"FOW Ground Scale" Topic

Does anyone have a method for converting FOW measurements into real world ground scale. I know it is something approaching logrithmic, but I need to know at
least a couple of points to attempt to figure it out. Seems like it is a well highly classified calculation.

Thanks,

Bert

Here we go again. Pass the popcorn…

Save some pop corn for me, too!

I'll got some Fiddle-Faddle (aka Crunch N Munch).

How many popcorn kernels can you grow on a FoW hectare?

How many popcorn kernels can you grow on a FoW hectare?

Hmm, that might depend on the shape of the hectare, if it is a "scale" hectare on a FoW table…

"Does anyone have a method for converting FOW measurements into real world ground scale?"

NO!

I see the seagulls are circling waiting for sport. I'm not sure why. The original poster has stated something mostly obvious and uncontroversial.

Now if he had asked about defending the ground scale, that would be different.

I know it is something approaching logrithmic, but I need to know at least a couple of points to attempt to figure it out. Seems like it is a well highly classified calculation.

I doubt there was ever a "calculation" other than this-looks-right type.

So, in the spirit of the rules, make something up that works for you.

Where's bobstro and his 'felix the cat' bag of answers when you need him?

All sing along,,,,"whenever he gets in a fix, He reaches into his bag of tricks…"

ain't one! LOL popcorn please!

Decent question for a gamer who does not know to ask on this forum.

Bert as you can tell there is not one. The comments on the popcorn is a result of some guys FoW bashing debating intently the issue with FoW fanboys who may try to ride to the rescue.

It isn't logarithmic so much as it is time/scale function. In that regard, it isn't too far off from the old 1st AD&D convention of outdoor squares being 100 ft vs 10 ft for indoor maps.

I can't claim to master the system myself, but think of it as "combat turns" being fractions of turns spent advancing to contact. Marching along a road, you can cover many miles a day, but when some starts shooting at you, your advance is measured in feet.

Ok, that's not a terribly brilliant metaphor, but I think it works.

Wyatt

IABSM is roughly 1/300. As the ranges are somewhat less than IABSM I would guess 1/400 or so might be about right.

Bert,

Do you have access to the hardbound rules? The various range bands and the equivelant actual ranges is given in the designers notes.

4" is about 50 yards
16" is about 500 yards
and so on.

I translated some interesting situations that arose from FoW tourney play into CMBB computer game scenarios. I used the 16" = 500 yards scale to translate and all seemed to work well. I also doubled the number of turns.

Steve

Lets see. I have not heard of this before for WW2.
So 4 inches is 50 yards which makes 1 inch equals 12 and a half yards.

However 16 inches equal 500 yards. This is one inch equaling 35 yards! That makes no sense to me.

telescoping ground scales? Sorry but I like my rules to be consistant. So I am glad I never elected to stock FoW.

The scale is not fixed. Take a look at page 256 in the rulebook. Then try the formula:

(x+(x/4))^2

Run the numbers for 4, 16, 32 and 64 inches and compare to the Design Notes. They match. That doesn't mean that's the officialformula, but it does match.

My son with his woefully inadequate American high school education figured it out in (literally) less than 5 minutes. I'm kinda surprised more of the geniuses here didn't. :)

A variable scale is nothing new. George Gush cites Bish Iwaszko's system in his 1980 book "A Guide to Wargaming". It lets you represent weapons of varying ranges on a table without using a bunch of other abstractions.

Some people seem to feel more comfortable with gross distortions of figure-to-ground scale, different truncations of weapon ranges, imagining the world ends at some magical boundary, chopping distance into vegetable patch-sized chunks, having one figure represent many, or looking at combat only through the goggles of a commander at a fixed level or other abstractions that they feel make their little toys play so much more seriously. More power to them. I'm just here to play some games, and the majority of the world thinks we're pretty weird anyhow.

- Bob
(I can do this all day)

Lets see. I have not heard of this before for WW2.
So 4 inches is 50 yards which makes 1 inch equals 12 and a half yards.

However 16 inches equal 500 yards. This is one inch equaling 35 yards! That makes no sense to me.

I think lots of rules do similar things, Rudy. The idea is to be able to have an SMG shoot effectively across a street, but also have tanks and guns fire at longer ranges. I do something similar in the house rules I use for armour – up to 20", 1" = 10 yards, beyond 20", 1" = 20 yards.
--
Tim

What a lot of rules do is exagerate SMG range and underplay some otehr ranges.

