"Figure scale vs ground scale" Topic

Why don't rule writers provide their rationale for selecting specific ground scale?
For example "15mm" figures are ~1/120th (1mm = 14.3cm), but what is the scale for "2.5cm = 120 yards"? This works out to 1mm = 1.5m / 1.37 yards, or…~10 times the figure scale. That is a whooping 1/1200th!

Have I got that wrong?

Cheers
Greg

Groundscale rarely matches figure scale to allow a battle to be set out on a reasonable size table table.

You can get away with ground scale = figure scale in pre-gunpowder skirmish games (probably) but anything requiring lots of troops or decent rifle ranges needs some form of fudging.

A 6' table is only 112 yards long for 28mm figures (1/56 scale). That's not a lot of room.

The PBI rationale is that most WW2 ranges fit in to 60metre multiples. Therefore each square is 60 metres. Thus an 8 by 8 PBI table is about 1/2 km by 1/2km. more than enough for a supported company which is where PBI is pitched at. In terms of time a PBI game represents 30/40 minutes of real time.
Of course the vertical scale is 1/100th-15mm. The visual efect seems acceptable to most people as is the table population.

Martin

Reading about the Waterloo model by Siborn, the ground scale was 1/600 while the elevation scale was 1/180. The figures were 10mm so 1/178.

The ratio is therefore 3.3:1, but of course he had a lot of table space to 'play' with.

Has anyone done any analysis on the more popular rules and how the scales relate?
Obviously this affects base sizes, and there is forever discussion on these which suggests that many gamers don't understand the relationships between ground scale, figure scale and unit frontages.

What are the 'ideal' scale ratios for various figure sizes?

Cheers
Greg

Does it really matter as long as the rules (whatever they are) work?

We're still only playing with toy soldiers

Even in 6mm figure scale there is no real way the ground scale can match unless you really want to play 1:1 skirmish !

6mm = approx 2metres

Looking at WW2 and the effective range of a rifle which is roughly say 600 metres that comes out at 180 cm / 6 feet.

Looking at Napoleonics a typical british battalion in line might take up 200 metres – thats 60 cm / 2 feet.
You will not get many of them on the table !

So there has to be a significant different in ground scale simply to have a playable area. Ideally i suppose the ground scale should be a factor of figure scale + unit scale. ie if one model represents 20 men then the ground scale could be 1/20 of the figure scale….but then that depends on what frontage you assume, how many ranks there are, etc etc.

Fudging is the name of the game..and if a set of rules "looks" reasonable and works reasonable then don't worry about it !

The question is: do rules work despite the wrong ratio, or do people continuously write rules and tweak them because the ratios are wrong?

It seems that the later is true from my 3-decade experience.

seems fairly relevant to playing with toy soldiers. goes to 'quality of experience'
Greg

Stevus,
It could be the different periods need specific scale ratios.

I have no idea what "looks" right unless I do the math and find the figures are all 'cooked'.

Greg

We have played some 1:1 figure/ground scale games using 1/300th scale figures and 12"=100 yards, which was interesting as you realise quite how far modern weapons can shoot (although if fighting through countryside where the fields are only 100 yards square, theoretical ranges don't matter much).

Generally though, bases sizes correspond to the area occupied by the historical equivalent unit (section/platoon/company/batalion whatever) in line with the ground scale and appropriate numbers of figures/vehicles are plonked on top. So if e.g. a typical infantry battalion frontage and depth is 1000m and your ground scale is 1cm = 250m then your battalion bases should be 4cm x 4cm. The number of figures you put on is largely irrelevant – it culd be anything from one 28mm figure to a couple of dozen 2mm strips.

Personally I find 15mm a good compromise between looks, storage and cost and 15mm vehicles/guns work reasonably well with the popular 1"=50m scale for one base = 1 platoon games, perhaps less well for 1"=100m.

For higher level games (battalion/brigade and up) many players fail to appreciate quite how crowded WW2 battlefields were with Corps assault frontages of 6km or less not uncommon. It is important to get your bases sizes correct in relation to the ground scale as otherwise you either can't fit the troops into their historical deployment areas or they are rattling around with far too many gaps between them.

