"WHO FIGHTS IN MASSED COMBAT MELEE?" Topic

One of the challenges faced in games featuring massed combat (i.e. units represent hundreds or even thousands of combatants) is the question of which units get to fight in melee.

At first glance it may seem like a no-brainer: any unit in contact with another unit gets to fight. But look at some of the implications of that approach.

Do units merely touching literally corner to corner get to fight?

Do units with a frontage of, say, 4" get to contribute their full combat power if contacting with only 1/2" with their leading edge?

Must opposing units perfectly align their front edges to constitute a melee?

Answers to these question implemented by various games can cause more problems than they solve.

For example, if units are required to perfectly align their front edges by "sliding" into contact, how might that slide cascade across an entire army's front?

If units need only contact with a tiny fraction of their frontage, is it absurd to grant them full combat power if the remainder of their unit frontage faces, for example, an impassable terrain feature or even an enemy unit with which they are NOT in contact?

If one allows full combat power with even a tiny fraction of frontal contact, how does one balance units of different frontages since narrower units immediately gain an advantage? (They can fit more units into contact per unit of frontage).

So, what are your ideas on the subject? Favorite and simplest solutions? Least favorite or even ludicrous solutions in your opinion?

This is the correct thread, ignore the other one in which the bug has struck by trying to build a ship in a bottle in this thread.

:-)

Simple solution: use a grid.

I'm a huge fan of grids too but we're definitely in the minority.

And in massed combat, they introduce their own issues. With a hex grid you have the grain issue which allows two units to concentrate on one unit. And with squares you have the issue of how to handle diagonals.

So this is really focused on an "analog battlefield" rather than a grid/digital battlefield. :-)

Off the top of my head: a unit may only strike one enemy unit per phase. If in contact with more than one, strike the one in contact with the unit's front center point. If there's doubt, roll a die to pick one.

If less than half of an un-engaged unit's front is in contact with enemy, they should have their combat power reduced. If such a unit only has corner-to-corner contact, reduce the enemy unit's combat power if they are fighting another unit frontally.

Or, as stated above, use a grid.

Vincent, you're a mind reader.

I'm tending towards a very similar solution at the moment.

Each unit can make two melee attacks of a given strength (ie number of dice). If the unit's front/center-point is in a certain distance of the enemy unit it can allocate both attacks to the unit. Otherwise, only one attack.

I'm always interested in reading and maybe proof-reading your early rules. Can't say if I can get them tested as my mates might ready torches and pitchforks.

I like the way Hail Ceaser handles unit contact and combat values.

It is very loose with movement to contact in support of other units. Allowing the mover freedom to slide, move around other units and ignore base corners to get to a supporting role.

Once in contact units pair off one to one as much as possible with odd units acting as support and getting half their combat power.

We have a house rule that the primary unit can then split it's combat power between the units but at least half has to go to the primary opponent.

In the end it is all an abstraction. We are trying to impose order on a combat that is probably anything but ordered. So I don't really have a problem with any of the above mentioned mechanisms.

Front rank fights, if that matters in your game.

Sliding into contact with only 1 unit per side fighting goes a long way to making things clear. Corner contacts would require a unit to slide into the front if it is a front corner or the flank if it is a rear corner, assuming those sides are available. This works well if all unit frontages are the same.

Vincent's idea of each unit taking one "whack" per turn at a single unit is quite sound. I'd make the front unit the priority unit. If there are none to the front then a unit to the flank. If there is no unit to the flank, then attack the rear unit.

And, of course, you could always use a grid. Yes. I quite like grids. DBA is a great game on a square grid.

Grids. :) It's hip to be square!

I use the same method I do for massed fire combat – each unit with "unobstructed line of fire" to the target contributes to the attack power and defensive power of the unit.

For close combat, we define "unobstructed line of fire" as center base to center base does not go through terrain that blocks close combat or other figure bases.

So this can create some weird geometries where you "realistically" can or can't do something you couldn't or could. But it works both ways, and seems to even out. Ultimately, you are deciding how to deploy your troops for best advantage.

