"Figure scale vs ground scale" Topic

Footslogger, I am be new to TMP, but far from new to wargaming.
What this discussion shows to me is that the approach taken to rule design has been as inconsistent as the approach taken to figure design, and consistently inconsistent since I begun wargaming almost 30 years ago.
Most wargamers flutter from scale to scale, and from one set of rules to another, collecting several period armies, and all the time not realizing the historical doctrinal implications, and the ratios applied to relationships between different scales used in the rules, all of which affect rule mechanics and the look and feel of the games…which is why there are so many rules and their modifications!

Hence the original question – why don;t many rule designers clearly state what all the scales are in their rules? This information is something of the technical specification of any given set in the way the tires for a car state what the pressure should be, or the car states what sort of fuel it will use.

Personally I think the figure size, and therefore scale (often confused) is more then a symbol, and should define all other scales, and the historical period should define the figure ratio. If the gamer/s can secure a larger the average playing surface, all well and good, but remember that historical commanders had the same problem, and actively sought an adequate 'field of battle' that suited their command. Clearly to them size did matter :-) Ground scale should relate to the 'look' one expects in the period, so can be compromised to a ratio higher then 1:1, but IMHO not greater then half the figure ratio (i.e. for 20:1 figure ratio, ground ratio to scale would be no greater then 1:10), or the distortion becomes too great, and one ends up with close order WW2 look of FoW.

PS. I have never known any wargamer who has never modified a set of rules!

>>PS. I have never known any wargamer who has never modified a set of rules!

You are right about that! Lots write their own rules.

Your personal ideas are of course personal to you. Although many other gamers think the same way, many others are more accepting of scale discrepancies.

Various arguments have been presented in this thread; some of the best were the earliest -- the need to conform to table size, for example, or the aesthetics of figure size vs detail.

In my view, the vertical scale and figure ratio are less important than the horizontal scale which determines formation sizes and weapon ranges. The problem is worse in 20th century warfare because formations became much looser while weapon ranges increased. Vehicles complicate things too.

Some rules are intended to better simulations of reality, while others are primarily written as games and will therefore make bigger compromises with scale.

If you can't find rules to suit your taste, you will end up writing your own.

"(i.e. for 20:1 figure ratio, ground ratio to scale would be no greater then 1:10),"

Surely you mean 1:40 here? Don't you?
Although even that ground scale would preclude any meaningful simulation of anything other than a skirmish. I'd certainly have to shelve my aspiration to a 1:20 figure ratio set-up of Waterloo using Gilder's Grand Manner rules- unless I can lay my hands on a 100 yard long table.

It's back to compromise- I think the main reason that this thread has broken the 100 barrier is that it's going round in circles.
I must admit that I always 'recoil' slightly when I see designers notes that proclaim- "base sizes do not matter in this game"
In that , we can agree. Yes, they most definitely do matter. And any rule set the states otherwise has made a commercial decision that will impinge on the ability of said rules to simulate warfare with any degree of accuracy.
Yes, we know that's an impossibility anyway but at least, pardon the expression, get the basics right.

True Scale- with the greatest respect, and as someone has already mentioned, accept the inevitable and get on with a bloody game!

Steve.

@ True Scale,

I never for one minute assumed you were new to the hobby, just new to TMP, and as such, deserving at least minimum courtesy from the rest of us.

Anyway, I hope this long, long thread has generated as much light as heat! :)

The writers of rules do so, in many cases, to right the perceived wrongs they have experienced within the pages of other "rules writers" efforts.

Decades ago CLS (column, line & square) was written by an avowed frank-o-phile with his multitude of French Curassier Regiments which, whenever possible, he would line up boot to boot on one side of the board riding down anything in his path, or his horde of unbreakable French Guard would crush anything that attempted to block its path.

Fred's gross misrepresentation of Napoleonic combat and the reaction of playing games using his rules eventually lead to "Frappe", "Empire", "Napoleon's Battles", Volley & Bayonett, "Chef de Battalion" not to mention dozens of other published rules sets and hundered, if not thousands, of 'home grown' rules by individuals and clubs in every major country on the globe.

The individuals who write rules do so with a specific idea of what they want to represent on the table. If you disagree with them, write your own set…

Good Luck!

Bill

Another point that needs to be shared…

This posting is not meant to denigrate Greg's views or disrespect his opinions, but it is provided to give others a clearer insight into his persistence. He is a very opinionated individual who appears to view his perception of general issues and specific points as the only "correct" ways to view them.

