"Figure scale vs ground scale" Topic

To be honest I think most game designers work in reverse. They start with a typical battle they want their rules to game, and back into the ground scale based on average table sizes.

I have an ACW rule set where I wanted to game smaller engagements of perhaps 1000 per side. Things like the battles out west, Ball's Bluff maybe. But you run into a scale issue. You can either go at 1"=50 yards or so and accept that your "army" is a handful of stands, or else you go with 1"=25 yards and accept that you'll never get the battle you want on a table.

But to be honest after reading this thread I'm still not clear on what your question is. I think its "why don't rule designers include in their rules the explanation and philosophy behind why they chose the various scales they did – for figures, stands, ground scale, figure ratio etc."

See, just make some figures that are to scale, and all this nasty conversion stuff goes out the window. Aha! Wink, wink..

Yeah I just had to chime in on this one. But c'mon now, what is cooler than looking down on masses and masses of tiny little figures that are in realistically scaled formations? That's what makes me tick, when envisioning my 'perfect' gaming table, atleast… one day, one day..

I'm not forcing anything down anyone's throat, but…
Case in point is the local annual competition I attended today.
It was dominated in no uncertain way by two gaming systems, Warhammer 40K and Flames of War.
Looking at both, I KNEW that what the gamers REALLY wanted was to game skirmish games. That is the reason they use 15/20mm and 28mm figures. However no one in their right mind, IF they know anything about unit tactics, would pile on the troops the way it is done in the game rules.
So what's the REAL point? The real point is that both sets of rules are essentially about selling figures. To this end the ground scale has been thrown out the window to force the gamer to field wall to wall 28mm space marines, or to have Wehrmacht infantry advance in close order on the Eastern Front, because THAT is what it looks like.
Of course its just games and toys, BUT, somewhere in there , there is a warning – "HISTORICAL AND MILITARY KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED".
Consider this fact: since the invention of the bow the density of the troops on the battlefield has been decreasing exponentially, and increasingly so since the late 19th century. WW1 is an epitaph to those who failed to realise this historical fact.
I am going to go so far as to predict that this trend is likely to continue. What a battalion does today will be done by a company a century later, and a squad in two centuries. BUT, same job was done by a regiment a century ago, and a brigade (if not more) c.1807.
So this is the issue. I want to play historical games that look and FEEL good when I THINK about them.
Currently when I think about it, I get weird ground to figure scale ratio that in no way helps me to understand what would have happened in the real battle.
Now the sad thing about the comp I attended today is that 20 years ago there would have been 3-4 scales represented in half dozen periods at least (maybe I missed them all on the first two days?), and a few weird demonstration games like the Boxer rebellion. Today there were really only two, and hopelessly NOT representative of the period. The odd one out was an American Civil War game with excellently painted figures that actually seemed to occupy the stretch of frontage they would be expected in the 15m scale (a few brigades).
In both cases the rules are used to sell figures, and so the hobby is hopelessly commercialized in a very small (comparatively) wargaming community.
BTW, most Napoleonic rules have hopelessly wrong bases sizes. An 18th century close order unit *footprint* was defined by the road column (a line in depth) and the line, which are much larger then the bases usually used, when figure scale is considered. Aside from the high ground to figure scale ratio, there is also inconsistency in the formation footprint vs base size. Just look at the maps of the period that show units in 1:1 scale ratios. There are large amounts of space between units to allow formation changes. However most rules do not require the gamer to understand the formation change drills and their impact on tactics, so they remain oblivious of the true nature of the difficulties of tactical command in the period. Siborn must have considered all this before selecting the 3.3:1 ground to figure scale ratio, and 2:1 figure ratio. One can increase the figure ratio to 20:1 in 10mm (and less in 6mm), but any higher figure to ground scale ratio (say 10:1 as in 15mm) completely destroys the visual appreciation of the game IMHO.
Example, Age of Eagles: 15mm 3 rank infantry ¾ (front) by 1" (depth) with 4 figures to a stand 20mm x 25mm = 4 figures = 360 individuals. The average battalion would be two such bases. The CONSTANT footprint of the unit would be about 240 yards or 218m. A unit in line in AoE would be 40mm base width, BUT in 1/120 scale (15mm figs) should be about 18cm
long, and so the base size would be 18cm x 18cm in 1:1 ratio. GRANTED it would be impractical to game with units such as these (maybe!), but at least one would get some idea of the LOOK of the battle when a unit in column would occupy only a third of the width, and no other unit could be inserted into the space!
This is why the French preferred denser, larger columns as the wars went on. There were fewer officers and men who could be trusted to execute the required drill formation change should it prove necessary, culminating with massive columns at Waterloo. Can this be understood from gaming Age of Eagles if the wargamer is never forced to face this historical issue?

