UshCha | 13 Oct 2016 10:12 a.m. PST |
Can somebody explain how a wargame logrithmic groundscale maps to real world maps. I have been puzzeling this for a bit. However I look at it, I can't make sence how it maps to the real world. How do I distort a Google map to make it behave correcly with logrithmic ground scale so at any point on the board I cover the correct number in of features gun range I would see if it was a linear groundscale? |
Grignotage | 13 Oct 2016 10:21 a.m. PST |
By logarithmic, do you mean the "telescoping" scale of games like Flames of War? I don't think you can make that work with real work maps. It's part of the abstraction. |
Dynaman8789 | 13 Oct 2016 10:30 a.m. PST |
|
Oldgrumbler | 13 Oct 2016 10:32 a.m. PST |
I think it would not apply to the map but rather to the gun ranges. Get the real world range of the weapon & take the log of it. JPK |
John the OFM | 13 Oct 2016 10:40 a.m. PST |
Don't try to recreate a "real" map, because you can't. |
Weasel | 13 Oct 2016 10:56 a.m. PST |
I don't think it's intended to. COmpetitive "pick up" games are not about recreating a specific engagement as much as they are about playing a wargame with a particular theme. But regardless of ground scales in games, everyone moves about 6" per turn anyways :)
|
Winston Smith | 13 Oct 2016 11:00 a.m. PST |
Just like Frederick the Great's grenadiers and Spartan hoplites. |
Winston Smith | 13 Oct 2016 11:05 a.m. PST |
The "scale" is designed to have 155mm artillery on the table, as well as pistol shots. A Tiger tank will outrange an FT-17. But only double the range? In game terms yes. In "real life", no. It's the same model to ground scale bugaboo that gives the hub to hub parking lots that all good gamers are required to abhor. Somehow it doesn't bother me. But I am amused by having fallschirmjaegers unable to fire the length of a glider until they recover weapon canisters. That doesn't worry me either. |
Puddinhead Johnson | 13 Oct 2016 11:33 a.m. PST |
But regardless of ground scales in games, everyone moves about 6" per turn anyways :) In many games move distance isn't just a function of time, but what you're doing during that time. An interesting example is Team Yankee. MBT's generally move 10" normally. The other day I was looking at the stats for the British Scorpion and Scimitar and saw that in TY they move only 6". It thought to my self, "Why in the world would a small, light scout tank like those move less than a big heavy MBT?" The answer is gun stabilization. The Scorpion and Scmitar also have a rule that lets them move 10", like an MBT, if they don't shoot. So the MBT can move further because it's gun is stabilized so it doesn't have to sit still for shooting. I assume the two light tanks mentioned don't have gun stabilization (or if they do that it's not very good) so if they shoot while moving they're moving less distance during a turn. I think it's a clever way of approaching the issue and it's a lesson that movement distance is not a simple as taking the length of turn and multiplying it by theoretical speed. |
Mako11 | 13 Oct 2016 12:14 p.m. PST |
|
Extra Crispy | 13 Oct 2016 1:09 p.m. PST |
Yeah, "logarithmic" or "telescoping" ground scales are like "box scale" models. It's what fits in the box. Movement rates have far more to do with table size than real life. At 1" = 100 yards on road most vehicles should move 9" per minute (30mph). So if a turn is 5 minutes they would move 45 inches! At 1" = 50 yards that's 18 inches per minute. So tanks move 12 so the game is fun, not becasue the ground, speed or time scales make sense. |
Martin Rapier | 13 Oct 2016 1:15 p.m. PST |
It works in high intensity combat situations if you only use the , logarithmic scale on one axis. Typically these are narrow fron attacks with strict unit boundaries against extensive enemy defences – so WW1 or WW2 trench warfare. I do it a lot for these sorts of situations, so each unit of depth measurement represents an ever larger ground distance. 100 yards of Nomansland was often described as like a 100 miles, so it represents that. Artillery positions are usually fixed so you just set the maximum ranges into the position. |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Oct 2016 7:51 p.m. PST |
In terms of relating the ground scale to a map, it doesn't. For Flames specifically: 4" is pistol and SMG range, ~50m 8" is assault rifle range, ~200m 16" is basic rifle range, call it ~500m 24" is tripod MG range, call it ~1200m 32" is 75mm tank gun range, easily 2000m 40" is 88mm direct-fire range, easily 3000m. |
