"Of Game Scale and Ground Scale - Fighting Tarawa in FoW" Topic

One cool aspect of the Pacific War is that in some cases the battlefields were very small. How small? Small enough to put a fair portion of the battlefield on several tabletops for a mega gaming-day…

link

I think you might be reaching a bit trying to match reality to the FoW rules. I'd recommend just playing and enjoying the game. The sliding ground scale is a gimmick to justify selling large caliber artillery pieces that really have no place on a tactical battlefield.

Well, with landing battles, you can just use 1/1200 or 1/2400 ships for your artillery support.

But yeah, that stupid telescoping/logarithmic groundscale makes things almost impossible for a good refight of any of the island battles.

Well, with landing battles, you can just use 1/1200 or 1/2400 ships for your artillery support

That could actually look/work really well, like forced perspective.

Rich – I disagree with you on many points there. Table top artillery pieces are needed for game balance in several forces, especially Italian and to be honest, Japanese. I know a lot of people don't like the rule set, my article isn't for those people. The Pacific campaign affords the opportunity to do some new things with the standard rule set and battlefields, simply because the ground scale is actually so different than in the ETO – the mini campaigns which I wrote up for Banzai and the recent Tarawa one on the Behind Enemy Lines blog are one new approach. Taking a look at the ground scale is another. I know it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but playing something like Tarawa at real scale gives the players a better sense of the war, IMHO.

The sliding ground scale is a gimmick to justify selling large caliber artillery pieces that really have no place on a tactical battlefield.

I think that's a bit cynical. It's a way for the gamer to fit a lot of varied troop types on a gaming battlefield.
Buying 4 large artillery pieces is a fraction of the cost of an "army".

Gamers like variety and big toys, simple as that. FOW's sliding ground scale is a way of accommodating that, as well as a handy trick for a game with a strong competitive play element, as it gives a safety net to armies with a chronic lack of decent tanks.

Don't get me wrong, it's not an approach that I like myself (IABSM very much floats my boat) but the *game* rationale does make sense.

of the aspects of Fow that I would think may struggle with catching the feel of the pacific, artillary wasn't one of them.

Fin-

You just made my point. If you're interested in "getting a feel" for history, game balance shouldn't be a consideration. 150mm Guns weren't intended to engage mobile troops in a direct fire mode and almost never did so. Having them on a table makes no sense

Re: FoW's sliding scale, I agree that arty firing indirect support on table for company level actions is over the top.

But for typical direct fire weapons I actually enjoy such an approach and, to be honest, nearly every other game game takes the same approach effectively.

Fudging effective weapon ranges provides more variety in weapon systems and more contrast between weapon systems. Both enhance entertainment value because you get to play with different toys and your tactical choices have greater meaning.

Now let's compare that to a TRULY accurate ground scale. First, tactical choices mean less with respect to range when virtually all weapons have the same chance to hit when firing across the entire table. Your riflemen and your 88 will see very little bullet drop firing at that target 36" away.

Second, if your scale is truly accurate you don't see as much variety in weapon systems, terrain looks terrible, and relative speeds get extreme as infantry inch along and vehicles cross the table instantly.

Now let's look at the reality of virtually all games. I can't think of any popular system that accurately implements a consistent ground scale or troop ratio. We even have a few TMPer game designers who rant about the need for accurate ground scales but then admit that even their ground scale is fudged.

This issue is as old as gaming and the best solution is don't sweat it. At the end of the day if you're playing FoW or Bolt Action you're playing with greater variety of assets than is "realistic". So what?

If you're playing higher level games such as Command Decision then your terrain is seriously warped and nobody refers to a CD tank model as "tanks"…it's one tank in players' minds.

And in all cases hit probabilities get fudged to provide an incentive to move closer to the enemy. That's entirely intuitive if also nonsensical if using a 100% accurate ground scale. And it's more fun to model range vs accuracy despite a 1:1 ground scale making a mockery of such efforts.

