"Is "Scale" Dead?" Topic

Over on some horse and musket related boards there's a thread about the death of precise ground, time, and unit scales in those gaming periods.

I thought I'd ask the same question here: is scale dead in 20th/21st century and sci-fi gaming? If it is, is that a good thing?

Looking at some popular rules I'd say it's on life support at the very least and it may have stopped breathing.

Let's start with two very popular games, Flames of War and 40k. Nary a hardline ground or time scale to be found. Both use a telescoping ground scale to compress weapon ranges at the higher end. The bigger or longer ranged the weapon the more it's compressed.

Many other popular games use a ground scale significantly out of sync with the model terrain and figure scale. Roads that should be the width of a shoelace are 4-6 inches wide. Multiple buildings which should be treated as area terrain (as we treat woods) are instead treated as individual buildings.

In Crossfire entire platoons of three squad sized stands can ride in a single model vehicle.

Even nominally 1:1 games such as Force on Force compress blast radii so that 2,000 pound bombs don't cover huge portions of the tabletop.

The specifics of these various scale related issues has been discussed in other threads so there's no use in raising undead horses here! :-)

This topic is about the aggregate effect or ultimate objective of these scale issues: a compromise between accurate scale and playability. When faced with choosing between trying to scale our roads and units perfectly most gamers happliy ignore inaccuracies to embrace more interesting games.

So games that use ground scale of 1" = 10m happliy include individual buildings and roads scaled to the troop models instead of the ground scale. Others use vehicle and infantry ratios that some consider to be inconsistent (eg 1 vehicle model represents 3 vehicles but 1 stand represents 1 squad). And many games squash weapon ranges and blast effects to allow more maneuver and range-related tactical decisions to be made (eg using 15mm or 28mm figures we still get to decide whether to close with that MG…even though buildings are treated individually meaning the entire table should be in MG range).

Time scales seem to be the biggest casualty. Once gamers figured out that an "accurate" time scale means a choice between company and battalion level actions being fought to conclusion in just a few scale minutes or infantry crossing the table in one move they began to abandon hard time scales. There's just too much waiting around in real combat and yet vehicles can cross big distances in moments. Trying to capture both non-events and rapid events in one time scale of "each turn equals x minutes" is impossible if elapsed time scale is supposed to look plausible.

So, are hard and fast scales dead? Which rules consistently and accurately apply hard time, ground, and figure scales while avoiding problems such as figure and model terrain inconsistencies? Do you personally worry about hard scale consistencies or are relative distances sufficient for you as in FoW?

You don't need scale. What is important in a game is correct feelings about the situation and actions, not scales. I think that scale is just a broad guideline.

Correct ground scale would mean that real battles were fought on battlefields 100 m wide and 150 m long.

Correct time scale cannot work because, as you write above, in real armies sometimes you must hurry to do things very fast but most of the time you wait and do nothing.

Two words: board games. Especially the hex & counter type.

But recent board games also steer more toward playability than simulation factor. Wargames (both board and tabletop) are commercial product so they need to be marketable.

(just Google case blue or campaign for north africa for some example of monster wargames with great detail and crazy book keeping)

As for hard scale vs relative distance, I'm in the relative distance camp.

Scale is dead. I weep for the future.

Fashions come and go, even in game design. Soon someone will "discover" scale again.

One thing you gain by simplifying the "scale" for lack of a better term is an increased decision cycle speed which is something lacking in more "accurate" games (Say, playing Seekrieg vs playing GQ).

While Seekrieg models armor vs Guns more granularly, the speedier decision cycle enabled by GQ's simpler rules and data sheets models the speed of the naval decision cycle during battle more accurately.

I would say physical scale has gone away but Decision Time Scale has vastly improved.

I've been wargaming for almost 40 years and never seen a game where scale hasn't been "flawed" (usually the relation between the figs and the terrain are the problem). While there is a trend now for more fluid, quicker games that seem to empahasis lack of accuracy, it's no detriment to the gaming (at least to me). All wargames are abstractions. If the rules recreate correct feel for the action then they're fine.

