"Mein Panzer a question of scale" Topic
21 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Rules Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticlePaul Glasser replays the Battle of El Alamein - this time, as a British infantry officer.
|
WKeyser | 13 Jan 2013 9:51 p.m. PST |
Our club decided to give Main Panzer a couple of games to try them out. First we really like most of what is in the rules. I like the Kill table and the method of determining hits and Kills. I like the idea of plug ins of rules. So we set up a battle from Operation Epson, using the fantastic Above the Battle Field series of books. The reason that I feel that these are probably the best books for wargamers that I have ever seen, is that they have the military maps from 44 which has 1 Kilometre squares shows all the hedges etc, but the most exciting part is that the maps are usually accompanied by an aerial photo from 44 showing the same area as the map. So now not only do you have the scale but you also see what the terrain actually looked like. So we set up the assault on St Mauvie with the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers and the 8th Royal Scots. So that is two battalions of infantry attacking on a narrow frontage of 1.5 to 2 Kilometres. The defenders are four companies of under strength German SS troops. The 8th RS are accompanied by a company of 15 Churchill's. So far so good, during the assault we get into the problem, since there is no listed ground scale we have to infer and use what I have read on other forums, mostly on TMP. Which seems to imply that the ground scale is 1" is 50 Meters. Great now we set up a table about 36" wide. Place all the figures on the table and all of a sudden the infantry are firing over 1 kilometre with panzerfausts firing at 300 meters. Now something is very wrong with the "telescoping" ground scale if it is indeed 1" is 50 meters. If we look at the panzerfaust then we are looking at probably 100 meters as maximum range so does that mean the 6" is 100 meters if that is the case then the table, all of a sudden, would be 120". Not what we are looking for. So the problem seems to be with the idea of getting all the toys on the table concept behind the telescoping scale! So either we go in and change the ground scale which really does not work or go in and change all the ranges of the infantry fire to something more acceptable. We will finish our battle but then we are going to have to go in and change all the ranges, as I said earlier I really like the Kill table and the method of determining the hits and kills. But the ground scale just does not work between the infantry and the tanks. So has anyone else found this to be a problem, particularly if one is trying to represent an actual battle by using accurate maps and distances? William |
ancientsgamer | 13 Jan 2013 10:50 p.m. PST |
I think you misunderstand telescoping scale. In shorter distances, the range is actually smaller. I forget which. But at 2 inches, I would think you are looking at way less than 100 feet let alone 1" equaling 50 meters. In other words, the closer you are in distance, the less abstract the scale. As you move futher out, the more the scale in increases. I forget the exact amount but am thinking that 36 inches in beyond the range of most tanks as an example. I have't played the game in a few years but the ranges work just fine from my memory. The Panzerfaust is a very short range weapon. I would ask your question to the game designer's on the ODGW forums for a better answer than mine. |
Bunkermeister | 13 Jan 2013 11:57 p.m. PST |
I use my own rules set and I have incorporated a telescoping range idea. For me, five inches equals 50 meters, then ten inches equals 100 meters and then fifteen inches equals 250 meters. Twenty inches is 500 meters. Each five inches is 250 more meters. It gives infantry a reasonable range distance compared to the size of the 1/72nd scale figures and yet allows long range tank combat on a reasonable sized table. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
MajorB | 14 Jan 2013 2:39 a.m. PST |
In my experience, a telescoping ground scale seems like a good idea for ranges at first. But then it all falls apart because the frontages suddenly don't work. I have also found that one of the easiest things to tweak in a set of rules are the weapon ranges. If you think they're wrong just change 'em. Doesn't seem to adversely affect the game – in fact adjusting ranges to what you are think are more "realistic" values seems to improve the game significantly. |
elsyrsyn | 14 Jan 2013 6:34 a.m. PST |
I have also found that one of the easiest things to tweak in a set of rules are the weapon ranges. If you think they're wrong just change 'em. Doesn't seem to adversely affect the game – in fact adjusting ranges to what you are think are more "realistic" values seems to improve the game significantly. You might then have issues with the relationships between movement rates and weapons ranges, though. Doug |
MajorB | 14 Jan 2013 8:37 a.m. PST |
You might then have issues with the relationships between movement rates and weapons ranges, though. No, I have not found that to be a problem. Most wargame rules have a very loose approach to the "length" of a turn and hence movement rates. If it bothers you, adjust movement rates as well. Simple. |
Meiczyslaw | 14 Jan 2013 12:28 p.m. PST |
You might then have issues with the relationships between movement rates and weapons ranges, though. Probably not. For me, the trigger for doing what Margard suggests is usually a mis-match between the two. When that happens, you only need to tweak one of the two to get the ratio correct. |
WKeyser | 15 Jan 2013 12:29 a.m. PST |
