"Pre-measuring?" Topic

Should rules prohibit pre-measuring?

Myself, I never understood the logic.

No. It only gives an advantage to players who are good at estimating distances.

Just don't let players slow down the game by overdoing it.

No.

I consider "scoping things out" to be a metagame activity, not really something that belongs in the rules. Bathroom breaks (where you could be "illegally" thinking about strategy for extra time!), asking which mini is which, or which terrain type is which, rules clarification, etc. Are not really the domain of the rules or scenario, except in rare cases in order to create a specific effect.

As a remodeling contractor of 25+ years and having in that time developed an eye for any length between 1"-144" inches, I strictly forbid pre-measuring in my games.

Yes.

I command an army. I have hundreds of officers and professionals whose job it is to know these things. Post 1900 we have range finders, radar, sensors. I might have marked ranges on the battlefield or used ranging shots.

Pre-measuring is shenanigans. I want to stay just outside of charge range or just at the edge of musketry so I maintain the advantage my turn is crap. Move and estimate and if you're wrong then it's battlefield fog of war. But all the little niggles and wiggles are BS

If pre-measuring upsets you use variable movement, player picks how many dice to throw but can't stop short.

In regards to historical gaming.

Would your commanders and men have no idea whether a target was in range?
Hopefully they have some ability to judge, otherwise not much point in committing them to any battle.

Civilians might be bad at judging distances.
Maybe troops with very poor eyesight due to a sandstorm/snowstorm or bad weather.
Nightime actions.
New recruits without any training.
These might all find it difficult to estimate distances.

Some players like measuring and some don't.

Nothing to fall out about or claim any "only my opinion counts" nonsense (some may disagree)?

martin

Yes.

I approve of it in the age of laser rangefinders, where they are in widespread use.

Prior to that, I don't think premeasuring should be permitted.

We generally don't allow pre measuring, not doing it adds a little skill to the proceedings and can produce some amusing results!

Pre-measuring is fine, unless some condition in the scenario says otherwise.
Military men that had access to maps with scale, did drills and marches with real troops and fired live rounds would have a pretty good estimation of distance. Plus there would be a handful of professional, educated men in the staff – engineering types who would eat this stuff up.
Civilians in the pre-mechanised transport era could easily estimate distance by eye, especially if they are locals. If they said something was half a mile, more or less, then it was usually half a mile, more or less.
The biggest hindrance on the battlefield would be line of sight and gun powder smoke.

It depends upon the rules, but generally yes. Troops are trained to judge distances by eye (and take into consideration things that can effect the judgement, such as dead ground, looking up or down slope, light levels, whether the sun is causing long shadows, etc) and always have been. Successful hunters have the same skill. Yet they all still make mistakes.

If you're 1mm outside effective range and waste a shot, or don't move far enough to avoid being reached by the enemy, then historically that's what sometimes happened and still does.

Do the Hussars halt 1" away, "Blown", and get gleefully shot yo pieces? Realistic?

No, what it means is the the hussars didn't make contact before the enemy was able to bring fire to bear. The fire results will decide what happens next.

I always allow pre-measuring. I even encourage it, in hex-based games.

I almost never play a game Olde Schoole enough for pre-measuring to be a contentious issue.

Disallowing pre-measuring inevitably leads to agonizingly slow moves (while doing the math to calculate the right distance to get the right range based on the last measured shot), punishes or rewards players for a non-wargaming skill (eyeballing distances), and introduces a completely arbitrary physical limitation into an otherwise abstract system.

- Ix

Yes to pre-measuring, if the rules allow it. If it allows it, then don't tell me I can't do it!

These days I mainly play wargames on a gridded surface, so the issue does not arise.

Among the "interesting results" are falling short by an inch or two in your charge.
How do you handle that?
Do the Hussars halt 1" away, "Blown", and get gleefully shot to pieces? Realistic?

Thanks DalGavan, beat me to the reply!

Actually, we rarely get that just too short charge, which we do rationalise as a charge getting a short range blast as their charge slows/breaks up.