Ground and time scales are dead for our club. We do mostly sci-fi and fantasy and are in the hobby to have a good time painting toy soldiers and playing games, so a realistic scale is of little or no importance to us.

Interesting that you post this to Sci-Fi, WW2 and Modern sections, as there's a good chance Sci-Fi fans will be more ambivalent about this trend than the other folks.

I would agree with BrotherSevej that if you really want an accurate "scale" than a board or hex game where everything is more tightly defined may be the answer.

In the end, it depends on what your goal is. If you want a realistic simulation (whatever that is) then this trend is real problem. If you're just looking to have some fun with toy soldiers then it matters not at all.

No………for those who are dedicated to realism and want more than just a game, how can you or why would you not game without scale???

Of course, one could argue for relativity. Scale is relative to what is being simulated. All games and simulations ultimately model outcomes, and all models incorporate or discard data to reflect the author/creator's intent.

Scales only give the appearance of "accuracy" or realism. How many games have you seen where a "turn" represents 5 minutes but takes 20 minutes to play? How is that realistic or accurate? Like wise ground scale. At 1" = 10m a decent sized house might be no more than 2" square. Yet such a house could hold an entire platoon easily. With room for guests. What scale figures would fit? And how do you do LOS when your 20mm SAW gunner can see over the roof of a 2 story house?

If relative time and distance force you into the same decision trade offs as your real life counterpart, then your scale is accurate. If not, then not.

Tim, what's Vim???

Scale? We ain't got no scale. We don't need no scale! I don't have to show you any stinkin' scale!"

As for accuracy, often it is stated that the game "gives realistic" outcomes. Well, that depends on having a realistic scale. If in a typical game it takes a platoon a week to take a farm house or called artillery arrives in 19 seconds is that a realistic outcome?

How many games have you seen wh<>ere a "turn" represents 5 minutes but takes 20 minutes to play? How is that realistic or accurate? Like wise ground scale.

This is poor reasoning. There is no connection between playing time and actual game time. If more units are used the turn length is longer. Does that mean time slows down? A time warp?
Should all movement be increased when two platoons are used instead of one? Because it will take longer to play so the troops will move futher.

I've been wargaming for almost 40 years and never seen a game where scale hasn't been "flawed" (usually the relation between the figs and the terrain are the problem).

I have seen (and played in) games using 6mm figures and a ground scale of 1ft = 100yds. Ground scale matches figure scale.

I have also played skirmish games where one 25mm fig is 1 man and the ground scale is 1" to 2yds.

I've never seen that in the US. A Canadian product?

(Never thought we'd discuss bathroom cleaners!!!) :-)

OTOH, many games have a dichotomy between ground scale and figure size. That doesn't mean that "scale is dead". After all, the figures are really just a way of having pretty bases rather than cardboard squares. Provided weapon ranges and unit footprints match the ground scale, it doesn't matter what size your figures are, although usually the smaller the better to minimise visual distortion.

I've never seen that in the US. A Canadian product?

(Never thought we'd discuss bathroom cleaners!!!) :-)

Don't know about Canada, but we can get it in the UK:

vimcleaners.co.uk

Although I don't know anyone that actually uses it. Most people these days use a liquid cleaner.

"As for accuracy, often it is stated that the game "gives realistic" outcomes. Well, that depends on having a realistic scale. If in a typical game it takes a platoon a week to take a farm house or called artillery arrives in 19 seconds is that a realistic outcome?"

As others have mentioned I think the challenge with that approach is picking a time scale that accounts for the many different battlefield events which take very different amounts of time.

Consider these events or activities within the context of a given ground scale:

- flying a helo across some significant part of the table

- driving a jeep across some significant part of the table

- driving a tank across some significant part of the table

- maneuvering a squad across some significant part of the table

- becoming engaged in a prolonged firefight

- reorganizing a platoon post attack to prep for enemy counter attack

I can't think of any specific, fixed time scale that can account for all those different actions in a reasonable manner.

"Don't know about Canada, but we can get it in the UK:

vimcleaners.co.uk

Although I don't know anyone that actiually uses it. Most people these days use a liquid cleaner."

