"Ban Inches and Centimetres" Topic

Too often rules will say something like
"A base is 30mm wide by 20mm deep.
If using 10mm figures it should be 20mm by 15mm.
Movement is 4 inches, unless you are using 10mm, then you move 2.5 inches. "

To start with why are the basing and Movement in different systems. (I do have a set, US produced, well known, which defines a base in inches. 1 1/8 × 7/8 of an inch to be precise…)

And then why are different scales different?

One of the reasons to do smaller scales is sometimes to put more men on the same base. I just use the 25/20mm measures for my 10mm. But sometimes I want a different size, to put the same amount in a smaller space.

If I do that, why divide by half, which is the normal suggestion?

I just read the rules as written, but ignore the fact it is in inches, I just measure cm.

So why don't rules writers just say
Units are x wide, move y units, shoot z units
?

Sam Mustafa does almost this in Blucher, where everything is defined as Base Widths. However it does mean making up measuring sticks marked in BW.

Some come on writers, give us system neutral measures. We can then not worry about basing.

No matter what the author does, someone else is going to think that the author is wrong.

Not all games/ time periods lend themselves to base-width measuring.

I'm not rebasing. I'll figure out how to make it work.

It is up to you whether you want to follow the author's suggestions about conversion between scales. If it is not what you want, don't do it.

The Emperor of the Battlefield rules do not use inches or centimetres as measurement units.

Set up your normal sized infantry unit in line. Half of its width is one measurement unit or mu (moo).

Yes, you need sticks. I made mine for 28mm figures out from 8mm square lengths of dowel.
My sticks for my 15mm Napoleonics are 40mm spacers.

When I designed rules in the 1980s and 1990s, I provided both inches and mm/cm with the rules for both mounting and distance ranges. Since then I have shifting more to grid maps, hexes or squares. I even did a revision of the Coastal Command :PT Boat rules to use a grid map.

All of my rules use cubits for basing, furlongs for moving and parsecs for shooting.

Last, I hate to be the one to tell you, but "system neutral measurements" does not mean your basing worries are over. It just gives you different worries about basing. (How large a base before I need a larger table? How small before it stops looking like a unit? Can I see or paint smaller castings?) And depending on how finicky the rule distances are, are you prepared for 1 1/4 base widths? 1 1/3 base widths? This looks like a lot of fuss for something which, as you point out, you may easily adjust to suit yourself.

DBA was "base widths" the last time I looked. "Marlborough to Frederick" is "paces." They both mean I need to recalculate distances based on base frontages, and sometimes construct measuring sticks unique to a rule and scale--one set to play M2F in 2mm, for instance, and a different set in 6mm. I can't see that this is an immediate and obvious advantage over switching to a smaller standard unit of measure.

WRG used paces.

It just gives you different worries about basing.

Exactly right.

It makes me think of David Byrne's comment on a similar issue, to the effect of: having money doesn't solve all your problems; it just solves your money problems.

For my GOBS rules (spaceships) all units of measurement are whatever the players agree upon, or a grid (my preference).
For my AWI simple rules, the battlefield is a vaguely hex arrangement of large zones. All measurements are by zone. Base sizes are irrelevant.

I'm growing to like the idea of zones, which are generalized distances and areas into which multiple units, even opposing units, can move. With that, base size need only be whatever holds a unit conveniently but allows placement in a zone.

DBA v3.0 uses base widths (BW) as the unit of measurement.

QILS uses "units" to estanlish a ratio among bases, manever, and fires (and a couple other things). You can use whatever units you want. The most common thing I see in 25-32 mm figures using inches and 10-20mm using cm. You can also mix and match to create some exotic combined arms effects without overburdening with lots of rules.

I think a lot of the issue with wierd numbers comes from what I call "false granularity". We really don't have sufficient information about opertional performance. For maneuver and engagement there are so many factors that affect performance, that the fiddly stats we sometimes use are very unjustified.