Hi Guys Thanks for responding. And no the problem is not understanding the telescoping ranges, rather that if you are trying to design a historical scenario based on detailed maps not having a scale and that the scale is different for close range infantry weapons means that you skew the battlefield. The whole idea of telescoping range as in Main Panzer is in my opinion a very sloppy design decision. I can buy it in a game that has lots of abstractions, where the main focus is to portray abstract battles where actual scale is not important. That is fine, however, in Main Panzer the detail in all other aspects of the game point to an effort by the designers to show ground combat in detail. However, this falls apart when you for example find a map where two towns are say 1 Kilometer apart. If you then position two infantry units in those towns they have a really good chance of hitting any armor 500 meters away with panzerfausts!. Telescoping ground scale does a great disservice to an, otherwise excellent game. I will as other above have mentioned attempt to just change the ranges and stick with 1" is 50meters ground scale. There are lots of data out there that will make this a rather easy, but time consuming job. Thanks William |
ancientsgamer | 15 Jan 2013 9:44 a.m. PST |
William, then you do what you want with your maps :-) The idea of telescoping scale is when space is limited. If your space is not limited, then by all means change things. The telescoping scale serves a purpose for most gamers. You are an exception. Please don't criticize the idea because you have more space. Trust me, many of us are lucky to get a 4X4 foot table to game on
.. |
WKeyser | 15 Jan 2013 1:06 p.m. PST |
Actully ancientgamer the idea is not limited space it is the fact that you cannot convert a map of the period into a meaningfull tabletop. As to 4x4 if you are doing micro armor as we are the scale of 1" to 50 meters means that your 4x4 table would be 2.5 kilometers x 2.5 kilometers. So trust me your table is big enough for micro armour. Again as stated previoulsly it is a question of abstraction, if you are alright with the the unit frontage, weapons ranges and map scale not being the same fine go with it. The problem as stated is the Telescoping scale does not work if you want all three of those things to be to the same scale. And yes I am more than happy to do as I want, I usually do or at least that is what my better half says. William |
BonzaiBob | 17 Jan 2013 10:49 a.m. PST |
Hi William, Sorry for my lateness in responding, but I had knee surgery yesterday, worked 12 hour shifts midnight shifts the 5 previous days before that and had to take care of a cople of plumbing leaks prior to that. Not the start to the new year I was looking for. :) The rules were written to 1"=50 yds for micro armor. The sliding scale only applies to short range AT weapons to 24". The infantry small arms ranges are set up as general ranges with effective ranges at 12". Ranges past 12 inches are lower percentages due to their inaccuracies. While it may seem the ranges seem excessive, they are not in pure weapons ranges. The weapons can fire out to and past the weapons in many of their statistics but are not effective at those ranges. That is why the weapon efectiveness is set at 12" (600 yds) as this is where the weapons are effective. Note that small arms are somewhat generic and that is why they are all very similar. The sliding scale was meant to give the infantry AT weapons a bit more range so that the weapons had a little more interation in the game. Without the sliding scale, the panzerfausts, bazookas, panzerschrecks and AT Rifles would not have more than a 2-3" range. While accurate for the scale, the game play seemed to suffer in all of our playtests since infantry had little effect in the game and tanks were supreme. So the sliding scale was introduced to give a little more balance to the game. Now if you are playing with 10mm or 15mm it will seem a bit out of sorts. With those scales we typically double all movement and weapons ranges and use 1"=25yds as the scale. This makes playing with these scales feel more playable and realistic. I hope this provides a little more insight into the method and reason. |
WKeyser | 17 Jan 2013 11:55 p.m. PST |
Thanks Bob That helps, although, I am still going to try and change the close range of the AT weapons. William |
FlyXwire | 11 Mar 2015 8:40 a.m. PST |
Just doing a review search for Mein Panzer – having read this thread I get the impression that battlefield tabletops used for play-testing may not have had enough terrain density to allow infantry AT weapons to be effective (or spotting rules to detect infantry ambushes are too lenient in the rules)? My search into threads about Mein Panzer will continue here – as a general observation though on our hobby, you'll see great WW2-era skirmish-level terrain featured on the TMP pages and linked gamer blogs, but when the action goes up the levels of command, the battle boards get much sparser of terrain. The OP here brings up his desire to model scenarios based on more detailed map arrays, and reinforces that this enables close range AT weapons to become effective – I agree. I can also imagine it may be hard for authors to create rules systems that cater to the limited ability of gamers to construct "realistic terrain", and therefore create rule mechanisms needed to manage this fact. I'm of the opinion company+ level actions could and should be as interesting and exciting on smaller dimensioned game boards if they were populated with meaningful terrain and densities of obstructive features encountered like in NW Europe. Optimal movement rates would be rationalized not by rule mechanisms, but managed by players concerned with not blundering onto/into enemy ambush opportunities – the whole rate of combat [encounters] is prolonged as an attacker encounters threatening and enemy-advantaged features unfolding in their path of advance. We've often read the generalized point forwarded that tank actions rarely exceeded 1 km (or so) in NW Europe because of the density of the terrain. If this were taken as a rule for the maximum LOS achievable on such a model battlefield, then most encounters would evolve at much shorter ranges, and many within a couple hundred meters in scale distance [or less]. Just an observation from a long time gamer, but terrain makes the board [obviously], and helps present the battle problem, and reinforces the associated tactical opportunities, which [might] inform the rules. If I were getting into this hobby anew, I'd be pricing a lot more on terrain features, and dialing back my figure purchasing appropriately. |
