colonneh137 | 14 Mar 2015 10:06 a.m. PST |
A group of figure stands in column should look like this: "----------", side-by-side moving "sideways" down the road not looking like a "marching band": "]]]]]]]]]]" with the figures on the ends of the stands not even on the road. We've all seen the photographs. Not only does it look "oh so wrong" but it skews the opening phase of a battle because the stands can come on line much faster. When the lead is not flying the way the figures are facing is not all that important. What is important is the length of the figure stand and it's representing the men moving one-behind-the-other as down a road. For this reason the frontage of a figure stand should be several times the depth. "Ground Scale" exists for a reason. What do I know. I've only been doing this since 1969. |
Pictors Studio | 14 Mar 2015 10:13 a.m. PST |
From what you are saying it sounds more like the depth should be several times the frontage not the other way around. |
colonneh137 | 14 Mar 2015 10:15 a.m. PST |
Frontage=4units; Depth=1unit, etc. |
Martin Rapier | 14 Mar 2015 10:41 a.m. PST |
Just put the stands end-end, or use spacers like in V&B or just leave a decent interval between each base or unit so the road footprint is correct or if using a grid specify the maximum number of units able to use the road in a given turn. Problem sorted. |
zoneofcontrol | 14 Mar 2015 10:51 a.m. PST |
Couldn't this mostly be satisfied through movement allowance? It costs you "X" inches/mm of movement to form up into column formation so on your first turn of movement you have to deduct that from the total distance moved. Same thing at the end. You need to save "X" inches/mm of movement to drop out of column and form into line formation or drop out of column at the beginning of your next turn. As far as looks, I don't see it as a big deal. To me the stand represents a particular unit. Not necessarily what it is doing. Use some sort of marker to denote column formation and treat it as line formation unless marked otherwise. Am I following you correctly? |
vtsaogames | 14 Mar 2015 11:07 a.m. PST |
What Martin said. Volley & Bayonet is the only set of rules that takes road space into account. Rather strange since much of the rest of the rules are abstract and simple. An aside: American units during the Revolution used to march in single file (called Indian file). I believe one of the many things Steuben taught the troops was marching in a column of fours, since being ambushed on the march wasn't that much of a threat from the red coats. A unit in column of fours will deploy faster than one in Indian file. |
Jcfrog | 14 Mar 2015 12:19 p.m. PST |
Most of the bataillon / tactical horse and musket rules/ games would not care much about road move as the tables depth is usually less than a few kms, too close to really use road march. If using it yes, it should be way different from march column . It is well done in Revolution & Empire. |
colonneh137 | 14 Mar 2015 5:23 p.m. PST |
For a unit to evolve from "Road March" – one behind the other – into line must pivot on its head ( like a swinging gate) to come onto line. The stand represents the ground upon which the unit stands. Imagine: A stand representing a unit of 100 men three ranks of 33 men standing shoulder-to-shoulder, one rank directly behind the other. That is "line formation". If they all turn 90 degrees to the right ("Right face.) they are in column formation, 3 men across, 33 deep. If they begin moving forward their unit depth 33 times its front. This depth needs to be seen on the table. When the stand stops and makes a "Left Face", it is again in Line Formation, 33 men across and 3 men deep. Agreed? A group of 5 stands moving on a road in "Column" formation are ordered to move into "Line" formation, the stand at the end of the column has farther to move to get into its place on line than the stands in front of it. Agreed? The movement rules should reflect that. That is what this is all about. |
Martin Rapier | 15 Mar 2015 2:39 a.m. PST |
I think that is what I said. The whole process of changing from road March to pre battle formation to final deployment probably needs to be considered as order or formation changes ie somewhat cumbersome, rather than trying to model it as how far individual men have to March based on their notional position in something as artificial as a war games base. A base is only a 3D counter after all. |
(Phil Dutre) | 15 Mar 2015 6:26 a.m. PST |
There are the rules, and then there is the visual representation. As for the rules, I agree with what has been said before. Moving from road marching column to another formation should properly reflect the difficulties involved. Now, if the basing does not match the " real footprint", i.e. The column is too wide and too short, this should also be taken into account in the rules. As for the visual rep, I have seperate " marching" units, with figures lined up one behind the other in a single file. To prevent that every unit has to be doubled up, i only have a couple of them, painted generically, such that they could be used as standins for whatever real unit. The same applies for squares as well. |
