"In defence (or attack) of pre-measurement." Topic

Should pre-measurement be allowed? Obviously it can't be in a game which relies on guessing ranges (like many naval games) but what about the concept.

Yes. Armies learn to estimate ranges pretty damn quick. My father can still give you very good range estimates and he retired from the military in 1979….

Part of the issue is scale. I can easily mistake 18 for 20". I doubt I'd mistake 900 vs 1000 yards.

I always assume my soldiers are professionals and always allow pre-measuring for any purpose at any time.

Knowing you are 135 yards from the pin, and being able to make that iron shot are tow different things!

Yes.

Gamers are too klutzy and miniature battlefields too unstable to not allow it.

Pre-measurement allows one to measure a given distance and declare that, for example, a unit is supposed to be in a given position at a given range even though it keeps slipping down that ?!$%!?! model hill or Joe Gamer's beer belly just smacked the table and shifted everything around.

If you don't allow pre-measurement than you're letting the instability of the gaming table and one's hand-eye coordination determine a game's outcome rather than the rules.

And I'm serious about the hand-eye coordination thing. I've played with several gamers suffering from poor health or other problems that prevented them from moving their troops accurately. Pre-measurement allowed every to understand their intention without having to be perfectly precise in their measurement.

No-pre-measurement assumes that everyone is going to have perfect hand-eye coordination and the table's contents of terrain and miniatures is perfectly stable.

There is, IMHO, a valid argument for pre-measurement of movement in some games but very little for range pre-measurement.

Having said that, I can think of a few instances that might be acceptable, such as ….

'are they within my maximum range ?' – which could be found by a ranging shot before wasting ammo.

vehicle fitted with coax MG with tracer ammo – used as a crude rangefinder.

naval games after about 1900, when usable (but not always very accurate) rangefinders come into general use.

Using pre-measurement to micro-manage targeting tends to slow down skirmish games something terrible, for me it often reaches the point where the game loses any appeal at all.

Depends on the period and the technology underpinning the battles, and INMNSHO the guessing of ranges in naval games is a mechanism that's probably outlived its usefulness.

No…I do not advocate pre-measuring in any system.

If rules systems can provide for a broader spectrum of range modifiers for distance to target then worrying more about range bands and less about gun position becomes irrelevant. I don't get how systems with only 3 range bands makes sense in the first place. It is a paradigm that is not challenged often enough.

Sitting an inch beyond your well positioned guns, to my advantage, seems too gamey and blurs the historical effectiveness if specific gun types too much for me. I also think using d6 systems without much wiggle room to provide any real difference between gun types and range do not do much to help the "simulation" either.

Guns against massed troops might be more forgiving but if we believe gun accuracy and effectiveness is a product of range and gun type (excluding gunnery skill) to my mind it would apply here also.

I like premeasurement. Some folks are better at guessing ranges than others. This should not be a critical factor in the game. Assuming no pre-measurement, if a better player were playing the part of a poor general and he was good at guessing measurement, that would likely throw a wrench into the works and deliver some a-historical results for that general.

I play a lot of sci fi and I would expect my troops to have some form of rangefinder on them

There is a corollary problem for any who oppose pre-measurement.

The mere act of measuring a distance is functionally the same thing as pre-measurement in most cases. If you're using a 12" ruler to measure movement anywhere near the enemy then you're getting an excellent view as to the range to the enemy. It's even worse when using yard sticks.

Extremely scrupulous gamers will do everything they can to avoid inadvertently gaming this advantage. For most gamers they'll figure out the range subconsciously (i.e. placing a ruler anywhere near the action immediately provides strong visual clues about the range). And I've seen unscrupulous gamers deliberately take the opportunity to pre-measure a range when measuring movement.

Allowing pre-measurement recognizes the reality that in games banning pre-measurement it's occurring anyway either accidentally, accidentally-on-purpose, or very deliberately and puts all players on a level playing field.

Why not? I play with friends.

I see no reason not to premeasure, especially in naval games when ships had range finders.

As Guy Crouchback was taught, "Why do we judge distance? To estimate the range of the target correctly. All right? Correct range makes fire effective and avoids waste of ammunition. All right? At 200 yards all parts of the body are distinctly seen. At 300 yards the outline of the face is blurred. At 400 yards no face. At 600 yards the head is a dot and the body tapers. Any questions.?"

In a game where firing effect mechanism is based on estimating range (e.g. the Fletcher Pratt naval rules) then … no. Naturally!

Otherwise, why not?

I play whatever rules the majority plays and how they play but I do find it irritating when my opponent pre-measures so he can stay a 1/2 inch out of range.