And here I am dumbfounded because the average game of FoW or WH40K used less then 100 figures per side and maybe 12 vehicles. Even if this was a club game the sides could not exceed doubling this on standard club tables, so the manufacturers can not possibly sell more then say 250 infantry figures to any one gamer to cater for every option in any one army, and in the case of WW2 there were only 5 major armies.
In the case of other historical periods 250 figures would maybe allow for 7 battalion units at 1:20 figure ratio in periods where at least a dozen infantry units is a must. So by supporting rule systems, and periods (whatever period WH40K falls into) they are actually cutting their own sales substantially!
Ancients are also beyond my understanding with DBA rules that "allow entire armies to be represented by less than 50 figures".
In DBM each figure is 60 individuals, but it is meant to portray large battles. However the ground scale is 1/1850 while the figure scale is 1/60 even for the 28mm figs, a ratio (that is, the distortion of my perception) of ~30:1.
Do DBM rules say in the introduction "Everything you will see on the tabletop is actually 30 times smaller"? In reality the rules are written for 1mm figures, i.e. boardgames!

Dave Cromwell wrote
>>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.

This is true, however there are obviously practical problems of basing and moving the figures, especially if you make the bases small enough to let units form square in four ranks, split off the light company to skirmish, and so on.

True Scale wrote
>>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.

Roughly speaking that is the 6mm based on 25mm approach demonstrated by Baccus 6mm on their website (currently being reconstructed.)

>>And here I am dumbfounded because the average game of FoW or WH40K used less then 100 figures per side and maybe 12 vehicles.

Warhammer 40K is essentially a skirmish game pretending to be a larger battle game. The figures are 1:1 but the ground scale is extremely distorted. However it's very popular. I think you were just unlucky not to see more variety of games. If you go to one of the larger shows such as Saolute or Colours, you will see a very good variety of games being played.

it must be a conspiracy or at least a cover up…

for gods sake man lighten up and just play the freakin game, stop whining.

"If you go to one of the larger shows such as Salute or Colours, you will see a very good variety of games being played."

Not so easy – true scale is in Australia!

true scale, we are trying to help you, but from your responses so far I suspect that you have a problem coping with the fudges that the rest of us take for granted. That is not a criticism, just an observation. You are perfectly entitled to your own view.

Persoanlly, I have no problem at all visualising the 50 odd figures in a DBA army as being in reality several thousands or 12 figures in a 15mm battalion represening 600 men. I can see that you find this sort of thing difficult. I can only offer two (maybe three?) courses of action.

1. Stick to skirmish games where 1 figure is 1 man and ground scales are close to figure scales (mostly)

2. Choose a game you like, but instead of using 15mm or 25mm figs, cram as many small (6mm or less) figures on the bases. This will give you the "mass look" you seem to be striving for. If you have the room, then think about reducing the ground scale, so that each base represents fewer men, thus bringing the figure scale closer to 1:1. Be aware though that even Siborne with his great model of Waterloo (now preserved in the National Army Museum, London) only achieved a figure representation of 1 figure = 2 men. And his "table" is ~ 400 square feet!

3. (I said this was a maybe!) Give up and play board games.

Thanks for the advice

OK, I understand.

For the Horse & Musket/Ancients type thing were you want to show the intervals then really you are stuck with big bases and figures scattered across. Rules which go down to the level of showing why you need to leave gaps between battalions are far too detailed to play e.g. Borodino. An alternative to big bases is to use a grid and arrange the bases within the grid – this works very well in e.g. Strategos or Minislacht as you can arrange the figures into maniples or skirmish/supports/reserves etc.

For WW2, as I mentioned earlier, you need to think about the command level of the game you are playing and pick appropriate bases sizes or grid sizes to represent the space occupied by their historical counterparts. This will necessarily be a compromise e.g. I use a 6km grid for corps/army level actions in NWE but a 10km one for the desert/steppe – this can accomodate up to a division plus some corps level support.