Combined combat takes the maximum penalty for any member of the group. Players can choose to not have units participate in a group. This limits the over-ganging up. And if you want to really over-gang up, it takes a lot of good maneuver and you will have your figures exposed to reprisal. That seems reasonable enough for us.

If you have two guys who can attack two guys clear and one who can attack through tall grass that reduces combat effectiveness, you need to consider whether or not you really want to go three on two. Likewise, if you have one in the clear and four dealing with grass, going five on two might be worth the penalty.

Maneuver. Deliberate target selection. A bit of chaos. We find this to make a nice mix for gaming.

Currently, we do something along the lines of ethotheipi's suggestion.

Each unit gets one attack. The priority to allocate the attack is:

1. enemy unit in melee zone and on center-line
2. enemy unit in melee zone
3. enemy unit attacking the unit from the flank/rear (half dice!)

The melee zone is 2" from the unit's front edge and 45 degrees off either front corner.

As far as the geometry goes, it allows us to use any units 100-125mm wide with things being fair. And any small advantage a more narrow/wider unit might have is mitigated by a corresponding small disadvantage in another situation.

Per Vincent's earlier suggestion, we've been thinking about dividing attacks in two. The only downside is the additional complication which I don't think is worth it at the moment. And it creates some funky relative attack strengths when dealing with units of different frontages.*

*It's very important to us to allow units of different frontages to fight in the same game. Our approach allows us to play with troops based for DBx, WHFB, KoW, etc. The 100-125mm frontage is for unit. Generals, heroes, warmachines, and monsters can be based 40-60mm wide.

The game is nearly finished but sometimes I get these niggling feelings that I like to explore. We actually tested split attacks and I liked the flexibility, but the odd math bothered me given our allowance of units with different frontages.

Okay, but what ever happened to maneuver PRIOR to an actual charge?

Why not do the most obvious thing, the thing that happens most commonly on battlefields--essentially require a "head-to-head" orientation between the attacker and defender?

"Charges" are NOT made at the Oblique, units do not "slide" between intervening units/terrain, but are straight line movements intended to make contact with their object.

In order to reach the position where a charge is possible, the aggressor unit(s) would have to move into position in the turn(s) before it is launched. And the ground over which the charge would be made must be clear of other units, friendly or otherwise. Only the terrain, the distance to be covered, and the response/fire of the target, and the unknowable, are left to determine the outcome.

Such a realization and practice totally eliminates the abstractions described--however well and cleverly--above. If it takes more time than the players' like to get into position, it's because they are making too extreme a choice for the target of their charge; as if the 12th man in a line wants to attack the other fellow 11 men down the opposite line.

But what if the clear object of a charge is a fixed position/redoubt/village/etc? Then the attacker should have deployed for that purpose from the start.

For Heaven's Sake, Friends! Go back and read about any battles in any period that's relevant to your interests and, assuming the account is reasonably complete, look for the references to the time required PRIOR to the Glorious Charge to get into position.

Battlefield "Charges" are not spur of the moment actions, though they might be as decisions. BAD Charges often seem to be the result of such attempts as are suggested by the seemingly convoluted rules/systems described above.

Please consider the relevance of Occam's Razor here--the simplest explanation is likely closest to the truth.

Line up before the charge, charge in a straight line from center of unit to center of unit, and no other rules are required. Some thought and planning are required, and the defender gets his due advantage of having more time to hammer his would be attackers while they mill about smartly getting into position as result of NOT thinking and planning in advance.

Keep It Simple, Sophisticated!

TVAG

I agree that there are lots of instances in history where you have well-formed forces charging and engaging each other.

But there are also lots of instances where a well-formed force would charge a poorly-formed (oblique, dispersed, dealing with terrain) force exactly because they were unformed and unprepared.

The whole idea of attacking your flank with the force of my well-formed line is the extreme case of this.

One of the classic (over talked and over simplified, often) uses of terrain to channel a superior force to the advantage of the inferior one is Thermopylae. Even without that one example, making cavalry charge your infantry across a river or gulch is a great bit of maneuver warfare.

Requiring "pre-contact alignment" actually gets MORE complicated than less, especially since any issue present in allocating attacks once contact is made is still present.

What if unit frontages are different? Are you allowed to pre-align your charge into contact with one unit if that alignment and charge results in incidental contact with an unintended target?

