"Useful detail or granularity" Topic

There is no definitive universal definition of useful detail, we can all think of games where the detail is overmuch in one area and too coarse in others making the detailed bit pointless. So this is about detail the designer (in this case me) thinks is important.
So we come to the issue and as always it comes down to requiring a detailed(ish) definition.
So to the case in point, a modern game and the definition of Soft Going. I will start you off with the definition we have so far, It apples to vehicles only and by definition, in the game is passable by infantry. It definitely is a differentiator between High and Low ground pressure vehicle's, low meaning CVR(T) Scorpion and say a BMP-1's levels, Values around 4 to 6 kg/cm2 vs say a t90 tank at about 0.8 kg/cm2.
How do you differentiate?
• Different levels of Bog Check for Normal ground pressure vs Low ground Pressure ?
• Making Soft Going only passable by Low Ground Pressure vehicles?
• Something else.
Bear in mind that the definition you chose even if reasonable, may limit how often you may use that terrain type. Soft Going in large quantities, if passable only low ground pressure vehicles, may limit its utility in many scenarios perhaps.
This is just one of a huge number of detail vs utility a designer has to consider for his (or her model) and I hope provides an interesting example.

Change move distance? Very traditional… Perhaps reduced move for heavy only

I was reading one memoir of a tanker and he was very clear that if one tank went over, then the ground was broken up and another couldn't follow directly. "overmuch detail"? Perhaps with the ground scale tanks effectively always have enough space

John

+1 jwebster

If your goal is realism and that seems a frequent goal for you UshCha…makes sense to do a big check based on vehicle ground pressure with tye caveat that two vehicles cant gollow the same path through. Put a massive big check penalty on any vehicle following another through this terrain.

First of all, including detail is mainly a production issue. Do you have the money to spend on long detailed explanations. When in the edit stage, you will be cutting words and shortening sentences to fit the chapter at the end of a page. You have to allow room for photos or illustrations too.

Back in pre-1990 days, designers would include a sheet of paper with corrections and designer notes on it. After the internet such data could be found on a website.

Why of complicated by making it so detailed. Sounds like you are doing a simulation like I did for Napoleonics back in 1981.
As a cavalry guy my job was to do all of the traffic ability tests and send them to operation S3/S2 shops. They passed it on the companies so risky movement could be avoided. A quick dice roll to determine being disabled.

TimePortal – I'm not saying that the sides won't know that that traversing the area is risky. Much of what real Recon do is pass on data on the current ground condidtion. Hell in WW2 I understand there were elements dedicated to just monitoring river levels to get an idea what would be faced. The commander still has an option to take risks,. So the issue here is one of definition of what is being modeled and its effect.

jwebster – One of the things that the great Phil Barker shopwed in the Groundbreaking DBM was that causing disorder is farr worse than slowing down. In the traditional loqwer movement system everybody gets to the otherside simultaniously, that is unreal. So we have a variable movement in difficult areas as well as being at rtisk of temporarily getting stuck.

Time Portsl I interesting post, makes me think that just defining it as a no go area may be acceptable KISS and not unreasonable.
Vaerying the risk by Ground pressure is a no go too time consuming on the day and alas its not the whole truth anyway. Churchis were great becaus eof thrack width (ground pressure) but also because of the small wheels and lots of them that distribute the load over the track better. That is way over the toip for me.

UshCha,
I use a vehicle flotation rating which I think gives a better portrayal of how well a tracked vehicle crosses over soft terrain.

It basically comes down to how much of the roadwheel area contacts the tracks and distributes the weight.

It has nothing to do with tanks floating on the water.

Churchills were great because of track width (ground pressure) but also because of the small wheels and lots of them that distribute the load over the track better.

A rating below 170 has excellent flotation, and above 200 is compromised. Above 300 should stay on firm ground and can bog down easily.

Wolfhag

Given that each of your vehicles represents a single real vehicle, I'd go with the "different levels of bog check" option. The skill of the driver and a certain amount of randomness in terrain and tracks enters in, so we can't say at a single vehicle level that Tank X could cross the soft going and Tank Y could not--only that the probability is one way or the other.

And probabilities are why wargamers use dice.

wolfhag, I might have known you would have it all covered. Yess that is the parameter, I could not remember the name. Thanks.

Robert, while no friend of 40k this vidieo reenforces my belief that too many special rules are not helpful and I am not what you would call a casual player.

YouTube link

As is most often the case, but not always, we have accepted the satus quo. We could ass more rules but to make it worth it we would need more terraintypes to really make a diffrence, just varying bog checks does not reall make the terrain diffrent. To be worth the effort we would need new terraiun types. Adding new terrain types makes things more complicated as a standard game so we decided not to change anything. However it does point to perhaps using very specific terrain types and set vehicels for a particular scenario, but we have kept ammused for the last 15 years so we are not that deperate yet.

As always its a compromise and after much soul searching we decided our current system is the best compromise of key detail and fast play for us. Plus some of our players most certainly would not welcome more rules, they are not as obsessive as us, plausible yes, superdetailed not for them.