gregoryk | 11 Mar 2015 7:18 p.m. PST |
I have also found that one of the easiest things to tweak in a set of rules are the weapon ranges. If you think they're wrong just change 'em. Doesn't seem to adversely affect the game – in fact adjusting ranges to what you are think are more "realistic" values seems to improve the game significantly. Our group the LA-based Miracle Mile Gamers(MMG) does not use telescoping scale, instead we stick with 1"= 50 yds. tis gives bazookas about a 1 3∕4" range but solves the sometimes zany effects caused by the telescoping scale. YMMV Mein Panzer is a game we have played a lot, several hundred games, going so far as to develop our own house version based upon some of the things missing in the original version |
gregoryk | 11 Mar 2015 7:21 p.m. PST |
William,
Our club decided to give Main Panzer a couple of games to try them out. First we really like most of what is in the rules. I like the Kill table and the method of determining hits and Kills. I like the idea of plug ins of rules. So we set up a battle from Operation Epson, using the fantastic Above the Battle Field series of books. The reason that I feel that these are probably the best books for wargamers that I have ever seen, is that they have the military maps from 44 which has 1 Kilometre squares shows all the hedges etc, but the most exciting part is that the maps are usually accompanied by an aerial photo from 44 showing the same area as the map. So now not only do you have the scale but you also see what the terrain actually looked like. So we set up the assault on St Mauvie with the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers and the 8th Royal Scots. So that is two battalions of infantry attacking on a narrow frontage of 1.5 to 2 Kilometres. The defenders are four companies of under strength German SS troops. The 8th RS are accompanied by a company of 15 Churchill's. So far so good, during the assault we get into the problem, since there is no listed ground scale we have to infer and use what I have read on other forums, mostly on TMP. Which seems to imply that the ground scale is 1" is 50 Meters. Great now we set up a table about 36" wide. Place all the figures on the table and all of a sudden the infantry are firing over 1 kilometre with panzerfausts firing at 300 meters. Now something is very wrong with the "telescoping" ground scale if it is indeed 1" is 50 meters. If we look at the panzerfaust then we are looking at probably 100 meters as maximum range so does that mean the 6" is 100 meters if that is the case then the table, all of a sudden, would be 120". Not what we are looking for. So the problem seems to be with the idea of getting all the toys on the table concept behind the telescoping scale! So either we go in and change the ground scale which really does not work or go in and change all the ranges of the infantry fire to something more acceptable. We will finish our battle but then we are going to have to go in and change all the ranges, as I said earlier I really like the Kill table and the method of determining the hits and kills. But the ground scale just does not work between the infantry and the tanks. So has anyone else found this to be a problem, particularly if one is trying to represent an actual battle by using accurate maps and distances? William
I would be happy to send the MMG version to you if you are interested. |
gregoryk | 12 Mar 2015 7:51 a.m. PST |
One of the things that is unique about a game called Mein Panzer is that it is a very good infantry game, but as suggested above, we have changed the ranges of man-portable AT weapons to eliminate the telescoping scale. This actually works fine within the game system. We also often play with a 1"=25yds scale, too. The MMG version used to be on the website, but I think it is no longer located among the files. |
Marc at work | 30 Jan 2020 9:33 a.m. PST |
Late to the party here The OP refers to a series of books "Above the Battle Field series of books" Any idea what these are please – sound good, but Google didn't help me this time. Thanks |
pfmodel | 02 Mar 2020 2:55 a.m. PST |
I was once told by some old timers the "telescoping range" idea was common in very old rules, designed for 1/72 scale models. But by the early 1970's the idea basically disappeared. I always wondered why and after doing a detailed study of rules I realise why. It causes too many problems for anyone who has much knowledge of warfare. In principal it's a good idea, but in practice less so. Nonetheless the idea has come back with the adoption of 15mm, but I am not very keen as it causes all sorts of strange problems, as you have identified. I think its better to pick a scale, in your case 1 inch = 50 metres, or 1:1968, which is a good scale for a set of rules where an element represents a squad and you command a battalion. Frontages for formations are notoriously variable, but a company could be expected to defend a frontage of 600 metres, with an attacking frontage being about 300 metres. Obvious the regiment will have companies in the rear, but they would typically appear as reinforcements. At a scale of 1:2000 the playing area defence frontage of a company is 30 cm, with attacking company's adoption a frontage of 15 cm. With four German companies the playing area would be about 120 cm wide, which is a reasonable size. And fits in with your playing area size. The ratio looks good as well, I suspect about 2-1 in terms of fighting capacity. I think you have identified the correct scale, the issue is the weapon range of the Panzerfaust. |
Mark 1 | 02 Mar 2020 1:19 p.m. PST |
I am an avid fan of the Mein Panzer rules. The great advantages I find in Mein Panzer are: - The turn sequence, which keeps you mindful of your force organization, makes it hard to inflict gamesmanship on your opponents based on optimizing for the edge of the turn, and keeps all the gamers at the table active almost all the time. - The balance between quick-play and detail, which serves my fascination with the differences of equipement while still keeping the game going, and also makes armor and infantry work together so well.