colonneh137 | 15 Mar 2015 7:57 a.m. PST |
Martin – "Footprint" is the operative word here. If a counter is square, does the counter actually occupy the same footprint as the actual group of men? After the arithmetic is done, given a half-inch x half inch counter, the actual group of men being represented (100men; 3 ranks/files of 33 men each) combined with the ground scale yields a frontage of one-half inch and a depth of 1/8". Sooo, . . .what is in the remaining 3/8" besides room for the ink? 8-/ Martin – Forgive me for "counting rivets" but if you have only " . . . a couple of them . . . " and say, 5 stands, that leaves three stands and their footprints unaccounted for on the table. ??? You and I do see the problem from almost the same seats in the stadium 8-) |
Extra Crispy | 15 Mar 2015 6:42 p.m. PST |
Most rules do account for this. To change formation uses up some or all of a unit's movement for a given turn. Now, if your point is that this particular evolution is rated as too easy in rules, that's a separate matter entirely. But wargames have this problem all over the place. Our counters are hugely out of whack relative to ground scale. Our assault columns are usually "square" – 3 stands up 2 back. When in fact they ought to be very wide and relatively shallow. I'm working on Napoleonics at 2.5:1 figure ratio in 6mm and even there you have to do A LOT of fudging. Or do what I do – play the game and don't worry about it. As has been said before, road column to line should be relatively rare on the wargame table…. |
McLaddie | 16 Mar 2015 7:25 a.m. PST |
As has been said before, road column to line should be relatively rare on the wargame table…. That's seems to be true, but I think it would depend on the scale,the period and the scenario designer. Any horse and musket period game would have road march columns if the game is scaled to anything above 50 yards to the inch. [a 4 X 4 table would be 2400 yards across] Most armies only deployed within 1200 to 1500 yards of the enemy or artillery range. At 50 yards to the inch, a 1500 man brigade would have a march column of between 380 to 700 yards depth depending on whether they are marching 3 or 2 across. A division march column of three brigades is going to be 1200 to 2100 yards long… almost as deep as a four foot table. If marching in on the same road, an army could be up to ten miles long or more. It's not surprising that most scenarios for the pre-20th Century battles start with the armies already deployed, making road columns rare on the wargame table. |
colonneh137 | 16 Mar 2015 9:09 a.m. PST |
Exactly McLaddie! Such rules beg to to be used as resolutions for campaign game's movement to combat. Or . . . triple the ground scale and divide all distances by three and let's have a little approach to combat. Howzat? 8-) |
Rudysnelson | 17 Mar 2015 7:22 a.m. PST |
We use the 'In-Transit' system for our Urban zones. This is effective for non-skirmish level games. Building are only in scale for skirmish levels. Due to the ground scale for large unit actions, a building actually represents several buildings. A zone is placed on the board, we use a CD disk, Basically, the are several types of zones based on the size of the city complex. A single complex (farm, industry) is the lowest. the next level is a village and a town. Based on the density of buildings is the determining factor. For a large city, multiple zones can be adjacent. The rules for operations are lengthy but not complicated. In regards to going through them. A unit is placed in the 'In-transit' section of the off-board objective box for that location. Units stationed in the town are placed in the garrison section. Based on the level of the zone, a unit must stay in a box so many turns before it can exit the town. This system was copyrighted back in 1981. It has been used with a few games and clubs have modified their own games to use them across the country. |
McLaddie | 17 Mar 2015 10:56 a.m. PST |
Our counters are hugely out of whack relative to ground scale. Well, that is true, depending on the scale, what the stand represents and how it is represented. It can be huge or pretty close, particularly if you include the distances different formations kept between each other and for maneuver. [ For instance, the distance between a one line and its support so that columns could go from open to closed and back again.] That means a battalion open column would need a depth as long as the frontage of a battalion in line. |