"Rules: Ground Scale" Topic

A ruleset should provide the ground scale used for the rules.

* true
* false
* ground scale?

True. If the designer has played with distances or ranges, he should explain that in the design notes.

True. Even if it states there is no specific ground scale.

Agree with this one, although some sets 'fudge' a bit
on weapon ranges, probably in the name of a playable
game.

I recently saw an ACW game where the shot range for
Napoleons was 72", while the cannister range was 10"
and the range for a rifle-musket was 12".

The rules stated the ground scale to be 1"=25 yards,
so the RM range seemed reasonable (there was no short-
medium-long range for RM's), but the cannister seemed
a bit short.

The GM explained that he'd reduced the cannister range
since it was too deadly in the playtest of the scenario
being played, which seemed a reasonable accomodation,
at least to me.

I don't care if the game has a ground scale in it, it usually has a weapons range and from that you can more or less figure it out.

Yes, along with turn lengths (if turns are applicable), element and unit representation, command level envisaged and/or game scope. Pretty basic stuff really.

Even if it doesn't actually have a ground scale, then say so.

Ground scale is window dressing (fluff). Include it or don't.

Greetings

Partly true in my view.

Rules should address how they have treated ground scale. This will help with scenario design at the very least.

Regards

Edward

Ed Mohrmann 28 Sep 2011 5:57 a.m. PST wrote:
Agree with this one, although some sets 'fudge' a bit
on weapon ranges, probably in the name of a playable
game.

I am with Ed on this one, especially for historical gaming. You really cannot understand the relationship of combat mechanics as it is being protrude on the wargame table without it. That said I spent a good part of the last 6 months researching all the data I could find (Wookiepedia etc) on Star Wars data.

I recently saw an ACW game where the shot range for
Napoleons was 72", while the cannister range was 10"
and the range for a rifle-musket was 12".

The rules stated the ground scale to be 1"=25 yards,
so the RM range seemed reasonable (there was no short-
medium-long range for RM's), but the canister seemed
a bit short.

That is something I can never get my head around. GMs often fail to comprehend the difference between effective ranges and maximum ranges and then do not get how devastation some weapons systems can be when properly employed. I just do not get it.

VR
James Mattes

True. They should have at least some general ground scale in mind so include it in the rules.

True

False.

True-ish. Just 'ballpark' distances will be adequate.

True, though not nearly as important as time scale. I fully concur on fudging distances for playability or other considerations, though I likewise deplore the simplistic approach of treating 0-X" as the same effectiveness.

I think most games have a ground scale. A new concept I've seen are the non-linear ground scales.

Flames of War has this: 4" is like 10 yards but 40" is like 1000 yards. It's like logarithmic or something.

So, rules need a scale but it need not be linear.

TRUE – and most always have a concrete ground scale.

Non linear ground scale is REALLY bad too – it only works if the game includes one unit on each side and no more.

Logarithmic (so called) ground scales have been around since the 1960's. They didn't work then and they still don't work.

You can work the idea if nothing moves or if move distances are small relative to ranges but once stuff starts moving any significant proportion of longer ranges the whole system collapses in chaotic anomalies.

I'd agree that 'ballpark' ground scales are quite acceptable and that, sometimes, it is necessary to 'fudge' some distances to achieve believable or playable results. An author should, in my opinion, be able to justify the fudges with a reasonable argument/explaination though.

Time scales are a major problem in most rules. If you don't fudge/abstract them to some extent you can get chaos unless you have command/control rules that allow for a good deal of standing doing nothing (which is what most troops spentmost of their time doing on any battlefield). This tends to get rather boring for players so 'interesting' ways round it are often the key core aspects of rulesets – some work, some don't.

If you choose to play games with toy soldiers, ground scales (and most other things) are not very important.

If you wish to attempt a rules set that has any basis in a measurable world, and where the miniatures actually represent something real, then ground scale can be a valuable tool, providing surprising benefits.

Movement distances must be figured in the same space/scale as weapons ranges. While it has taken me some years to get to this point, I now appreciate that figure-to-man ratios are secondary to questions of how much distance is to be represented by the figure base size(s) you wish to use.