SMGs had an effective range of about 50 yards. After that they were good as area fire for another 50-100yards – then pretty much useless.

the Russian PPSH 41 is often quoted as having a range of 200yards, but it used 7.62mm ammunition, rather than 9mm or .45".

Those with half a mind to 'fix' FOW could start with defudging the ranges and movement. Then they could add offportunity fire – maybe as simple as changing move then fire to fire then move would do it.

Put the big guns on a different table, where they can still be hit by counterbattery or air attack…

That'd more or less do it, I think.

Maybe you'd have to stop players overdoing the support versus 'core units' in their picks – though I'd only be interested in playing scenarios anyway – so that just doesn't effect me.

Lets see. I have not heard of this before for WW2.
So 4 inches is 50 yards which makes 1 inch equals 12 and a half yards.

However 16 inches equal 500 yards. This is one inch equaling 35 yards! That makes no sense to me.

It gets worse.

64" represents 6,400 metres or one inch equals one hundred metres.

But that's just for shooting. Movement seems to be linear, and unit frontages are linear.

As bobstro says above all games involve some abstractions, but most of them manage to make the abstractions consistent. Not FoW which is just an unholy mess.

Some people seem to be able to live with it though.

bobstro wrote.

Some people seem to feel more comfortable with gross distortions of figure-to-ground scale, different truncations of weapon ranges, imagining the world ends at some magical boundary, chopping distance into vegetable patch-sized chunks, having one figure represent many, or looking at combat only through the goggles of a commander at a fixed level or other abstractions

FoW has some of these abstractions as well.

Figure to ground scale is distorted, especially for artillery, the world usually ends at the edge of the table, and distances for both movement and firing are chopped into chunks.

One building represents one building, but four or five represent a village.

According to the designers notes:

4" = 25m
16" = 400m
32" = 1600m
64" = 6400m

Ground scale quadruples as range bands double (except for 4"). Big deal.

Well, Is like this

Imaginw FOW was an american football game……

A down is 10 yards and is represented by 12 inches.

The pitch is your normal 6 foot table so your half of the pitch is 70 yards and is represented by 36 inches and this is therefore only 3 down lengths but thats part of the abstraction.

now if you play a quick pass and make 4 yards pass rush this is actually only 3 inches. However, when you run the ball and make six yards running you only move 3 inches too.

This means you have to record the way you make your 10 yards because it may not be 12 inches movement and sometimes 12 inches movement will onluy be nine yards.

However, when you fumble and the other side have a break, they may make 25 yards but this is only 10 inches movement.

Last;y, when you punt, we use a different scale for punting because if you used the same scale for running, you would be able to punt twice the length of the pitch in inches , so we divide by a third. This means that you only punt up to about 24 inches.

Some people would wonder why on earth you would attempt to model a Football game like this, when there is blatently no apparent rhyme or reason for it……Others will say its an abstraction and you get the same result.

this is acceptable to you if you think that it is acceptable to have big gunned tanks able to fire at dug in infantry from over a kilometre and a half away…..and this is what happens when you introduce a range limiting function rather than introduce a deterministic spotting function.

Dittobird, That was why I said WW2. The rules that I have played in WW2 have very strick ground scale rules. Though I have played some infantry skirmish most of my play has been of the tank vs tank variety.

Telescoping scales makes it hard to defend a number of related concepts in debates. While such debates now occur on forums which can be controlled to the designers preferences or mood, that di not used to be the case. back when I was involved in a lot of seminars defending rule's concepts, these were conducted in a face-to-face situation at conventions. hard to hide, not respond or quickly end the debate at conventions. Even if things are not going your way.

The first time I heard of telescoping ground and time scales was in Empire III. I played one game but never played another Empire game. As a strict historical realism gamer, I have always been uncomfortable which that concept.

"As a strict historical realism gamer…"

I'm glad someone brought up realism. This is where Flames of War has it exactly backwards. As the old saw goes, war consists of long monotonous periods punctuated by brief moments of frenzied activity.

If we wanted our modern mechanized wargame "battles" to replicate the real thing, we should ensure that when not in tactical engagement range, units and subunits should seem to crawl endlessly towards contact. The logisticians of the wargame forces should be putting in hours of pre-game effort to perform their functions; the operationsl planners should be required to produce reams of paperwork.