The problem of the figure/vehicle scale being out of whack with the ground scale is insoluble unless you only play 1:1 type stuff. For WW2 the 12"=100 yards and 6mm figs works fine, and I've happily played reinforced company sized actions on a 6x4 table (representing 600 yards by 400 yards), in fairly dense terrain naturally. Failing eyesight means I use 15mm figs instead now, but same ground scale – the ranges are sufficently long that it doesn't look too daft. For very high level games (where typically I might have 1"=3km) it is impossible to keep the figure and ground scale in step and the choice is either just to play on maps or accept that the figures are just a representation and lok somewhat prettier than counter with NATO symbols on them.

I am less interested in why other rules designers choose the scales that they do, although I do like it properly stated that 1" = 100m , one bases = one platoon or whatever.

FOW has an extreme logarithmic ground scale, which done right can work very well (as in Skirmish 90), but it can just look wierd.

First Nota Bene My surname has no "M" in it. This is a pet peave of mine.

Second, True Scale: Are there any miniatures rules out there that you actually like? I am not being sarcastic, but asking a serious question. We can help you better if we know what you like.

As far as period dill I play a fair bit of AWI and Larry Brom's Disperse Ye Damned Rebels Does an excellent job of forcing period tactical evolutions on the tablrtop commander. Substituting 6mm (or 2mm) figures allows very close to a 1:1 figure ratio and a 1:1 figure to ground scale ratio.

In general I have no problem accepting that with the exception of a few skirmish level games the figures in miniature wargames are completely irrelevant. If you don't believe this try most any rules you like with empty bases instead of figures. My bet is the mechanics will work just fine. The only exceptions are games where "cover", LoS etc are determined by the actual figures, not the bases. Most of these that I have encountered are Games Workshop games.

Any rule set that defines ranges, LoS, movement etc by references to points on the base rather than the figure does not require figures to play, and is in fact a board game.

Likewise any game that uses element or group basing has lost realism. Men do not move about the battlefield in blocks of unvarrying relative position to one another. Casualties should always result in te removal of the specific man hit, regardless of where in the formation he is. Dress the ranks on the next bound. And of course leave a casualty figure in his place. Yes, your table will soon become crowded with casualty figures, each of whom will need to be tracked for current effectiveness, but that is the way war is.

Morale checks need of course to be taken by the individual figure, then rechecked based on the morale of surrounding figures.

A system needs to be devised to insure that the player has vastly reduced control over his figures than most wargames rules allow. Provision needs to be made for troops and subcommanders who are either cowardly or impetuous and so disobey the General's (ie Player's)orders.

Ammunition, supply, rations, etc need to be accounted for.

Take away one abstraction and the whole ball of yarn unravels.

ALL wargames rules are abstractions. the first question is do you want to play a game or to work a simulation?

Many designers now (and in the past) include designer's notes or some comment somewhere as to why they designed the game the way they did.

Warmaster Ancients is explicitly and intentionally designed with no set figure or ground scale. It makes no appologies for being a game, and designed as such.

DBA is intended to be "the simplest possible set of wargames rules that retain the feel and generalship requirements of ancient or medieval battle."

MArtin wrote:

you need to think about the command level of the game you are playing and pick appropriate bases sizes or grid sizes to represent the space occupied by their historical counterparts.

Bingo. My preference is for rules that use the military axiom of worrying about the disposition of your troops two levels down. Thus, if you have a game that claims to represent company level decision making, then, as a company commander, you are worried about platoons and squads, but not about where individual soldiers are. If you want a game that deals with decision making at the div level, and your individual stands represent platoons, then I tend to furrow my brow immediately.

true scale-

I couldn't come up wioth an on-line veraion of Command Decsion's designer notes, but since this 'quest' started with Napoleonics, perhaps you might be interested in perusing this:

link

It's the designers notes for Volley and Bayonet and it covers exactly how the ground scale was determined.

When we did Fire! Ogon! Freur! back in 1984 for WW2 tank battles, we provided 3 options ground scales to use at a 1:1 tank ratio, even though a stand represented and infantry fireteam.

These would allow the players to use the scale based on the playing area that they had. 1" =100 yards, 1" = 50 yards (the most common used) and 1':25 yards which was the closest to actual scale size for 1/300 vehicles. With 10mm growth we added a 1"= 10 yards in the revision.