All your speculations need to be changed to polls……maybe….

why I like games where the weapons can shoot Line of sight and only have a mod to hit at closer ranges. and charging range is a die roll added to movement

All your speculations need to be changed to polls

I disagree with this. I enjoy these posts and reading the various arguments pro and con. You wouldn't get that in a poll, just how many people think one thing or the other.

Yes of course:
1 some chaps estimate distances better, notably… The one for ex who owns the place/ terrain etc.
2 and where did you see in history that ..the x hussar could not reach the enemy infantry standing near the woods, as they lacked 7.98 m . Turns are a practical way to cut up time to allow for decision making, not much more.

3 otherwise it brings all king of time wasting tricks, hand put about, bases depth , paper on the table by chance in a paralel course to the possible gun…
4 and we poor gamers are not officers of the time, we don't have the artillery officers habits and training so our mistakes are not historical. The dice say they missed the target, not your eyes.
5 ok in some skirmish games it could be part of the fun.

I prefer gridded games. Solves that problem.

I'm against pre measuring. I'm a veteran and can guestimate distances reasonably well. But I can get it wrong at times. That should be part of game play, in my opinion. If I catch some one cheating I don't play them anymore. Some might point out that I could run out of opponents that way. But that hasn't happened to me in many years, if ever…

I don,t like pre-measurement, but I guess it depends on the game.

I dislike premeasurement, and think a lot of time is wasted by it, in some cases.

Given the vagaries of shoving toys around on a cloth, pre measuring is fairly important, or at least a statement of intent 'yes, they are supposed to be outside of charge range'.

Grids solve all this of course.

We still play Fletcher Pratt from time to time, and it is amazing how carefully people count their steps when walking around the floor….

I advocate it as real life is not precise but wargame rules are. Ask someone the range of a weapon and he will most likely prefix his answer with "about" or "approximately" yet our rules don't allow for that with bullets or arrows often stopping dead at 12" for example. Premeasuring allows me to advance into range and fire without finding that I'm the equivalent of a foot out so the enemy are completely invulnerable. It's a paradox that a gamey technique gives a more accurate effect.

Except in cases where guessing the range is a deliberately designed-in game mechanic, I've always thought pre-measuring was a great idea. It saves time, prevents or mitigates arguments, and makes more sense alongside most of the other admittedly silly abstractions involved in playing serious games with toy soldiers.

There are a few gamers around who are adamantly opposed to pre-measuring, and when one of them is running the game I roll my eyes but respect their wishes. I'm usually better than most of the other players at estimating distances, so I tend to have an unfair advantage with such a rule anyway.

In games with a "touch-move" rule (once you start moving, no going back), I get extremely irritated if pre-measuring is disallowed. I don't mind a "no take backs" rule (it can prevent accidental or even deliberate fudging), but if millimeters of distance can be critical, players should be allowed or even encouraged to figure out plan their moves, at least roughly, before breaking the holy seal and beginning the pilgrimage to the next sacred stop. Miniatures gaming is a cerebral pursuit, not a dexterous one. When I want to play games that require a modicum of physical adeptness, I don't choose pushing toy soldiers around a table with a bunch of beer-swilling couch potatoes whose most finely honed motor skill is reclining.

- Ix

I dislike pre-measurement.

Not pre-measuring adds a bit of uncertainty to the game, that we otherwise seek to insert through other means.

Charge range or firing range in a wargame are abstractions of actual warfare. As if a unit could only charge exactly the same distance every time, or as if bullets drop dead after they have reached their effective firing range. So don't tell me a charge range or firing range in a wargame is an exact representation of reality ;-)

You might say that these ranges represent averages – and I agree. But that also means there should be a variation on that average. Either you insert that variation by not allowing pre-measuring, or you insert that variation by varying your firing and charging ranges every time you charge or fire.

You might argue that the die rolling procedures for resolving firing represent that variation. And I also agree to that. In the end, it is a matter of preference and of style. And I dislike the playing style in which your unit positions itself just outside fire or charge range. If you want to be sure you are outside of range, make sure you are outside of range, and take another 2" to whatever you think is safe.

I always allow pre-measurement, and Gennorm explains exactly why I do.

Wargame rules are not reality and for them to work requires some "fudging" with the game mechanics. Turn lengths and range bands are artificial and forbidding pre-measurement multiplies the distortion they cause.

I also find the excuses for forbidding it – contrived and unconvincing.

Range estimation takes time. Target selection takes time. Firing takes time. Allowing pre-measuring is like allowing more time for range estimation and target selection. It takes away some of the uncertainty of war. Pre-measuring also wastes a lot of time as players shop around for the best deal.