Though figure sizes vary (28mm down to 5/6mm), the practical fact of game playing is that the figures must be mounted on bases, singly or in groups, and that the smallest base that can be easily manipulated is 1/2" square, though 3/4" is easier still and very commonly used in rules sets for all periods and subjects.

When the designer settles on the organizational level of play (what units notionally represent--"Battalions," or "Brigades," etc) the same limited number of Bases can represent any of these. The same 12, 16, 20, etc figures are used in games to represent Battalions, or Brigades, or even Divisions, all the time.

Here is an example of what I propose: The designer wants to represent a 600 man Battalion of the Horse and Musket era, but does not necessarily want single Companies to be representted by single Bases. Further, he chooses to represent the Battalion in it's most common interval for its time, say Open Order, or a rounded 4 feet per man. If the Battalion would normally fight in Double Line, that would break down to a 300 man front X 4', or 1200'.

If the game envisions as many as 20 Bases to represent that number of men along that distance of ground, he divides to get a figure of 60'. At 4' per man, that would be 15 men, and in those two ranks, 30 total. Thus each Base would represent 30 soldiers (in 2 ranks), and it is the Ground Scale that determines the ratio of figures to men.

The size of each Base then is purely a matter of preference, for whether the base is 1", 3/4", or 1/2", it still represents the frontage of 30 men. Likewise, the Base can have a single 28mm figure, two 15's, four 10mm, or six--or more--5/6mm figures, and any of these still represents 30 men.

If the 3/4" Base size is preferred, then the ground scale is 3/4"=60'. If full-inch measurements are easier to work with on weapons ranges or movement tables, then 1"=75', or more conveniently, 25 yards to the inch.

The beauty and advantage of actually determining Ground
Scale in this manner is that the same rules can be played with any preferred scale of miniatures, and absolutely no special rules are necessary to change ranges/distances to somehow "match" the scale.

And when setting movement rates and weapons ranges, they actually are BOTH in the same scale and "space" of the table top. Now weapons EFFECTS and representative movement RATES are totally separate issues and can be over and under estimated as usual.

So, "True," Bill--a rules set should not only "provide" a Ground Scale, but should be based upon one.

TVAG

I don't know if a specific ground scale is needed, but definitely defined weapons ranges.

A ground scale should be a given for anything but the most skirmishy of games. Its a great help for modelling real world actions and understanding weapon and movement distances provided in the game.

That man Rapier is right again.

All the best,

John.

It does help to do so.

Possibly, but only if it had a direct bearing on what the game designer is trying to portray.

Ground-scale? We don't need no stinkin' ground-scale!

Yes I like ground scale.

I like to see a british battalion in a 2 rank line wider than a french battalion in 3 rank line.

I also like to know that when I refight a historical battle, I can fit the same number of guns in the same position as the commander did historical should I wish to do so.

David
wardepot.blogspot.com

True it is a must. You need a frame of reference in order to determine if things like firing distance and movement rates are realistic and balanced.

Can't do a historic scenario without knowing how big the ground scale is, at least to a "ballpark" size.

So, rules need a scale but it need not be linear.

We are not drawing graphs. Non-linear is not a ground scale.

Don't care at all about time scale though.

True. Unless non-historical,not related to the real world, physics, etc.

What Martin Rapier said.

However, many rules claim scales, then deviate from that, and the result is some hodgepodge of different things.

In general, some thoughts on rules design without mentioning scales are better than stating absolute scales without giving the design decisions that surround them.

I prefer a scale, but some games get on without them. To take Armati as a case in point, the missile ranges are far too large for the unit frontages involved, given that it is clearly not a skirmish game. In fact the game ranges have been calculated from the effect over the period of time a unit would have to move through the beaten zone. So it is a wargame, attempting to represent the effect of missile fire against various types of troops, but it does not use anything that could be translated into a time or ground scale.
I'll leave to others to explain how you might translate an historical battle into Armati terms.