So what?

My sentiments exactly.

Oh boy, here we go again….

If you think the abstracted ground range is purely designed to sell big artillery models, you're wrong. Bolt Action uses VERY abstracted ground scales. And let's not forget the granddaddy of abstracted range and scale, Rapid Fire.

Back in the mists of time WW2 tactical rules used textbook ranges, stipulated a ground scale of 1mm = 1m and tried to convince those gaming in 15 or 20mm that, yes, their infantrymen are about 60 feet tall but either don't wrap your head around that or else play in 6mm. However, a big problem with the textbook "accurate" ranges was that it was easy to dispense with infantry, just line up your armour on your edge of the table and blat anything that strayed into your LOS. Who needs to manoeuver? Abstracted ground scale was introduced to get larger sized models of between 15mm and 28mm to get moving and to seize objectives instead of hanging back and using big tank gun firepower.

If abstracted ground scale bothers you, then don't even attempt company level 1 figure = 1 soldier or vehicle games. Stick with squad/platoon level games where you can shoot right across the table or else go with operational level games where 1 figure/vehicle is a squad or platoon and use ranges you're comfortable with. I'm not criticising those who prefer strictly accurate ranges with 6mm miniatures, that's one valid way of doing WW2 tactical gaming, but abstracted ranges such as those in FoW is another way of making WW2 gaming viable.

Rich – I think you're missing the point entirely, and/or we're separated by a common language.

FoW is a war game… heck virtually everything we talk about on TMP is a game of some sort. By definition games require balance and abstraction. A game without balance isn't much of a game and will be relegated to the dust bin fairly quickly.

The entire focus of my original post was that in the case of a Battle like Tarawa – where the underlying assumption that the battlefield is too large to actually fit on the tabletop in 1:1 scale isn't always true – it's possible to bring some new elements into play to highlight and emphasize the "War" part of "Wargame" without compromising the "game" part of "Wargame."

For example – the battlefields on the final day of the Tarawa battle as modeled in the mini-campaign:

link

… can actually fit on a standard FoW table in 1:1 scale with water on the both long edges of the board.

That being said, if you want to fight the advance from Red 2 and Red 3 on Day 2 of the battle:

link

A sliding scale board using standard Flames of War rules might work better. That way you can have the airstrip on the board, and again you pretty much are bounding the north and south sides of the board with the surf. Which incidentally validates the "artillery on the board" model, since you've now got the entire width of the atoll on the tabletop…

So I completely disagree with your concept that "getting the feel" of the history requires throwing game balance out of the window. We're all playing with little army men on a tabletop with felt, fluff, and resin buildings. First and foremost, they're games – games need balance, clear rules, and playability. By definition they're all abstract on some level.

There are ways to enhance the "War" part of wargame that do not sacrifice game balance. For example, when I was writing up the army lists for Bridge at Remagen, I made sure the actual force organization paralleled the army list 1:1. I did the same thing for 653 Schwere Panzerjager… and a few others that are still knocking around in the ether.

In the case of Tarawa, because of the unique nature of the battlefield, there are some opportunities to enhance the "war" side of the game without sacrificing the game itself.

At the end of the day, if you're purely interested in the "feel" – you shouldn't be pushing little men around a board… you should join a living history group, put on a uniform, grab your rifle and some blank cartridges and have at it… though even they have to use some abstraction… and I'm here to tell you, carrying a M1 Garand around all day gets heavy! ;)

… and I get it – you really don't like Flames of War. You disagree with the abstractions made by Phil, Wayne and the primary writers in developing the game system. That's fine – there's lots of other games out there. My post was purely designed to point out some fun options players could use for game days or demos for a cool weekend with some friends.