Good article. Of course Frank Chadwick also did Command Decision, and Striker, and the Space 1889 Soldier's Companion. He has a long history in writing miniatures rules.

Also a long time designer of boardgame rules isn't he?

Anyway- I've come to the conclusion that 'True Scale' is taking the basically.
This is a rather long-winded red herring- he's probably a dedicated FOW player who's seeking revenge for all the threads on TMP that regularly beat up his favourite rules set.

Am I in the right area Greg?

Steve.

True Scale Wrote:

"Example, Age of Eagles: 15mm 3 rank infantry ¾ (front) by 1" (depth) with 4 figures to a stand 20mm x 25mm = 4 figures = 360 individuals. The average battalion would be two such bases. The CONSTANT footprint of the unit would be about 240 yards or 218m. A unit in line in AoE would be 40mm base width, BUT in 1/120 scale (15mm figs) should be about 18cm"

True Scale,

The constant footprint of a unit did not exist. Columns in reserve may well have lined up without full deployment intervals between them. Rules such as Age of Eagles attempt to represent the brigade, not the battalion footprint, and the intervals are assumed to present and do not need specific representation.

720 men in a 3 rank line would occupy about 160 yards.
In Age of Eagles the 2 stands that represent these 720 men occupy 1.5" frontage, or 180 yards using their ground scale of 120 yards to 1". That is not a bad approximation of unit frontage at all.

If you wanted to show these 720 men at 1:1 scale in line they would take up 1.33 yards or 48" on the wargames table. You would also have to cram each of your figures into a frontage of less than 1/4" to match historical deployment. My wargames table would probably hold one brigade of troops and musketry fire would cover the entire table at this scale.

The ground scale in AoE, and most other rules, is set to allow the player to fight battles at the level of command intended on a reasonably sized table, and has little to do with what looks correct. What is usually correct, however, is that the troops occupy the correct frontage in the chosen ground scale.

Also a long time designer of boardgame rules isn't he?

Anyway- I've come to the conclusion that 'True Scale' is taking the Bleeped text basically.
This is a rather long-winded red herring- he's probably a dedicated FOW player who's seeking revenge for all the threads on TMP that regularly beat up his favourite rules set.

Am I in the right area Greg?

Steve.

You're right! I blame FoW!

Unless I'm missing something, Greg/True Scale isn't deserving of the sort of thinly disguised derision being served up in gallon sized buckets by stevej? Of course, there could be a point of contention from another topic(s), but it just goes to show it's better to keep hot issues in the topics in which they are raised?

IMO, I am a little confused as to what Greg's getting at, but I think the majority of great responses here have given some food for thought.

As I said, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

Bottom line: there is no relationship between figure size (or scale) and the ground scales we actually use. Something is always sacrificed in order to achieve what some individual interprets as reality.

Go on, enjoy the game.

It all boils down to a very simple point…

Most rules are set up to play within the area the writer finds convenient… so, groundscale depends on his/her playspace and what they think looks good, figure wise, on the bases that make up the units that fit within the space in which they want to play…

Other than the fanatics that want to over think everything, what does it matter… if it works?

If you like the pageantry (how the board looks) of the rule set, and the space it plays in is convenient, …people purchase the rules and play the game, if not, only a few dedicated gamers who are friends or relatives of the designer play the game and put on convention games to try to sell the product…

So, why Greg has to over analyze every point is his own problem, …which probably means he will have to produce his own rules to satisfy his view of gaming (or perhaps it should be called historical reenactments) which he will have to run at conventions to justify the cost of printing, etc., etc… And which may, in point of fact, be very nice rules (great even), since most rule writers are very focused individuals.

There is no set of rules available that can make every gamer happy, even if the company that produces the rules makes a complete support system with figures, shops, campaigns, and everything the gamer can want… i.e. Games Workshop, some gamers aren't going to be happy.

So, lets take this discussion in a completely different direction…

RULES THAT ONLY USE A SIX SIDED DIE, or combinations of two or more six sided dice aren't worth the paper they are printed on… Agree? Disagree?

Stir, …stir, …stir? I/S

D4, D6, D8, D10, D12 (unless you buy the D3, D5, D7, D14, D16 dice available too) and alternating movement is the holy grail of war games! <wink>

He has a point but it is not relevant (obviously) to many here. Horses for courses…

YMMV.