Hmmm…maybe the powder form could be used as ground cover. Glue to your figure's base, paint, and dry brush!

:-D

I do Star War at 1 to 1 scale. Hoth takes about 18 feet. Although it is all fiction, I have taken ranges and weapons systems and scaled them accoringly. I am a combat veteran and understand just because you can see a target does not mean you can hit it. I do JRIII at almost real time. Most skirmish games can be scaled pretty easy. The range of my M4 was out to 600 meters but in tactical application it was more in the nature of 100 meters.

VR
James Matttes

Hmmm…maybe the powder form could be used as ground cover. Glue to your figure's base, paint, and dry brush!

Not if the glue or paint are water based!

Scale hardly matters outside of campaign play. I'd rather look back on a recently completed game and ask myself:

Was the game full of rising and falling tension, punctuated by bursts of action and unexpected results?

If yes, then it was a good game. Nuff said.

Are we just talking about time here or ground scales too?

I spend a great deal of time trying to design games where:

a) units occupy the correct footprint relative to ground scale and formation, and terrain models are appropriate to the level of engagement. This involves picking a sensible ground scale.

b) movement and combat outcomes reflect what was historically possible and plausible within a given time period, including extremes like Mansteins 50 mile a day dash to the Dvina. This involves picking an appropriate turn length, even if that turn length turns out to be three days.

If you do neither of these things, it becomes exceedingly difficult to refight historical battles. A bit sad trying to do Waterloo if the troops won't fit and the battle is over by 1230.

I couldn't give two hoots how big the figures and terrain are, they are just pretty 3D additions to the maps and counters. The exceptions are when it looks silly or the figures won't physically fit on the counters.

"Consider these events or activities within the context of a given ground scale:"

I don't understand the problem, just vary the time scale, variable length bounds and all that. Unlike the Einsteinian universe, time can be variable in wargames. The main thing is picking decision points at intervals appropriate to command level. For battalion comamnders this is probably every four hours or so.

The physical mechanics of shuffling toys around, resolving combat etc are somewhat incidental, lots of ways of handling differences in capability and actual performance, command delays etc. Of course if your game puts the player in five different command levels at once you might have a problem.

I would agree that in very tactical games, there are very specific problems with time as there is so much 'hurry up and wait' going on. That is where impulse/initiative based 'time free' games like Crossfire shine, but at battalion or possibly even company level and above, it is just flags in maps and things are a little more measured and predictable.

vim ; great for in scale snow !!!

Let's look at two scifi games: The classic Striker 1/2/3, where a single turn is specified to be 30 seconds and it can take you 6 turns to get your orders out to respond to an ambush (since there aren't any easy ways to model immediate action drills in the rules).

In comparison, Tomorrow's War doesn't have a specified groundscale or timescale. It's *very* close-ranged, probably close to 1:1 figure:ground scales. It also assumes that your little lead soldiers are actually trained and competent, so they do the IADs for an ambush without you (their LT) giving orders other than 'smoke' or 'through them'. Yes, one or two words will get an entire platoon or company moving and fighting in a coordinated fashion.

I think part of the reason for the decline of the fixed time-scale is that people got really tired of having '30-second' turns that took several minutes to resolve.

Without a fixed time-scale, a fixed ground-scale is largely meaningless, as long as you get the relative speeds and weapons ranges correct. In TW, pretty much every weapon can shoot across the board due to the short ranges represented, so now all you have to do is to get relative speeds correct.

I think part of the reason for the decline of the fixed time-scale is that people got really tired of having '30-second' turns that took several minutes to resolve.

I don't think I have played a game with '30-second' turns for a very many years. Most of the games I play seem to have turns representing anything from 10-15 minutes up to a couple of hours. Needless to say those turns are played much faster then "real life".

True, I haven't seen *any* rules system other than Striker with 30-second turns. However, the point about rules where it takes longer to resolve the action in the rules than the action is supposed to take IRL still stands.