However…the LOS in Europe has not changed significantly over the past few thousand years.
The average LOS during WW2 in the East (according to Germans) was about 5-800m, but during the Cold War (early 80s?) NATO concluded that the average LOS in West Germany was some 8-1100m.
I appreciate that this is 37% increase, but the ranges of weapons skyrocketed (no pun intended) by comparison.
For infantry the weapons ranges (heavy, ATGMs and AFV cannon) went out to 3km while for armour over 4km in theory.
In reality though the LOS was same as maximum range for smooth-bore 12lbs cannon during Napoleonic period!

Greg

Some writers do give their rationale, for example Phil Barker in his various WRG rules sets uses the "pace" on the grounds that the length of a man's stride has not significantly varied during history. (Compare the ancient Roman 1,000 paces with the modern British mile.)

A Roman mile was 1000 double paces (but let's not get into that discussion again).

Most. if not all, rules have a significant difference between figure scale and game scale. This is fine, since, with the exception of some very low level sskirmish rules, figures are representational, not literal. This isn't a problem for me since I feel its more important for the battalion (or platoon, etc) to act like a battalion rather than look like a battalion.

Rich, which size/s do you game in?

I wanted to do company bases for WW2 6mm, and this is where I got hung up.

I don't think it would hurt if my companies looked like companies when they behave as companies ;-)

Cheers
Greg

I wanted to do company bases for WW2 6mm, and this is where I got hung up.

But a company wasn't a manoeuvre unit in WW2 and its frontage could vary depending on its stance – attack, assault, defence etc.

You need to go down to squads…

Figures only represent the unit type, The stand is actually the playing peice, except for skirmish games.

So now we need to define 'manoeuvre unit'.
This thread is getting unnecessarily complicated in my view.
Greg- I don't understand how you've managed to accrue 3 decades of gaming experience but you don't get the relationship between ground and figure scale.
It's a fudge- we're all aware of it. We can't 'play games', other than small scale skirmishes, any other way.
1- we'd need too many figures.
2- we'd need a much bigger table than is practical.

true scale-

I use Command Decisiion with 20mm figures. The base sizes represent the average 'area of effect' of an infantry platoon but the actual command level is battalion with the platoon stands making up companies to which players issue orders. You could use 6mm figures on the bases and get a better visual approximation of a company/platoon but there will still be a significant distortion of figure scale to ground scale. I gave up on 6mm a while ago due to lack of definition in the figures, difficulty in painting and, especially, damage to armored vehicle gun barrels.

I'm not looking at doing skirmish.
I think that although in theory the company was not the manoeuvre element, in reality from 1942 onwards on the Eastern Front that I game) it was due to shortages in all sorts of personnel, but most definitely junior officers and NCOs.
The view from the West after June 44 may be different.
I really do think that 6mm is inappropriate for skirmish despite a good friend who tried to convince me otherwise.
In any case, I have thousands of figs, so it would be a BIG skirmish ;-)

This is an offshoot of the 'Scale Abstraction' thread, which has also become bogged down in 'real world' analysis and statisics.
Greg_ I suspect your roots are much more in the study of the military as opposed to wargaming.
It's the transition from battlefield to tabletop that seems to have you perplexed.
You HAVE to compromise. Yes, it detracts from the reality- if you'll pardon the expression- but you couldn't game otherwise.

Steve.

Perhaps I should have put 'smallest manoeuvre unit'

If one is gaming WW2 and stressing about accuracy then your smallest 'unit' must be a squad.

In Greg's 'company base' where is the heavy weapons group? Does it matter where it is? If the answer is 'no' then so much for his much sought after 'accuracy', and if the answer is 'yes', then he must be aware that its position wasn't fixed. Catch 22

Greg- I don't understand how you've managed to accrue 3 decades of gaming experience but you don't get the relationship between ground and figure scale.
It's a fudge- we're all aware of it. We can't 'play games', other than small scale skirmishes, any other way.
1- we'd need too many figures.
2- we'd need a much bigger table than is practical.

Exactly. Greg is chasing a chimera :0)

kawasaki-

You seem to be saying that you have to game at the skirmish level to have an 'accurate' game. I disagree. For example, the location of a platoon's heavy weapons team is not particularly relevant to a battalion commander. All he is concerned with is the platoon cabale of combat and it's approximate location on the battlefield, Details like deployment and ammunition are the province of his subordinates. As long as the game maintains an appropriate seperation of levels of knowledge and decision making, I'd consider it 'realistic;

Yes. THe figures are only there as a visually 3D counter. Their actual size and shape is irrelevant except in rules like Warhammer 40K which use true LOS and are 1:1 figure ratio.