An example: Back when I tested modren gun ystems for militaries, you could have a dozen significant factors in the design of experiments. Most of these would have 3-5 levels of sensitivty, maybe a couple with two, maybe a couple with more. So you're looking at over a milllion cells in the design

For each cell you have to have enough trials to converge on a statstically significant measure. Not shots, trials – each cluster of shots has to be measured. And yo have to have enough trials to analyze covarionce among clusters of cells. So, a couple hundred trials per cell, then a couple hundred per each set of interactions (two-way, three-way, four-way … up to the number of significant factors). So, hundreds of millions of trials.

This is highly impractical in a controlled test envitonment. Perhaps I have missed them, but I am not familiar with operational AAR with hundreds of millions of precision measurements … or the opportunity for them.

Sam Mustafa does almost this in Blucher, where everything is defined as Base Widths.

DBA and DBMM uses base widths as well. I personally feel its the optimal solution as it allows player to use any scale or base width they wish. You do have to create measuring sticks and i have done so using short pieces of 1cm square pine, spray paint or a pen and its easy and works well.

Must admit was dissapointed by this thread. I assumed it was more serious, asking what the distances are not defined as in the real world. DBM carefully uses Paces. That way you get an Idea about what is being represented. We use Meters and suggest 2 ground scales 1" to 10m and 1mm to a meter. We use them as certainly in the UK most rullers and tapes have duel units so its a marking stick with no effort. As the rules have real scale values of meters you could make up your own groundscale and it would still be real. We dont (its moderen) insist on a base size but point out that dispersion is as two edged sword. Tight formations are far more prone to artillery fire, wider bases have less firepower over there fromtage (in some cases).

As written the comments seem a shade pointless you could do any of the diffrences by making your own measurement increment.

robert piepenbrink has it, scale does not get you out of the problem. The real issue is how many meters/yards do you want your battlefield to extend and how representative to the groundscale do you want your figures. We find about 8 to 1 figure to groundscale disparity is just tollerable on open terrain. For closer terrain 5 to 1 is a more reasonable compromise but in the end its just personal taste.

Every rule set is different and the author is attempting to give you their interpretation of the era . If you don't like how they do things, make changes yourself or move on. That said you needn't dictate to the rest of the world how things should be for them.

This really started as a rant about different measurements given for different figure scales, and then giving the base widths in a different measurement system.

What started this was Osprey's Absolute Emperor, which give 3 different movement distances depending on size, all in inches, while basing is in mm.

When we play Black Powder, we just read everything on the QR in cm. The only difficulty is working out the unit widths, because that is in mm, so needs to be at 40% to match the cm moves.

If they just gave unit width = x, movement in y, without saying what movement units. That way basing matches ranges.

Last, I'm having trouble making sense of that last sentence. If you mean "distances should be multiples of the base width" I agree that there's something to be said for it, though you seem to be having more trouble than I do. I've yet to see a rules system which takes more than an hour to convert to some different scale or basing--or to conclude that the rules just aren't suitable for a particular scale.

"A base is 30mm wide by 20mm deep.
If using 10mm figures it should be 20mm by 15mm.
Movement is 4 inches, unless you are using 10mm, then you move 2.5 inches. "

Some come on writers, give us system neutral measures. We can then not worry about basing.

Hussar:
You do realize that you can make any inches or centimeter measurement into a neutral measurement OR you can make up your own, right? The relationship between base size and movement is always there in any wargame.

So, why do rules authors bother? What are they attempting to achieve with their inches and centimeters? Whether that is important to you, it does have meaning and may not be captured with base size measurements.

Wouldn't base size be determined historically?

I realize that distances are given in inches or millimeters for the sake of playability. However, we are playing a "historical" war game, aren't we where ranges are in yards or meters right?

When I see a game where a German Panther gun range is 18" I just kind of roll my eyes as that's anything but historical. I've seen games where a bolt action rifle has a range of 24" and a pistol 6" with no real life ground scale mentioned. For me, it's hard to wrap my head around the action.

There is another infantry-centric game where all weapons are within range anywhere on the table so no need to worry.

I like using real-life range scales for distance and weapon ranges (or as close as possible based on model scale) and I don't like using measuring tapes.

I use a 1" wide wooden range stick in lengths of 2, 4 and 6 feet. With 1" = 25m the sticks measure 600m, 1200m and 1800m. I use 1/144 or micro armor models for vehicle combat with supporting infantry. The sticks are marked off in 100m increments which match the gun chart ranges.