If pre-aligment charge rules preclude incidental contact after contact is made, you end up with absurd results in which merely positioning units in a certain way you can prevent the enemy from charging ANY of your units!

That goes directly to the issue of history. I really don't believe that Germanic tribes carefully aligned their warbands on Roman cohorts prior to charging. They lacked the maneuver discipline to achieve that precision.

By the same token, since Germanic tribes didn't wear uniforms, it would be impossible for Roman cohorts to have deliberately aligned on specific warbands.

In other words, precise unit-to-unit alignment, whether pre-charge or post contact, is inherently suspect with respect to historical verisimilitude since sooo many units throughout ancient and medieval warfare lacked uniforms, lacked precise tactical drills, or even unit standards except at higher levels of organizations.

What if unit frontages are different? Are you allowed to pre-align your charge into contact with one unit if that alignment and charge results in incidental contact with an unintended target?

Use a grid?

That goes directly to the issue of history. I really don't believe that Germanic tribes carefully aligned their warbands on Roman cohorts prior to charging. They lacked the maneuver discipline to achieve that precision.

By the same token, since Germanic tribes didn't wear uniforms, it would be impossible for Roman cohorts to have deliberately aligned on specific warbands.

I think you are over-thinking it here. We play games and have distinct units of warbands. Unless the army consists of 1 giant unit of warriors and to large units of cavalry, this point is irrelevant.

It's just a game. You have to make it all work within a simple framework.

Simplest, most aesthetic solution: individually base your miniatures, and only allow those in base to base contact to melee. Resolve the melees individually for most aesthetic results.

link

+1 Great War Ace

+2 GWA!

In "Oh God! Anything but a six we dispense with all this folderol. Combat between units is for the most part 1 measure (8" which is the frontage of one infantry stand). So if units are within 1 measure of each other there is combat. This can be either melee or fire, and you use whichever value you wish. Each unit has a value of 0 to 5 for fire or melee, usually different. You use these to toss down combat results cards from a deck of essentially 800 These have combat results printed on the back. You then roll these off according to the "To Stand value" of the unit. If you roll less than or equal to that value the card is tossed off. If you roll higher than it stays and takes effect. That's not the important point here though. You can assign these cards at will to ANY unit within 1 measure of the firing or melleeling unit as does the enemy.

The important point is the TIME. A turn represents about an hour. Within an hour all sorts of moves and movements can occur within close combat range. Units can rush forward, be repulsed, push the enemy back, be replaced by another unit in the firing line or even just standing there glaring at the enemy a short distance away, and so forth and so we don't care about lining units up, or facing them off or being partially in range, if a few inches of the unit is in range and it is reasonable that the officers could re-align a part of it for effective combat within that our, it can fire. So you can have one, two, ten units firing on a single one, or a unit can break up its fire among several targets as it wishes. When all the cards are played, you begin tossing them off. So the problem of massed combat and overlapping units and even different sizes of stands (infantry units are 8" on frontage, Cavalry abut 6, artillery about 4, simply vanishes.

Makes it all much easier, and by the way highly realistic, when you remember that about an hour is taking place.

Note, we mount for an infantry unit 36 figures on a single stand. That's 28 privates, 2 NC0, 1 officer, 2 musicians, 2 colors and and maybe a personality figure on one stand. 12 to 18 cavalry on a 4 by 6" stand and so forth.

The theory of a game is you are a general and command the major units of the army. You are not worried about facing or formation or if the soldiers have sharpened their flints, or dressed right. That's up to Sergeant Beitz or Leutnant Bloez to take care of.

Just me, them other guys is bleedin' cowards is what they is.

Three approaches work:

Grids
Snap to fit (like DBA)
Max of one unit in contact per face (Neil Thomas)

One thing which drives me potty is four French columns packed together, all piling into one sad unit deployed in line.

We should get rid from units having to move into physical contact with other. It's one of those mechanics we inherited from Wells and Featherstone and we still are stuck with it. Some rulesets devote endless pages on how units should move into contact, alignment, all sorts of geometric configurations, etc.; and it's all pointless. It's just an abstraction.

