"Table set up for rules comparison project" Topic

So I'm playing a small modern scenario and am going to do it with a bunch of different rule sets, starting with Fistful of TOWs 3. Here is a crude table layout. I decided that it was too expensive even in micro armor so I am sticking with counters. I'll lay out a much nicer table when I get ready to host a game.

First up: Fistful of TOWs III.

Scenario ii "Opening Shots" from a scenario book called "The Bear Marches West" available on WargamesVault.com

Map: Lines are elevations, gray streaks are roads. Silver dots are unpainted 2mm buildings standing in for the town. Scale is 1" = 100 meters.

Forces: Each counter represents a platoon. I had to tweak the scenario to account for various platoon strengths.

Soviet Forces: Motor Bttn with tank co (not shown: off board artillery)

US Forces: A company of M1s, with a platoon of infantry and HQ.

Looking forward to your results. Thanks Mark.

Mark

I'm anxious to see what you think.

What are the elevation intervals supposed to be?

I vote we perma-ban Mr Crispy. This is clearly a miniatures page, and he is not evening pretending to use miniatures! He even admits it!

I rest my case.

Burn the heretic!

Miniature chits, he's good.

What other rules do you plan to test?

I have absolutely no problem testing new rules and/or periods with cardboard counters. Beats painting up stuff and finding out the rules suck.

I'm starting with FFT3. Then I'll move on to Command Decision, Modern Spearhead, Cold War Commander and GHQ's Modern Micro Armor.

Yeah it's what happens when you "flatten" a valley.

I'm going to try Team Yankee though after a read through and a look at the model stats it just looks like WW2.1 The ground scale is so short, how do you carry out NATO tactics?

It's fun so I'll play as I'll be able to find opponents. But for what I think I want to do, I need a game with a nominal ground scale that makes some kind of sense.

Yeah, never read the book….

Really looking forward to this CrispEx!

but every thing breaks Capt Bannon's way.

That's because its a fictional book… :-)

I think it still remains questionable just how gameable that is, as if it doesn't break his way it could be very short.

Given the ground scale this terrain looks unrepresentative of anywhere I am aware of, there should be miles of road, field boundary's many of which are very unfriendly to AFV,s and if in Northern Europe about 1 Hamlet ever 1 to 2 km. No rules are going to work realistically if the terrain is not representative.

Where did you get your counters?

No rules are going to work realistically if the terrain is not representative.

I can't think of a single platoon or higher level gaming system from WWII to Sci-Fi which accurately portrays terrain relative to figure and terrain (ie model building) size.

It just doesn't exist outside of a few skirmish games such as Mercs or Infinity and even then ranges get squished a little bit.

The reason they don't exist is because it's just not practical with miniature figures and so few people would enjoy it. Even the hardest of the hard core don't bother to accurately portray terrain relative to figure/model size (that doesn't stop them from going through a lot of mental gymnastics to justify their approach, but in the end they're no different from, say, Command Decision players who often have roads running between two buildings which they teat as a "street" for urban combat.

Even in abstract – say calling one small building a "hamlet" – you also have the issue of game effects. Example: at Gettybsurg to be "accurate" you'll need fences every 200 feet. But 99% of these fences have no game effect. Fences were everywhere and unit s were quite adept at dismantling them by sending troops ahead for that purpose. They moved as easily across these as open field. Some, however, proved to be extremely solid and created quite an obstacle.

The same might apply to fields. Yes, some *might* be a problem for AFVs. But if you judge not, then putting them in is impossible. Judging by photos fields in Germany are faily small. At 1" = 100 yards, I'd need field barriers every 2" across the entire table!

V.I.S. has it right. As gamers we focus on a few key terrain pieces and ignore the rest. It's a game, whatever the grognards may say. Talles tree I ever saw on a game table – even for 28mm – is maybe 10". Very puny compared to the trees in my neighborhood which, in scale, should be twice that height!

Most maps don't even have contours, treating ground as perfectly flat except where interrupted by hills!

The counters I downloaded from here:

link

I edited them, then printed them out and glued them to Litko 40x15mm plywood bases.

Extra Crispy,
Just to keep honest I just looked up an area Easr of Berlin. In that area less than 10km square there were two watercouses and 2 bridges 2km appart. That I would have said was significant. There were lots of woods a significant number above 200m sq so may be suitable as cover. This means that if you are not going to model them everybody would have to move at maybe 10km/hr max to allow the engineers to do their job. You would proably have to limit max excursion from road to 2km so unless you take the bridge layers with you and deney yorself any logistics trail.

These are key issues when fighting large areas. Much of it is unuseable for other than small light forces.