Gracias,

Glenn

It's waaaay simpler than that. If you work with a club or group, they have their standard basing. It's usually based on a ground scale.

I work in 20mm, and I'm always trying to "expand the field," like most people, I suppose.

Napoleonically speaking, I put three French (or other three-rank units) figures together, see how close I can cram them, and then that's the company frontage and thus – a ground scale. With 20mm (1/72), the best I can do is 1" = 25yds. Two-rank units are more spread out, so they will always fit.

Ok, so some of you have helped, some heaped derision, and some have simply advised to ignore the whole thing.

As it happens I am not rule-biased. Currently I am experimenting with Piquet, but I have maybe two dozen sets of rules on the shelf.

All I asked is "Why don't rule writers provide their rationale for selecting specific ground scale?" Some rules don't even state the various scales that have intimate relationship with ground scale.

I have a right, as a product purchaser, to know what the basic premises any particular set was based on, are. Or so I think.

I also have a right to have games that look right for the period. However if I don't have the basic information, its hard for me to rewrite the rules because I might as well write my own rules as suggested.

This is because scales are the foundations the rule mechanics and factoring are based on.

Maybe Piquet is the last set of rules I have bought. Why pay money for "cat in the bag"?

Do my own thing and disregard popular opinion based on whimsy

The main issue with figures versus ground scale for me is not the frontage, it's the depth: it's always way off.

A Napoleonic infantryman's frontage was about two feet, as was the space between ranks. So, allowing for the depth of the men also, 800 men in three ranks would be 530 feet wide and 8 feet deep. Allowing for gaps between companies, maybe they'd be 600 feet wide. That is, the line's depth is about 1% of its width.

No figures other than flats can possibly be fitted into bases proportioned thus. A 25mm figure is about 12mm wide by 15mm deep in "footprint" by the time you allow space for sticking-out elbows, the musket held in front of him, and the like. A 24-figure unit in 3 ranks would thus be eight figures wide by three deep, or about 10cm by 5cm. It is thus 50 times deeper than it should be, and consequently looks nothing like a battalion in line.

You either tolerate this inaccuracy or you just tolerate a different one. My figures are all deemed to be in 3 ranks, so in line, a 24-figure battalion would be 29cm wide by 15mm deep. It's now only 5 times too deep, but it no longer looks like a plausible line either, because it's only one rank of figures.

Solutions which define a certain base size are tacitly ignoring the fact that the unit's depth is grossly overstated thereby. I cannot see why any rules would do this unless it is to minimise gamesmanship.

I started with Quarrie rules, which say that each figure should have a frontage of 8mm. This is impossible in 25mm, so mine are based on 12mm bases. This created a problem when playing two-deep lines against three-deep because the three deep line should be shorter overall for the same number of figures and should be able to wheel faster. We addressed this by adding 50% to movement speeds when changing frontage.

Height was never really an issue. I also did WW2 and some of the more satisfying games were played to skirmish rules, where the ground scale was the figure scale, i.e. 1cm = 1 metre. This removed at a stroke all the anomalies of playing with 1/76 vehicles to a ground scale of 1mm = 1 metre.

ISTR a very arcane set of rules developed I think by Bish Iwaszko which used a logarithmic ground scale – 1cm = 1 yard, but 100cm = 1,000 yards – specifically to get around the problem of overscale miniatures.

@ true scale

Example, Age of Eagles: 15mm 3 rank infantry ¾ (front) by 1" (depth) with 4 figures to a stand 20mm x 25mm = 4 figures = 360 individuals. The average battalion would be two such bases. The CONSTANT footprint of the unit would be about 240 yards or 218m. A unit in line in AoE would be 40mm base width, BUT in 1/120 scale (15mm figs) should be about 18cm long, and so the base size would be 18cm x 18cm in 1:1 ratio.

This is an example of what I meant in my post above. Aside from squares, no French battalion would ever, in any formation, be as deep as it is wide. So the rationale for these base sizes is simply to accommodate the physical bulk of the figures, given what the rules writers have decided makes a reasonable combat element.

If you corrected the ground scale to make it that of the figures, as you've outlined, wouldn't it be more logical to correct the standard depth too, rather than persist with it? If your half-battalion of French now occupy 18cm of frontage, then you could make the standard base depth 30mm, and put three ranks of 15mm figures on there.

well said 4th Cuirassier.