For an infantry game with some tank support, I'll use 1" = 5m or even 2m. So a 6-foot table is 360m or 142m (normally for urban combat).

With the gun charts using real historical ranges in meters you can adjust the table and stick distance to 1" = whatever works best.

Wolfhag

Okay, I'm a sucker for this sort of thread as I have helped devise a system that eliminates the issue almost entirely while maximizing historical accuracy. Gee, ain't I SMART?!

Forgive the sarcastic tone, I'm just copping to the truth that is there is at least one approach for basing that solves the problem of base sizes, number of figures on each, and movement, but still may not appeal to anyone.

Please excuse the length of the following rant, which will be the shortest explanation I've ever tried to provide. If you'd rather read the full details at leisure, just E-mail me at TVAG@att.net and I'll send you a two page PDF that covers the entire issue.

These rules are used in our titles "John Company" and
"Gone to See The Elephant" and apply to horse and musket era games, but could be used for other subjects as well.

1) Start by choosing a ground scale that's straightforward, in this case 1"=100'.

2) Apply the actual normal frontage for the troops in question that fit into 100'. Note that units fighting in double or triple lines automatically have more men in that space than a single (their effectiveness as such being another matter).

3) FOR INFANTRY--Apply the spacing between men! If Close Order would be the most common, that's 2 to 3 feet for each. If Open Order, double that distance, and Skirmish Order, up to double again. Note that the actual practices of the armies you're modeling can vary between them and should be observed.

4) The resulting number of men is now what each base of 1" width represents. For our rules, we find single bases of 1" by 1" the most practical as this allows all losses to be determined in terms of Bases removed. At 1" there is serious exaggeration of "unit" depths, and 3/4" is more realistic. However, see stability is a legitimate concern, particularly for 28mm (or larger) figures.

5) Now, to each such Base the player simply mounts as many figures as fit. Practically, in using 28mm figs, one is clearly the limit, but at 15mm, two, and with smaller scales, 4 or 6 or more will work. In the smaller scales, figures may even be placed in ranks to reflect their actual appearance.

Thus, there is no need to relate figure scale to ground scale, and all figure sizes are automatically accommodated. The number of Bases in a unit is determined by simply dividing its numerical strength by how many men fit into the 100' frontage.

Cavalry is a different matter due to spacing and depth such that in the end, the number of horseman represented by a Base will not be the same as the Infantry. This highlights an error in most other games where a stand of Horse is nominally equal to one of Infantry--an impossibility that misses the primary difference between the troop types in terms of the space each requires on the battlefield.

Artillery is somewhat differently handled, but is covered in the article fully explaining the entire system.

Clearly, 1":100' will never work for 1:1 Skirmish games, or those where units are notionally whole regiments/brigades/etc, but the idea of starting with any preferred ground scale and then letting the usual/normal/"official" numbers of men that should occupy it makes everything thereafter as straightforward and consistent as anything can be.

"Alright, you s---- of b------, now you know how I feel."
George S. Patton

Rather, just
TVAG

We bow before your wisdom, TVAG!

Yeah, for practical rule-writing, you start with what size battlefield you're trying to represent and what size table you want to represent it on. That gives you your ground scale, and everything flows from that just as you describe.

Sadly, as soon as anyone makes written provision for playing those rules at 1"=200' to fit the desired battle to the available table, Last is going to be upset again.

I dearly love the three range sticks, or the Litko triangle, for Ganesha Games Song of … series of skirmish games. Base your figures however you like. A medium move is a medium stick long. That simple. Absolutely no worries about basing schemes or figure scales.

Let's be honest. Horizontal and vertical scale of terrain almost never match, and both are a far cry from figure scale.

Try making a true to scale model of a battlefield. Individual buildings, trees, and landforms all to true scale on X, Y, and Z axes. Now find figured to match that scale. Now make sure that your formations of rigid model soldiers occupy the prescribed ground area…

Realized just how abstracted everything on the table top is?