I have found if there is any doubt troops will make contact, players are cautious and either slowly advance till they are sure, or retreat for more room before advancing to charge again!

The 'Amusing' things are troops not quite reaching cover before getting spotted/shot at, and troops failing to charge as they are not sure of reaching and then being promptly charged by their 'just in range' opponents! --which are amusing to me at least!

NO!!!

Sure soldiers can estimate ranges on the battlefield. Fine. Let wargamers do the same. Estimate.

Pre measuring allows one to stay just outside of range of a weapon that has shorter range than yours.

Why didn't the CSA infantry do that with Buford's cavalry on July 1 at Gettysburg and just shoot them all down from just out of carbine range?

Tom

I truly hate it when someone measures from my units to ensure they are 1mm out of rang of my weapons. First rule – no pre-measuring, Second rule – measure from your own units, not mine!!

Why didn't the CSA infantry do that with Buford's cavalry on July 1 at Gettysburg and just shoot them all down from just out of carbine range?

Because horses move faster forward than people do moving backwards?

If they are out of range of your guns usually you are out of range of theirs. What are your victory conditions? Is one side supposed to be attacking? If I have to take an objective you are in front of then we both should eventually be in range. The defending side can't keep backing up the whole game. If your guns have a shorter range then that is the way the cookie crumbles.

Why didn't the CSA infantry do that with Buford's cavalry on July 1 at Gettysburg and just shoot them all down from just out of carbine range?

Because the Confederate's goal was to push Buford's cavalry out of the way. Harry Heth wanted to get to Sharpsburg and the Yankee cavalry was in the way. Do you have any idea how long it would take to shoot at troops behind cover at long range, enough to rout them? A long time.

Gaming aside, most people can visually estimate a range +/-20%, experienced ones of +/-10%. Also, look at a map if you have one. Defenders would normally pre-measure the range to landmarks within their range too and even put out range markers in front of their position.

So people play games where a gun can shoot 500 yards but not 501 yards? Incredible!

Rangefinders in the Civil Way? Yes!
YouTube link

Maybe someone can make one.

Wolfhag

The Phoenicians circa 7thC BC could do similar types of calculations using their fingers as an instrument. Bigger error, but the stars are a lot further away, so actually great precision, proportionally. The Greeks in the 5thC BC had tools to do exactly that type of range estimation on land. Euclid didn't invent that class everyone hated in high school (truth: I loved it), but he systematized the concepts to allow them to propagate easier and enable collaboration. Many ancient stories of magicians actually recounted the actions of people with special skills, like counting past ten.

Back to the WNA, Guns and Ammo magazine had an article many (many) years ago about Springfield vs Enfield. A couple skilled craftsmen and historians did some reconditioning using period techniques and mange period ammo. Then they gave the S and the E to a modern marksman. His result – he could definitely describe the differences between the two, but neither was really any better than the other.

From a shooting discussion online:

Distance estimation was formerly taught in Confederate General Patrick Cleburne's division in The Army of Tennessee. Cleburne based his training on a British musketry manual. Confederate General Cadmus Wilcos was also thought to have authored a booklet which was distributed to the sharpshooter battalions in the Army of Northern Virginia. It too was based on the lessons in the British handbooks. I know Confederate Henry Heth did some research, taught it in the antebellum era and even wrote a booklet which someone else plagiarized before the war, but I found no evidence that he instructed his division during the war. (Heth's infantry started the battle of Gettysburg when they fought with Buford's troopers).

Like Hal said, you looked at something (like a wagon or artillery piece) and then paced off the distance. You told the officer who wrote it down and called the next man to give his estimate. Records were kept and those who could not get the knack were washed out of the sharpshooter battalions (in the Army of Northern Virginia). In about a week's time the men got pretty good at this.

Artillery men on both sides became very good at range estimation and they had to if they were to adjust the fuse correctly. Overestimate and your shell explodes past the target. Underestimate and your shell explodes before it reaches the target. Gibbon's treatise on artillery covers range estimation too.