I think True Scale has asked a legitimate question.

I would like to see designer's notes, basing, and basic assumptions of ground scale, troop scale (ie what does a base represent) etc made more readily available before I shell out for the rules.

Where I live I have to buy all my gaming stuff mail orde, so flipping through the rules at the shop is not an option.

My take on figure:ground scale is obviously different to True Scale's, but that does not mean he is wrong.

4th Cuirassier

I will assume (I know I shouldn't but…) that you are using a 20:1 man to figure ratio. If so than your example is all wrong. Each figure is a rectangle (from your sizes deeper than wide) and therefore does not represent a single rank of 20 men but maybe a block of 5 men in 4 ranks. this would make your 24 figure block (8 x 3) really 40 men (files) by 12 ranks!! and even your single rank example would still be 4 ranks deep.

Ken

Ken

The basis is 33:1 but your point is the same as mine, put differently. Given that the ground and figure scales cannot be reconciled, then either the one or the other must be right, but both cannot be.

If you start by assuming that it's the figure which is correct, then the rectangle of scale space it occupies must, by definition, reflect the space occupied by the men it represents. So on 20:1, it must represent 20 men lined up 4 wide and 5 deep. Your miniatures are now correct in terms of the space they take up on the table top, but are incorrect in terms of formational accuracy, because nobody lined up 5 ranks deep.

Alternatively, you can assume that it's the ground scale that is correct, and the figures that are oversized. If you do this, the figure's frontage can be represented accurately but not its depth.

I have opted for the latter, and as a result I have reasonably thin-looking lines, but they're all one figure deep. Having seen similar size battalions in three ranks, I prefer this; three ranks of eight blokes firing looks to me like a platoon, not a battalion. It's just personal preference.

You could deem that one figure is 3 ranks deep and that its depth implies the ground scale. In that case, it would also have to be 3 ranks wide too, figure bases being roughly square. So one figure = 9 men in three files three of three ranks. Thus a battalion would be anything between 55 and 100+ figures.

If we are talking 25mm figures, then they are about 12mm wide. That 12mm frontage represents 3 x 22" of frontage – call it two yards. So 6mm = one yard, or one inch = 4 yards.

You then have a unit which occupies the correct space. Unfortunately an 800-man battalion would consist of 90 figures in a line one figure deep, and hence roughly 1080mm long by 12mm deep. It still looks a bit odd because it's one rank of figures, and the implied ground scale means an average 5 foot by 8 foot table would be 250 by 400 yards. Not many battlefields that small in our period.

Over the years I have toyed with various ideas of getting figure scale and ground scale as close as possible.

One idea that nearly got off the ground was 1/300th early WWII with 1/300 ground scale. Any set of 1-1 rules could be modified to work with a 'correct' ground scale. FoW for example could be played that way.

If I ever find a set of Napoleonics rules I like I may well go for 15mm bases with 2mm figures. That should look pretty good IMO. The trouble is that the individual figures are rather lacking in detail but you can't win them all.

Another idea I really like is to look at using 6mm figures massed on 25mm bases. This way you get a really good mass effect and for something like Ancients then a base of Roman legionaries would switch from 4 large figures in one rank to something like 64 or more 6mm figures in 4 ranks.

The real problem with all of these ideas is that unless I put both sides together I am unlikely to find an opponent while with 15mm FoW and 15mm Ancients opponents are easy to find.

Then as the AOE designer, I will provide a legitimate question. The basing size in AOE was a decision based on many factors to include the look (I like two ranks for infantry), similarity with other systems (translation – Nappy's Battles) and the depth necessary to hold the models.

The frontage is very simple. One stand of infantry = 360 men in three ranks, or a width of 120 men. At a regulation frontage of 27 in per man, the frontage is 90 yards. Given the scale of the game is 1 in = 120 yards, the frontage of a stand should be no more than 3/4 inch.

Remember this represents a piece of turf, not a formation as the infantry on this stand might well be in some sort of column that is much narrower than 90 yards. However, the rest of the frontage is taken to be the normal interval between battalions such they could shake out into line if necessary.

Oddly enough, and admitting up front the difference in what units AOE represents, the physical appearance of an AOE game looks very close to what is portrayed in those 19th century eyewitness battlefield paintings (Wagram by Adam, for example) you often come across.