UshCha | 13 Oct 2016 11:28 p.m. PST |
Are I did wounder, just one more step towards fantasy. No wonder I could not get my head round it. I remamber a time (Sigh) when the genral aim of wargames was to get something like a simple simulation so the games looked and behaved like you read in accounts. Those days seem long gone, just a few of us are left to carry the banner. |
Mako11 | 13 Oct 2016 11:54 p.m. PST |
Yea, now many games are more like checkers with tanks. |
PMC317 | 14 Oct 2016 2:21 a.m. PST |
Games like Chain of Command, however, or – damn – not Rapid Fire – what was that WWII ruleset by Arty Conliffe? Move as far as you like, shoot as far as you like, initiative passed to other player on a successful interrupt action or a failed order – anyway there are rules sets out there that seek to nore accurately portray reality. |
UshCha2 | 14 Oct 2016 3:40 a.m. PST |
You are correct I think you mean Crossfire. However that lost its way a bit when it tried to put vehicle in. I have the original and what it said was it portrayed an area all inside rifle range hence no need to measure. It fell out as far as I am concerned when trying to do more as Mortars have typically a danger close of 200m most of rifle range. However much as I admired the initial set, fighting in all dense terrain was not my thing and our rules in small urban areas gave similar results (but not using the same mechanisms). However these are the few games. and not the popular ones. A fried described the latest games as "Pub Games" which means for amusement only. Is shows simulation and amusement is possible in a game. |
Extra Crispy | 14 Oct 2016 5:26 a.m. PST |
Well, just to be the fly in the ointment, I note that many old school rules that are today thought of as "accurate" completely nerf artillery and air, and infantry is basically ignored. They were meant to recreate tank battles, where that meant battles with nothing else! Hit angles, detailed penetration rules, and exact ground scales, but still fantasy. |
Weasel | 14 Oct 2016 6:18 a.m. PST |
How many games actually use a "logarithmic ground scale", other than Flames of War? |
Martin Rapier | 14 Oct 2016 7:35 a.m. PST |
Trench/Wheel to Wheel, Skirmish 90 and Playing Leapfrog to name but three. |
Martin Rapier | 14 Oct 2016 8:18 a.m. PST |
It is also implicit in the Command & Colours series in the treatment of ranged weapons. I think it it a perfectly valid simulation technique, similar to variable size area movement (think Storm Over Arnhem) but obviously you need to think about what it is you are trying to model. |
Just Jack | 14 Oct 2016 8:36 a.m. PST |
In my humble opinion, rules authors should probably refrain from taking sideways shots at other folks' rules, it's unseemly. Particularly if the rules you are attacking are known worldwide, and you're the only one that's heard of your rules. And you're doing it under the guise of lamenting the lack realism in a transparent attempt at pushing your own rules as the only realistic set on the market. Especially if you do it here pretty much every week… I have no love for FOW or TY; I've bought both and tried, but they're just not my thing. But I'm about sick of people that can't just let it go, and insist that their preferred rules are the only ones that are realistic/worth playing. I've got bad news: your preferred wargame rules are not realistic, they simply conform to your biases on what combat is like at your chosen scale, echelon, and era. There is not a set of wargame rules in existence that cannot be ripped apart on the basis of having mechanisms that are unrealistic. V/R, Jack |
MajorB | 14 Oct 2016 11:03 a.m. PST |
or – damn – not Rapid Fire – what was that WWII ruleset by Arty Conliffe? Crossfire. |
UshCha2 | 14 Oct 2016 11:14 a.m. PST |
Just Jack, You are not among those who though, they may fail, are on a quest for a playable simulation. Perhaps we are somewhat fanatical in our quest but that is not something I will apologize for. That you fail to understand that there could be a solution and simply use rhetoric to lambast questers is itself grossly biased and to use your words "unseemly and taking sideways shots" and you presence cannot be considered irregular on this board. I note in this thread I did not mention any rules by name. I noted it as fantasy as clearly though we use different mapping algorithms to map a spherical world, this one appears not to be one used in other than wargames. Linear mapping works for small land battles, there