On another forum there was a discussion of the general use of captured equipment by all sides during the Afrika Campaign from 1940 to 1943, as well as captured equipment used in other theaters of the war. Greg took the position that the use of captured equipment was insignificant. "In respect to the North African campaign originally raised, I don't think there would be much difference. The ability to take custody of captured vehicles left in possession of was just not there, although on occasion some smaller number, usually counting in no more then 10-30 was used judging from various sources because that was the average number of personnel able to drive these usually available at the time of capture. Even these few vehicles eventually ended up in higher echelon workshops".

In another post on the same forum he informed the others participating in the discussion that "he would not allow the use of captured equipment" though in what specific venue he meant this statement to apply was not really clear.

It appears Greg has read extensively and from his postings on other forums he has a great deal of specific knowledge which could generate an interesting set of gaming rules. I, for one, would be very interested to see how he would handle the age old problem of ground scale verses figure size in a way that could be playable, …and affordable.

I also believe he has demonstrated the ability to frustrate other members of the forums in which he participates, a fact this thread demonstrates very well. His opinions are just that… opinions! As are mine and everyone elses after all.

Again, there is no disrespect meant by this posting… as I, the village idiot, …am too insignificant to matter. P.B.T.G. Bill I/S

The more I think about it the more I think that having the depth consistent with the frontage would be the way to go in an ideal world. I.e. figures are roughly square so if you deem them to be fully occupied by troops that gives you your groud scale, whence flows everything else.

In the case of 25mm horse-and-musket this would sorta lock you into 1 figure = 3 x 3 men, because that's the shallowest formation used. It would unfortunately not accommodate either 2-deep armies nor indeed any formation bigger than a brigade though. I suppose it migth work for AWI where armies wer generally smaller.

There is a practical problem of making the base depths thin. The bases are more likely to fall over, expecially going up hills.

Ground scale to figure scale leaves me perplexed, I really cant see the point of considering it. In reality the core of a set of wargames rules is a blend of movement distances, firing ranges and effects of firing and combat.. meshing into that is the perceved reaction to occurances (morale) and some form of command and control.

If the figures on both sides are all based similarly and the size of the table is limited to within reason… where, in context to the playing of the game does ground scale come into it and matter? Surely its just a meaningless gesture to the rest of the game.

Would consideration of different ground scales alter all the factors and blends of all the core rules?

>>Ground scale to figure scale leaves me perplexed, I really cant see the point of considering it.

Mostly due to aesthetics.

Variant ground scales do matter. If the width and depth of formations, the range of weapons and the movement speed are not tied to the same scale (which is also related to the time scale) you get some weird results.

In Warhammer 40K troops can move 6 inches per turn, and the range of most infantry weapons is 24 inches. This means that defending units have only a short time to lay fire upon enemy troops, which allows hand-to-hand combat to occur much more frequently than it could in the real world.

40K being an SF game this is a perfectly reasonable situation as the designers want a lot of H2H to happen. But it would not do for a WW1 game.

Kilkrazy… I understand that but I said 'if the blend of movement distances, firing ranges and effects of firing' is fine then why even include or mention a specific ground scale ie. 1 inch = 5 yds or what ever. All that needs to be achieved is that the distance moved is commensurate with the fire power and results so the game feels right and has a realistic outcome in the design.

" All that needs to be achieved is that the distance moved is commensurate with the fire power"

You need a ground scale so that maps can be plotted onto the tabletop.

"But it would not do for a WW1 game."

In Great War Spearhead rifle ranges are 8", and infantry moves are….8". It does however work jolly well as a game of WW1 combat due to the mechanics of the turn sequence and order system which get around this apparent anomaly.

I play GWSH with 20mm figs, which would no doubt drive true scale crazy as the bases represent companies of around 200 men and the ground scale is 1"=80 yards….

Hammer,

You are so right… Groundscale only matters if you are trying to duplicate a specific battle or the specific results of a battle. Small unit games don't need a groundscale if the movement and fire ratios are realistic to the senses of the participants since most small unit actions are not fought at the full ranges of the weapons involved because of the terrain.

But, I still like to game in 1/300 scale where both the ground scale and figure scale is 1 to 1. It just takes up a lot of space to game that way as can be seen from this picture of a game(exercise) in that scale in progress…

Those troops are WAY over scale…

Well, Hammerhead, the actual scale matters because some players like learn the effective range of weapons (e.g. musket = 100 yards, 120mm tank gun = 2,500 yards, and so on) and use their knowledge in games.

The practical effect is nothing in game terms, but aesthetically or intellectually it is more interesting to some people. It is also more educational.