There were also mechanical devices called stadia that could be helpful. You held the stadia a fixed distance (a length of string) held beneath the eye socket and measuring the height of the man (average soldier was 5'8") or horseman against the distance marks on the stadia. Read the distance on the stadia and you've got your estimate. There were antebellum optical devices that also had stadia wires in them that could be used for range finding. So the concept of the mil dot is not new. However, these would have to be privately purchased and I haven't read anything proving any officer on either side using one.

In my research I found no evidence that this was done by Union infantry.

Go to the National Battlefield Park and ask to use their library. Most Civil War National Battlefield Parks have my book (Sharpshooters (1750-1900): The Men, Their Guns, Their Story) and the subject is covered extensively in Chapter 7.

Wolfhag

Has anyone changed their mind about pre-measuring?

Wolfhag

Has anyone changed their mind about pre-measuring?

Why should they, mate? The great things about this hobby is that there's enough rules and periods so that you can find a combination that suits you, there's room for everyone's views and even the odd gamer chucking a tantrum or two for amusement. Plus you can ignore anyone telling you that you have to play any particular rules set and/or period/s.

Some for pre-measuring, some against. Each person's choice and nobody can say otherwise.

I agree, just wondering. It's a game and there is no governing authority to tell you what to do. Even if there was just ignore them.

Wolfhag

There's no governing authority, but there are rules for the game with a design. So, if the rules are designed for adding rolls of multiple d6 and you decide one side will use d4 instead and the other will use d8, that is fine. Just don't complain about how the rules (or the game, the scenarios) are bad.

So, back up to my first post on this, pre-measuring is really (except in rare cases) orthogonal to the rules. Doing it or not really doesn't affect the way the game works. Same thing for other meta-game things like taking breaks or how long you get to take your turn.

And whether pre-measuring is "fair" or not is not a function of the rules, game, or scenario, but other things outside those. We have a player who has a glass eye due to a combat injury. I doubt anyone here would object to him pre measuring. We also have a few players with cataracts, and just plain old bad eyesight. Same same.

My point is not that people would object, but rather that the factors to be considered are "outside" the game, not a part of it.

I played one game where we guessed the range. It was at the rec room at Fort Meade/NSA in 1973. A local naval wargame club was set up and invited me to join. They gave me the BC Derfflinger and my opponent was the BC Sverige. We started out of range.

The Sverige turned into me to close the range. The floor had square tiles that I estimated to be 4 feet and we were about 2.5 tiles apart. I steered towards the edge of a tile. When he got to the edge of the second tile and I crossed the "T" I announced my intention to shoot with a range of 8 feet. My plunging fire salvo landed stem to stern with three magazine hits. He never got to shoot at me. Game over.

Did I cheat?

Wolfhag

Do whag you like…
But
In my games no… when range is critical then then people need to get good at judging it…
Plenty of histroical examples where people would have loved to pre measure distance… bit without or made significant problems or lost the battle… it also shows down the game.

For me it's a gaming thjng… im interested more in war than the game

My plunging fire salvo landed stem to stern with three magazine hits. He never got to shoot at me. Game over.

Did I cheat?

Of course. You're supposed struggle with random guesses like a normal person. Using environmental cues and calculations in your head is completely out of bounds. Trigonometry is a banning offense.

- Ix

I completely agree with etotheipi here. Except in rare cases (e.g. Fletcher Pratt and derivatives), range estimation is outside the design scope, so requiring it just adds a whole slew of unregulated behaviors (and subsequent arguments and house rules) into the game.

I let people pre-measure because the rules I play already have playtested ways to undermine the omniscience of the 50,000 foot general. Perfect determination of distances is just a part of the game to speed play, prevent arguments, and keep non-gaming/non-military skills out of the game decision cycle. When it's acceptable or even expected behavior, no side has an advantage and all players start looking for ways to avoid the extra work (such as announcing ranges to assist other players' moves).

If the rules are built around range/distance estimation and pre-measuring is specifically disallowed, of course I'll play that way, but I'll also make noise about the setup issues that undermine the value of this activity. The terrain has to be fixed and extremely well-defined, the playing surface has to be utterly devoid of grids, modern artillerists must be allowed a realistic amount of pre-registration, movement distances must be somewhat randomized and mysterious to the other side, obstructions to lines of sight and fire must be consistently definable, and so on. If you just tack on a "no pre-measuring" rule without all of these considerations handled, the game quickly skews into a caricature of combat.