I used to worry about stuff like that but now not so much. Ground scale and weapons ranges almost never jive with each other in any case.

I used to worry about ground scale and historical scenarios. Nonetheless I played in several games that had no specific ground scale (FoW, Armati, Tactica, FoG, Warhammer Ancient – pretty much any Ancients game), and played lots of historical scenarios and it never seemed to be a problem.

I'm always surprised by how little people are willing to use their imaginations or to problem-solve this sort of thing. It's easy to make ground scale relative to your table and figure collections. For example:

The battle of Flürgelstein stretched across about four miles. King Ferdinand's army rested with its left flank on the edge of the Stinkenwald forest, and its right flank occupying the town of Hässlichdorf. In that distance, four miles, Ferdinand deployed 50 infantry battalions.

Okay, so… I have a six-foot table. That means that for my purposes, the biggest scale I can do is: six feet = 4 miles.

And my infantry bases are 2" wide. And I like playing with four-base infantry units. So each of my infantry units is 8" long in a line formation, like Ferdinand used. So… six feet divided by 8" equals… Nine. I can have nine infantry units abreast, running across my board.

So if Ferdinand had 50 battalions, in a space where I can put nine units… that means that each of my infantry units must represent about 5-6 historical battalions.

* * *

See? I'm no math guy, but that took me about two minutes to figure out. I didn't need a game to tell me a fixed ground or figure scale. All I needed to know was:

- How big was the battle in historical space?
- How many historical units were spread across that area?
- What are the sizes of my table and bases?

Isn't that a lot easier than buying a game with a fixed unit/ground scale, and then thinking, "Eh, crap… I don't have enough Prussians? And my table is too small…"

These days I prefer games that leave the scale to the players. Rather than demanding that the players conform to some arbitrary fixed scales. I like the idea that I can use the same table and figures to play Waterloo, as to play Quatre Bras. I'll take care of the scaling in each case.

Doesn't matter much. All that matters is weapon range and move rates relative to unit frontage/area and table size.

There are company-level games (eg FOW) with artificially short ranges and battalion+ level games with very long ranges that cover the table. Yet other games are so abstract it's completely irrelevant.

Besides, in so many games if you actually applied the ground scale roads would be the width of linguini! Nobody pays attention to these things in practice.

I'd rather play an entertaining game with relative ranges and move rates that result in a fun experience rather than a 100% "accurate" system that results in boredom.

It really depends on the type of game you want to present. Rules for a beer and pretzel ACW skirmish game need not be as precise as rules for an accurate re-fight of Gettysburg. Playability, whether purists want to accept it or not, is an important consideration. I have been in far too many highly detailed, accurate games that dragged interminably. On the other hand I have played fast moving entertaining games that defied all logic and were disappointing in that respect. For me balance has always been the key. All wargame rules are abstractions of reality. Making the abstractions to a minimum and as close to reality as possible while keeping the game enjoyable is the real trick.

In complete agreement with raylev3's remark.

Doesn't matter much. All that matters is weapon range and move rates relative to unit frontage/area and table size.

Wartopia:

I agree with your observation. In saying that, whether the designer starts with the table and scale down, or an inch and scales up, the relationships between frontage, weapon ranges, movement and time still need to be there, so ground scale is always there to be figured.

Besides, in so many games if you actually applied the ground scale roads would be the width of linguini! Nobody pays attention to these things in practice.

True, but it is just a convention to mark the road for use, rather than representing the actual scale, just like the height of the figures…

I'd rather play an entertaining game with relative ranges and move rates that result in a fun experience rather than a 100% "accurate" system that results in boredom.

I agree, but the opposite is true. How fun is the game if there is zero 'accuracy' in the system? Parcheesi anyone? Then again, what does a 100% accurate system look like?

Bill H.

By 100% accurate I guess that I really mean "bottom up to an extreme".

For example, if someone decides that in a modern wargame they want "accurate" ATGM ranges on a 4x6 table AND opportunities to maneuver they might give TOW missile a range of 2'. With a range, on paper, of nearly 4,000m that means 6" represents 1,000m and small arms fire is about 2", less than the length of a 15mm tank model and just a couple of tank lengths in microarmor.