While we're on the topic, the ground scale of WH40K is wildly distorted from the figure scale, for the reasons of practicality that have been mentioned above.

kawasaki-

You seem to be saying that you have to game at the skirmish level to have an 'accurate' game. I disagree. For example, the location of a platoon's heavy weapons team is not particularly relevant to a battalion commander. All he is concerned with is the platoon cabale of combat and it's approximate location on the battlefield, Details like deployment and ammunition are the province of his subordinates. As long as the game maintains an appropriate seperation of levels of knowledge and decision making, I'd consider it 'realistic;

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm not after absolute accuracy in my games, and I made my feelings known in my first post on this thread

Greg however seems to be hankering after modelling ground scale accurately, and my replies were meant to illustrate that if one is gaming a WW2 company as a single base then any 'accuracy' has gone out of the window.

kawasaki-

Accuracy of the gound scale or accuracy of the game itself?

Of the ground scale. In Greg's hypothetical game

In Over There!, ground scale and model scale are identical with 25mm models (perfect with 22mm tall Eschi plastics). I do play with 28mm models though, since it is "close enough" to not be an issue.

In the past I was happy to game without asking questions as you suggest SteveJ.

However recently (last few years) I have decided that I would much rather have accuracy rather then speed. I think its a distaste for fast food that did it.Its not possible to have 1:1 ration in scales above skirmish games, but there has to be some rationale for them.

There is no problem with heavy weapons company because it is an indirect weapon firing element, so it doesn't matter where they are in the line. Most battalion heavy weapons could cover battalion frontage comfortably regardless of position most of the time.

I didn't say that I didn't understand relationship between figure scale and ground scale. I only questioned the apparent case of 1/1200 ground scale in the original question.

We can disagree on the subject of figures being "figures are only there as a visually 3D counter" KilKrazy. I think the figures should be visually representative of the unit, which is why I chose 6mm for the games I do, which is at divisional echelon of command. I like to have hundreds of figures on the table where there should be hundreds.

Has any one tried to work out the correct ratios of the scale relationships for the periods in 6mm before now?

The only other figs I have left are the FoW 20mm WW2 Russians which I will probably sell, and the plastic 24mm figs for 1/72 Vietnam which are skirmish. There I use the 2:1 ratio simply due to lack of space. However since most scenarios begin almost in contact, there is no problem.

Many gamers have a rather relaxed attitude to the question of scales, and that's fine with me as long as it doesn't impact on my gaming or collecting.

I'm assuming I haven't broken any laws in trying to find out how far off the mark some of the rules are by fudging the scale ratios? After all, if the designer can't get these right, why would I think the mechanics are something I should spend time on? The mechanics are probably there because the designer is trying to disguise the fact that the scale is predisposed towards either movement or fire or based on wrong frontages, etc.

Same goes for sculptors who can't get a figure to fit the scale, and then either fudge the base, or call their large 25s small 30s!

Cheers
Greg

I remember a WWII ruleset called "combat comander", for 20mm miniatures, with a terrain scale of 1:1000. The weapons range were in real meters, but then you discover that the range of a hand grenade (it was a skirmish game) was 20 meters, and its effect area was 10 meters, so your miniature throw a grenade nearly at his feets, and it was imposible to affect more than a miniature with a grenade.

Itīs the problem with some WWII games using 1:72 with very great terrain scales as 1:1000. You are in a cornerīs house, the enemy is in the front corner, but as the houseīs model is 20cm long, you are at 200 meters long (sorry about my english).

Thatīs because I like IABSM. With a terrain scale of roughly 1:300, you even can game company games with 1:300 miniatures where the miniatures scale match the terrain scale

Er, sorry, I wanted to say "thatīs the reason I like iabsm"

The first set of rules I ever read, Young & Lawford's Charge!, was a book, and had room to explain philosophy and what each rule was trying to accomplish. Most of the rules I've read since are more on the line of pamphlets, and haven't had the space to get into issues of philosophy. Many are supported by e-groups, to which the author belongs, so you might consider joining a group and asking what their rationale for a certain ground scale is.
Grelber

25-30 years ago I played a set of rules called "Tractics" by TSR which although complex really brought of the flavour of WWII far more than any other set I have ever come across. It is not everyone's cup of tea and generally I would hazard to say younger gamers today would run screaming from the room if they had to play them.