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Actually providing a legitimate answer to the question, heh (Lord I wish we had an edit button :).

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

4th Cuirrassier wrote "Solutions which define a certain base size are tacitly ignoring the fact that the unit's depth is grossly overstated thereby. I cannot see why any rules would do this unless it is to minimise gamesmanship."

The Polemos rules do not ignore the fact that a unit's base depth is grossly overstated. Base size in Polemos represents the area under tactical control by the unit, not the physical footprint of the unit. One of the interesting effects of this is that most musket fire is resolved when bases are in contact. Battlefield usage of musketry was at shorter range than theretical maximum projectile range. realizing this the games were designed to reflect the fact that "effective range" at the ground scale in use would be base contact range. Thus the excess depth of bases is accounted for in the rules mechanics.

Other rules are quite open in admitting that base depths are simply "as needed to fit the figures". Nothing tacit about that.

"The Polemos rules do not ignore the fact that a unit's base depth is grossly overstated. Base size in Polemos represents the area under tactical control by the unit, not the physical footprint of the unit. One of the interesting effects of this is that most musket fire is resolved when bases are in contact."

The design notes for DBA and DBM say much the same. There are lots of troops that should be able to have an effect at range like horse archers and javelinmen but have to be in base to base to fight. It is clearly defined in the intro to the rules.

@ Dave: Base size in Polemos represents the area under tactical control by the unit, not the physical footprint of the unit.

I'm not sure I recognise the concept of "area under tactical control" in the literature. It sounds like a carryover from the board games' concept of "zones of control", and conveniently rationalises overscale depth as being something else. What was the area under the tactical control of Mercer's battery at Waterloo, for example? Enemy cavalry actually rode right through his line to escape. Not a lot of controlling going on there.

@ Bill: Given the scale of the game is 1 in = 120 yards, the frontage of a stand should be no more than 3/4 inch.

And the depth should be no more than 1/40th of that since the line is 120 men wide and 3 deep. But it doesn't fit, so you either deem a depth for consistency and tidiness of appearance or you deem the depth to be nil and measure always to the front of the unit.

Polemos Marechel de L'Empire using 60mm x 60mm basing with 2mm figures makes for a very pleasing brigade base with over 400 men representing about 2000 for a ratio of 5:1 (meaningless with Polemos as they are unit not figure based)
groundscale is 60mm = 300m(or yards – about equal) or 1:5000, and the figure scale for 2mm is about 1:900. This is close to 5:1 and is a good match for the figure ratio.
Maybe Greg should think of going to 2mm instead of 25mm.

Ken
2mm all the way!

>>I'm not sure I recognise the concept of "area under tactical control" in the literature. It sounds like a carryover from the board games' concept of "zones of control"…
…

ZOC makes sense with modern weapons but not for Napoleonic.

In Polemos MdE, though, the base is 60mm (300 yards) square and contains 2,000 to 3,000 infantry who would be formed into several battalions within that area. Allowing room for formation changes, and with the assumption that all musketry is done in base to base contact, it is not a bad approximation of a tactical ZOC for a Napoleonic brigade.

@ 4th Cuirassier,

Absolutely correct. I suppose you could reason the depth of a stand represents doctrinal intervals between echelons following, but that depended so greatly on situation it becomes a moot point in my book.

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

I think if I were going for brigade-level rules a la Age of Eagles, I would go for 2mm or 6mm figures. If an infantry stand is 3/4 wide then you could fit I suppose 2 rows and 2 files of 15mm figures into it, hence 8 to a battalion. For me that would be just a bit too small to look plausibly like a battalion, but 36 x 6mm in three ranks on two bases would look good.

What this discussion highlights is how relatively challenging Napoleonics are to simulate. The tactics and scale of the battles means that any simulation has to be abstract. As a WW2 gamer I had it a lot easier. 1/300 for large battles and in 1/76 the ground and figure scales could be taken as the same. We then quite logically came up with the 10-second move, during which a rifleman (or tank or other gun) can fire one aimed round, or run 10 yards. The table was 60 yards by 100 so we didn't need any penetration tables, the disputes about range just went away, and so did disputes about LOS. Because forces were so small – 20 infantry, 3 or 4 tanks – we started giving figures individual rather than national characteristics denoted by coloured sticky spots underneath the base, and eventually they started to acquire names. Although the scale of the battles was tiny it felt so convincing compared to 1/300 that I eventually abanoned the latter altogether.

