Borodino, for example, both because it would require more than 200,000 paper figures and because the space needed would be enormous. In such cases, a reduced scale representation would clearly be more appropriate.

In the images above, my intention is simply to compare the visual impact of a battalion from the same historical period, not to criticise one representation over the other, but to allow for a free and informed choice.

The most evident difference lies in the number of figures. On the left, there are 317 paper soldiers; on the right, only 18 metal figures. From a purely visual standpoint, the metal figures are undoubtedly more charming when observed individually: the uniforms are highly detailed and beautifully painted. However, when viewed as a whole, the overall impression is rather weak. More than a battalion, it looks like a small group of friends gathered for a day out, rather than a formed military unit.

On the left (and here I openly admit my preference for paper soldiers), the large number of figures allows the player to represent the internal structure and details of a real battalion: fifers, regimental guns, grenadiers, sappers, pikemen, and NCOs are all present. This provides a much more convincing impression of what a unit truly looked like in those glory days, and conveys a far more realistic sense of mass, order, and battlefield presence.

These photos perfectly illustrate the difference between a battle represented with traditional miniatures and one represented with paper soldiers.

It reflects a truly conceptual difference in wargaming philosophy.

With traditional miniatures, each stand essentially represents an abstract idea of troops, regardless of the actual number of soldiers. In contrast, with paper soldiers, the real composition of a unit becomes the most important factor, allowing battles to be resolved as accurately as they would have occurred in reality.