"Scales in the "The George Gush's Renaissance Rules"" Topic

Howdy all ,

If in the "The George Gush's Renaissance Rules" one foot or mounted figure on the table represents 20 real men (4 rows of 5 men?); one wagon, field piece or elephant model approximately 5. And one Inch on the table top represents 10 paces when using 20-25-28 and 30 mm figures …

Ok but if I want a figurine to represent 100 men, one wagon, field piece or elephant model approximately 25, I decrease by 5 the movement distances and the ranges of shots since then when using 20-25-28 and 30 mm figures one Inch on the table top represents 50 paces …

But what are the other changes to make? The sizes of the bases of the figurines? But what does it give?

Thanks for your help

The 1:20 ratio equates to 3 ranks in 6/7 files or at least it did when I used them for ECW.

I've not played them for a long time but I think changing the figure ratio is going to cause issues with the morale system and combat results. You should be able to work it out and make it playable though.

I always thought the musket ranges were far, far too great.

I would first try dividing unit sizes by 5, and checking whhich rules have thresholds in terms of the numbers of figures…

@Timmo uk /

Yes I have confused with another rule of the same era where one foot or mounted figure on the table represents 20 real men (4 rows of 5 men) it's good 1:20 ratio equates to 3 ranks in 6/7 files.

The musket ranges were far, far too great when one Inch on the table top represents 10 paces when using 20-25-28 and 30 mm figures…
 
Changing the figure ratio is going to cause issues with the morale system and combat results? Please explain that to me, thank you.

@ Skeptic:

You would first try to divide the unit sizes by 5, and check which rules have thresholds in terms of numbers of digits … Please, explain that to me thank you.

Some rules may be specified in terms of the numbers of figures in a unit. You may want to adjust the thresholds downward, to accommodate your generally smaller unit sizes.

The combat results are given in men so you need to resolve how you handle that given you are upscaling by five for everything. For example you get rules that state things like, 'and at least two casualties per figure'.

That might simply change to read ten per figure but either way you are going to have to generate new tables and be clear on your rewrite so everything that needs shifting by five is consistently done.

On that basis short range for muskets comes down to 2" if you downscale to 20%.

Figures bases will need to stay the same size if you are using the same size castings.

I think you might find that it gets a bit fussy and fiddly to play and some distances are going to get very close. If say a unit in the rules as written would move, say 200mm, and when moved it actually goes 205mm by natural mistake, it's no big deal but if you scale down to 20% then that 5mm error increases in relative effect by a factor of five. At that point it might become more of an issue for you.

I've not played the rules for years but do have a copy. I used them for ECW and the unit sizes were good at 1:20. I'm not sure which war(s) you will be refighting but that might have a bearing on whether or not your modifications are going to work in the spirit in which the rules were written. I actually think they were quite good and have tinkered with a faster playing version but it's a bit too mathematical to play and perhaps lacks a bit of period colour for the ECW. Where it does score well is allowing non-historical enemies to fight each other, if that's your thing.

@Skeptic and @ Timmo uk:

Well done, let's keep it interesting:

What I want is that a figurine represents 5 times more real troops than initially in "The George Gush's Renaissance Rules" with the same number of figurines, so I just want to know what to change in the rule if I change the scale of representation of the troops …

In "The George Gush's Renaissance Rules" the 1:20 ratio is equivalent to 3 rows in 6/7 files, but if I replace it with a 1:90 ratio equivalent to 3 rows in 30 files or by a ratio of 1: The ratio of 105 is equivalent to 3 rows in 35 files

1 / Decrease the movement distances by 5 …
2 / Decrease the ranges of shots by 5 …
3 / Modify the use of the casualty chart, a figurine representing 5 times more …
What else to modify?

I'm not sure how true to history your proposal might be without knowing which war you are recreating. I can only use the ECW as an example, as that's the only war I know anything about in this era.

As written at 1:20 a battalia of infantry is going to typically be around 20 to 30 model castings strong ie. 400 – 600 men. For the purposes of my illustration let's call it a unit of 24 castings.

If I'm understanding your correctly you proposal might not replicate history since those 24 castings no longer represent 480 men but using (1:90) they become 2160 men. That's about an ECW brigade which is fine in principle except that the rules aren't written at anything like that level, quite the opposite in fact. Using Gush units, say of 24 castings behave like battalia not brigades and the way the rules play allows and encourages historical formations. So for example in a Gush ECW battalia you have a central pike stand with two sleeves of shot. An ECW brigade would not be deployed like that. In game play if a sleeve of shot is routed it automatically rallies behind it's parent pike stand. That is small unit tactics.