may be some need if modelling very large areas like seas and continents to use alternative mapping algorithms to account for spherical distributions. Thus on the responses from players it would appear this is as an approach is a dead end for simulation. As simply a game I believe its it is perfectly acceptable. The claim that no simulation is perfect is correct, but they can always be useful. Working in the Aerospace industry I am aware of the limitations of simulations which have already cost millions to produce. The engineering companies would not call themselves dealers in the unrealistic even if the simulation is not as good as they would like. You statements in my personal opinion only seem to disagree with them. You are of course allowed to hold your own opinions. |
Winston Smith | 15 Oct 2016 9:30 a.m. PST |
Dammit, can't people get it through their heads that there is only one proper way to play with toy soldiers???? |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 15 Oct 2016 2:54 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure that log scale can't be squared with reality. In the example above, Lion gives 500 meteres as basic rifle range -which is entirely reasonable of course. But when I was training as an infantryman, with a modern FN SLR rifle, I was only expected to hit targets, under battle conditions, at 300m. (As a section, 600m, but only to suppress) And whilst that was achievable on a range in peace time conditions, under mild exertion, I would have been a very happy bunny indeed to have knocked over an enemy soldier at those ranges from my open top slit trench after enduring a bombardment and seeing my mates killed or screaming… OTH, if I was aiming and sighting under armour in a main battle tank, I would probably get close to the same accuracy as I could achieve on a tank range or simulator… So collapsing individual weapon ranges compared to AFV weapon ranges doesn't seem so daft after all – things get hazy when you are up close and personal…. |
Blutarski | 16 Oct 2016 5:49 a.m. PST |
"Column, Line & Square" by Fred Vietmeyer was the first set of wargame rules I am aware of that featured what was then deemed a "collapsing logarithmic time/distance scale". It worked for the limited technology of the Napoleonic era, presumably (I do not know for certain) by enhancing the effect of long range artillery fire to accord with the distance/movement distortions. I can see where the challenge might be considerably greater when dealing with more modern weapons and tactics. B |
MajorB | 18 Oct 2016 11:10 a.m. PST |
So collapsing individual weapon ranges compared to AFV weapon ranges doesn't seem so daft after all – things get hazy when you are up close and personal…. Collapsing weapon ranges is very common in wargames rules, particularly for the more modern periods. However it is NOT the same as having a logarythmic ground scale |
UshCha | 18 Oct 2016 11:58 p.m. PST |
MajorB, Not sure that make sence. If ther is say in the real world (UK for instance) 4 hedges 600m apart the tank being just behind the first, then there would be 3 more hedges in his say 2000m range. If you collapes the tank range there is not say only 2 hedges in range. This changes the fundamental balance of cover between tank and infantry so you have shifted the balance significantly. You have in effect made your tank a WW2 tank. |
LostPict | 23 Oct 2016 1:35 p.m. PST |
Left as an exercise for the student, I did some mathematical analysis of how real-world M16 accuracy data fits into a possible 28mm tabletop game using a logarithmic ground scale. link Your feedback is welcome. |
UshCha | 24 Oct 2016 2:16 a.m. PST |
I think this is very interesting. It shows that moving closer by 5" drops the DRM from +19 to 0 and have in effect moved 400m (most larger figure games have an infantry move of around 6" for practical reasons). Not easy to map that ont terrain. |
MajorB | 24 Oct 2016 2:17 p.m. PST |
Collapsing weapon ranges is very common in wargames rules, particularly for the more modern periods. And in wargaming terms have been around since the year dot. Featherstone's rules did exactly that back in the 60s. "Yes, we know a tank could shoot much further than 2 or 3 times rifle range but for the sake of a workable game we'll make the range as short as that." However it is NOT the same as having a logarythmic ground scale A logarythmic ground scale only works in one axis. As soon as you try and apply it in more than one axis, the mathematics falls apart completely. |