So, just as we threw out the cannon firing matchsticks, we should also throw out units having to move into contact with each other.

Some things to think about:
- why do we insist on different procedures to resolve ranged combat and melee? Esp. in larger formations and/or ground scales and/or more modern periods, is there a meaningful difference between both? Instead of having a different procedure to resolve ranged and melee as the default, it should be the exception (e.g. ancients, skirmish).
- Why insist on contact between units? Why not simply move within a certain distance? That would make a number of rules easier (although not all).
- why having "combat resolution" in the first place? Why not make everything a morale effect and do away with this intermediate step of calculating casualties?

Thanks to everyone who has contributed! Whether a comment challenges or confirms one of our ideas they're all valuable precisely because they can challenge or confirm our ideas! Sometimes we might take a different tact as a result, other times we'll happily agree. In either case, know that your time providing input is NOT wasted and IS appreciated.

We should get rid from units having to move into physical contact with other.

Heartily agree! :-) I cringe when I see beautifully painted troops, especially those armed with polearms and lances, jammed into one another. That's why we went with our 2" melee zone and actually have a rule requiring a small gap between units, both friendly and enemy.

Why not make everything a morale effect and do away with this intermediate step of calculating casualties?

Great minds think alike! We rate each unit for 'cohesion'. Units take damage in 'dispersion points' which can tracked with dice or tokens. Increasing dispersion reduces cohesion forcing units to fall back or even flee the battlefield.

Simplest, most aesthetic solution: individually base your miniatures, and only allow those in base to base contact to melee. Resolve the melees individually for most aesthetic results.

My wife fully agrees with you GWA!!! :-) She prefers individually based figures and prefers leaving them on the battlefield where they fell.

That works well for skirmish games but it can get tiresome in larger scale massed battles with lots of figures.

More importantly, trying to count individual figures in melee conflicts with basing options. So many games today, especially those covering massed battles, have different basing conventions and increasingly they DON'T count figures.

Even the DBx series only recommends a certain number of figures per element since figure sizes have made it impossible to fit the prescribed number of figures on an element. For example, it can be really tough to impossible to cram 3x 28mm heavy cav or 4x heavy infantry on a 60mm element today.

And since many rules don't count figures (e.g. DBx, Kings of War, etc.) counting figures quickly makes different collections incompatible.

We've built our game very carefully to allow collections originating with different rules to work together. Infantry and cavalry units can have a frontage of 100mm-125mm and the number of figures forming a unit doesn't matter. So whether based for DBx, KoW, Impetus, AdlG, Hail Caesar, WHFB, or most any other "rank-n-flank" game, most collections work perfectly well with the rules. The movement system, geometry of battle, and math all revolve around this requirement.

Part of that requirement was driven by our own collections. We have troops based for all those rules and would like to use all of them in our game without rebasing.

– why do we insist on different procedures to resolve ranged combat and melee?

We don't! We use the same procedures for both. The stats driving the resolution process are obviously different.

Whether shooting or in melee, a unit within range of the target (2" for melee) rolls Xd6 to hit, the target rolls to save, result is dispersion pts inflicted on target.

Units take cohesion tests which can result from no effect to varying levels of panic and fleeing.

We do differentiate between shooting and melee in cohesion loss effects since cohesion loss when engaged in melee tends to be more dramatic than when being hit by arrows.

Everything is geared towards speed and period flavor.

There really are differences between ranged and melee combat. They ought to be modeled. But I am not interested in abstraction going in. I want my longbows and crossbows to behave with the differences of those weapons in units. I want close, melee combat to push and penetrate and turn on the flanks and attack the rear and watch the battle line ebb and flow and break apart. You can't do that with element basing. Only individually based miniatures achieve that kind of granularity and visually please the eye with the encroaching chaos of a shattered battle line.

Of course, the objection above about huge numbers of figures makes such a game less wieldy. But never impossible. If you have huge numbers of miniatures involved you need more players, that's all………

Only individually based miniatures achieve that kind of granularity and visually please the eye with the encroaching chaos of a shattered battle line.

Actually, many games that don't count individual figures differentiate between the effects of, for example, longbows and crossbows or the effects of turning flanks in melee. In fact, I can't think of any commercial rules that don't. For example, even Kings of War models those differences and individual figures don't count in those rules.