It may be the war you want to refight will translate tactically so you might be OK.

You might be better off just bath-tubbing your scenarios. So as an example, the Royalist foot at Edgehill were about 10,000 strong and they formed in five brigades. So you field you five units of 24 castings representing just over 2100 real men each. That method generates your OOB with 20% of the figures you'd need if you followed a 1:20 OOB.

However, you use the rules exactly as written ignoring how you've scaled the model armies. If your games are part of a campaign you'll need some system to scale loses although I'd be tempted to call all game casualties as campaign loses without any further scaling. That might give a reasonable reflection of those killed and captured versus those wounded who would return to the colours. This would avoid total bloodbath battles as often happen in wargaming.

@Timmo uk:

Well done, I hadn't thought of that, I understand you, for certain conflicts it is scabrous, so let's say for battles where the units are huge …

But it is before all the scale of play of the rule that I want to modify and all that ensues, after we will see with what it works.

1 / Decrease the movement distances by 5 …
2 / Decrease the ranges of shots by 5 …
3 / Modify the use of the casualty chart, a figurine representing 5 times more …

What else to modify?

1 / Decrease the movement distances by 5 …
2 / Decrease the ranges of shots by 5 …

Not familiar with the details of the rules in question, but if you want to keep the base size same while increasing the amount of combatants per base (and thus the area represented by the base) by a factor of 5, then the shooting and movement distances should only be divided by the square root of 5 (approximately 2.236).

It might be more practical to resort to increasing the amount of combatants (and represented area) by a factor of 4, and then reducing all the movement and shooting distance by a factor of 2 (square root of 4).

This on assumption that your intent is to have the ratio of ranks to files the same on the bases.

I'd do as Greifbringer writes. I'd not considered the measurements in those terms but it makes perfect sense to do so.

I think at this point you need to rewrite the rules, including the quick reference sheet, making numerical changes as required then play them and see if it works.

The rules allow for sub-units so that might be a viable work-around for you in some OOB. Let us know how you get on.

@ Griefbringer and Timmo uk :

So if I understood correctly, if I don't want to change the size of the bases, for a game where a figurine is worth 5 times more than initially (let's say that a figurine would represent 90 men in 3 rows), I divide the movement distances and the ranges of shots by 2.236…

Why ? I make you trust but explain mo in detail, thank you.

So after modifications since then when using 20-25-28 and 30 mm figures one Inch on the table top represents 22.36 paces instead of 10 paces as in the rules?

A pace = 75 cms.

I will try and help here.

Your initial system was one figure represents 20 men in four rows of five.

It is easier to explain if a figure is worth 4 times more. In this case one figure represents 4 x 20 = 80 men. We will assume the same ratio of rows to columns, therefore 80 men will be in eight rows of ten.

You can see that the width and depth ratios have changed by a factor of two. The figure is representing a width twice as big and a depth twice as big. So each cm/inch on your table is representing twice as much distance, hence halve the ranges.

If you want one figure representing 5 times more, it will represent 100 men. For the same ratio of rows to columns you will have about 8.9 rows x 11.2 rows (I know that you cannot have 8.9 men or 11.2 men, but it is just a mathematical calculation). Hence the 2.236 increase in rows and columns.

Now, all this assumes that you want to keep the ratio of rows to columns the same. There is no reason that you need to do that. You could have the 100 men in 4 rows of 25. You would then just be changing the scale in one dimension. This all comes down to the age old problem of unit depths not being entirely realistic in wargaming. If you just change the frontage and don't worry about the depth, then you could use the factor of 5.

If you go with the initial example of changing the dimensions in both directions and want to go with one figure becomes five times more at 100 men, then the mathematics tell you that 2.2356 is the correct number to use. However, due to many other assumptions that are no doubt built into the rules, I would just go with a factor of 2 as it is close enough and probably a lot easier to use, as you would just need to half the distances.

Hello Paskal

What wars will you be re-fighting with these rules?

Is your 1:100 idea because you wish to re-fight massive battles or because you wish to economise on figurines?

Martyn K provided a pretty decent explanation for what I had in mind, but just in case I will also try to explain things mathematically starting from another end.

