"What scale do we game at and why?" Topic

I was going through the rules for an operational level naval game the other day and I suddenly realized, that in miniature games there are some scales we never seem to game in (In this case I don't mean scale as in 1/72 or 1/50, but rather the scale as in level of command). That is, I've seen many miniature games where players are commanding a platoon on up to a division, corp, in a given battle. Yet, I can't recall ever seeing many miniature game where command was at the operational level, and none at all where grand strategy was an issue. I have seen games at this level done as board games, and sometimes I've seen those games use miniatures (e.g. the original Axis & Allies) but never as a pure miniatures game.

I should note, I have seen some rules-lite campaign systems that do take grand strategy into account, but usually those games are intended as simple auxiliary systems to setup actual battles using some more detailed rules system (e.g. the rules in Warfare in the Age of Reason).

Why do we game at the levels we do and why? Is it simply because setting up such a board and terrain is troublesome? Is it just not interesting? Are there other reasons?

The right tools for job, I suppose, with a healthy does of what "looks right" (subjectively, of course).

On the operational level, I recall someone building a 3D map of Middle-earth with miniature armies maneuvering on it. The armies seemed DBA-ish, maybe fewer bases. I thought that was a good idea.

Personally, I choose scale and scope on any number of subjective factors, all of which seem to make sense at the time but are not necessarily transferable to another period or someone else's preferences.

Typically platoon or smaller for WWII. Other periods would be hard to define due to figure scale in various rules, etc.

There is competition. Lots of operational level board-war games. For naval for example you have the Avalance Press War at Sea series. Awesome operational game, terrible tactical game (well good for what it tries to do). Napoleonics has Napoleon at Bay for example, etc. Even for large bettles the board-war-games beat the miniatures. Napoleon's Triumph is an exemplary attempt at Waterloo, that miniatures games cannot reach.

Why spend the money and time to do operational scale in miniature, when you can get the ready package?

Add to that the following: A good operational scale game should include as much as friction and uncertainty as possible. This means that units should not be on the map until very later in the game. Are we really going to be happy to have to play the big and exciting part of the operational game without our hand-painted miniatures?Are we simply happy with them as the equivalent of counters and game pieces?

None of the above.

NQM and Megablitz are operational games and have a big following. They are figure games.

In the age of set piece battle (say, Greek and Persian Wars through to …. 'fill in as appropriate') there is less of a rolling operation to explore but systems like Phil Sabin's Lost Battles give a top down approach to exploring the whole of a major engagement.

Phil

Mostly because it is what we are used to.

I have an idea I've toyed with to do ACW at operational level, with large battles taking up maybe a square foot on the table.

It's not got beyond vaporware.

What is NQM?

What is NQM?

Not Quite Mechanised
link

Yes I think once you go above a certain level, which varies by period, say Army in Horse and Musket and Bde in WW2, the model scale of the figures you could practically use diminishes to the point where counters on a board game are just as useful and no less attractive, and considerably more convenient…

Yes I think once you go above a certain level, which varies by period, say Army in Horse and Musket and Bde in WW2, the model scale of the figures you could practically use diminishes to the point where counters on a board game are just as useful and no less attractive, and considerably more convenient…

Not necessarily. Most players of Megablitz use 20mm models!

At the operational level, you loose the correlation between physical representation and capability. This creates a disconnect between miniatures that represent individual people or platforms and the units that they represent. This is part of why more abstract unit representations seem to be more "right" for operational level combat.

This creates a disconnect between miniatures that represent individual people or platforms and the units that they represent.

But that is true of all wargames except those where 1 figure represents 1 man and 1 model represents 1 vehicle.

"But that is true of all wargames"

I dont agree. Napoleon could recognize the Scots Greys at Waterloo. So even a base with three Scots Greys models would make sense for a game (like DBN).

But being Napoleon in Paris and sending commands to Junots army in spain, you dont need miniatures. So "Empires in Arms" is the better tool for the job.

There's more or less of a disconnect depending on one's tolerance for abstraction. For "modern" (WW2 included), combined arms elements can be difficult to represent with figures at some scales. Obviously not a problem at the skirmish level. But it gets more and more difficult to represent the bewildering variety of vehicles and weapons in higher echelon units with just a couple of models on a base. Even harder for armies like the US and Germans who like to mix and match at all levels up the scale. Again, it's all comes down to abstraction, both in the rules and in the eye of the beholder.

I have certainly done both operational and even strategic games using miniatures (two of our recent show participation games covered respectively Operation Barbarossa and the last 12 months of the war in Europe).

Once your elements represent battalions/brigades/divisions/corps then rules generally become much simpler as considerations of ranged combat largely disappear although certain logistic aspects begin to loom large.

The difficulty is that scenario design becomes rather harder, you can't really have a pickup game between the Veronezh Front and Army Group Centre (well, you could, but it might be a bit weird). So operational games more tend to be an extended exercise in scenario design, which is essentially all boardgames are anyway.

My Market Garden game (ran three times, very successfully) was essentially a miniatures version of VGs 'Hells Highway'. Whereas Mansteins dash to the Dvina was my very own.

There is of course a level of abstraction some gamers might be uncomfortable with, but I do think the real chore is coming up with a decent game. The really big operational mega games are well attended and the players appear to have a good time, but the barriers to putting such things on regularly are quite high.

"diminishes to the point where counters on a board game are just as useful and no less attractive, and considerably more convenient…"

That is probably true and I did get to the point of making counters for some games, but I like toys and will jump through various hoops to get a workable toy based system running.

At then end of the day all our toys are representational, they are just pretty 3D counters, whatever level of game you are playing. But they are shiny and nice, unlike counters.

But that is true of all wargames except those where 1 figure represents 1 man and 1 model represents 1 vehicle.

Fair enough. Even at 1=1 (my) models don't duck behind vehicles, or ever change poses, for that matter. Allow me to clarify and say "a more severe different class and degree of disconnect." I think there is a difference between "this APC represents a APC" or "this APC represents three APCs" and "this APC represents 12 APCs, 4 support vehicles, a C2 vehicle, and 24 dismounted infantry … no … wait 12 dismounted infantry; the other 12 got back in #3 and #4 APCs."

So operational games more tend to be an extended exercise in scenario design, which is essentially all boardgames are anyway.

Most of my tactical games are about scenario rather than combat mechanics.

I think once you get to the operational and multi-army level with miniatures your basically are playing "Axis and Allies." I have seen a marvelous game of "Third Reich" with a huge table and map using 28mm figures instead of counters. It looked fantastic and a lot of work went into it but you could do the exact same thing with the original game map and counters.

Not sure about the OP are suppose to be listing the scales we like to use and why or are we suppose to discuss using miniatures at the operational/army scale?

but you could do the exact same thing with the original game map and counters.

Yeah, you could, but it wouldn't look anything like as spiffy!!