"Are you bothered by ground scale and figure ratio?" Topic

I look at the game table and see soldiers with modern rifles that are 1" tall miniatures having rifle ranges of 6". Stands a group of stands with a total of 12 16 miniatures representing a Brigade. Ships scaled at 1"=200' whose weapons ranges are 15"(3000'). I prefer skirmish games when using large figures and really tiny figures for larger battles.

What bothers you?
1. Ground scale distortion does not bother me.
2. Figure ratios do not bother me.
3. Larger figures should only be used in skirmish gaming.
4. Small figures detract from visual appeal and cant
really present large units anyway.
5.. Nothing, it is only a game.

5

5

Yes, but not in the ways you think!

5

5

Not too much. Sometimes I have fantasized about being able to have a game that would match both ratios, but as I am not a billionaire with acres of available space for my hobby…

6: Figure ratios bother me a bit.

All the games I have figures for use a 1 figure represents 1 man rules.
However I will play with others figures where this is not the case.

Awwwwww hell, another 20 pager.

5.

It is a Game.

They are Toy Soldiers.

:)

Yes. (Since this was a question). I do not agree with any one of the 5.

5

5, if it includes 1 and 2.

No, i`m not bothered by figure scales or ratios too muchly… these are models/toys/figures which only represent real numbers of men.
There is a difference though between 1:1 figure-man ratio scale skirmish games and the scales of wargames where figures will "stand for" larger numbers.
But it`s all likely to be less of a distraction once you get involved in an entertaining game anyhow.

5

6 – only thing that bothers me is not being able to shoot through my own troops – even when the figure/ground scale is such that they are taking up FAR more space then they really would.

5

We are playing with toy soldiers in a game. Anyone who believes he is playing a 'war game', in the scientific military research sense, is both naive and arrogant.

5

a very big 5 as well.

6. Casting ratios for a unit is different than casting 'size'. Unit ratios and ground scale should mesh. In essence the castings represent unit depicted on a map board.

5

Not really. Our games are played up to Bn strength in 1 to 1 scale for numbers and it seems to work fine for us.

I vote with Rudy.

> We are playing with toy soldiers in a game. Anyone who believes he is playing a 'war game', in the scientific military research sense, is both naive and arrogant.

Always has to be someone making that comment…

Visual aspect has some merit – 6 it is.

Unfortunately, cost and space available dictate.

5.
Some things strike me as \"silly\", but they do not bother me in the least.

We are playing with toy soldiers in a game. Anyone who believes he is playing a \'war game\', in the scientific military research sense, is both naive and arrogant.

Always has to be someone making that comment…

And that \"someone\" is always right.

"both naive and arrogant"

Better put me down as naive and arrogant then.

What exactly do you think differentiates military wargames from civilian ones, particularly the military games which are based on civilian rules?

Sometimes I have fantasized about being able to have a game that would match both ratios, but as I am not a billionaire with acres of available space for my hobby…

Try 6mm figures with a ground scale of 1ft = 100yds.

"Better put me down as naive and arrogant then"

Can I put you down as having a fairly good understanding of how the military view wargames?

5 as well

5 for me too.

I don't mind the difference between ground scale and figure scale, but it is nice once in a while to play a game where they're the same, just to get an idea of perspective.

The example I like to use is pre-Dreadnought era naval. I've done Spanish-American naval battles using 1:1200 scale ships at a 1:1200 surface scale on the floor of a large classroom. You can do 1:6000 scale on a large tabletop.

I do everything one = one, ground = figure love rules that weapon range = LOS and mostly all 28mm.

If your going to use Ground scale distortion and Figure ratios, you might as well just use card chits and maps.
why bother with 3D minis and tables.

I'm generally in the naive and arrogant camp. A lot of what I do is to explore history through the medium of the game and it is necessary for coherence to know broadly what represents what.

We did a presentation on the battle of Naseby at our local Library and Art Gallery complex on Thursday. It went down very well (created some good PR for the Battlefields Trust, raised some money for the Naseby Project and may also have got a couple of the audience into wargaming*). All good, in my book.

Modelling with figures dramatically improves people's connection with the historical events ('card chits and maps' have their place, but I find models and figures work better), but I find ordinary members of the public are generally quite able to cope with concepts such as 'these blocks of figures represent regiments of a thousand or so actual men', 'this area of the model represents a mile or so on the actual battlefield' etc. and if some distortions are necessary to capture the narrative fairly, I am happy to explain them. Only wargamers of a certain sort seem to have trouble with this.

I am not particularly wedded to given games or scales but try to work with what works and fix what doesn't. I'm also up for a good old-fashioned wargame. The idea that wargaming can't function coherently on many different levels and fulfill different purposes according to the organiser's intent is absurd.