Essentially, the dimensions you will need to consider are:
1.) Ground scale (by default one inch to 10 paces)
2.) Base size (let's assume this is by default X inches in width and Y inches in length, thus XY square inches in area, equivalent to 100XY square paces at the default ground scale)
3.) Number of models per base (parameter W)
4.) Ground area occupied by combatant at the actual ground scale (at default ground scale and base size this is 20W combatants per 100XY square paces, or 5XY/W square paces per combatant)

In this case the tabletop distances are expressed in inches, while the equivalent real world distances are in paces.

Ground scale, base size and number of figures per base can be adjusted, while the ground area occupied per combatant should remain constant. If we choose to increase the ground scale by a factor of Z, while keeping the base size and number of figures per base constant, the following happens:

a.) The ground scale is now one inch to 10Z paces
b.) Base size is still X inches in width and Y inches in length
c.) These base dimensions are equivalent to 10ZX paces in width and 10ZY paces in lenght
d.) Thus the battlefield area represented by the base is now 100ZZXY square paces
e.) Since 5XY square bases are taken per combatant, the base is thus now equivalent to 20ZZW combatants (100ZZXY divided by 5XY/W)

The number of combatants represented by model (parameter V) is then the ratio of combatants per base to models per base, i.e. V=20ZZ (=20ZZW/W).

And from this, it becomes simple to calculate the number of combatants per base for different values of Z:
- if Z=2 then V=80 combatants (2*2*20)
- iz Z=2.236 then V=100 combatants
- if Z=2.5 then V=125 combatants
- if Z=3 then then V=180 combatants

Or alternatively you can calculate the desired value of Z for a desired value of V, in which case Z is square root of (V/20).

BTW: previous comments about the depth of the units are also worth considering, and may affect the calculations.

@ Martyn K:

Thank you.

The ratio initial equates to 3 ranks in 6/7 files (18 or 21 infantrymen or real cavalrymen for a figure).
If I want a figure to be worth five times more 3 ranks in 30/35 files (90 or 105 infantrymen or real cavalrymen for a figure).
Since I want the formation of 90 or 105 to always be in 3 rows, the mathematics always tell us that 2.2356 is the correct number to use to divide the movement distances and the ranges of fire?

@ Stopping:

Thank you.

Any conflict as long as the smallest tactical units actually count 90 or 105 real infantrymen or cavalrymen, because at the start of a game, a unit must not have less than 5 figures.Yes you guessed I want to rebuild more complete armies and also save on figurines, but I also want to keep the initial rule.

@Griefbringer:

Thank you.

The sizes of the bases for a figurine representing 90 or 105 real infantrymen in 3 rows would be:

15 x 20 mm – 20 x 20 mm and 30 x30 mm.

The sizes of the bases for a figurine representing 90 or 105 real cavalrymen on 3 rows would be:

20 x 40 mm – 25 x 40 mm and 30 x40 mm.

Obviously I don't change the size of the bases…

If you want to have one base to represent a unit that is 5 times wider than the default, while maintaining the default depth, you will start running into scaling issues, so you will have to choose between either:

1.) maintaining constant base dimensions
2.) maintaining constant ground area occupied per combatant at the ground scale

For example, if you want that infantryman on a 20 x 20 mm base to represent a unit 30 men wide and 3 men deep, then a lot of the ground area occupied by that base has to be assumed to be empty space. This can be passable abstraction if your units are just one base in depth, in which case it could credibly represent a "zone of control" in front or behind the unit. However, if your tabletop units start becoming many ranks deep, this may eventually lead to things looking a bit odd (e.g. ratios of unit depths to shooting ranges).

The mathematically ideal solution would be of course to stretch the base in the appropriate proportions, so for example instead of 20 x 20 mm bases using 45 x 9 mm bases (almost identical surface areas). This would still be viable with 28 mm figures, at least if you would convert them a bit so that they are posed with just one foot on the ground, though the end result might end up looking like an assembly of ballet dancers, while the models might be prone to falling over…

Paskal,

If you start with one figure representing 21 men in 3 ranks and 7 files and then want to go to one figure representing 105 men in 3 ranks and 35 files, then you change the frontage of each figure by a factor of 5, but you make no change to the depth of each figure.

I would argue that the frontage of each figure is the more important factor in most games as it influences firing and melee. Unless units are stacked up behind each other, the depth is less important.

If you then forget the depth issue for a moment, as you are changing the frontage by a factor of 5, then I would change movement and ranges by a factor of 5 (and not the factor of 2.2356 discussed earlier.

Returning to the depth issue. I will start by making some assumptions. The first assumption is that one 28mm figure is mounted on a 20mm x 20mm base. You will then need to estimate how much space a man in your period took up in terms of rows and files. I am guessing that with a three deep line, the rows will be quite close and that there will not be a lot of difference in how much space a man takes up in the ranks and files. You will know more about your gaming period than me.