I'm not talking about units attacking other units in flank or rear. I am talking about individual bases penetrating into a line and turning to either side to take enemy bases in the flanks, or ending up on the rear of enemy bases. This modeled penetration results in melees disintegrating into broken fights and flights. It usually looks quite gorgeous. The bigger the fights the more cool it looks.

Got it! Yes, that always looks compelling.

I think if you're restrained on number of units involved that's not only practical,it's the way to go. Your suggested approach combines the best aspects of skirmish gaming and massed battles. Sort of "Grand Skirmish". "The Sword and the Flame" plays a lot like that.

Unfortunately, that still excludes a lot of collections which base multiple figures on a stand. :-(

We should get rid from units having to move into physical contact with other.

Heartily agree! :-)

We use "within one base width" as the standard for melee. For us, the base is only an abstraction, identifying the locus of activity for a represented unit, just like the static posture of a figure is also representative of the various changes in body attitude that one goes through in combat.

individual bases penetrating into a line and turning to either side to take enemy bases in the flanks, or ending up on the rear of enemy bases

QILS uses individual figures and collective rules for group combat as well. The one thing we do differently is the side losing figures chooses which to take off the board. This balances out the over-control players have on exactly how which figures concentrate activity in which ways. You can still break the line with the same odds as victor choses removal (or each attack is individually targeted), you just don't get as much control over where and how the line breaks. We find that realistic (in the aggregate – after all this is massed battle) and lots of fun.

It doesn't matter.

Consider Lanchaster Laws.

link

Hand to hand results in linear casualties (1-1 if combatants are equally skilled/armed/fed). If a unit of 500 guys matches up with one that is 250 then 500 unit will win and receive 250 casualties. The other unit will be wiped out.

If the combatants are the Borg then the smaller unit will break at some point. But that simply stops the combat -- but both units will receive roughly the same number of casualties. So the unit breaks at 50% then the smaller unit will route at 125 casualties and the larger unit will receive 125 casualties.

When your 2 units meet on the battle field, even just at the corner. If you allow them to fight then they all fight. If you do not allow them to all fight then only a percentage enter the fray. But the math is the same. 500 man unit only touches half of the 250 man unit. Then only 250 of fight 125. Same result but we never have enough guys in the fight to eliminate the smaller unit. But that's ridiculous, the other guys would join in eventually right?

So really, partial contact impacts the rate and not the result.

If you assume that 500 man unit and 250 man unit will reach a conclusion in 2 turns. Then 50% contact would delay it by 50%. So combat takes 4 turns. But this is really if the units are well drilled and are really trying to stay in formation. You'd expect barbarian hordes to just move in regardless of base contact. Same results but at the faster rate of 2 turns.

But what if there are mitigating circumstances. One side has big pointy sticks or the terrain is really rough. All of this should be factor into the ratio. I started with 1-1. But circumstances could be 2-1 in favor of the smaller unit. That is the rate at which the guys will kill each other. The number of guys involved at any one moment is limited by the base contact. Set up a little spread sheet and you can get a rate for each combination of equipment, terrain, and skill.

IMHO -- large numbers of men reduce the randomness. 1 man has 50% chance to shoot a target then he hits about 1/2 the time. Put 10 targets in front of him he might hit 5 but you wouldn't be surprised if he hits 3 or 7 either. But 500 guys shooting at the target. Those guys will average each other out. They'll hit about 250 times.

Just my thoughts..

So really, partial contact impacts the rate and not the result.

Tell that to the Persians.

IMHO -- large numbers of men reduce the randomness.

But that's not the way things work. Give your example, if for one man "wouldn't be surprised" for +/1 20% then all things being equal with 500 men you "shouldn't be surprised" at +/- 20% of the 500, so 150-350 hits.

But we also know that all things aren't equal in different situations. Especially when you scale numbers of people participating in an activity. It depends on the situation and the people and the task (at least). Going from 10 to 20 Seabees putting up a temporary command structure probably does better than halfing the time. Going from 100 to 200 kindergarteners on an outing probably requires more than twice the chaperones.