Yes always.

der tolle Knolle wrote;

I'm always surprised by how little people are willing to use their imaginations or to problem-solve this sort of thing.

And I am astonished that anyone would believe for an instant that ground scales are a fit subject for imagination.

Are you so devoid of numeracy that the trivial matter of numerical ratios requires you to engage your imagination?

Is your imagination so stunted that it can be exercised with mere questions of how big something is compared to something else?

Isn't that a lot easier than buying a game with a fixed unit/ground scale, and then thinking, "Eh, crap… I don't have enough Prussians? And my table is too small…"

No, it isn't, it is an absurd and futile over-complication of a wholly trivial question.

If you are going to fudge scales, be clear about what you are doing, and confess to it. Don't pretend that it is some kind of imaginative exercise in "problem solving"; it's a fudge. Say so. Fudges can be justified in the interests of playability/fairness/symmetry/tidiness/economy/making sure the good guys win. But there's no excuse for not being honest about them.

One of the things that makes wargaming fun is the willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the player, so that he can, in some respects, imagine that the choices facing him are those of his historical (or for that matter fictional) prototype. Now, I belong to the generation that still used to go outdoors once in a while in its leisure time. Consequently, I imagine terrain to be comprised of physical features with actual measureable distances between them. The only part of the world I do not see in this way is London, whose topography remains unknown to me, and around which I navigate using the London Underground map.

Real life is nothing like London.

All the best,

John.

That was probably one of those really clever super-ironic posts, and I'm just being too dense to get the sarcasm. Surely you were poking fun at that adorable wargamer habit of getting really, really angry that some people are playing make-believe differently that you are.

Hence the deliberate contradiction between your second point

"One of the things that makes wargaming fun is the willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the player"

And your first:

"If you are going to fudge scales, be clear about what you are doing, and confess to it. Don't pretend that it is some kind of imaginative exercise in "problem solving"; it's a fudge. Say so…. there's no excuse for not being honest about them."

I'm supposed to suspend disbelief to imagine that I'm Napoleon, and that the styrofoam lumps are actually the Pratzen Heights, and that the little metal lumps are actually thousands of soldiers, and that the battle was divided up into "turns" with "movement phases" and "combat phases" and that corps commanders had a "radius" …

…but I have no right to decide that scales of my game are flexible on a case-by-base basis, based upon the table size and figures that I have, and the way I choose to represent the armies and battlefield… Because that's… "fudging" ?

Very funny. Well done, sir!

By 100% accurate I guess that I really mean "bottom up to an extreme".

For example, if someone decides that in a modern wargame they want "accurate" ATGM ranges on a 4x6 table AND opportunities to maneuver they might give TOW missile a range of 2'. With a range, on paper, of nearly 4,000m that means 6" represents 1,000m and small arms fire is about 2", less than the length of a 15mm tank model and just a couple of tank lengths in microarmor.

Wartopia:
I'm not sure how that would be more accurate. Lots more data, but more data doesn't equal more accuracy for a simulation of any kind. Theoretically and in practical terms, a top-down design has as much opportunity to be an accurate simulation as any bottom-up design…if I understand that terminology.

Bill H.

This thread has become more interesting.

Always a pleasure to see someone being told off by John Salt. I'm a big fan of fudge.

Phil Steele
soawargamesteam.blogspot.com
ecwbattles.wordpress.com
pbeyecandy.wordpress.com

John:

You have to understand. Sam sees all of wargame design as both entirely "fudge" and pretending, pretending to be Napoleon being the same level of game design as pretending there is a ground scale or anything else in the way of history for that matter. Any simulation efforts are self-delusion. He doesn't believe simulations are possible, particularly with game mechanics.

That is why he can see your statement as funny and super-ironic. That is why he would see no reason to acknowledge which parts of his games are fudge. The entire design of his or any wargame is considered 'fudge' by him, by his own definition of that "game design term."

Which makes any questions about ground scale or time scale as entirely about 'fudge, feelings and flavors.' Other than pretending it means something when he feels like it, the questions are entirely irrelevant in his view of wargame design.