For example, I assume that any action in Infinity is roughly 10 seconds. Short skills are about the length of time it takes to say "I'm up, they see me, I'm down," and each action is two of those or one long skill. It takes very close to 10 seconds to declare and resolve the actions, what takes time is figuring out what is going to happen. I still suffer from a bit of analysis paralysis in that game.

Without a fixed time-scale, a fixed ground-scale is largely meaningless, as long as you get the relative speeds and weapons ranges correct.

The key point is that ranged weapons aren't nurfed so much as to allow units to move from safely out of range to melee without getting a shot off.

Ah, there was a time a few years back (how many turns was that?) when the "time is relative" concept was tried, with very disappointing results. Folks went back to 1 turn = 20-30 minutes after that.

As to ground scale, there may not be a set one per se, but the designer is working with one in his head. How far folks move and fire is a direct result of some sort of scale concept.

In terms of both time and ground scales, there will always be a fair amount of fudging in the process. Scales are a guide rather than a hard and fast thing at times.

Was it Don Featherstone who said that he had never worried about a scale for his games and he didn't feel thay lacked anything because of it?

Scale is a little birdie that goes "tweet".

It's window dressing. It tells you the the size of the unit and the rough distances you are moving over time. It adds no actual value to game play. It adds some value to context but not enough to really matter. Ultimately, the games we play are what we make them. If you exclude yourself from a game because it has no scale associated with it, then you may be missing out.

"I would say physical scale has gone away but Decision Time Scale has vastly improved."

I complee agreetly, as Ani Difranco says.

I don't think it's dead, but it's not as important as it once was.

Personally I believe scale is only important if it's relevant to some aspect of the game the designer is trying to simulate. If the game designer's goals don't need scale as a requirement because he's trying to portray some other aspect of the battlefield, I'm ok with that.

For me, I find that attempts at matching time/distance factors (whether it is unit frontage or weapons ranges) still tend to have to compromise on something, ESPECIALLY for modern games. And since I prefer games that represent the relationship between the use of combined arms forces, and that require you to make tough decision about what to do with your assets, time/distance isn't as critical for me.

Units seldom move at constant speeds under combat conditions. The true varying ground conditions of "open ground" are seldom modeled well on our table tops. Just having X unit consistently moving Y distance over ground type Z is in itself unrealistic. Units always speed up and slow down based off their perceptions which are driven by imagined threats as well as confirmed ones. Ground type is never very uniform even within the common subdivisions of "open", "rough", and "difficult" terrain etc in wargaming.

By trying to force time/distance scales into a fixed framework within a particular game system we may be doing more harm than good when it comes to "realism" and it just may be that a more abstract approach may ultimately be more realistic and quite often it is a bit easier to work with in a wargame.

Everyone would benefit from the use of scale!

The Metric system is there to help no to turn people against each other,it is important to have things in scale because you would be sure you are buying the right (scale) vehicle,house,bunker,figures,etc.

The way things are is most are comfortable with Milimetres so say 28mm means figure size is roughly 1/56,but so far most us buy based on size and hearsay(always bias to the core) in terms of figure range compatibility (mostly based merely on how tall figures are)this is really medieval,kids should know the scale of their buildings, armies and models,its very important.

Sometimes I have to send people pictures of my ranges with a certain brand/s figure in order for the to make sure I manufacture the correct type of 28mm…

So manufacturers have to sculpt,make molds cast and pack their figures…and then prove the figures are the correct size…itīs ok I can do this but itīs time consuming and only adds to the problem where we need a true solution:
The use of scale not size!!!

…Honest to GOD…

GLM…

Looks like you haven't encountered "box scale" vehicles at Target or Walmart!

:-D

I thought all you needed to do was to have the base of the figure (regardless of its "scale") match that of the ground scale.

So that if a figure's base is 25mmx25mm, and the ground scale is 1:1000, and the "men" represented by that grounds scale would realistically operate in a 25mx25m area, then the "scale" was more or less appropriate.

I listened to a discussion about this about WWII games between two people, and they seemed to bemoan the fact that it was possible to make an infantry game, where the ground:time scale matched the infantry, or a tank-based game, where the ground:time scale matched the vehicles.