If you want figure scale to match ground scale in all three dimensions try Great War naval engagements with very small scale models…. The sea is vast and the ships are tiny.

Wouldn't base size be determined historically?

I realize that distances are given in inches or millimeters for the sake of playability. However, we are playing a "historical" war game, aren't we where ranges are in yards or meters right?

Yes, even those game rules that refuse to give ground scale still have a battalion or brigade with a certain frontage, so 'Bob's your uncle.'

And in functional terms, how many figures are on a stand really doesn't matter unless you are using figure removal, and even there, any number of figures can work representing X men.

One reason a particular stand size is chosen has to do with how many men fill that stand, and then how easy it is to translate historical unit numbers to X number of stands. I have my friends grousing about my thought of 60 yard frontage to a stand because that would mean @250 per stand with three ranks and 167 men in two ranks. [figuring 26 inches per man--generous I know] That meant the typical 600 man French battalion or 400 British battalion would be difficult to replicate with such stands. two stands representing 500 or three with 750 men for the French and 250 or 500 men for the British. Gave my friends the willies.

The actual scale will either dictate the stand size, or vice versa. Ya gotta make your choice.

The actual scale will either dictate the stand size, or vice versa.

Very true, when scale is not provided i often calculate it based on the base width. Its then i normally discover a highly variable scale system being used, which can work but does give you some odd situations.

@ pfmodel "i normally discover a highly variable scale system being used"; how generous of you, what you really mean is you've realised that there isn't an accurate ground scale being used, they've just made some numbers up. As has been observed above rule writing should start with an assessment of ground scale to table size, leading to figure and base size calculations. Generally I'm pretty sure rules writers start with "Infantry move 12 inches and a unit of troops will be the number we sell in a box".

there isn't an accurate ground scale being used, they've just made some numbers up.

That is likely as well, however often with WW2 rules, the fire ranges are too long for 15mm figures and designers, either on purpose, or by accident, create a different scale for different game system aspects. Movement = scale 1, fire range equals scale 2, and so on. Saying that if your focus is a game, then an abstract game may be acceptable. Personally i prefer a consistent scale as it does reflect reality more accurately. The only issue is the game scale trends to follow certain ratios which force many designers into areas they do not like. My favorite example is WWI naval games, if the figure scale is 1:1200 or 1:2400 the fire range tends to be rather long.

Dave!

Your point about consistent scale in 3D is well taken. But the vertical scale, I suspect to virtually everyone in the hobby, is irrelevant. Certainly, it's not the issue that keeps me awake at night.

What, after all, would the satisfaction really be in using 5/6mm figures knowing that the height of the model trees is in the same ground scale?

Maybe I've missed the significance, but since all figures--54mm down to 2mm--are only moved in two dimensions no matter the ground scale, it seems a moot point.

Of course aerial games are different--Altitude matters! But trying to play in a 3D environment with a single scale of space is going to be far worse a problem than playing a "land game" with only 2D.

There is more than enough necessary abstraction in any wargame without adding "up-down" to "left-right," "Forward-Back."

Meine zwei pfennige.

TVAG

There's a lot of "all" in that post.

We play the Battle of Puebla every year. Forts Guadalupe and Loreto being on top of a hill was important for the land battle. The elevation and slope both are signficant factors. Also defenders being on top of battlements to provide cover over the top of charging calvary's heads (until they got into contact) was important to the outcome. The biggest elevation impact was the difference between Mexican artillery on top of the forts on top of the hill vs French artillery shooting signficantly up.

Mis dos pesos

Also … WWII battles in the Italian Alps, OXI Day in the Pindus Mountains of Greece, rolling hills in the British Isles provide intermittent cover and exposure, Sevastopol, every actual battle I saw in Kosovo and Bosnia, every other land battle fought in Japan, and so on …

FTR, I think you have a valid point, but I'm not a big fan of people who talk about "all" wargames, rules, games, etc. My examples (plus the ones we routinely do that I left out) could be representative of 3% of all hobby wargames in 2024 or 97%, and there's just no way to establish the deonominator, so no way to know.

As gamers we want too much. We want granny action but we want big figures on a small table. Etc etc.