You can't refute that internal logic.

Bill H.

"I'm not sure how that would be more accurate. Lots more data, but more data doesn't equal more accuracy for a simulation of any kind. Theoretically and in practical terms, a top-down design has as much opportunity to be an accurate simulation as any bottom-up design…if I understand that terminology."

Fully agree with you Bill, thus the quotes around "accurate". Maybe "supposedly realistic" would be another good term?

In my younger days I was fascinated with precise scale calculations. Then I realized it just didn't matter in a practical sense. I'm not saying throw oit any attempt to represent period tactics. If I set up my MG to cover a kill zone and a bunch of infantry meander into it then I want a chance to kill them before getting shot. On the other hand, model terrain scale is nearly always wrong unless olaying at a perfect 1:1 scale.

I guess I just can't see getting upset over an issue so inherently problematic the moment you set up your game.

Fully agree with you Bill, thus the quotes around "accurate". Maybe "supposedly realistic" would be another good term?

How about a different definition for 'accuracy'? The basic meaning is dependent on knowing the target and having some way of measuring any efforts to hit it.

Instead of accuracy being the amount of details that can be stuffed into a set of rules, how about this:

The ability of the wargame/simulation game to simulate what the system was designed to simulate. It is 'accurate' if the game system succeeds.

To claim a 'bullseye', the accuracy of a shot, you have to have
1. a target, a what
2. a means of hitting it, a how, and
3. some way of measuring the hit for 'accuracy'--whether the bullseye was hit or not.

Such a definition requires that the designer:

1. Be specific about what part of reality/historical data etc. is being mimicked by the system. The What.
2. Be specific about how the mechanics are supposed to do that. The How.
3. Tests to establish the success of the mechanics. There are established methods for doing just that. Just as games are 'play-tested' to see if the design works as a game, a simulation should be tested for the same reasons.

Precision scale calculations for a game alone don't get you much, as you noted. A game simulates through it's play. If the game system, the play, doesn't simulate, all the precise calculations in the world regarding data won't help.

The issue is inherent in simulation game design…but it isn't problematic if you have the practical approach and methods to deal with it.

With the all gamers I have known over the years, it's only upsetting if player expectations have been raised by designers saying the issue is solved, only to discover it isn't the moment you set up your game.

Bill H.

IMO it depends on the type of game. Are we talking a 'game' or a 'simulation' ?

I write and play games. I don't care for simulations.

A simulation should have realistic ground scale/proportion.

A game, to be playable, usually needs to muck about with scale to create the proper 'feel'.

True. This is a very important piece of information for me to choose to ignore.

Yes. We've been playing Black Powder despite it's lack of a ground scale so we altered the ranges a bit so that it has one.

Faust wrote:

IMO it depends on the type of game. Are we talking a 'game' or a 'simulation' ?

I write and play games. I don't care for simulations.

A simulation should have realistic ground scale/proportion.

A game, to be playable, usually needs to muck about with scale to create the proper 'feel'.

Faust:
You don't have to like simulations, but a simulation doesn't require a'realistic' scale or proportion. [whatever 'realistic' means in design terms.]

It all depends what the game system is designed to simulation.

So, depending on the simulation goals, particular scale and proportions are important.

However, as any game representation is all about proportions between mechanics and playing, to get that 'feel' you want, you will be 'mucking about' with proportions, if not scale, to get your proper 'feel.'

Black Powder has a ground scale because it has particular units represented with particular frontages, whether they state a scale or not. Even the proportions that Faust speaks of are there to suss out. And Black Powder is a simulation according to the designers.

Bill H.

I use ground scale and time scale to get within a reasonable framework for what I'm trying to put into the game. If 1" = 25 yards and 1 turn = 15 minutes, then things like movement rates and weapons data (ranges, ROF, etc) become easier.

That said, I also "fudge" every so often to get a better period feel.

Fudging does NOT remove the requirement to be up-front about scale. A GM needs those scales to make a proper game board and other scenario-design decisions.