It's not the abstraction that's the problem. It's the variable ranges that's the issue. As you point out, practically every miniatures games has ground scales different from the figure scales. And why not? In most of them a single figure represents 10-200 actual men. However, in order to make sense of a historical battle, you need to have a consistent scale so that the terrain impacts the battle correctly. If that doesn't matter to you, no problem, enjoy the game, but this topic was about exploring historical events.

Yeah, we're separated by the same language and different goals. I find balance to be a completely irrelevant to my enjoyment of a game. I'm interested in understanding battles at the key decision making levels. Which, quite honestly, is not where FoW or Bolt Action or any skirmish game is set. I'm not interested in that level because it generally characterized by chaos and confusion and resolved by chance. As to me not liking FoW, well, actually, I rather admire it. It's very good at providing a game where both sides can win and feel good about it. It's also really good at providing a workable level of chrome and I happy that people enjoy it. It's also, obviously an excellent business model. It's simply not what I look for in my exploration of history as a hobby.

Well, with landing battles, you can just use 1/1200 or 1/2400 ships for your artillery support

That could actually look/work really well, like forced perspective.

Still need to get a 1/1200 DD or two for my Normandy forces, but a 1/1200 model at 3 feet looks like a full-sized ship at ~900 yards. (I did the math at one time, forget the exact numbers) A 1/2400 scale model looks like it's about 2000 yards off the beach.

Re: FoW's sliding scale, I agree that arty firing indirect support on table for company level actions is over the top.

Except your company is simply the leading element of the battalion (looking at how much of the BN support platoons most players take), and it was US practice to have an arty battery in support of every battalion, in addition to the regimental cannon platoon.

Correct. The policy was to have an artillery battery in support for indirect fire missions. The battery would not generally set up in a position to direct fire or even self-observe. That was the job of the company mortars or regimental cannon company.

Except your company is simply the leading element of the battalion (looking at how much of the BN support platoons most players take), and it was US practice to have an arty battery in support of every battalion, in addition to the regimental cannon platoon.

Totally agree. The issue (for me!) is having the models ON the table. Looks silly imo even though I do agree with the telescoping ground scale which is used by FoW, Bolt Action, and even to some degree by Force on Force when it comes to hit probabilities and blast radii. I have friends who HATE telescoping ground scales and for them IT ruins the look and feel of WWII games. To each his own! :-)

IMO the look, feel, and entertainment value of a game are paramount. On-table 155s in what are supposed to be small unit actions and high density troops in what should be a period defined by the "empty battlefield" ruin the look and feel imo (and it is just my personal opinion).

But FoW is specifically intended to put as much lead on the table as possible which is antithetical to the low density "empty battlefield" look and feel. It just is what it is, and that's ok.

So much of this is subjective. I think what irks some folks is when we advocates of compromises such as telescoping ground scales and on-table arty support insist that such compromises are "as realistic" or accurate as a properly scaled simulation.

As an advocate of telescoping ground scales I'm totally prepared to admit the obvious: it's not as accurate. It's a compromise intended to enhance entertainment value for some of us.

On-table arty is also a compromise intended to enhance figure BF figures sales and, even though I personally dislike it, to enhance the enjoyment of the game for some people. They honestly ENJOY having arty on table and I admit there is something to be said for that. It's why I enjoyed games such as the old Space Marine: you got to have arty, air, infantry, and armor all in one battle. It's just that Space Marine was 6mm scifi and so a little easier for me to swallow in terms of look.

But I know FoW gamers who readily accept on-table arty in 15mm but balk at on-table arty in Bolt Action's and 40K's 28mm!!! It just goes to show that there are many shades of grey when it comes to what we each are willing to accept.

But one thing I do find irksome is when "simulationists" refuse to admit to compromises in their own designs which undermine "historical accuracy". These are the folks who rip FoW for its telescoping ground scale and then do the same thing with their figure vs ground scale. Or they insist that their 5:1 models represent platoons while refusing to admit that they're playing them like 1:1 models.