@awalesII: I understand the approach you are describing. I wish that I were smart enough to create such a "spread sheet". But I am not. Our approach was to start with what felt "authentic", as far as combat values for the five armor classes, infantry and cavalry, and base sizes (representative of the number of men/horses in the company of that base size): then go to work play-testing, which was a lot of "work" but of course the very kind that wargamers can do all day if RL gives them the chance.

Over many, many, many games, the tweaking of the combat values and the effects of the tactical situations worked out to feel "about right". The historical battles that we played out to see if we could arrive at the historical outcomes using the known (or posited) tactics on the known (or posited) terrain, gave us enough confidence that our combat systems were "working". They felt right to us. And they do produce the nicest "large skirmish" feel and look, while playing out full sized battles…………

@etotheipi: Larger numbers of dice rolls do work to reduce the randomness. Your other examples really don't have anything to do with how rolling dice works. For instance, if your game has a mechanic of a single 2D6 roll to resolve combat between two units, the ranomness is very large and can produce wildly differing results. But if, instead, you allow a dozen, or even better, two-dozen 2D6 rolls across the front of the combatting units, between individual bases each possessing its own combat value, the very same possible set of results becomes very much less a random fluctuation in the results. The larger the battle, the less random the possible results are, when the outcome is the total of many 2D6 rolls. So, yes, the larger the numbers of men involved does reduce the randomness, if the number of dice rolls also increases with the larger numbers of men involved………..

"shouldn't be surprised" at +/- 20% of the 500, so 150-350 hits.

Oh no, that's not how that works :) When you put a large number of people together to perform an action, the variation rounds out.

Please see Great War Ace comment regarding Larger Number of Dice Rolls. Same idea. The more dice you throw the closet to average you become.

Another way to look at it. You can play a few hands of Black Jack (assuming you don't count cards) and come out a winner. But if you play thousands of hands you will see the house advantage of 52% (assuming no one is counting cards) and the house ALWAYS wins. That's how they build the big casinos.

I offer that for you to consider. I don't really want to start an argument. Statics are hard. Explaining statistics over the internet is impossible.

"aren't equal in different situations."

That's true. My last paragraph I touch on differences in technology and terrain. Leadership would also be a factor. All of that leads into odds that one man will kill another man. But the act of killing a man by hand is a personal 1-1 thing. That leads to a linear relationship between number of combatants and the number of casualties. That line might be 50-50 or slanted in or out of your favor. But it's linear.

"smart enough to create such a "spread sheet"

My spelling is atrocious. It's not that difficult to combine different arms/armor, terrain, and other factors to deal with the expected kill rate.

"Persians"

I suppose you are referring to thermopylae. That is an extreme case of training, technology, leadership, resolve, and terrain. Combined in a crazy kill rate in favor of the greeks.

Leonidas wasn't playing a dice game and he didn't get lucky.

Do units merely touching literally corner to corner get to fight?

There was a time when many individuals (WAAC'ers) did just this in WFB.

They would put their General/Warlord into the corner of the unit and then charge so that just the corners met.

General/Warlord would kill guy they were touching along with several others and the unit that got charged would not be able to fight back.

Why?

Because the rulebook didn't say they couldn't do this.

a unit may only strike one enemy unit per phase. If in contact with more than one, strike the one in contact with the unit's front center point. If there's doubt, roll a die to pick one.

Well for me everyone fights in the unit and if an unit is stupid enough to charge two units it would have to fight both.

Example:

A unit of 20 Warriors charged and end up in contact with a unit of 15 Archers and a unit of 25 Spearmen.

That unit of Warriors would have to split their attacks between both of the other units. So 10 attacks against each.

The other two units would have a total of 40 attacks against the Warriors.

Oh and all attacks happen at the same time no one gets to go first.

Likely winners would be the Archers and Spearmen.

Three approaches work:

Grids
Snap to fit (like DBA)
Max of one unit in contact per face (Neil Thomas)

In Sword and Spear, units are all of equal frontage and never line up corner to corner. This means you can get two units (but not three) contacting the front edge of an enemy unit. This seemed to me to be about right in terms of how many units should be able to fight against a single enemy unit.