Steve,

Yes, you are correct, the three Marine Company commanders were larger than the figures they commanded during that exercise. You are looking at a CPX for a Battalion of Marines. The three Marines to the left facing the board are the Company NCOIC's taking the part of the Alpha Command teams. The Major to the right is the Air Officer for the exercise (ACE commander). Participants use their normal communication system during these exercises so they can test their procedural skills under simulated combat conditions.

Bill I/S

Kilkrazy,

Intellectually what difference does all the technical data, scale, etc., matter if you are told: "this gun will kill anything, tanks, etc., it can see on the game board".

If you aren't going to be able to shoot at anything but what you can see (line of sight) what does all that stuff matter, …except as something to worry about.

From the practical commanders' point of view he only needs to know what is in his AOR that can kill him and what he can kill in his AOR with the weapons he has or can call upon. That works up and down the chain of command with each successively larger (force structure) level having the same interests only in greater terms, size of forces, scope of weapons, etc…, but from the skirmish point of view everything is line of sight, especially spotting for off board artillery, air, etc.!

That's basically the same in every period of warfare…

Bill I/S

>>Intellectually what difference does all the technical data, scale, etc., matter if you are told: "this gun will kill anything, tanks, etc., it can see on the game board".

>>If you aren't going to be able to shoot at anything but what you can see (line of sight) what does all that stuff matter, …except as something to worry about.

On the one hand it's being able to read scales and maps and apply independent critical judgement, on the other hand it's accepting the abstract factors some designer has chosen to provide you without having the knowledge or ability to evaluate them.

Kilkrazy wrote:

"On the one hand it's being able to read scales and maps and apply independent critical judgement, on the other hand it's accepting the abstract factors some designer has chosen to provide you without having the knowledge or ability to evaluate them."

KK:
Yep, that is a major weakness in wargames in general. They are abstract, very technical designs,[hence this 100+ post thread]. Designers *claim* to have researched throughly, with scads of information and data synthesis applied to the game mechanics, but what is actually being represented is rarely provided, even in the vaguest form. The actual research is never provided. Some think that having a bibilography proves something more than they can list books. There are a few, like the designer of 1870, who provide a lot of their research, but they are in the decided minority.

I was watching a game of Horse Foot and Guns (Phil barkers as yet unpublished horse and musket set) at the club last night. The basic units in the game were 40mm wide stands representing a brigade of several battalions or 24 guns.

The game was played using 15mm figures, 4 to a base!!

Now this definitely looked wrong.

I discussed the scale thing with the players and suggested that I would look at using 2mm figures possibly on 60mm bases and get something that looked a bit closer to actuality. The player who's armies were being used was adamant that small scale figures didn't cut the mustard for him and he was more than happy with his pretty colourfull 15's

I think the moral is each to their own.

A further complicating factor is that in some cases, unless you make the bases deeper than just the depth of the casting, the figures won't stand up.

Hinchliffe 25mm Old Guardsmen in campaign dress are a case in point.

Here are some links to photos of how 'Grand Campaigns' tabletop units look, they are 6mm and the game scale is brigades/divisions/corps. Its important to me thta even if you are gaming at army level that the look of the troops is right. In Grand Campaigns players field at least 2 corps the photos show that using magnetic trays you can arange the stands so they look something like they would have done.

two French brigades
picture

Bavarian Brigade
picture

Cavalry Division
picture

RHA + lt dragoons
picture

British Line
picture

Roy

Another Grand campaigns photo to show exactly how the brigade bases look and what they are supposed to represent on the tabletop

French brigade on base
picture

Roy

The point of the photos is to show that in 6mm the brigade units look like they are made up of regiments and battalions the ground scale isnt important at this level but the look must have that grand Napoleonic feel. There are 5 formations,Line – attack column – march column – square and light infantry skirmish. Ground scale is a combination of movement, shooting range and effect so doesnt need to be specified as say, 3mm to the meter or what ever.

Firing is calculated by allowing a set number of stands to fire depending on the formation the brigade is in… so even placement of the stands on the magnetic trays isnt critical.

hope that show my views on ground scales

Roy

6mm Adler figures, I presume. There is space to fit more figures on each base if players wanted to.

Thats right Kil…. thats because brigades vary in size considerably and its useful to have a bit of extra room on the trays so you can space out the battalions within the brigade

I find it amusing in the examples above that, although the players are Corps Commanders, they have the responsibility of dictating formations. Isn't that the brigade or battalion commanders job?