If one really wants rid of cm and inches.. get rid of them and the need to use them. If people need to measure they will need a unit if measurement and given were playing on a table. People will use what they are familiar with… cm or inches.
You can call is something else but people will mentally translate it to the thing they are familiar with.
Measuring sticks, squared playing areas.
Or don't bother.. people didn't issue a command working out the paces per minute while consulting a terrain chart to calculate the modifiers to their movement.
If measurement is important in the rules people use whats easiest…

My tuppeny bit

Simple answer that solves so many problems: use a grid.

For pre-gunpowder armies preferably a square grid, as it suits far better the movement limitations of armies in that era.

Etotheipi!

Allow me to respond to your point about the importance of height and slope on the table top, at least as compared to what me might "all" call reality.

I just can't bring myself to believe that when you lay out a table, you actually use the known (or estimated) height and angle of slope for hills, etc.

No rules that I'm aware of actually require these values to calculate movement rates up or across them. Elevations on the table are representational, at best, and usually simple rules prescribe movement reductions or limitations that apply to "all" such.

Questions about line of sight due to elevations/depressions are, of course, spot on. But even here, most (this time I won't say
"all") game tables only provide heights, not low areas. A flat table top until some sort of hill model is encountered is pretty much the rule.

Now, the advantages and disadvantages of fire to and from heights are genuine issues, as cited, but I believe very few rules make more than the most cursory recognition of them.

Years ago, I played (and wrote) games of impossible granularity which included in the firing rules modifiers for the effects of height, but which also included negative modifiers for musketry with bayonets fixed, French black powder over British powder, angle of the sun in relation to the firing unit's vision, etc, etc.

Who would not say that taken individually these are legitimate issues, but who wants to play such games anymore? Indeed, there are so many potential variables to the effects of fire in any era, both positive and negative, that to a significant extent they balance out, so can best be represented by simple chance through bone rolling.

(Not to get too "granular" here, but some conditions must always be represented in firing rules. Like the difference between day and night, pouring rain, demoralized troops, etc.)

Anyway, I know you see my point. One's preferred movement rules handle the effects of elevated terrain, hills and slopes, not the actual values of the models being used.

How such rules are always going to be deficient to some degree is a subject for another of my own rants at another time.

Cheers!

TVAG

PS And, actually, I share your reserve when encountering "All," in most arguments. But I think it justified in the context of my earlier post.

Simple answer that solves so many problems: use a grid.

For pre-gunpowder armies preferably a square grid, as it suits far better the movement limitations of armies in that era.

Bolingar: It doesn't solve any problems, it just ignores them with a different movement system.

I am not sure how a square grid 'suites' the movement limitations of pre-gunpowder armies unless they were drawing lines in the battlefield I don't know about.

I just can't bring myself to believe that when you lay out a table, you actually use the known (or estimated) height and angle of slope for hills, etc.

I certainly don't have a scale model of Puebla. I also don't have empirical statistical data on the slope, rain effects on the ground, the soles of the boots, etc. to mathematically model the exact pyhsical terrain effects. Nor would I want to.

We model to the effect we are looking for, within the bounds of knowledge. Independent first person accounts (I suffered through the Spanish and had the French translated) on both sides indicate that French progress was slowed by the slope, and was worse when they got closer to the fort – which is, in fact, steeper. We use a tiered terrain set (definiately not realistic in the physical representation sense) that provides slowing of the French forces in a progressive manner. So it creates the same effect, even if it doesn't look like the hill.

The tiered terrain also simplifies LOS on the hill. Our LOS is head of shooter to all, half, less than half, or none of the target (0. -1, -2, no shot) Tiered terrain creates the wierd LOS effect reality (better shot at someone further away but level with you than someone closer but down slope … sometimes) without all the ins, outs, ups, downs, divots, ridges, etc. of the real thing. This also brings in that is you are far away – in the plain or shooting down from a high battlement – the close order effect of the sloped terrain doesn't apply. Just like real life.

The point is that the physical terrain on the board is used to the specific situation using the very simple rules we already have without adding bunches more rules.