I guess one can do that with Napoleonic at a skirmish level in the same way, but any level above that and compromises become necessary.

Actually, even doing WWII at that level compromises become necessary. Each turn is 10 seconds? How many decisions is a player making each turn? Is he forced to make them in 10 seconds? does he know the results of the last round before he decides to fire the next round? How long does a turn take in real time?

I've always just followed what the rule writer said I should base my troops up as and played using the distances they laid out in the rule book…….

Dear God…what have I done?!?

All that enjoyment…you're telling me it was false? For naught?

Damn, damn, damn……

LOL Gerard. No, you are doing it exactly right. What drew me into the question of frontages originally was the issue that a British unit and a French unit of equal strength ought to take a different amount of time to wheel, one line being longer than the other. And because the French were on the same frontage as the British (because they wouldn't fit into a smaller one), this did not happen naturally via the base size. And then I descended into madness.

@ Rich: yep, all good points. The rules didn't stipulate any of that. 10 seconds was deemed to be the time it took for a man to notice, aim, and fire at a target; or to look around, figure out where he wants to run to, and run 10 yards in that direction at a crouch. They all aimed to reach a certain location and unless accompanied by a command figure would stop when they got there.

It seemed to work. Subsequently it got even simpler and hence more fun.

The size of the casting is not really relevant to game scale since it is merely a symbol representing between 1 and 100 men (most of the time) depending on the rules…in many respects similar to the printed numbers on a cardboard counter in board gaming, the casting discloses data including unit type, armament, formation, etc….hence scaling ranges to the "symbol" seems to be irrelevant…rather…if scaling is important then the base of the unit should have some relevance to the space occupied by the number of troops represented by the symbol…however, even in this case, the gamer often sacrifices scale consistency for the "look" of the game (ie bigger castings and bigger units look better)…

"simpler and more fun" I've always thought those two went together well. My idea of a realistic skirmish game is for the players to have one yelling at them constantly, being forced to wear a bucket on thier head and everytime they're fired at, the referee bangs the bucket with a ladle. I suspect that closer to actual low level combat.

According to Defense Review, the statistics overwhelmingly show that most fire fights happen at less than 200 meters, most within 100 meters only 1% of all engagements were at 600+ meters.

They also found that shots made in battlefield conditions, i.e. you are being shot at as well were only likely to hit 10% of the time at 400 meters or more. Why? Because your rifle may shoot 1000 meters but if the target is aware of you they can move three to six meters from the location you aimed at when you fired by the time the bullet actually impacts the target area. So, unless you can fill a 10 meter area with lead you will likely miss your target.

This information may help you reconcile your range vs scale problems

"According to Defense Review, the statistics overwhelmingly show that most fire fights happen at less than 200 meters, most within 100 meters only 1% of all engagements were at 600+ meters."

That was also the case in WW2. It's one of the reasons the assault rifle came to fruition. Not as accurate or powerful at longe range but lighter and quicker to fire.
In other words, more suited to your average firefight than the standard issue bolt action rifle.

Damn you Principles of War….damn you Rapid Fire! I trusted you with your come hither looks and your silken tones which spoke lovingly of scale and distance. Now I see what you have done! Your talk of scale and distance was just an act wasn't it…<sob>….you don't really care about it do you…..

To think I left DBA for your false charms….

I feel so used……

Can we keep this going for just a bit longer? It's something of an achievement for a complete newcomer to TMP to generate a 100-post thread, isn't it?

I've been trying to reconcile the figure to ground scale ratio problem for years. I've simply decided that when I'm playing any set of rules then I'll just enjoy the game as written. When playing home modified rules it is a different story.
Since I like science fiction and fantasy in 1/72 IE one inch equals six feet/ two yards, the most, I've decided to try and stick with true ground scales. This makes ranges for most weapons moot (at least in science fiction) but allows players to focus on LOS, situational awareness, movement ,cover and various forms of active and passive defenses.
Since my gaming tables are 4X4 ft and I have four of them, this makes for some very close engagements.

What rules do you use for SF?

Either I play Flashpoint, UWZ, or modified 40K ND ed. I'm also looking a perhaps modifying Stargrunt II. I recently down-loaded FAD, but have not had the opportunity to try them yet.