Then when the forces are in range of direct fire weapons, movement should be increased dramatically to simulate how quickly actions take place when actually in contact. To avoid bogging down the perception of fleeting time, direct fire engagements and close combat actions should probably be greatly simplified: perhaps to just a simple overall D6 roll: 1-3, one side wins; 4-6, the other side wins. No need to involve spurious range and penetration and armor data which don't contribute anything to the realism of the battle.

After the initial flurry of contact, then movement and weapons effectiveness should drop off, again dramatically, to portray the very slow and deliberate actions of consolidation and eliminating any remnants of defeated forces.

Anyone who has ever observed a simulated battle at the NTC or CMTC will immediately recognize that's exactly how the timeline works: wait, wait, wait, wait until first contact; then a decision achieved in a sudden rush; then wait, wait, wait, wait as forces re-consolidate and the last survivors are hunted down.

Now there's your realism, right there, that is. Both measuring game time in equally measured segments, and FoW's telescoping of space to focus in detail on the close-in fight, fail to capture the realism of time and space in combat.

Allen

I agree that threads can get too long. It's not bad on this board though, max I see here is 2-3 pages

Perhaps "logarithmic" is not the proper term, but it does give the impression that every 6 or so inches is really a power of 10. Or something.
Maybe "pseudo logarithmic" is better.
If you want to have fun with the scale, remember that a pistol shot is shorter than the wing span of a glider.
Or that the range of a Sherman's gun is 18 hull lengths. And the range of a 25pdr is about 48 Sherman hull lengths…

This is the eternal dilemna of wargaming, the figure scale versus the ground scale.
Why is my 25mm scale house wider than my 25mm AWI battalion?

What the game is looking for is the effect of various guns outranging the ones they really should. If a PAK40 has a 30" range, and a 6pdr has a range of 24", that is all they are trying for.

Not FoW which is just an unholy mess.

Some people seem to be able to live with it though.

Like me. I play with toy soldiers, so it does not bother me.

"What the game is looking for is the effect of various guns outranging the ones they really should. If a PAK40 has a 30" range, and a 6pdr has a range of 24", that is all they are trying for."

Which is fine, if you are shooting forwards. But the whole (pseudo) logarithmic scale idea breaks down as soon as you try and execute flanking fire …

Well, let it bother you if you want it to.
It doesn't bother me.

I could see why people could put up with all this FoW nonsense if it had any major advantage over numerous competing sets of rules.

But it doesn't.

Unless you really like points based competition play, or have the misfortune to live somewhere where nobody will play anything else.

Yawn…..

Derek H wrote:

[…] FoW has some of these abstractions as well.

That "as well" part being the key. There isn't a set of rules out there there doesn't make some sort of concessions. They just make different concessions in the interest of playability. What's left is personal preference.

I could see why people could put up with all this FoW nonsense if it had any major advantage over numerous competing sets of rules.

I've purchased numerous rule sets after reading some of the critique ( PBI, IABSM, Crossfire, Battlegroup Panzergrenadier and many others ) , and I don't see any huge "advantage" any one set has over all the others. Each has its own area of emphasis, each has its own baggage of abstractions, and I would probably enjoy games of any of them. Since it's not a lifetime commitment, and we're all a bunch of guys who really should be doing something more adult anyhow, I'm not going to get bent out of shape if someone wants to play a set of rules that aren't my favorite… especially if they're people I'm never going to meet.

As long as the relationships between the capabilities weapons of are there ( and they aren't in all rules ) and I see all the factors represented that I heard and read about in accounts ( air, armor, infantry, artillery, morale, etc. ) then I'm happy.

The amusing thing about these threads is how a guy who is deemed a blithering idiot because he plays the uncool rules is a genius when he happens to play one the poster does like. Some day, I'd like to strip the names off of all the posts and just have people respond based on the individual merit of each post instead of on the little story they've written for the others based on snippets of information and lots of preconception. The "FoW: This is too embarassing…" thread sort of sums it all up for me ( TMP link ) . Turns out the "kid" is probably more qualified than most of us ( me, certainly -- see page 3 of the thread ) and everybody goes all silent, except Supergrover, of course.

- Bob

bobstro,

"I've purchased numerous rule sets after reading some of the critique (PBI, IABSM, Crossfire, Battlegroup Panzergrenadier and many others)"

…But have you actually played all of them with other people on a regular basis and more than a couple of dozen games?

