"I may have a building obsession!" Topic

I am wrestling currently with urban area design. That is, creating interesting urban layouts that require a considerable level of creativity to attack or defend.
Well the first thing is to look at the building stock to see what you have as the "Building Blocks" for the area. Out on my doctor mandated walk, I got to thinking what was my basic stock of buildings and my mind went blank. So having returned home (1500 yds is a LONG WAY) and recovered I made a list of physically different buildings, not artistic variations. The list got up to 17 European buildings. At about 5 instances of each building that gives 85 buildings in stock. I suspect this is on the low side as an estimate as some basic buildings may have as many as 20 off. If you count Arab Buildings, military buildings and some defensive structures in addition you hit around 100 different buildings. As far as I can recall this is more than the number of trees I own, and they can cover most of a 6ft by 6ft board (all at 1/144 scale of course).
So why so many buildings? Well in the long games we often prefer when not at the club, the table may have around 3 villages each of 10 to 15 houses. So up to 45 buildings. While by no means of an artistic bent even for me 45 identical buildings is to say the least a bit boring. Plus identical buildings do cramp the configurations possible. None the less it's a lot of buildings, thank goodness they fold flat else There would be no room for the troops.
So Do I have an obsession or is this just normal?

Well, I seldom use the word "normal" when describing miniature warfare, but it doesn't seem a surprising number in 1/144, nor enough for a 6x6 board an excessive area. I can about do that in 28mm without calling out the reserves, and I don't think covering a 4x4 board in 6mm would be any problem.

But since when is a walk of under a mile a long way? I'm twice that every morning when there's no ice on the sidewalks. Is this some variation on the old British/American routine? (Americans think a hundred years is a long time. The British think a hundred miles is a long way.")

Sounds normal to me.

Disclaimer: I'm not a psychotherapist, although I did once play one in a Star Trek RPG.

robert piepenbrink – 2 years ago 8 miles was OK. 4 weeks out of Hospital after a heart OPP. and 1500yds is a LONG way . We don't have your roads 100 miles in the UK can take 4hrs.

I don't know if you have too many buildings, but a lot of gamers don't have enough.

79thPA, I know I don't have enough buildings and other small terrain, like ruins, field walls, wells, and so on.

Grelber

Hi, Brian. I probably enjoy painting up buildings more than painting vehicles and men! Like trees and fences, you can't have enough. The challenge is to lay out your towns and villes in a logical manner as the locals have built (in peacetime) to make a place to live and work in. Total Battle (in the UK- lucky you) have flexible town mats ready to take the footprint of their buildings where the layout is done for you. You only have to choose which buildings you want in the town. I use their 6mm range with my 1/144th because the footprint on the table is big enough to place several buildings (with streets) yet small enough to populate BUAs for the scenarios. Even if using the larger scale buildings (N scale) one still needs to do some city planning. (That can be a hobby in itself.) The more you have the wider selection to create your BUAs with. Seems that the only common feature of every European town is at least one church- often the main attraction near a town square. The towns with the most roads leading to it become strategic objectives and don't have to be large- only a potential chokepoint for defending/assaulting lines of communication. Having a selection of buildings at your disposal is an asset. Most people don't realize just how big even small towns are in area. Once you calculate how big your BUA is in scale, 1-2 buildings just doesn't "look" right as a town . That is why I use the 6mm ones as I prefer my towns to come close to ground scale than buildings to match the figure scale. (Sure, if you are gaming at a small tactical scenario then the larger (in scale) buildings are brought out. Just wanted to let you know that others have run across the same dilemma and always good to toss ideas around.

Along with Tom's comments above, BUA complexity can be enhanced too by considering damaged structures, and even if hosting only meeting engagement encounters, BUAs were often shelled or bombed ahead of the initial ground attacks.

Here's a current thread of how the Germans would prepare BUAs for defense in WWII on the Eastern Front, by intentionally destroying some buildings within their village defenses.

TMP link

Too many buildings for tactical WWII or Modern gaming? – might want some destroyed ones also…..

and

That is why I use the 6mm ones as I prefer my towns to come close to ground scale than buildings to match the figure scale. (Sure, if you are gaming at a small tactical scenario then the larger (in scale) buildings are brought out. Just wanted to let you know that others have run across the same dilemma and always good to toss ideas around.

I agree that 6mm buildings being far closer to ground scale do make for more credible townscapes. However I would like to understand how you fight through such townscapes, which are now too big to fit the models down the roads. Placing the oversized vehicles seems problematic on top of the buildings due to the uneven nature of the heights of the buildings.
I am interested in how you solve this issue.

FlyXwire Damaged buildings is a thorny issue for me I have yet to get a real grip on the issues and how to deal rationally with them.

My own buildings are 5 times too big on a linear scale. Hence in reality each model in some ways represents 25 on an area scaling basis. Now typically (right or wrong and there can be a long debate about this) we allocate artillery on the basis of the area it covers based on ground scale. A battery very roughly at 1/144 could cover about 2 model houses at a fire density to do significant damage to the building with consequent suppression and some limited damage to the troops within that area. Now at a huge cost in time and resource I could replace the buildings with damaged ones. This may or may not impact fire arcs, depending on which parts of the building collapse. However at least some sources note that an artillery damaged urban area do not significantly degrade its defensibility, provided you were not in it when it was degraded. So how to represent the effect on the standard "cover bonus" for want of a better term?