I find it amusing in the examples above that, although the players are Corps Commanders, they have the responsibility of dictating formations. Isn't that the brigade or battalion commanders job?

aha…
As a corps commander the players head sends the orders and his hands are the aids that deliver them and his fingers and tape measure the brigade commanders… the dice are the guns and sabres… and the Bud and peanuts are the commissariat…. its all there if you look….

Hammer wrote:

"Its important to me thta even if you are gaming at army level that the look of the troops is right. In Grand Campaigns players field at least 2 corps the photos show that using magnetic trays you can arange the stands so they look something like they would have done."

Hammer,
The look of the troops isn't bad, but one there's one thing for sure: They look absolutely nothing like they would have done in reality. Just goes to show that this is an issue that will be dealt with very differently by individuals and is largely down to personal taste.

Captain Snort
The look of the troops isn't bad, but one there's one thing for sure: They look absolutely nothing like they would have done in reality.

Show me a few pictures of how exactly they would have looked in reality then we can get to discussing any representation of it.

Hammer,

You don't need pictures, a typical French column had a frontage of 70 men and a depth of 9 with the troops formed elbow to elbow. Your columns have a frontage of 2 and a depth of 4 with large gaps between the figures. Not a criticism of your basing in particular, but what is there to discuss?

A simluation (in scale) of a French battalion in column – there is also line and sqaure – if you haven`t already seen these – enjoy!

voltigeurs.populus.org/rub/7

"As a corps commander the players head sends the orders and his hands are the aids that deliver them and his fingers and tape measure the brigade commanders… the dice are the guns and sabres… and the Bud and peanuts are the commissariat…. its all there if you look…."

Huh? I don't understand the point.

Hammer wrote:
I find it amusing in the examples above that, although the players are Corps Commanders, they have the responsibility of dictating formations. Isn't that the brigade or battalion commanders job?

Hammer:

Actually, the battalion commanders RARELY had anything to say about the formations their units deployed in. That was dictated by the formation taken by the brigade. The Brigade commander would have some say in his brigade's formation IF operating independently of his division, but usually not. The division commander often had the say in the formations his brigades and battalions took, particularly once an engagement commenced. A Corps commander usually dicated the formations the brigades deployed in because of the combat mission given them and the SOPs involved.

An Army commander could and did decide such things when they felt like it. For instance, Napoleon drew out the formations that Soult's Corps was to deploy in before Austerlitz. It all depended on their whims.

So, in the scheme of things, battalion and brigade commanders rarely had much to say about what formations their units were deployed in, particularly at the beginning of an engagement. Most things were controlled by higher levels of command, even down to how many skirmishers to deploy.

The battalion and brigadiers' major responsibility in formation was to keep aligned with the regulating unit and maintain order, carrying out actions when ordered or mandated by the SOP or standard Operating Procedures. Anything else would produce bad things for the brigade and division.

Himself…

Great photos. Thanks for posting them. Kinda reminds me of our 30mm games.

Bill I/S

…..I find it amusing in the examples above that, although the players are Corps Commanders, they have the responsibility of dictating formations. Isn't that the brigade or battalion commanders job?……

Scotsman I didnt write the above Rich Bliss did I replied.

Captain Snort,
As you say representation is in the eyes of the beholder and also as a rule writer/publisher one has to think of the pocket of the buyers and show that big battles can be fought without huge expenditure and painting, thats why I wrote for 6mm and the basing is as it is, but still looking like battalions within a brigade rather than just a tight group of bases that looks like a single battalion rather than a brigade of battalions. Of course peeps such as yourself would probably have far more figures on each base, but like I say in the rules, the number of figures doesnt matter.

Hammer,

In support of CPT Snort, take a look at Emil Adam's Wagram at:

picture

The deployed troop formations in the background gives a distinctly linear look to the battle, yet upon closer examination many of the units are actually in column. Thus while other brigade games like my own AOE do not separate individual battalions, the visual perspective of the battle overall mirrors eye witness paintings like Adam's.

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

eye witness painting?
Adam was born in 1843 and the region around wagram is quite flat.

Hammer:

So he did. Pardone me. I didn't see a header and just assumed, even though Richard B's comment was just above yours.

That is the problem with *period* paintings. They can be like historical films today: Visually pleasing, entertaining lies.

That may be what Wagram looked like, but if you consider the painting, there a whole lot of troops in line and lacking any typical deployment for column formations, particularly for troops FAR from the battle line, if that is what the smoke line in the background represents.