"and I would probably enjoy games of any of them."

I am positive you would enjoy the majority of the games you have bought.

What surprises me is that you make such an incredulous effort to defend a game you like with its unique "abstractions" over games you have not had the advantage of playing regularly and constantly dismiss as irrelevant any comment of critiscm that is made. Do you really think that such a broad range of experience from numerous posters regarding Fow's unique shortcomings (and they are very unique!) are all so wrong?….based on that you have read other rules too?

Personally, I dont think that FOW is a bad introduction to ww2 gaming or even to figure gaming in general, but it doesnt help you understand what the issues in ww2 combat were and possibly will mislead you. Everytime I read one of your posts that "opportunity fire is over-rated in most rules" I think someone swallowed the FOW justification Line.

KevanG wrote:

[…] …But have you actually played all of them with other people on a regular basis and more than a couple of dozen games?

No, and I've said as much several times. There just aren't games to be had for all of them. I have certainly played some of them. But in reading through them, it's pretty apparent what the abstractions are, and that is what I'm commenting on. You'll notice that I'm not saying they are "wrong".

I am positive you would enjoy the majority of the games you have bought.

I am sure I would as well. But again, that doesn't make another game "wrong".

What surprises me is that you make such an incredulous effort to defend a game you like with its unique "abstractions"

I'm surprised at the incredulous efforts you make (c'mon, Felix the Cat?) to deride the game, if not the players. So they're unique. Unique is bad? It's a game. They're all games.

… over games you have not had the advantage of playing regularly and constantly dismiss as irrelevant any comment of critiscm that is made.

I have not been the one dismissing any rules as irrelevant. I respond to those who are dismissive of FoW and its players as if playing a game relates, in any way, to the individual. Again, the "embarrassed" thread captured it all nicely.

I do notice a few similarities with other rules, and also that most of the critiques of FoW neglect to mention any alternatives that "do it right", so I ask for specifics. I the acquire those and read through them and, if games are to be had, play them. I've enjoyed the other rules, but none have blown my mind to any great degree, and I don't find my enjoyment of FoW diminished from having played others. Nor vice-versa, of course.

Do you really think that such a broad range of experience from numerous posters regarding Fow's unique shortcomings (and they are very unique!) are all so wrong?….based on that you have read other rules too?

I think quite a few of the objections are based on imposing a perspective on the game that puts it in the worst possible light, yes. In may cases, the "lack of" something is addressed, but simply dismissed. In others, the "advantage" offered by other rules is offset by other limitations. And in still others, the other sets do it better. Yet I can find games of FoW, some with military veterans, and enjoy them. The other games, not so much. If the game is good enough for guys who've been in the field, it's good enough for me. I'm not about to have the audacity to suggest that their selection of rules has a damned thing to do with their experience, nor am I going to lecture them about "realism". It's a game.

Personally, I dont think that FOW is a bad introduction to ww2 gaming or even to figure gaming in general, but it doesnt help you understand what the issues in ww2 combat were and possibly will mislead you.

If I looked at the games as a training exercise on which life and limb depended, I'd worry about being "misled" a lot more. I certainly wouldn't expect to learn about combat from any other rule set I've read! It's a game. I don't expect to be educated by games. I take my education to the gaming table. I get out of the game what I put into it.

What FoW lets me do is game tactical situations that play much like the accounts I've heard and read about. If the battlefield measurements aren't exact, the results are about what I'd expect. While the mechanics and details are obviously a game, the overall "feel" seems about right, and it's mutually enjoyable. If I do things that are obviously gamey, I get gamey results. I don't think any rules are immune to this.

Everytime I read one of your posts that "opportunity fire is over-rated in most rules" I think someone swallowed the FOW justification Line.

And yet I still read from people that have nothing to do with FoW that allowing opportunity fire/overwatch willy-nilly or across the table is no more historically correct. What I do point out is that overwatch is, in fact, addressed in FoW to offset those inaccurate depictions of it having been simply overlooked.