This has lead us to not replacing the buildings as its unclear how we would modify the system to account for damage. On a case by case basis you could for instance determine (randomly but that is a poor solution) so that it could be determined if it improved some potential fire arc. However personally that seems to much work for too little gain. Again its what is personal preference.

Well, if the infantry and/or weapons teams are portraying units – and each unit represents either a full squad, a section of weapons, or perhaps they're instead platoon-size units, then a stand has a referenced, corresponding footprint and therefore military frontage, and this base size should correspond directly to the space it occupies in measured game ground scale. If these unit-to-base-size factors are correct (within historically-referenced measurements) then buildings will just serve as "coasters", to denote BUA (that is areas of constructed terrain).

Do you think your game buildings might be too big?

Now we gamers don't seem to have a problem using miniature trees, or based tree models to denote wooded areas…..even though they're hardly ever seen in the numbers which would actually be occupying a real patch of forest.

If someone is wanting to play skirmish-style 1-on-1 games, then that's when a building might be seen as a single construction. However, if the game is designed to play at a higher command level, for commanding up to companies, or battalions, then the basic maneuver stand isn't a single soldier anymore (obviously).

Not sure this helps. (I wouldn't play 3mm, 6mm, 10-12mm scales without thinking of scaling personnel bases as squads or platoons…..the miniature stand essentially becomes an "area marker" within itself).

FlyXwire, we had looked at that but we found issues we could not overcome. A platoon can cover as much as 500m in defence, to even 1000m in defense. That is one hell of a big stand, covering a longer distance than effective anti tank gun range. So do you put on a small base and write rules about where the next closest base could be and have strange range rules as the platoon is dispersed over such a large distance (over rifle range) frontage. We never found a solution satisfactory to us so we gave up. We don't have building as one building directly, but use them in a representative way. Again not ideal but as we have only 1 range (effective) it sort of works where the troops are often under rifle range as the buildings are tight together. I have yet to find the perfect solution (if there even is one). We do play at company level perhaps with attachments and tend to find in optimum conditions a wargames platoon is at its most effective in defense of a frontage of 300 to 500m, so not too far from the real world, without resorting to vastly extended bases. Each to their own.

Ush, you go for the minimum defense frontages.

In-game the stands can be spaced out to reflect their dispersed nature on the defense. This also allows the parent unit to deploy its elements with better conformity to the terrain.

When the dispersal spacing of stands becomes tactically suspect – the defense [players] must consider strongpoint/hedgehog deployments……the game system's basing mechanics automatically enforces consequence on the player's deployment decision-making.

That wartime article I linked in my recent "Scorched Earth or Scatter That Matters" thread also noted recommended engagement ranges for WWII German units in defense -

The German army considers the principal weapons of the defense to be LMGs, HMGs, mortars and antitank guns. Artillery fire is also used extensively. The Germans prefer the following ranges in defense:

Rifles and LMGs 400 yds or under;
HMGs 1,000 yds or under;
Mortars 1,000 to 3,000 yds.

link

These were tactical combat recommendations, not based on optimal ranges.

To a large extent, we can see rules written based mostly on analysis of the technological capabilities of weapons > then there are rules based more on doctrine and combat practices. The latter approach takes a lot more research in my opinion (but then actual tactics function plausibly).

Not sure I understnd some of this. If your minimum base is a platoon, how do you split it over 500m?

I do agree about doctrinal rangeing, hence we use only what is declared as effective range. Wile effectiveness dose fall with range, effective is just that effective. Dammage does increase as range fallls but from what I rean nowhere near as much as many rules. A small increse in damage with renge decrease we ignore as its the sma for both sides. Ir does mean losses are a bit under what should be at close ranges, but as its the same for both sides it has no impact on the tactical approach. We also find by the time you get close you want to be assulting or are attempting to repulse a close assult and that is where real dammage to uits occours in most cases.

Minimum infantry platoon frontage in defense wasn't 500m.

If you're playing with bases scaled that large, you might want to go with 3mm instead.

Clerly we have a difference of opinion, neither right not wroang but different. To me having a platoon on its minimum (often as low as 100m, does not work for me when it needs to extend to 5000m not untypical in defense. A 100m frontage representing 500m can cause all kinds of issues (but again it my be a function of ground scales we use). A 100m base could be one side of a hedge, when in reality the platoon could be both sides of the hedge. This gives all kinds of headaches for me as how you rule on that. We have both found the same problems but have opted for different solutions, neither of us has found the perfect one.

Not actually, as I don't game platoon stands in 1/144th scale, instead they're allocated as squads (with an assault rifle section, and an RPG section for moderns – with my Donbas stuff, so two sub-elements per – nicely tactical, and easily fit even with my terrain density).