If these assumptions are close, then when you start with one figure representing 3 ranks and 7 files, then you have already distorted your depth by a factor of 7/3 or 2.3. By going to one figure representing 3 ranks and 35 files, you will be increasing the distortion of the depth by over 11 times.

It all comes down to whether you can live with this depth distortion (It does allow you to represent a much wider battle front). I would just accept the fact that I was initially wrong by a factor of 2.3 and being even more wrong is not a big issue. I would then just divide the movement and ranges by five.

If you worry about this sort of thing too much, you may have to start playing Napoleonics, where this sort of thing is always a source of constant debate. I chose the Italian Wars as my second gaming period to move away from these sort of issues.

You then come to the point of just because we can change the figure scale from 1: 20 to 1: 100, should we? This comes down to a number of factors, including budget and personal preference. I much prefer seeing bigger pike blocks on the table as they look impressive and I love the colors of the Italian Wars.

collegeofkings.com

Martyn – fabulous looking troops.

Paskal – to throw another question out there, why Gush? There are other rules sets that might be suitable without lots of tinkering that are written in a more modern style. Gush was very much founded on the notion of casualty removal and small unit tactics, as previously mentioned. You might find a system like Pete Berry's ECW Polemos more suitable for what you want to achieve.

@ All

Thank you.

In the rules the sizes of the bases for a figurine representing 18 or 21 real infantrymen in 3 rows would be:

15 x 20 mm – 20 x 20 mm and 30 x30 mm.

And as in the rule one Inch on the table top represents 10 paces (i.e. 7.50 m real) when using 20-25-28 and 30 mm figures, so one millimeter represents 29.52 cm real.

So a base of 15 x 20 mm represents an actual rectangle of 4.42 m x 5.90 m.
So a base of 20 x 20 mm represents an actual square of 5.90 m x 5.90 m.
So a base of 30 x 30 mm represents an actual square of 8.85 m x 8.85 m.

So the sizes of the bases for a figurine representing 90 or 105 real infantrymen in 3 rows (effective multiplied by 5) would be:

So a base of 15 x 20 mm represents an actual rectangle of 22.10 m x 29.50 m.
So a base of 20 x 20 mm represents an actual square of 29.50 m x 29.50 m.
So a base of 30 x 30 mm represents an actual square of 44.25 m x 44.25 m.

In the rules the sizes of the bases for a figurine representing 18 or 21 real cavalrymen on 3 rows would be:

20 x 40 mm – 25 x 40 mm and 30 x40 mm.

So a base of 20 x 40 mm represents an actual rectangle of 5.90 m x 11.80 m.
So a base of 25 x 40 mm represents an actual rectangle of 7.38 m x 11.80 m.
So a base of 30 x 40 mm represents an actual square of 8.85 m x 11.80 m.

So the sizes of the bases for a figurine representing 90 or 105 real cavalrymen in 3 rows (effective multiplied by 5) would be:

So a base of 20 x 40 mm represents an actual rectangle of 29.50 m x 59 m.
So a base of 25 x 40 mm represents an actual rectangle of 36.90 m x 59 m.
So a base of 30 x 40 mm represents an actual rectangle of 44.25 m x 59 m.

From then on we realize that the bases are too small?

Because normally an infantryman has a frontage of 0.90m and a deep of 1.80m and a cavalryman has a frontage and a deep of 0.9m x 2.50m (the average length of a horse being 2.40m)…

So I think I'm going to have to change the size of the bases for the new scale of representation des troupes, at first I disliked it but now it will become a very interesting arithmetic game and you will have to take into account the space occupied by the 28mm figures on their bases and the fact that in the games I want the figures to be based individually.

Your help and comments on what to modify in the rules are welcome.

Paskal

For your scaling exercise, maybe you could also consider approaching the problem from the perspective of the tabletop aesthetics, and decide what would be the smallest unit you would like to see on the tabletop. You can then figure out what you would like to have this unit to represent in real life terms, what would be the area taken by such unit on the real life battlefield and how it compares to the tabletop footprint of the actual bases.

For example, if the smallest unit you would like to see is 5 models mounted on 20 x 20 mm bases formed into a line, then the tabletop footprint of such unit would be 100 x 20 mm. You can then consider how many real life combatants this should represent, and how they would be formed in ranks and files. Then based on the estimates for the area required per combatant, you can calculate how much area such a unit would occupy at the minimum. And then from this you could calculate the ground scale.