Natokina once tried pre-measuring in a modern game and was told he could not. His response was he was using his laser rangefinder. The judge allowed it, just that one time.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

No pre-measurement feels like the bad old days for me.

With no pre-measurement you've just turned the game into a sorta hand-eye co-ordination game, and I know two wargamers who are legally blind (but with v limited vision) you're saying people with bad eyesight should be at a disadvantage where the actual general has aides, messengers, scouts, perhaps telescopes and underlings to help with these things.

I remember the bad old days of no pre-measurement where a player would know the dimensions of his terrain features to guide decisions.

I remember people 'accidentally' leaving a ruler on the other side of the table but still being a good guide to judge ranges elsewhere.

I remember players using 'dummy' shots, ie order one unit to take a stupidly long shot, to then measure and miss, but the unit they really want to shoot with now has a magically accurate measure to guide their actions.

I reckon unit commanders' inaccurate range estimation is best left to the black-box of dice throws.

David F Brown

Yes, pre-measurement should be allowed. It's a game.

EvilGong's comment also indicates why banning pre-measurement is inherently LESS "realistic" than allowing pre-measurement.

I too have played with gamers having a physical condition that undermines their ability to estimate distances.

If such a player is placed in command of, for example, an elite force of modern US special forces troops how does one explain their sudden inability to estimate ranges using their vast training and experience and high tech optics and laser range finders? And how does one who bans pre-measurement explain hOW EVERY single US soldier in that situation suddenly forgets how to estimate range or use his optics?

Meanwhile an opposing player with better vision and hand eye coordination commanding a force of untrained urban insurgents armed only with iron sights suddenly becomes superior at range estimation? How does that happen?

Banning pre-measurement reduces the accuracy of a simulation taking it back to shooting figures with dart guns or Britains 4.7" naval guns a la "Little Wars". It completely undermines the work that goes into developing troop and gear ratings and rules and makes every last soldier dependent on the commanding officers eye glasses.

In other words, those banning pre-measurement would have us believe that it's more realistic that if Captain Smith breaks his glasses every veteran private under his command suddenly forgets how to estimate range. :-)

I too have played with gamers having a physical condition that undermines their ability to estimate distances.

What kind of nonsense argument is this?

With all respect, but if a player's physical condition is prohibiting him from playing the game, of course you should find a way around it. But that should not be used as a argument why pre-measurement as such is good or bad.

What about players having dyscalculia, prohibiting them from adding up numbers?
What about players having dyslexia, prohibiting them from reading longer manuals?
What about players having problems with maths, making it to difficult for them to judge whether a charge makes sense or not?
What about players … etc.

I fully agree that in any gaming group, you should find ways to include everyone – and if someone's having a condition that prohibits him from handling some subpart of the game, the group should find a way to work around that.

But don't use that as an argument in favour or against a gaming mechanic. Judge the mechanic on its own merits.

Some people have drawn parallels between pre-measurement and range finding on the real battlefield.

I find this a strange argument.

I see measurement in a wargame not as a parallel to a real-world activity, but as a game mechanic that helps us to put a game together. You might like that mechanic or not, but justifying it by comparing it to activities on a real battlefield is kind of weird.

After all, we throw dice, we represent morale by adding numbers, we move figures with our hands, we use scatter templates, we throw paper slips to 'simulate' paradrops, we draw up army lists, we play around with ground scales etc. All of them only have a very weak or no parallel to the real activity on the battlefield. But added together, they sort of give a game that "works".

I see pre-measurement just as that: a mechanic that is a tool in designing a game. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to justify that tool based on a parallel real-world activity is like trying to find a parallel activity for throwing dice. There is none.

PRIDE OF LIONS explicitly allows pre-measurement. There's plenty of tactical options with the use of hidden order chits. I want players to know what it is POSSIBLE to do before they choose.

Should be allowed BUT the game should be written so that it does not turn into range fiddling. Fireball Forward as an example, you have a base range plus a range die – if the target is within the base + die range you are in range for that shot. No more stopping just outside the enemies range…

It depends on what is to follow. Measurement before firing might be ok in order to choose the optimum target. Before your sides turn to move might be a little gamey in an IGOUGO game. In a simultaneous movement game before everyone moves might not be so much a problem.

What kind of nonsense argument is this?

With all respect, but if a player's physical condition is prohibiting him from playing the game, of course you should find a way around it. But that should not be used as a argument why pre-measurement as such is good or bad.

Judge the mechanic on its own merits.

So your position is that you can have a mechanic driven entirely by a player's physical abilities but that you shouldn't judge the mechanic based on how physical abilities effect the simulation. That simply doesn't make sense.