When gaming-upward in the command levels, you transition to 3 or 6mm, that's when units logically become platoon bases.

Years ago I detailed some modern 1/144th scale squad stands (sotra a how-to make them from Pegasus minis). You were going on in that thread about thick basing materials or something then, didn't make much sense.

Again, 1/144th scale = squad stand elements

Still an interesting video too -

YouTube link

TMP link

Ahhhh "footprints."

I am a lifelong 20mm WWII gamer… sort of. 20mm figures, 1/87 equipment, 10mm/N-scale buildings, for my "stand equals platoon" type games.

Backstory: some 35+ years ago I was talking with Frank Chadwick at a game convention and asked him "why does CD use 3/4 inch x 3/4 inch infantry bases?" His reply, because that is what fit into my Roco Opel Blitz trucks. Being trained by the U.S. military, that answer didn't work for me.

Over time I ended up with my multi-figure, platoon-sized units based on 40mm x 30mm bases because at approx 50 meters per inch that would represent a more realistic frontage assuming the unit was deployed in some depth and not just strung-out as a single firing line along a larger frontage; and because I like to make each stand it's own vignette. Command and specialty elements were mounted on 20mm square bases. For my built-up areas, I use 150mm x 150mm, 2mm thick, plywood bases with 10mm/N-scale buildings mounted in a realtively tight group. The BUA bases are used individually or adjacent to one another depending on the size of the area. Underneath each plywood base lies a marked felt sector template.

The close, defined nature using the slightly smaller buildings eliminates most disagreements that accompany a single building representing multiple structures, and gives a good look on the tabletop, while the 150 x 150 footprint is generally appropriate given the ground scale.

Accurate enough for an actual simulation, no.
Suitable for "wargame realism" and a game that results in good game play, yes.

That's a revealing Chadwick backstory!

Thinking about it, and from his board game designer's parlance – maybe he was defining stacking limits for his truck unit.

Hex-grids/square grids, can be so elegant for defining ground areas, and for confining unit footprints within (as essentially for defining 'stacking limits').

We have campaigned in my group over the last dozen years, a few iterations of the gridded game board – but these to look the least gridded as possible.

A pattern readily seen here with a bigger patch of battlefield sample.

The mechanics and gameplay has worked very well, but the difficulty comes from getting players to do the area scaling in their heads, to extrapolate that each bordered area on the board equals so and so much area, or traverse-costing area – and to then proceed forward with this vision of the size and scope of the battle being fought.

Thinking that seeing minis on the board (whatever their scale) just starts to define the battle scale for players, or begins to corrupt it.

Underneath each plywood base lies a marked felt sector template.

What is this? If it's marked on felt thaen its seems its unlikely to represent the curret fire arc of the platoon, so what is it?

FlyXwire I like the clear bases for the tanks. What material and what thickness, as it is not reflecting the light like other clear bases I have seen.

Ush, they still reflect at certain angles and lighting conditions (they're acrylic – 3mm thickness).

Check out this thread where I showed my progress in attempting to limit some of the reflectivity of these.

TMP link

Since that thread's time above, I've remounted to solid-top hexes a large part of this 3mm collection!

Like this – but compare and contrast – the gridded map areas like in the above pics are gone (thus the hexes – and in various sizes of these – are taking the gridding 'on-board'…..essentially defining the frontages and occupation space back to the stands themselves).

Great looking buildings and models, FlyXwire!

UshCha "What is this? If it's marked on felt thaen its seems its unlikely to represent the curret fire arc of the platoon, so what is it? "

The sector template is under the actual BUA base (which easliy lifts off when necessary) so it doesn't interfere with the structures (aesthetics) and they are felt because felt is inexpensive, flexible, and easily marked with a Sharpie pen.

The sector template has four perimater sectors and a center sector; not all that unique, in fact, CD used them in a number of iterations of those rules. Given that the 150mm x 150mm base represents an "area", these sectors are used to identify what elements (those within a sector) can conduct direct fire externally, and internally within the overall template (adjacent sector). The sectors also define where external direct fire from a particular direction has an effect. Indirect fire points and templates are compared to sectors to determine where they land and have an effect.

Hope that helps.

So how do you indicate the distribution of the platoon across the sectors. at 150ys plus they can't all be looking in all sectors at the same time.

It does look like an interesting and sensible idea and lines up with the manuals where various parts of the platoon are allocated sectors of fire.

UshCha,

Each sector can hold up to two platoon-size stands (or a single platoon-size stand and two smaller element stands) and the stands are assumed to be distributed evenly throughout front half or back half of the sector of responsibility depending on whether they are placed forward or back; to include some troops in higher building elevations. The stands have a field of fire that includes adjacent sectors within the BUA and externally along any line of sight/fire that is present.

Spotting and firing stands within a BUA can only observe or engage enemy stands located in adjacent sectors and up to a maximum distance of 3 inches. Stands located within a Perimeter Sector can observe and engage stands outside the BUA they occupy as long as they are not looking or firing through an adjacent sector.

If I get some time this week, I'll try to post some pictures that may help you to visualize this construct.