You'll notice I'm not the one who jumps into threads about rules I don't enjoy and goes to great lengths to criticize them, nor do I start tossing out Felix the Cat comments. What I do specifically attempt to do is compare and contrast the game to others that are (supposedly) better. While I've discovered plenty of rules that I'd love to play, I've yet to find any that make me fall over with how radically accurate and superior they are. Every one of them has abstractions that are just as annoying or absurd if one is determined to criticize them rather than appreciate them for what they are. When I look at them through the same lens that you use to (selectively) look at FoW, other rules don't come off stunningly better. Looked at as a game modeling WW2 with agreeable opponents, they look just fine, however.

- Bob

"Again, the "embarrassed" thread captured it all nicely."

I tend to agree with you on that one or did you miss my post?

"You'll notice I'm not the one who jumps into threads about rules I don't enjoy and goes to great lengths to criticize them, nor do I start tossing out Felix the Cat comments."

But…but…but….felix's bag is great for storing his FOW terrain in and it works for the logarithmic scale! How else can you fit 30 buildings onto an a4 size sheet of paper at 1 to 1?

Bob,
You do have a tendency to resurrect threads A LOT, almost all about FOW. I'm fairly sure you have more posts on Fow threads than I do.

and to quote your own post

"Bob
(I can do this all day)"

But this bit was a bit surprising

"When I look at them through the same lens that you use to (selectively) look at FoW"

I beleive you use more selectivity than I do!

Kevan G wrote:

[…] I tend to agree with you on that one or did you miss my post?

No, not at all, and I applaud you for being one of the level-headed early posters. The fact that the (alleged) kid, Schwerpunkt, turned out to be a military professional makes me think that FoW must have something going for it, without having to be a teaching tool used at West Point. The fact that several posters kept going on about "FoW kids" afterwards rather than engaging a rather interesting individual in dialog just underscored a sad point, if you ask me. Then Supergrover came along and put an exclamation point on the whole thing.

[…] But…but…but….felix's bag is great for storing his FOW terrain in and it works for the logarithmic scale! How else can you fit 30 buildings onto an a4 size sheet of paper at 1 to 1?

Probably much more easily than a football field of several kilometers in length. That's a great analogy though. If I take Allen's point (careful, you'll put someone's eye out with that thing), sports should be played on fields at least 15 times their current size. Wouldn't that be entertaining to watch? None of that namby-pamby action in the first hours and all?

You do have a tendency to resurrect threads A LOT, almost all about FOW. I'm fairly sure you have more posts on Fow threads than I do.

Actually, no. I don't resurrect threads, unless you mean referencing them. I generally only bother responding a message on a thread if it's a few days old, and I'll usually only bother getting into a detailed response when my BS-o-Meter trips. Rather than letting someone like Grover/Wittmann destroy an otherwise productive thread, I'll try to get it back on track. Easy enough to search and verify, of course. And yes, I do post to threads on topics that interest me. I do not jump into threads about games I have no interest in and make snide comments about the players or my assumptions about their understanding of the world. If the topic is the strengths and weaknesses of a set of rules, by all means, lay into it. But when someone's asking a basic question about rules they're interested in, it'd be nice if the gathering of vultures didn't precede (and preclude) any chance of them getting a meaningful answer.

and to quote your own post

"Bob
(I can do this all day)"

In response to your "where's bobstro?" comment, yes. You did call me out by name. I'm not exactly the top poster hereabouts, but I enjoy these games and enjoy discussing them. I think pointing out the positive aspects of rules is as productive as harping about negatives, particularly when that harping doesn't bother with the whole story. (It also helps that I make my living writing, and thinking through these topics is good for breaking up writer's block.)

But this bit was a bit surprising

"When I look at them through the same lens that you use to (selectively) look at FoW"

I beleive you use more selectivity than I do!

When a vague criticism is made, I do ask for specifics, yes, usually in the form of "as compared to what?" And when someone describes one aspect of the game as unworkable, while touting another that uses another set of equally absurd abstractions, I point that out.

Sitting around and picking apart rules is easy. Just like politics, you can always blow something trivial out into a major flaw. I don't consider doing so a particularly worthy talent, but some people seem to consider it a hobby. Mine is pursuing it beyond the simple "that sucks" level of discourse. If they have a point, we can discuss it. If not, well, that becomes apparent pretty quickly.

Hey, if someone doesn't like FoW, I can understand that. There are plenty of rules that I have no interest in, believe me. And FoW is certainly not my favorite set, nor is that level of game my preference. I'd just rather carry around a bag of tricks than a bag of crap. I eat with these hands.

- Bob