The mechanic of banning pre-measurement is fundamentally, inextricably, intimately and completely linked to the physical abilities of the gamer.

Banning pre-measurement makes a gamer's physical abilities (or lack thereof) PART of the game's mechanics. It's the exact same thing as a game mechanic that requires players to throw runner balls at the toy soldiers to determine shot accuracy.

Once a designer makes a player's physical capabilities part of the game's mechanics one must judge the mechanic based on the physical abilities of prospective players.

At that point, if one's objective is some sense of historical verisimilitude, then banning pre-measurement is absolute nonsense because it replaces the rest of the game's mechanics intended to represent a force's battlefield capabilities with the physical capabilities of the player. And it does so across the entire battlefield at all levels of command.

It's as if a colonel in Afghanistan needed glasses, broke his glasses, and suddenly every company commander, platoon leader and soldier in his battalion couldn't judge ranges. Their training, experience, and range finders suddenly cease to exist. That's just nonsense.

But YMMV. I'm just not sure how one would argue that banning pre-measurement in that context makes sense. How does a battalion of experienced, professional soldiers geared up with the latest GPS and range finding gear suddenly become incapable of estimating ranges because their colonel can't see well? That makes zero sense and it's part of the game mechanics.

Now, in a different context, I suppose guessing ranges could be entertaining as a game. But we're talking about miniature wargaming here and presumably we want some sort of historical accuracy. I guess one could develop a game with guessing ranges and throwing rubber balls and determining move rates by how fast a player can slide figures across the floor. Have you tried that?

Banning pre-measurement makes a gamer's physical abilities (or lack thereof) PART of the game's mechanics.

But that is true for mental abilities as well. Some players are more fluent at math. Some can judge or estimate probabilities better, and hence have advantages when making tactical decisions. Others have the ability to memorize a list of modifiers, which might give them an edge. Etc.

What you are saying is that banning pre-measurement requires a specific ability in players that has no place around the wargaming table. But you can make that argument for many other abilities as well.
Granted, we should not ask about wargamers silly things, such as standing on one leg for 5 minutes to determine whether you have a hit or something. Neither do we ask to solve partial differential equations. But what we do ask are relatively simple tasks: simple arithmetic, reading up about the history, painting figures, and yes, sometimes things such as being able to judge a distance. That doesn't seem so hard to me. And if there is an exceptional situation where an individual has real troubles in any of these tasks for whatever reason, then his gaming group should find a way around it.

I am not saying that everyone should accept a ban on pre-measurement or like it. Tastes vary, and that's fine. Your table, your rules. I just find the specific argument a strange one to use.

But that is true for mental abilities as well. Some players are more fluent at math.

I suppose that's my point.

Banning pre-measurement mixes apples (the physical ability to judge distances between toy soldiers on a tabletop) with oranges (the intellectual ability to master a model of real world events).

And again, I can't stress this enough, banning pre-measurement makes a mockery of the mental abilities you just mentioned.

A game designer spends countless hours trying to model real-world activities such as how troops employ various weapons effectively (or not) based on their skill. Then we throw out that effort by superimposing the physical limitations of the player on his entire force down to the lowliest private firing a rifle.

How does that happen? Why can't corporal Snuffy and ALL of his comrades use their range finders/GPS devices/training/experience to get an accurate range to their targets just because Captain Jones doesn't see well? The Force? Do they have a hive mind like some sort of alien insect race?

I completely agree it's a matter of taste but the point of a forum is to discuss the pros and cons of various topics. There would be no point to a forum if the first and last post of every thread was simply, "Here's issue A, it's a matter of taste, so let's not discuss it. Thread closed." :-) I really enjoy reading the opinions of others, like yours, because it challenges my own and sometimes I change mind even if I initially disagree with someone else.

For example, I really disliked point-systems for army composition until someone else pointed out their value to gamers looking for casual pickup games. I had always considered them a function of hyper competitive tournament gaming. But they also enable friendly, lighthearted meta-gaming between friends ("Next time I'll have the perfect design to counter your force.")

And I disliked pre-measurement until I ran into this hyper competitive you-know-what who ruthlessly enforced the rule on others but took every opportunity to measure ranges when he could. Pre-measurement often levels the playing field between honest players and cheaters! :-D

At least we share/shared a dislike of army lists :-)

As I explained in this thread before, I see (pre)measurement as a tool/mechanic to put together a game. Not allowing premeasuring adds something to a game (uncertainty, some guesswork, …) that I like, and of which I believe it can add to effectively modeling what is happening on a battlefield. And yes, I fully agree some players are better at this than others. However, I do not see this as a reason to exclude this mechanic on this ground alone.