But that it didn't seem possible to integrate the two without the vehicles zooming all over the game-table if using the infantry scale (where the Infantry can reasonably do something), or where the infantry are nothing more than terrain pieces where the vehicles have a short enough time scale to maneuver on the table (and at that scale, the infantry move only about 1cm).

I seem to recall (although I haven't played it) that the Original Striker has the worst of both of these: The Ground scale still has vehicles zooming all over, and infantry move about 1" a turn, 4" if they are powered armor.

One solution that came out of this conversation (in which I really didn't take part save as answering some questions about the iPad), was that games needed a way to integrate the larger theatre into them.

So that, players would maneuver vehicle units on a larger map, outside of the game table, but on the game table, you would have the action taking place.

The "Larger battle, representing something on the order of a Battle-Group, or Division, taking place would be on a digital format, such as an iPhone or iPad (or Android – basically, a smart-phone or tablet), and that battles would be much shorter affairs that the players play out on a tabletop between infantry units (and whatever vehicles are present).

They seemed to think that this was the way forward for future games, and would integrate a semi-campaign setting with the battles that take place along it's front.

This way, players can resolve conflicts purely through the in-App play, or they can elect to Play-Out conflicts and interactions on the tabletop.

What is "Box Scale?"

Does that mean "It's whatever size will fit into their standard sized box?"

I always keep in mind that the ground scale is not the same as the height figure scale. Work out a balance and if it is consistent then it should work okay.

A lot of modern games mean most weapons and sensors cover the board quite easily so as long as you have the normal things such as fog, smoke, interference, blocking line of site, etc, the outcome should be the same as what you expect.

I think we need a new board for household cleaners. It will be a good place to discuss the forthcoming Osprey releases "Household cleaners of the Afrika Korps" and "Household cleaners of the Waffen SS"

What is "Box Scale?"

Does that mean "It's whatever size will fit into their standard sized box?"

Yes!

I am involved in modelling various features of aero engines for a living. Two things can be said based on my professional work. In some cases to get a "resonable simulation" it can take weeks to get a result that in practice would take less than a secong in real time. No this is not ideal but the results are still "useable", Thus the argument that it takes too long is subjective and does not actually degrade the model in real terms.

Given a time restriction however it does limit how long a length of battle you can model in one session. This may or may not be accetable.

All models even the ones we use at work are not "accurate". If a stress model fails we do not go out and kill the relevant number of folk! Thus accuracy is befined by what is a usefull result and if exsisting situations and results are approximated ( not idetically mirrored) then it can be argues that the model is acceptable.

In writing any set of wargame s rules (Both the authors in MG have writted unpublished rules before) it is very necessary to fully define what the answer is that you want. What exactly do you want to model. Range, tactics approximate timescles, level of order writing, communication times, detail of terrain etc. Speeds of vehicals, acceteration of vehicals, actual reaction times etc.

It would be possible in theory to very accurately model a vehicle with respect to turret traverse times, actual observation times through individual vision blocks, time to reajust vision from one block to another. etc. However this would limit what could be done in a 3 hr game.
On top of this is the artistc level you want.

Again as an example MG for 1/72 chose 1" to 10 m as ground scale for close quarters battle. This is an approximation. Love it or hate it. We chose it becuse with a width of road at 3" you can get your fingers between 3 story buildings. The out of scale ground is catered for by the extension of short range weapons 150m or less by about 30m so that the width of the road is always coverd. Again this is a compromise. Each wargamer has to list his acceptable compromises and why they are acceptable to him. We use individual buildings fo effect. However we recognise that in reality we are representing more than one building. Again a compromise.

I could go on, and on and on… and often do ;-).

In the end any model is a compromise, timescale, range, fidelity of the reproduction of the battlefield.

My pet issue (obsession?) is to at least get the right number of linear features in our defined groundscale. In general wargames battlefield have far fewer roads, streams and built up areas than the real world. Without such basic approximations you will not get it very representative.

Wheather you want a game (FOW) or a simulation (MG) is a whole different matter and beyond the scope of this tread I would have thought but mabe its not.