However, they were cutting edge for their day and very playable. The ground scale was 1:1000 or 1 mtr of table top equal to 1 kilometer. Armour penetrations were done by range and weapon efficiency to penetrate armour in millimeters.

These rules sometimes are still available on eBay and you can also find another set which came out later called, "Battalions in Crisis" which were supposed to be an upgraded or improved version which is also out of print these days but still available if you look hard enough.

Regards
Shane

On the other side of the scale is a Role-Playing set of rules designed by a company called "FASA" called, "Behind Enemy Lines". It is an awesome set of rules if you prefer to play in skirmish style as opposed to large scale and came out with encounter tables etc so you can set up quick actions etc.

I have both Tractics and BEL and equally play even today both sets with no problems about ground scales because you adjust your game style to suit the system you are playing at the time. Meaning that I can equally play Tractics or BEL with my 72/76 scale and not give the differing scales a second thought and just play the system as it is meant to be played.

Ground scale is secondary to just having fun…

Shane

A battleboard basicly represents a HQ mapboard with stands being map narkers for the unit.

A lot will depend on the size of the battlefield desired to be simulated.

A 15mm casting with a building of the same scale actually can cover over 300 yards of ground scale terrain. Same scale buildings are actually only valid in a 1:1 ratio skirmish system.

You are right concepts should be explained more but such explanations are always the first to go when it comes to editing to get the words down to save money.

Such explanations are best reserved for website dedicated to the rules set.

A deployment stand of castings actually represents the area that such a unit of that size needs to deploy into and can control/ influence by fire. It is larger than the actually size that number of men would occupy.

Does it really matter as long as the rules (whatever they are) work?

We're still only playing with toy soldiers

Yes, it matters if you are playing a historical simulation. If your original premise is to fight on the scale battlefield with the actual numbers represented, then game scale is paramount to making it "work."

In "the Art of War" (ancient/medieval rules, with more modern house rules variants), the game scale is clearly given at the outset; but the scale of figures is irrelevant. In fact, you can play the game without figures at all, just bases cut to the correct size (like a large boardgame with counters). Of course, we don't do that, because it's not nearly as fun as having "toy soldiers."

1066.us

You might as well ask the question, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

As the variety of responses indicate, there is no "right" answer; the question is virtually rhetorical.

Sorry.

If you want to do company sized bases (or any other basic sub-unit size) than you have two options:

i) pick a base size which is a compromise average for the amount of space occupied by a company, say a 500m frontage for a WW2 rifle company. The amount of space occupied by the formation (e.g. battalion) is then represented by the spacing and arrangement of the company bases – so you might be able to stretch a battalion to cover a 2000m defensive front or form it up in company waves or whatever. This is the sort of approach taken by e.g. Great Battles of WW2. The location of the individual sections etc within that company are is irrelevant.

ii) Break the company down into sub-groups e.g. platoons which can then be manouvred around to show different configurations – line, wege, all round defence or whatever. You are however then playing at a different command level.

As a general principle going two down the command structure gives the player a reasonable amount of 'stuff' to handle, so if you want company sized bases you are presmably looking at brigade/regiment sized actions. Many games go three down, which can produce some odd results. Much as I like Spearhead, the command levels are all wrong with divisional sized games, manouvre unit is the battalion, but the elements are platoons – five down!

WW2 games work fine with brigade sized formations and battalion sized manouvre units with company elements. Russian front is a bit different because of the differing terminology and org structures – you'd probably want to model the Russians with regiment sized manouvre units and battalions composed of two half battalion sized 'companies'. Or you could do different base sizes for each side with company sized bases for the Germans and battalion sized ones for the Russians.

If you pick a reasonable ground scale, say 1cm = 100m then you could do big company bases of 5cm x 5cm and stuff on loads of 6mm figures. One of my pals has tried doing 6cm x 6cm bases with 6mm figs and they look great – I'm too cheap and tend to go for around 3cm x 3cm with half a dozen figs on (the empty battlefield and all that!).

Hmmm, from reading the threads above I wonder if we are talking about a different definition of 'scale' – in fact figure ratios? ie how many figures do you put on a company base?

I've never worried about that too much apart from 1:1 fireteam type games, apart frm trying to be consistent within the same level of representation.

Perhaps True Scale might tell us what he ideally wants.