- Ix

ut I'll also make noise about the setup issues that undermine the value of this activity.

So, I'll make noise here. Griping, whining, and whinging. And only because I did not do so at the time of the event:

We had a forces set up on opposite sides of a large table. Four turns in (there was other stuff going on with other units), with both sides moving max distance straight across, our units should be exactly at my opponents' max range. Very simple geometry. My second move was a slight oblique, which through simple geometry again, puts me just outside their max range so I could move on my next turn and get first blood. But it was the others' turn first, they shot, measured, and were in range.

It feels good to complain about it.

Following Yellow Admiral's post, the way we manually do everything else in the game does not merit the precision of mm in a measurement. So if you want to measure to account for all the error plusses and minuses, so ahead.

WRT taking up time, we threat that more as an aggregate across your whole turn. If you can pre-measure and make an efficient turn, go ahead. If you don't pre-measure and you can't, that's still an issue.

IIRC there was an incident in the Med during or around WWI where a squadron of British cruisers was steaming in I think two columns. The Admiral gave what I think was a turnaround 180-degree order. It turned out the columns were too close and some ships collided because the Admiral got the range in between columns wrong.

Does anyone recall the incident or details or any other historical examples?

Wolfhag

IIRC there was an incident in the Med during or around WWI where a squadron of British cruisers was steaming in I think two columns. The Admiral gave what I think was a turnaround 180-degree order. It turned out the columns were too close and some ships collided because the Admiral got the range in between columns wrong.

Does anyone recall the incident or details or any other historical examples?

.

Victoria/Camperdown disaster, during the 1893 maneuvers of the Mediterranean Fleet. Fleet flagship HMS Victoria was rammed and sunk in Tripoli harbor anchorage by HMS Camperdown. Admiral of the Fleet Sir George Tryon was lost (along with several hundred others). A young John Jellicoe nearly drowned.

Long and very complicated story (Gordon's "Rules of the Game" covers the event in some detail. Having studied this in some detail, it is my opinion that no one misjudged any distances. Admiral Tryon was a very powerful personality and quite committed to training his officers to be responsible and independent thinkers rather than passive slaves to the "Signal Book".

Tryon issued orders for a complicated maneuver to bring the fleet to anchor into a very particular formation. At first glance, his maneuver signal seemed impossible to accomplish without a collision between the two columns. But a more creative interpretation of the order would have revealed the solution. Unfortunately, neither of the two bridge staffs were creative enough to work out the solution, nor were they willing to purposefully disobey what they believed to be an impossible maneuver order from their mercurial Admiral Tryon. Both ships carried on despite knowing that it would almost certainly result in a collision … which it sadly did.

Fascinating historical moment.

B

German flak units had range-finders.

Any AT guns dug into prepared positions were IMO more than likely to have been ranged in within their covered arcs of fire; I have read of German flak batteries using white-washed stones to mark ranges in the desert.

B

Blutarski,
Thanks for filling in the details.

Yes, medium and heavy AT guns did have range finders. However, an emplaced gun or crew-served weapon would also have a range card as would all other defenders: link

In my games, the defender starts with several Known Range markers and artillery TRP that he is ranged in on defined in the scenario notes. This allows him to engage a target at a longer range and track it. When the target gets to the Range Marker he opens fire using the more accurate Ranged In row on the gun chart rather than the Ranging row which accounts for the range estimation error.

Google: "civil war" "range stakes" for more examples of range stakes.

"Known Range" also comes into play when engaging a unit with targets close together or within about 100m. If you hit a target at 1200m and there is another enemy unit within about 100m the gunner would most likely use the same elevation/range setting eliminating the Range Estimation Error which is the biggest variable in first-shot accuracy. He's already Ranged In on the new target. This forces players to spread out their units in our games.