@Paskal

Which war in particular will you be tackling first?

Paskal,

Frontages weren't as cut and dried as you suggest. At least during the ECW there were gaps left between every five six files of musketeers so the troops could give fire then turn and march to the rear through the gaps.

There would also be space around units so the actual footprint of the model unit is only representative not definitive. Also your 90cm per man is not actually correct, it would vary and drill books of the period quote the space between files at different order.

Personally I think you are focusing on the wrong aspects and we still don't know what war you are trying to represent or why you are favouring Gush, which might not be the best rule set for what you have in mind.

@ Griefbringer:
I think that all the infantry bases will all have the same depth and that all the cavalry bases will also all have the same depth. As we must take into account the depth occupied by a 25/28/30 mm figure on a base this is likely to be a depth of 20 mm for the infantry and 40 mm for the cavalry in fact there is only the front of the bases which is likely to change.

Also from the perspective of the tabletop aesthetics, there will be bases with much larger fronts so it may be necessary to place several figurines there which for me is annoying.

@ Stoppage:

I don't say which one so as not to influence you in your answers.

@Timmo uk

I know that the fronts were not as cut and dried as I would like and that at all times there were gaps between the rows and the rows and that there was also space around the units, but there we do have a fixed departure base.

I do this with the "Gush" or I do not do it even if the Gush, is perhaps not the best rule for what I have in mind.

@ To all three:

Please to start what happens later in the rules if we take as a starting base a base of 15 x 20 mm with a figurine of infantrymen who would represent 400 real men on 4 ranks?

One of the founding principles is one rank of castings representing three real ranks – the modifiers are entirely based on this understanding. Change that and the rules simply won't work properly. Nor will they work properly if you only have a single rank of castings representing all formation depths. Gush isn't conceived like that.

There were nine and six rank formations used in the TYW but if you are depicting earlier warfare you'll find still deeper formations. Go later and you'll find three ranks being used sometimes. Gush has understood this and it forms the basis of the rules.

Horse deployed in three or six ranks by TYW – Swedish or Dutch style.

@Timmo uk :

The rules just won't work properly if I only have one rank of miniatures representing all of the training depths?

Why? if I know how many real men could fight.

Well you'd have to know how many ranks each unit represents then work out the modifiers by converting to multiples of three ranks to get the +1s you need to calculate every time there is any combat or firing. This will be nuisance and further complicate what is already a pretty crunchy system.

There's very little more I can write to help you since I've still no idea what war you are trying to represent and thus if your concept will actually work within the context of what Gush was written to depict. As it stands I think your game will just be an exercise in maths.

But no…
For each figurine on a base, you know what its starting strength is and how many rows and rows it is deployed, if you have more than one time the same type of unit represented by the same type of figurine you just have to number them , under the base for example to recognize them if they fight individually or if they are not of the same type as other units with which they would form a "block" …
Let us imagine that the smallest type of unit of the two opposing army is represented by a figurine of 400 men on 4 rows, for example archers armed also with swords.
We know that in reality their four rows could all shoot, so in the casualty chart, they would shoot like 20 figures (400 men) and with the sword body in reality only their first row could fight, so in the casualty chart , they would fight like 5 figurines (100 men).

In fact the scale of representation of the troops must be the size of the smallest tactical unit on the table, so if it is a unit of 80 men my 400 men unit mentioned above would have 5 figurines …

If the smallest tactical unit of an army does not count more than the 18/21 men proposed by the "Gush", then as much not to change the rule …

You also need to know how many rows each type of weapon was actually used …

I don't think my game will be just a math exercise, it will be different and more interesting if the figures represent more troops and we must not forget the random factor.

Hello. Don't know if you have a copy of the Gush Rules or not:

Useful link with partial history: link

Playsheet:
PDF link

Army lists:
PDF link

You could also consider De Bellis Renationis. (Invoke your own Google-fu)

Re: Repurposing Gush to different figure scale.

Looking at the playsheet linked to earlier, you'll need to consider:

Frontages – how many enemy of one type can fight friends of another. (Eg Gallopers have greater frontage than Pistols so more pistols can fight)

Depths – how many ranks can shoot (from memory up to two infantry or one cavalry)

Depths – how depth of ranks affect melee (eg pikes)

Depths – how depth of ranks affect artillery fire

Quantities – how the rules will pertain to your schema – eg "under fire by ten figures (200)" will be under fire by two figures (200).

Enjoy.

Thank you Stoppage.