But as with the MMGC boys, I also prefer a table scale of 1" = 25 yards … or 25mm = 25m … or 1/1000. Call it as you like. I find 1/2000 to be too much of a compression of the ground scale verses miniatures that are 1/300. I can kind of deal with ground scale compression of 3-to-1 vs. the miniatures scale. But 6 or 7-to-1 is just too much for me. For one thing, the whole unit frontages thing gets hard at 7-to-1 compression. To wit:
This is my recently-completed US Infantry. The force in the picture is based for Mein Panzer (although the basing is flexible enough for some other rules as well). The basics are 1 stand = 1 squad for most of the infantry, with some smaller team-sized stands for HQs and smaller support weapons. For the sake of this discussion please disregard the engineering platoon at the bottom right. Across the middle of the pic are the 3 rifle platoons. Each consists of 3 squads (4 figures per stand), and a command team (2 figures per stand). Behind them are the company HQ and support platoon (with 3 x 60mm mortar, 2 x M1919 MG and 3 x bazooka teams). If I put the squads in each platoon base-to-base, and put only an inch between platoons, when everyone is on the line, the line is 10 inches wide. At 1" = 50 yards that is just too much. Not that everyone should be on the line, but still, it's just too much. 1" = 50yards means tanks that are 25m apart will be wheel-to-hub, and infantry that are 3 squads per 100m will be edge to edge. And I don't like small hovels that are 50m long, and two-lane streets that are 100m across. Of course there is the challenge of finding enough game table space. I need 3m of table for 3Km of map. But hey, at least the math is easier! As to the terrain density, well yes I can populate a table with terrain that is dense enough. But that doesn't change my desire for some map space, because my preference is for games where there is some prospect for maneuver. Even if the majority of the combat takes place in a 250m square area of the board, I want 3Km of space so the defender and attacker need to make decisions that put their forces in the right 250m square area, not just an attacking force face-firsting into a defending line. The only other significant house adaptation I use is chit-based hidden movement. This is an easy overlay onto almost any ruleset, and fits Mein Panzer quite well. Your tankage may vary. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
pfmodel | 02 Mar 2020 11:59 p.m. PST |
1:1000 scale should also work. WRG 1925-1950 (for 20mm figures), Cambrai to Sinai and Blitzkrieg Commander, Micro Squad the Game all use ~1:1000 scale, so its not unusual. ( This video lists all the scales of common rules I have used ).That would also solve your panzerfaust range issue. I suspect you need to halve your force mix to two German companies, but I don't think that is bad. I have found once the total numbers of elements on a table exceeds 100, the game length becomes too great. The only downside is when an element can reach most of the front line from a central position, assuming a clear LOS, there is a minimal opportunity to hit a flank and avoid the other flank getting involved, but if your scenario is well designed that is not an issue. The scenario described here would work very well in this case, assuming all force mixes are halved. |
Wolfhag | 03 Mar 2020 10:15 a.m. PST |
Mark 1, I'm on the same page as you regarding terrain and unit density. I've been playing tables 6-9 feet long representing with 1" = 25m and micro or 10mm armor. With dense enough terrain you can get maneuvering out of the opponents LOS to actually accomplish flanking and surprise with reinforced company-sized units. Units must be assigned objectives and cannot change their orders unless someone has a LOS to an enemy that triggers it. Thay means players need to put recon units (with better radios) on the flanks to guard against it rather than sacrifice them to soak off attacks on frontal attacks. From my personal experience and the game scale you are playing, I'd say having the infantry squads in contact with each other is correct. We were rarely out of visual or voice contact. Being a Platoon Leader is somewhat like herding cats, especially when you get into dense terrain. This is what holds up your movement when deployed in a skirmisher formation. I'm not real familiar with the telescoping range thing. Wolfhag |
|