I can use the front sight of my M1 Garand to estimate ranges. At 300 yards a human shoulder width is twice as wide as the width of my front sight and at 600 yards the same width. At 600 yards with a slight 5-8 mph crosswind, I hold one sight blade width into the wind for my "Kentucky Windage."

There are many high and low-tech stadiametric rangefinders that have been used throughout history. The M72 LAW has one but the M79 Blooper does not.

If I need to measure really long ranges I have one of these: link

Wolfhag

I object far less to premeasuring in wargaming than I do to cheaper geometry tricks. Stopping one millimeter outside range in absolute security, etc.

The other issue with our games is that things on the tabletop are mostly static. Unlike real life where things are always at least slightly in motion. This why we bring dice into it.

I have seen people get very sneaky about measuring without actually measuring by doing stunts like overextending the tape measure or "accidentally" setting a range stick in just the right spot.

I too have borne witness to the "rubber ruler" phenomenon. Unfortunate, but not by any means unknown.

B

Regarding tank-tank combat, the first shot at a target is normally called a ranging shot because you are not expected to hit the target because you'll have a 10-30% range estimation error unless using a rangefinder or have pre-measured the range. A rangefinder will get that to about 5%. You would make a correction (called Bracketing) based on the result of the Ranging shot miss being high or low.

My gun charts have three rows: Ranging, Bracketing and Ranged In with increasing chances for a hit. If a Ranging shot misses the next shot uses the Bracketing row. If it hits all follow-up shots at the same target and any other target within 100m is now Ranged In. The errors for Range Estimation are built into the gun tables based on historical data so the player does not have to estimate it himself.

Wolfhag

Sound travels at about 1100 feet per second or about 0.2 of a mile. If you can see the flash of the gun and hear the sound with a little practice you can estimate the range pretty well. You can do the same with lightning and thunder.

Wolfhag

Was Alexander great because he could spot the difference between 17" and 15"?

There's jokes there….

The issues isn't so much whether you should as much as why it's being done… is it to gain an advantage by gaming the rules or is it reflecting a histroical actuality.
And that's additional tk how the rules and the fuler can be gamed in application.

If we are to believe reports both sides t Towton thought they had the measure of the other one side was wrong.

You can come up with rules to determine whether mistakes happen or you can have rules that allow those involved to make mistakes or be successfully on their own merits.

Was Alexander great because he could spot the difference between 17" and 15"?

No, but Napoleon was. Wellington was great at disrupting the lines of fire to his units by hiding them exactly the right distance behind crestlines. Hannibal was unsurpassed at knowing precisely how to arrange bodies of troops and where to hide ambushes. Vauban turned pre-measuring into a science. Were they cheating?

The great military innovators of history were exactly like those annoying tournament players who win by exploiting unexamined details or the cracks in the rules. "No pre-measuring" is just another rule with too many loopholes.

- Ix

Got to disagree, YA. There is IMO a distinct difference. In a game like "Column, Line and Square" (yes, I know that it is a prehistoric artifact by this point in time) a good eye for distance was absolutely critical.

If you declared a column charge with your French infantry and failed to make contact, there was no pre-melee morale check for the defender to take, no column charge bonus to the French attacker, no melee that turn at all; the battalion was simply hanging in the air and exposed to the fire of the defender's entire battalion line, with but a single stand to reply.

It's the last turn of the game (a CL&S game was turn limited – normally 6 turns, 7 in a "big "tournament game")
and a player commits his carefully husbanded regiment of cuirassier on the last turn to charge my square of French Old Guard, finds out he is short on charge distance then "rubber rulers' his way to charge contact. I watched this proceed with my own eyes and was left with the choice of either getting in the gentleman's face or ruining the afternoon for a dozen other friends … you get the drift.

Or a player who would always kindly take care of setting up all the scenery on the fifteen foot table in his basement in preparation for our big monthly CL&S tournament games played at his house, then uncannily manage to land his howitzer shots (which required a public range estimate before firing) precisely in the middle of any high value target located near a terrain feature (house, bridge, copse ….. you get the drift). Those howitzers were astoundingly accurate whenever fighting on a table he had set up.