And our tiered terrain is roughly the same as the penalty. -2 to cross, and it's 2" tall, so you could just measure both the across the ground and the vertical distance and call it. We don't go through that process. It's just really easy to remember that these 2" tall things cause a 2" movement penalty.

The artillery height is abstracted into a rule. Ranged combat has progressive range penalties (range rings). The Mexican artillery on the top of the forts simply ignores (can't shoot in, but takes not penality for) the first range ring. This one simple secneario rule allows the Mexicans to shoot further and a less penalty than the French, and prevents them from doing enfilade fire hanging the canon over the edge of the fort, which is ridiculous.

If you move to something like this:
inlgames.com/stnavmib.htm

Then using the physcial terrain gives you a complex challenge much easier than having buckets and buckets of rules.

McLaddie

Bolingar: It doesn't solve any problems, it just ignores them with a different movement system.

That's just it. Free movement systems are eternally problematic since they require micro-measuring to determine whether one's ZOC reaches the enemy unit, or whether one can contact the enemy unit in a charge, and so on – all of course which has no relation to a real battle. Players constantly have to exercise good will (which perhaps is why wargamers are such nice people). Impose a grid and there's no need for good will: nasty killer hawk types like Bobby Fischer can get seriously involved in the hobby.

I am not sure how a square grid 'suites' the movement limitations of pre-gunpowder armies unless they were drawing lines in the battlefield I don't know about.

Armies in the pre-gunpowder era could do this on a battlefield: advance with perhaps a certain drift left or right; wheel by subunit 90 degrees to convert the line into an instant column; advance the column with 90 degree wheels to a different part of the battlefield before turning by subunit into line again. Units charged each other from one of four directions: front, back, left side, right side. Charging an enemy line at a funny angle merely disordered the chargers, putting them at a severe disadvantage.

In other words, armies acted as if they were aligned to a square grid battlefield, not snapping to actual squares of course, but not running around at 30 or 45 degree angles either. A wargame will require that the units actually occupy squares but that doesn't really diminish the realism at all.

Well said, Etotheipi, as ever.

The Third Dimension is ignored in games as far as ground scales go, but is no less important to represent in some fashion.

But, again, it's the rules of choice that apply here, whereas a set ground scale, with bases representing number of troops that occupy the space, solves virtually all other problems.

Indeed, screwy as it would look, 28mm figures based according to the ground scale could play against 6mm figures using the same, would cause no issues at all.

Except frying my brain as the Brogdingnagians stomp their way towards the Lilliputians.

Let's not….

TVAG

Free movement systems are eternally problematic since they require micro-measuring to determine whether one's ZOC reaches the enemy unit, or whether one can contact the enemy unit in a charge, and so on – all of course which has no relation to a real battle.

Bolingar:

Ah, this measuring to determine the time/distance relationships on the the battlefield has a very real relationship to battle. 'Micro-measuring' doesn't, but that isn't an unsolvable problem without hexes or squares.

Players constantly have to exercise good will (which perhaps is why wargamers are such nice people). Impose a grid and there's no need for good will: nasty killer hawk types like Bobby Fischer can get seriously involved in the hobby.

That is very true to a certain extent. Players can find other ways and other rules to exercise ill-will. I do think any effort to reduce frustration in play is a good thing.

In other words, armies acted as if they were aligned to a square grid battlefield, not snapping to actual squares of course, but not running around at 30 or 45 degree angles either. A wargame will require that the units actually occupy squares but that doesn't really diminish the realism at all.

I think there are some assumptions here that don't necessarily portray ancient warfare. One might say that SOME armies acted like "they were aligned to a square grid battlefield," but not all. When an army simply advanced straight ahead in whatever formations they had deployed in, as with the Greek city states, nothing is lost with a square grid. When the army steps into the era of Alexander and much larger armies, not so much. Certainly a number of battles with the Persians forces don't follow this square to square type movement.

Squares and hexes are used in most all eras by some rules. They do simplify movement, but they have their problems with 'realism' too. If one starts arguing that 'armies maneuvered in blocks, so squaring the battlefield is 'realistic' can be applied to most armies through the Napoleonic and all 19th century wars. If the argument for square realism doesn't apply well to those eras, I am not sure it is any different for Ancient wars.