The only system that true scale works on is a 1 to 1 troop ration skirmish action system. All other troop ratios would have an exagerated ground scale. This I pointed out in reference to the terrain.

Trying to tie ground scale to figure numbers or scale is a straightjacket with no possible escape.

First, the issue of "Look" vs "game function" is necessary. You can have any number of figures you want for looks, and scale it according. As far as "game function" is concerned, it is the size of the base and ground scale that matters--period, skirmish or otherwise. Even at skirmish scale, unless you have a 1:1 match to figure size and ground scale, you never get close, which is just the nature of the medium. Even then, the base size is often way out of proportion to the ground space a standing figure would actual occupy.

It doesn't regulate how 'accurate' a game can be as a simulation anymore than the screen size for a computer regulates how accurate a flight simulator can be. EVERY game simulation medium has limitations and advantages. You enhance the advantages and live with the limitations.

And if we were simply 'playing with toy soldiers', then these discussions would never occur. Most of us are trying to do more with our games than just that.

So, true scale. Decide what you want in the way of appearance and go for it. Decide what level of experience you want from the rules, and go for it. From that you can come up with the figure scale. However, if you think there is some perfect ground to figure scale out there, you're going to be disappointed over something that has no impact on the actual game or simulation.

I've just tried to figure what a 1:1 scale game would look like.

Say we are gaming in 15mm (about 1/100th scale).
You begin to move your coy for a probe advance.
The board has to be at least about 4 meters wide (400m in 1:1) for your coy to deploy, so you push your bases with a 3' long stick.
Suddenly, you hear the sound of a dice rolling in the bathroom, 10 meters away (you're currently in the kitchen).
Your opponent yells : 'I've got two of your platoon pinned with my HMG"
The rest of the game (time scale is the same as ground scale), that is two hours, is spent by your coy leader pondering about how to advance to the garage while avoiding the deadly fire of this HMG nest in the bathroom.

War is boredom punctuated by episodes of terror.

true scale said:
"which is why I chose 6mm for the games I do,"

OK, if you're using 6mm then the corresponding ground scale (without any distortion) would be 12" to 100 yds. I've seen this done – it works. But don't expect to put more than a platoon on the table unless you are playing on a ballroom floor!

With 2mm figures both a 1:1 figure to man ratio and a 1:1 figure to ground scale are possible, and not just for skirmish gaming.

In point of fact 1:1 figure to ground scale ratio is *possible* in any scale. Real wars are fought at 1:1 figure scale 1:1 man:figure and figure scale:ground scale ratios.

The issue is one of practicality. A 1:1 figure scale:ground scale ratio requires a 1:1 man to figure ratio as well. For large battles this requires both a prohibitively large number of figures and an impractically large area to play in.

"War is boredom punctuated by episodes of terror."

Sounds like my first marriage.

Just kidding.
;-)

This has got to have been the biggest waste of my time today…

Don't hold your breath… I am sure to find a bigger one though…

Ok, here is the issue.

I have loads of Napoleonic 6mm figures by H&R.
What I want is to have games that are historically correct in outcomes, but also look good. I decided that what I would like is to try and recreate the look of the close order formations by using lots of figures as opposed to large bases with two dozen figures that I have seen used.

The issue here is that the large but empty bases are simulating the unit footprint required for change of formations, but not actually performing the change of formation.

As you will no doubt be aware, ground scale in this case becomes paramount because it relates to the time taken to change formation, and the number of figures is for aesthetic look only. So, while I accept that I can't have everything, I would at least like to know what the ratio is as the premise for the rest of the rule mechanics in any given set.
I guess its a bit like purchasing anything. I want to know hoe the rules work, so I can compensate for the designer's 'philosophy' of what the game 'should be' like.

Because I also game WW2, I realised that the issues were same and different due to the nature of the same terrain restrictions but changes in weaponry (well, kind of obvious). These are never stated from rule-set to rule-set. Certainly not in Piquet which is hard enough to get one's mind around as it is though I like the concept.

I do appreciate the advice and comments, but could do without the criticism.
The skirmish in the bathroom was funny though :-) Unless of course one remembers the combat in the town at the end of Saving private Ryan.
Of course there is always Napoleonic skirmish in 6mm :-) One may get a better range with rifles of say 200 yards, but most with muskets are limited to 120 max…but I'm digressing. I have never heard of anyone gaming Napoleonic skirmish with 6mm

Thank you again

Cheers