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

You can find out more about the Naseby battlefield Project at naseby.com

*they're going to give it a try, anyway, I understand

5. Although, I do play skirmish games in larger 28mm or 20mm scale and small numbers of troops. I also think it's just a game with toy soldiers, so please yourself.

5

5 for me but over the years I have sure heard alot of complaining at conventions from players that it did bother. I have always prefered small 1:1 scale skirmish games anyways. And I'll play skirmish with any size figures (down to 6mm that is).

What exactly do you think differentiates military wargames from civilian ones, particularly the military games which are based on civilian rules?

Might I point you towards the book:
"War Gaming" formerly under the title "The Bomb and the Computer" by Andrew Wilson.

Chapter 3 "The end of Amateurism" assesses the impact of all the scientific research from WWII that has been used in military simulation since. The amount of data was immense and war game rules ceased to be of the 'kriegspiel' type. We are not talking Warhammer rules here.

Chapter 5 "Tacticians in the laboratory" deals with pre-computer war gaming as practised by military establishments post WWII. A brief quote should suffice to illustrate the difference between what we call war gaming and what the military call wargaming:

"When I visited Quantico in 1967 two marine lieutenant-colonels were playing a game to analyse the helicopter requirements of a marine division. The board was a map of cuba 20 by 40 ft…….Red and blue symbols sprouted profuely………..At one end of the board a stout desk supported two thick volumes of the rule book."

"The Landing Force War Game is a rigidly assessed, 'closed' game. Moves are made at game-time intervals of between 30 minutes and several days; but because of the work of moving pieces, determining results and writing up a game diary for later analysis, a game covering twenty to thirty hours of action generally takes about four months to complete."

I think my point is valid, and I think I'm right.

a game covering twenty to thirty hours of action generally takes about four months to complete."

Though, to be fair, that's probably true of Empire too…

So a game that takes ages to complete that has a really really big book (multi volume, even) is more than just a game because it is really detailed and, err, big.

And a game that is quick and has a small book is 'just a game' because it's smaller.

I'm really glad TMP helped me on that because otherwise I'd have been lured into analysing the quality of the rules, not just weighing them.

Phil
ecwbattles.wordpress.com

So a game that takes ages to complete that has a really really big book (multi volume, even) is more than just a game because it is really detailed and, err, big.

And a game that is quick and has a small book is 'just a game' because it's smaller.

Yep. The detailed one is a simulation. The other is just a game. Sorry, but you are trying to defend a very poor position. I write rules too, good rules, but they are rules for a game that bare a resemblance to historical warfare and give a similar overall result. Do they give me accurate casulaty returns – nope. Is time and motion accurate – nope.

I give you typical 'war game' cavalry moves. Most 'big battle' games rules have time frame of 20 – 40 minutes to each move (because battles then last a historical amount of time). How far can cavalry move in 30 minutes at a liesurely trot? They can charge a mile in under 5 minutes! [Thorobreds can do 4 and a half miles in 14 minutes over fences.] How wide is your table in ground scale? I bet it ain't that far. I allow light cavalry a maximum move of about 36 inches a move, which is generous in game terms, but they should be moving off the table, down the corridor and into the garden.

In short, coming up with a game that gives a result that bears a resemblance to historical results is not a scientific simulation – it's like a math problem: To get full marks you have to show all of the workings out.

1 & 5

Thing is though to simulate is from the OED:

imitate or reproduce the appearance, character or conditions of.

The appearance can be done by a one page set of rules as easily as a tome of rules – the appearance comes down to the toys we use.

Character is harder to define and may be too subjective to measure.

No game with toy soldiers in a safe warm room will simulate the conditions of an actual war.

Now with regards to the last point I have not been in a battle but I am quite sure that doing so is very different to me sitting on a chair rolling dice, having a cuppa and being happy and glad I am not being shot at.

Also, details if incorrect or superflous do not make for a more realistic game.

End of the day though we all play games as we like, if not then you are kidding only yourself.

Saying you are right doesn't make you right, olicana …

Something a lot of TMP posters miss.

Nor does adopting a patronising tone win you any additional brownie points. But, hey, thanks for trying.

As I indicated, I am generally attempting to explore an episode of history, not create a detailed simulation. If I was designing a simulation I would judge it on intelligent criteria, not on how big the book is.

Your second paragraph is really just restating the question posed in the original post. Indeed history does demonstrate that troops do not move around the battlefield at the 'full throttle' they might achieve if the were, say, out for a Sunday morning ride – or a race over fences (it is your weak methodology that is the problem, of course)…

I reject utterly this restatement of the TMP reductionist theory that a wargame is either an elaborate 'scientific' simulation the understanding of which is beyond even well-informed amateurs OR it is merely a game with no useful relevance to the history that inspires it. Drivel. Between the extremes lie many more layers of content, insight and narrative.

In the end, 'if' you're missing it, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.

Phil Steele
soawargamesteam.blogspot.com