But this also might be due to my liking of experimental mechanics. I like designing rule sets for wargaming that include unusual mechanics, so perhaps I have less qualms about introducing some other abilities than pure analytical thinking to the gaming table ;-)

Anyway, I agree with you on the "tastes may vary, so let's not discuss this" feeling. I do feel thoughts and ideas should be expressed and discussed, but in the end, it might still be case that your pros do not outweigh my contras or vice versa. And then we agree to disagree …

No pre-measuring for charge moves. Once committed to a charge, if you can't reach your opponent, tough…
For the skirmish-level game engine I'm designing, you need to measure distance to the target to find the base "to hit" number for shooting (on the plus side, most weapons have "unlimited range" and almost all weapon stats have been eliminated. ;-)

All in all, though, it depends on the game rules being used…

Depends on the tech-level. Giant stompy robots have lots of info displayed on the HUD concerning terrain and the range, heading and speed of other mecha. Starships couldn't function without this type of information. Drunk peasant bowman, not so much.

Al | rivetsandsteam.com

Historically armies commonly sat "just outside of range" of enemy fire throughout the ages, from ancient to modern. Almost every general figured it out.

All the gimmicks mentioned I have seen, from the semi-realistic (dummy shot that perfectly ranges every other gun) to the unfair (guys who are just really good at estimating), to the stupid (players who over extend their tapes while moving and measuring other shots and using that to help "figure out" the other shots and moves).

which I believe it can add to effectively modeling what is happening on a battlefield

This is exactly the problem for me. I cannot see how forbidding pre-measurement models ANYTHING on the battlefield. It's just an artifical gamie gimmick.

Historically armies commonly sat "just outside of range" of enemy fire throughout the ages, from ancient to modern. Almost every general figured it out.

And how did they do that?

I guess the "just outside of range" was eyeballed as well, or based on experience and some gut-feeling. Or do you think there were generals in ancient or medieval times that ordered their troops another 3 meters forwards because "we will still be out of range?".

This is exactly the problem for me. I cannot see how forbidding pre-measurement models ANYTHING on the battlefield. It's just an artifical gamie gimmick.

You mean like a fixed range for all firing weapons is just an artificial game gimmick?

You should treat pre-measurement not by itself, but as part of a entire procedure that we use to determine casualties from fire in a wargame (or to adjudicate movement, or whatever). Every part of that procedure has the option of introduces uncertainties instead of making fire totally deterministic.

- we fix fire distances. Do you think that's an accurate model? Or should we have varying firing distances (some games do this). By fixing firing ranges we eliminate one factor of variability that would be there in reality.
- We use dice to determine number of hits. That's a random factor that introduces variability – and perhaps to compensate for the fixed fire ranges.
- We measure exactly (or not :-)). Estimating ranges is another tool in introducing variability. That's what I meant by saying it can add to modeling what is happening on the battlefield.

You really should consider the whole procedure, not just subparts of it. Otherwise our games will fall apart rather rapidly (e.g. discrete turns? army lists? dice? morale checks? …)
This last point is exactly my objection against dismissing banning pre-measurement as a valid game mechanic. There are so many other approximations and mechanics that we do not question, although they also have nothing to do with a real battlefield experience. Of course eyeballing distance at the table has nothing to do with estimating ranges on the real battlefield, just as throwing dice has no equivalent, or discrete turns have no equivalent. It is only a mechanic that – as part of the game – serves as a way to produce outcomes and results.

I completely agree that banning pre-measurement might not be to everyone's liking, or that not everyone is as good at it, or that it induces a style of play that you don't like. But that shouldn't mean it is not a valid mechanic, or that it does not deserve a place at the wargaming table.

There have been many wargames that have used eyeballing distance as a mechanic, or that have used weirder contraptions (look up how hits where determined in Fred Jane's Naval wargames). These might have fallen out of favour, but that doesn't invalidate them.

I used to feel strongly that pre-measuring would ruin the game somehow, then I realized a year or so back that I actually had no idea why I thought that way.

So we gave up on it because one guy didn't like a lack of pre-measuring and nobody else really cared that much about it.

But that was just us.

Drunk peasant bowman, not so much.

The drunk peasant bowman has a clarity of mind that surpasses the capabilities of the most advanced tactical AI.

My opinion as a designer, rather than a player, I have used both. In mass battles the game board can be regarded as a combat map with positions of troops depicted on it.

Systems that depict a smaller scale or a single soldier may not pre-measure however the weapon ranges in most of these cases extend the size of the table if post 1850.