Perhaps a better way for a thrad is what do you want out of a wargame and what compromises are you are you not prepared to accept.

MG nealy got calld Rules of Tumb. In other words it just made to use rules based on basci rules of thumb in fighting battles. Only infantry can take and hold ground. Tanks fight 1 foot on the ground, In assult first win the fire fight etc. Artiller is for suppression and to fix enemy in place (From US manual). It supprising how few rules meet even this lowly criteria.

Let's be scientific about it:

The objective reality is absolute; and the subjective feelings of the real people are relative.
In a game the objective simulation is relative; and the subjective feelings of the players are absolute.

So the game cannot be proportional with the reality; and if they cannot be proportional, it means that talking about scale is mere philosophy.

If you understand my enlightened explanation.
:-) :-) :-)

"Again as an example MG for 1/72 chose 1" to 10 m as ground scale for close quarters battle. This is an approximation. Love it or hate it. We chose it becuse with a width of road at 3" you can get your fingers between 3 story buildings. The out of scale ground is catered for by the extension of short range weapons 150m or less by about 30m so that the width of the road is always coverd. Again this is a compromise. Each wargamer has to list his acceptable compromises and why they are acceptable to him. We use individual buildings fo effect. However we recognise that in reality we are representing more than one building. Again a compromise."

"Wheather you want a game (FOW) or a simulation (MG) is a whole different matter and beyond the scope of this tread I would have thought but mabe its not."

Below is a photo of a very, very typical residential street in Fallujah, Iraq.

At 1" = 10m, if using 3" wide roads with 1/72 scale figures, your roads are waaaay off.

I don't see how MG is a "simulation" with respect to scale while FOW is a "game" with respect to scale when MG is so far off in getting terrain modeled correctly. Same issue pertains to the buildings.

I fully agree that it's all a matter of what each gamer feels is an "acceptable" compromise but using the terms "simulation" and "game" for comparison purposes is pretty definitive or binary. MG makes its compromise to maintain a toy soldier feel in which streets and buildings are treated as 1:1 entities regardless of nominal ground scale.

If your rules are treating buildings and roads as 1:1 entities with that ground scale then, rather than a simulation, I'd described MG as a "toy soldier" game too.

On the other hand, if you were to abstract the roads and buildings in the context of game mechanics and treat them in the aggregate as a specific type of area terrain I could see things being pushed towards a true simulation.

Based on your own comments above and the manner in which MG apparently handles the relationship between nominal ground scale and the toy soldiers it's closer to games such as Rapid Fire than what most would consider a "simulation" with scale-appropriate abstraction (more often than not abstraction improves the quality of a simulation.)

Road net widths are always off in wargames, no matter what rules are considered.

The average overall width of a British motorway (hard shoulder, three lane carriageway, central reservation, another three lane carriageway and hard shoulder) is ~35m.

The average British A road is around 9 metres from kerb to kerb.

Most urban roads outside of major towns and cities are ~7metres or less. I'm paid to know this Can I bore you with bridge heights and their loading limits now? :)

When was that motorway photo taken? No central barrier, but more to the point, hardly any traffic! And is that an Anglia between the two trucks?

It's the M6 in Cheshire mid 1960s :) Here's another in Cumbria about the same period.

A more recent one across Saddleworth

The objective reality is absolute; and the subjective feelings of the real people are relative.
In a game the objective simulation is relative; and the subjective feelings of the players are absolute.

So the game cannot be proportional with the reality; and if they cannot be proportional, it means that talking about scale is mere philosophy.

Ah, No.
Off you go with your old Newtonian reality. The objective reality is relative as well as both time and distance are relative. And what is time and distance in a game? Scale. Thus there is no problem with proportionality.

Oh, this is so much more of a civilized discussion on scale than went on in the Nappies board.

I believe that relative scale is the most important thing. Weapons and tactics in the game should mimic real events in effect more than in details. A game designer should keep some sort of ground and unit scale in mind as a way of verifying that the weapons and units behave properly in a relative way.