It all changes when a defender goes into "square". For as long as the square remains inviolate, the odds are one to one. There is no way that superior numbers can be brought to bear on the bulk of the square. Only on the corners can two to one odds be brought to bear. The easiest way to represent this is with combat between individually based figures. If you use element basing, some abstraction to create a limited advantage to model the weakness of the corners must be designed into the combat resolution.

So far, I haven't run into many games that really give that "swirling cinematic melee" feel, except in a couple of skirmish games.

Have you read through this thread? I even linked to how we do it. And yes, "swirling cinematic melee" is what happens all the time in our battles.

How would 4 to 1 work against a square? You couldn't bring your odds into play while the square stands. So if your rules allow you to mass full strength on each front, and get 4 to 1 on the square, that is totally inaccurate.

I'm starting to think you guys have never been in a mass of people or you've been watching too much 300. Large bodies of men just don't behave like this.

Think of this the next time you're at the ball park trying to get a beer. There's only so many people that can face the beer people. Sure, you might be able to stuff 1 or 2 extra but that's it. The other hundred people are stuck in queue.

The butchery is limited to where contact is made. Everyone else is either watching or breaking formation. And those that break formation give up as much advantage as they gain. Resulting increased carnage on both side.

I should point out again a couple of our requirements for the system.

1. INDIVIDUAL FIGURES CAN'T MATTER
Because different collections use different frontages per figure or figure density, we can't count individual figures. The moment you do that you make different collections incompatible.

2. UNIT FOOTPRINT MUST BE FLEXIBLE
Based on various other systems and certain geometry as it relates to maneuvering blocks of models we settled on a standard frontage of 100-125mm for all infantry and cavalry units. This allows the vast majority of existing collections to work with the game. So we can't mandate a standard unit frontage for all units of, say, 120mm. That would require re-basing, something we would never do.

So, for our game, any infantry or cavalry unit on a 100-125mm frontage will work just fine and the number of figures merely help the unit's owner figure out the unit type. Depth for a typical unit can vary from 40-100mm. It's up to the player with the goal being he can use his existing collection without modification and/or build really nice looking dioram-ic unit bases.

I should also point out that smaller units such as leaders, heroes, wizards, large monsters, and warmachines have a 40-60mm frontage.

In a way, you are doing a less "granular" approach to the way our rules work. You are using large, multi-figure basing. We use individual basing for miniatures in the 15mm to 28mm range. Smaller than 15mm, would allow multi-figure basing. Whereas larger scales would have to double up the base frontages to allow for the larger figures: and not look as good as say 25s. We all had 25s back when the rules were developed.

So "number of figures" is never a factor; but base frontage is. Our individual bases for both horse and foot are 15, 20, 25 and 30mm each (which equate to "company" sizes of 50, 60, 80 and 100 foot; and 30, 40, 50 and 60 horse). Depth is assumed to be 20mm for foot, but if cut deeper to allow for larger figures, the company on the base is assumed to be in some perpetual "looser order" to the rear. Oh, well; you've insisted on making your guys easier to take in flank. Horse bases are 40 or 50mm deep, or whatever works for the length of the miniature. All frontages are "non negotiable". :)

GWA, your approach is exactly why we took our approach!

:-)

Any of your figures could be shoe-horned into our system and work perfectly well. Our goal was to make things as convenient as possible for as many gamers as possible.

That was what we were thinking too: make the rules work with a multiplicity of basing systems.

"12. Adaptability: We want you to be able to play our rules without having to re-base all of your figures. These rules are made to work best with individually-based figures, but multi-figure bases do work. Figures based to use virtually any other set of rules can work in our game."

(That's a quote from the introduction.)

But if you're counting individual figures and each figure has a different frontage then if you use contact between individual figures to determine who fights how one bases a collection becomes a huge issue.

For example, in DBx 28mm figures are based on a 60mm frontage. The number of infantry figures on that frontage can vary from 2 to 4. More importantly, because modern figures are larger than old school 25mm figures, "heavy infantry" can be based for DBx using 3 or 4 figures on the stand.

This means that if opposing players bring their medieval spearmen to a battle, one might have 3 figures per 60mm frontage and the other 4 figures in contact on that same frontage.

How do you account for those differences?