It looks good, but what does it really represent? The troops are just window dressing/atmosphere for the real focal point of the painting, the generals.

Military men critiqued paintings after the Napoleonic wars the way they critique movies today. Some were 'acturate' and some weren't.

It's too easy to confuse prepresentation and the visual impression desired with what is actually being simulated and/or gamed.

It's nice when we like one and find the other is close to what we understand of a battle/war, but they aren't linked in game terms except in a mechanical way. There aren't any *shoulds* or historical requirements concerning the 'look' visa vie the game system.

Bill G:

Have you ever seen a Napoleonic battle painting that ever represented columns at deployment distance? I haven't, and that is very strange when most all Continental powers used that SOP by the end of the wars when in approach distances.

The other one that I find interesting is the pictures of troops in distinct lines, like your Wagram example, while waiting as reserves around the commanders--even when some are shown in column.

Yes well, I find myself planning a little project with quite a few of the questions raised above in mind…

OK so I`ve designed these paper napoleonic unit blocks.
I have infantry, cavalry and artillery designed now but aesthetically I believe, the only things that really requires the use single figure castings would be skirmishers and generals.
I`ve made skirmishers but somehow a block with spaces represented do not look very convincing!

I`ve suggested to an gaming mate that we have eight years to prepare for a Waterloo 2015, 200 year celebration game or dispaly and he`s volunteered to make ALL the buildings.

So anyhow, I can make these units to any figure scale necessary by cutting and pasting the original .bmp files – now I guess the next thing is to determine the nature of the project – should it be a static or changing display or a game?

Practical considerations need to be made if it is to be a game or a changing display.

If it is to be a game, it will need to be to a scale otherwise access to inner parts of the battlefield will be difficult.
A display could be bigger and closer to the Siborne model – but even that is to a scale as mentioned earlier…

I`m looking for someone to make the terrain now, but the whole activity is about how you want the game to be and the practical, physical limitations you may have.

I believe that, as units, the paper blocks look a great deal more convincing individual castings but as one gets closer to 1:1 the larger the area must be and more limiting will be the gaming and public appeal.

So I think that we will have think carefully about the actual area represented and scale it to make it manageable and instructive to the public.

Much appreciated chaps if anyone has any thoughts or advice on this.

Regards,

Mike.

The unit block are 5/6mm figure scale BTW!

Doh! Iglo is correct, and I wasn't aware of that. Dumb assumption on my part due to the style of painting, but now I've learned something. Thanks.

Let me instead reference Baron LeJeune's painting on Borodino, and I do believe he was at the battle and did the painting from sketches he made of the action. The image is at the following URL:

picture

My point, like Adam, is that the painting shows a deployment that LOOKS decidedly linear but might actually represent either battalions in closed column (Adam's painting shows a cavalry unit like that, note the four ranks, to include one trumpeter on a white horse) or battalions in more open columns which might well look like a series of lines. Thus from an overall battle perspective, games like AOE or NB might actually give a closer look to reality than, say, Empire where a Russian battalion of 8 figs in cloumn is nearly three times deeper than it is wide.

As for why period paintings do not show columns at deployment distance, and outside my comments above, could one reason be that this deployment was not used as much as we think, despite regulation?

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Bill G. wrote:
As for why period paintings do not show columns at deployment distance, and outside my comments above, could one reason be that this deployment was not used as much as we think, despite regulation?

Well, do you have any reason to believe that besides the paintings? Check out all the diagrams of deployments for Austerlitz, for instance. Lots of columns at deployment distance. You don't see them in ANY of the paintings of Austerlitz.

Looking at the Borodino painting, the large columns just happen to be behind the hillock, and the 'lines' further on.
Even though LeJeune was at Borodino doesn't mean he didn't fudge on the deployments to produce a more dramatic picture. Again, the troops are window dressing for the foreground drama.

Michael

Check out Inkbiz's 1:500 range that is in preproduction now. Look up his past posts for pictures. They are properly sized to actually be able to rank up 1:1 and small enough that you might be able to use them that way.

I'm waiting for a couple of battalions worth to show the actual look of a column of divisions! (70 files x 9 ranks – even with spacing between divisions it is still a liner formation).

Ken

Ken,
I like Bob`s figures very much indeed, but my unit blocks are ready painted, and take only minutes to cut, fold and assemble.
I would need thousands of individual figures to paint and base and this would be even more dreadfully time-consuming -yup, I`ve no patience for painting figures at all I`m afraid!
Mike.

Silly question, What would the spacing be between divisions in a French napoleonic column of divisions be?

Ken