I stopped playing in any games whatsoever which involved the individual responsible for the above transgressions. These sorts of low-brow shenanigans = CHEATING, plain and simple. They ruin the enjoyment of the game for honest players and leave a distinctly bad taste in my mouth.

Strictly my opinion, to be sure. YMMV, of course. Nothing personal – this is just an issue that presses my buttons in a bad way.

B

I solved and eliminated these movement and range issues a long time ago and it works for any period from ancient to SciFi and naval warfare, synchronizing movement rates with rates of fire thus eliminating cumbersome opportunity fire rules. It's almost impossible to cheat compared to the current IGYG systems. More playable too.

Wolfhag

@Blutarski – Making those evaluations part of the rules rather than part of the meta experience actually creates a more realistic set up for the commanders, especially the field commanders people are talking about.

For example, the gaming buddy I mentioned earlier who has not parallax vision because he lost an eye in military service shouldn't be at a disadvantage because he has a harder time estimating distances on the tabletop. Having mechanisms like variable move distance or trade-space bonuses (or both, my preference). You don't know the outcome of your order until it is executed (like without pre-measuring) and it's not dependent on things that are artificialities outside the game experience, like stereoscopic vision, or I set up the table.

Also, when we are talking about commanders issuing orders vice 1:1 skirmish combat, it puts the rules more at the commander's level. I don't know this for a fact, but I am willing to assert that Napoleon didn't give step-by-step orders to all his soldiers. A typical field command was more like "go around that hill to the left until you get into charging distance, then charge the flank". The detail level mechanics of the maneuver that we implement on the table were handled by a couple of lower tiers of people. Unit commanders, and probably a trusted and experienced (in judging both distance and his men) NCO saying, "Sir! We h'aint close enuff yet!" or "Donner l'ordre quand nous passons devant cet arbre…"

Hi etotheipi,
I don't see the issue remotely as esoteric as you outline. For me this was a case of a game with simple rules, however artificial, that all players are expected to abide by. This individual, for whatever reason, felt entitled to CHEAT for his own benefit and ego.

"Rules for thee, but not for me".

Had he made an argument to scrap or alter this or that rule for the sake of improved game-play or "realism", I would have happily listened. He never made any such approach. He just smugly continued his cheating ways.

I finally wrote him out of my gaming calendar as a matter of justice and simple self-respect. Life is too short and alternatives too numerous to put up with such people.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

My point is that estimating 12" is not remotely the same as measuring 200 yards. It seems silly to me to make small scale measure estimation a "wargaming skill" that simulates measuring battlefield distances.

Accuracy is an important skill in shooting games, but very few of us advocate for rubber band shooting accuracy to reflect this skill for units.

I realize now that many people see differently, which is fine. It's a game, so whatever you think is fun, go for it!

Hi Deucey,
In CL&S, movement was simultaneous, following pre-written orders and move distances. If you ordered a charge of say 12-inches maximum movement and the defender proved to be 12.5-inches away. The charging unit was obliged to move the ordered distance, but would have failed to make contact – hence no charge delivered.

An honorable player would move the 12-inches, concede the fact that he had failed to make charge contact and accept the consequences. The dishonorable individual in question would resort to some form of artful ruler-stretching to ensure contact and avoid said consequences.

This has nothing to do with game mechanics versus the real world environment; it is simply about playing the game honestly according to the rules as written. If cheating of this sort doesn't bother you, you are a better and far more tolerant man than I; God bless you. I myself just don't like cheaters on any level.

Note on CL&S -
Grey-haired veteran CL&S campaigners will smile when I mention author Fred Vietmeyer's "collapsing logarithmic ground scale" and the fact that there was no turn-related time scale other than a statement to the effect that six game turns represented a day of battle. Light cavalry could charge 24-inches in one game turn; musket range was a unitary distance of 12-inches. Very stylized rules – half chess / half wargame.

An old but fun and challenging GAME – we played a lot of it back in the day and, for all its apparent quirkiness compared to modern rules, I still remember it with great fondness (except for the cheater).

B