I guess that as I get older I have MORE tolerance for gaming's inherent contradictions and say, "go for it and have fun!" So what if you're cramming your table full of lead. So what if your 5:1 tanks are running around like 1:1 models. Get your troops on the table and roll some dice! Making sound effects is even better! :-)

But I also have less tolerance for those who beat their chests while insisting that their compromises don't exist and/or don't undermine historical accuracy or even entertainment value. They just lose all credibility in my eyes and make discussing wargaming less fun.

I urge all gamers to embrace their contradictions and compromises, see them for what they are, and enjoy them to their fullest. That approach is more honest, less acrimonious, and more fun for all.

As Winston quoted above: "So what?" :-) I think that's a much better response than defending that which is obviously indefensible.

When my friend who objects to anything other than 1:1 gaming points out the inherent problems of 3:1 or 5:1 gaming I completely agree with and accept his points..and then note that for me such an approach means certain advantages that outweigh the compromises. It is what it is and our time on earth is too short to get wrapped around the axle on this stuff.

Having the arty on-table lets you include counter-battery fire missions against the enemy's arty, even though most of those were fired by heavier arty a little farther back than the arty supporting the attack/defense.

But then again, I mostly play Flames of Vietnam, so my on-table arty is helos with all the rocket pods.

@Lion

You can still have counter-battery with off table assets. But I agree that having the models on-table or even at least "near table" can enhance the gaming experience.

When playing Space Marine I had lots of Imperial Guard arty behind the front lines…and on table! :-) Obviously they had to be protected from air strikes by AA assets and air cover. There's nothing like a full spectrum combined-arms game.

It really comes down to tolerance levels at a given scale. It seems like most gamers accept such things in 6mm and prefer a more narrow asset mix at higher levels.

Even at 28mm you get both extremes: games such as Infinity which is almost pure infantry and 40K, Dust, or Bolt Action which include infantry, arty, and even air on-table. Different strokes for different folks.

re: helos with rocket pods, I love them too! Any gunship-like vehicle from moderns to sci-fi always have a home on my table, even in 28mm. One of my favorite movie scenes: helo attack from "Apocalypse Now". :-D

Wow, am I growing tired of these "it's not realistic" criticisms. I have been on the ground and know that it is all chaos with platoons, squads & companies acting with about half the information that they need.

In a realistic sense, battles are not won or lost at the tactical level. Battles are won or lost at the strategic/logistical level. It's all about getting overwhelming firepower at the right place at the right time with adequate ammunition to keep the position tenable. So, yes, if you want "realism" go play at the Divisional level & move a bunch of chits around on a map.

But, considering I deal with logistics for a living, doing so sounds too much like work. I didn't get into this hobby to continue my work, just with new widgets moving around on a new map. I got into it for the models, the games and to exercise at an omniscient level what I learned in my infantry field manual. There's reward in performing a flawless flanking maneuver on the table when the same action in real life would just leave you dazed & confused.

The whole point of compressed ground scale is to (as close as possible) replicate the actions taken at company or battalion level on the field. For example, an 88 has a much longer range than smaller anti-tank guns. It doesn't matter how much longer that range is because it doesn't change the tactics in dealing with one. As allied commander you know it's a dominating presence on the battlefield that you have to contend with. But it doesn't matter if the gun is 48" away or 72" away (and while you're at it, expand the whole playing surface so that you have to play in a parking lot). It simply poses the tactial problem that you have a gun with longer range than your weapons that has to be neutralized for the sake of the mission,

The same goes for terrain: everyone knows wargame terrain is not "natural" but it is necessary so that the mechanics can be played quickly and cleanly, rather than breaking out calculators to determine how much percent of a target is visible or concealed.

We all understand the context of what we are doing here. We don't need some troll who thinks he's a genius coming on the boards pointing out how "unrealistic" or silly something is. Frankly, I find it laughable when someone whose never been in it tries to preach to me how "realistic" or "unrealistic" something is.