"Thoughts on rules - Real size of units" Topic

The links are from our display at Newark (Hammerhead). It was an interesting and thought provoking excersize. This is a large(ish) convoy of 30 or so vehicals, roughly a battalion with some supports. The vehicals are spaced at about 70m real ground scale so are at about the right real spacing. The vehicals are 1/144 of various types, Injection mouled plastic, Metal castings, commecial print models (AOTRS Shipyards at Shapeways) and home printed. What is of more interest is covers nearly 3.2km. It is interesting how some rules purport to model this convoy using 1 tank = 1 platoon. This give an indication of the incredible stretch of reality it is to do so. Each vehicle would have to maintain a minimum spacing of 400yds to make it somewhere near correct.

The urban area is our new found idea of getting the buildings registerd using a simple fold flat section that allows figures to be noted as on gound or second story, allows the buildings to be removed to get fingers in without disturbing the position of the building. Precise positioning being vital at this scale 1:144. This pre- registration could be done with any buildings that are hollow on the inside.

link

link

Hope this is of interest.

It is interesting but I don't find 1 stand = a platoon or a stand = a brigade to be any more of a stretch of reality than anything else in wargaming.

Everything we put on the table is a "stretch of reality". It really doesn't matter whether one vehicle equals a gazillion or just one-- it's going to operate in any game in about the same way. Move, shoot, save, lather, rinse, repeat. I prefer one equals one but I see no reason to disparage other ways of gaming.

I'm interested in your urban idea. When you say "registered" does that mean under the buildings is a perimeter of the building or something written on paper off table, or something else entirely? Sorry if I'm missing it but I'm also working on a way to have urban areas with borders and indicate occupation but also flexible.

Interesting.

Wargames always distort time and space in amazing ways. Your typical horse and musket set of rules has to curtail cavalry movement, because 4 or 5 miles an hour over decent ground is probably from one end of the table to another in a turn or two.

Linear formations are way WAY too deep, and weapon ranges are always wonky.

Still it's nice to see a picture that shows these kinds of things to help keep us honest.

I thought typical minimum AFV dispersal was ~25m, at least for WW2?

I know it's grown with moderns, now that radios are reliable enough to not need a trained electronics tech to keep them working.

I don't see any "incredible stretch of reality" in one model equals one platoon. I use a 4" hexfield = 500yards/ metres, or 125 yards/metres to an inch for 1:300 models. A dispersed company covers 2 or 3 hexes. So four models representing 16 real world vehicles on a road stretch out over a kilometre to 1.5 kms: a separation of 66m to 100m.

In tactical formation, line, reinforced line, kiel or wedge, normally with two platoons up, covers one hex so the horizontal separation represents 55m between each vehicle.

Where I do see an "incredible stretch of reality" is in any set of rules where vehicles deploy bumper to bumper, or even worse, side to side, and the 1 model = 1 vehicle scale with a low distance scale, say 1" to 25 metres, sort of rules seem to be the worse offenders in this respect.

Extra Crispy's point is also very relevant in respect to 1:1 figure scales… unless you are using 1:1 ground scale too the scale footprint of the vehicle model adds a very real distortion.

But like everything with wargame figure scales and ground scales there will be distortions, so go with whatever floats your own boat and looks and feels best to you.

Cheers,
Bertie

As above, you just spread your platoon, company or battalion bases out to the required depth for road marches. One thing staff tables are very handy for are column lengths.

Striker,
You have about got it its an inverted 'U' sape with square cornersjust smallet than the opening in the bottom of the house. It can fold flat but has enough strength that it will stay 'upright' and tall enough to place the figure either underneath or on top of the inverted 'u'. We dont do any art work on it (but you could) as the figures are hidden by the house. Being upright it hols the house almost exactly in the right place. It's not fexible for a given village but it is quick to make a new one just glue pre-shaped card onto a nes board. Foie 1/144 its just 300grm card for the supports and the base. The one in the picure is a bit 'artistic'. Ones we fight over have an increased density of houses to ensure sight lines are representative of an urban area.

As to streching realkity. In horse and musket evere since WRG issue 4 perhaps ealier the bases have represented the real frontage, depth was always rong but at least long ways on you got an approximation of a colum. For resons that escape me the 1 stand =1 tank does not account for the frontage. Skirmishers from line battalions can have two frontages but in AFV games the equivalent seems to be avoied. At MG we hate adding rules but are considering adding one on the basis of late information.

This by the way appears to be vailid for WWII as well. Vehicles closer than 40m to a previously targeted vehicle is shot at as a pre-engaged target with a very high proability of a hit as it is within the normal correction of a second shot. This in most ground scales would be enough to stop the idiocy of Napolionic arrangement of tanks I have seen in some games. Analysis of recent US army simulations notes that survival rates are better at 75 yards between alternate positions, 50 yards is the minimum spacing to an alternate. Again too many rules is a pain. The general 40m limit may be a sufficently representative value to get the effect without yet more hated rules one size almost fits all ;-).

I also game in 1/144th scale (using my own set of rules), and base my platoon/troop sized units on hex-stands. The stands help maintain battle frontages:

We always play 1 vehicle = 1 vehicle, and one stand of infantry = however many troops are on the stand [3-8] which generally = a Fire Team … and all we play is 6mm …

Looks like a column of modern German troops to me. Road column is vehicles are 100m apart if my memory serves me right.

The massing of AFV into a block is one problem I do see in games. However, the use of heavy artillery on that mass can teach the player not to bunch. Best example I have seen was a Panther company massed together hit by two battalions of 105mm and a 155mm battalion.

I do wonder why the column in the picture has the SPH in the front? The Leopard tanks appear to be tactically employed but if they are the march column is in trouble?

Tank Guy,
Column is headed by Leopards not sure what an SPH is. As it was a show we don't really play. The active Leopards were some we put out to give a quick game to an interested party. Most of the time was spent talking about the home 3D printer that did most of the vehicles in the boxers. Thhis convoy was set at 70yd spacing. In WWII the Germans late on used 10 vehicles per mile (about 170yds) to avoid the worst of air attack.

SPH = Self Propelled Howitzer.

What's really opened my eyes has been looking at the transport requirements for the supply lines. I've been working on the Pathan Revolt of 1897, and it's looking like I will need thousands of mules, even with 10:1 compression!

1 mule can carry about 200 lb so you need 10 to carry a tonne. And thas proably not over very much. 72 kg and an army Mule can go 26Km without stopping (160 lb for 16 miles) Thats 13 mules per tonne. Thats a lot of Muels to carry any significant weight. Hell, that makes my coloum look tiny.

I like the fact that when infantry in 1/300 engage each other across a road they are firing at 50m range! One of the most interesting games I played was 6mm using a real ground scale, it really gave you as sense of how compressed and abstracted rules are.

For most sets of rules, a vehicle column that is bumper to bumper has completely appropriate tactical spacing, given that ground scale is uniformly much greater than vehicle scale.

A 70m spacing between vehicles, i.e. 230 feet, I find to be much too distant. I would defer to others with more recent experience making road movements, though.