"Ground scale figure scale and table size" Topic

There is an interesting thread on TMP about best WW2 rules. The usual questions arise on size of game but that and a visit to our Local Wargames Show made me think about other issues.

Looking at some games at the show and one issue was the Figure scale to Ground scale ratio.
We play at two scales/ground scale points. For 1/72 scale figure we use 1inch represents 10 m 1/394 giving a figure to ground scale ratio of 5.5.

For 1/144 scale we use 1/1000 ground scale so figure to ground of 6.9 (i.e. the figures are 6.9 times too tall for the ground scale).

Now the issue is part artistic, part convenience, and to some extent table size oriented.

At 1/72 scale figures a 6' by 4' ft. table is fine for an urban area, you can easily get 10 to 30 buildings reasonably spaced. That looks good for say a company in attack vs a re-enforced platoon in defence. Rifle ranges are look credible (and it is subjective) being about 30" so spanning across several small 1/72 houses. However even on an 8ft by 6ft table AFV's are a problem it's impossible for them to be out of even Heavy Machine gun range 150" (1500m) for say a Ma Browning.

Now we could make the soundscape smaller (say 1/1000) but then figure to ground scale becomes 13.9 to one. This (again its subjective) is too small for us rifle range looks far too short, rifles cover too few buildings and tank spacing (typically 40m minimum) more or less becomes very close to a pet hate of mine track to track tanks, worthy of Napoleonic infantry men in line.

At 1/144 scale with a 1/1000 ground scale on an 8ft by 6 ft. gives a reasonable battle range (500 to 1500m close to many (but not all tank battles), close to our 1/72 figure to ground scale. The higher figure to ground scale is a bit of a problem but typically 1/144 game are on more open terrain so the effects are less noticeable and at a push you can play the same urban game as at 1/72, looking almost as good on a 3 ft. by 2 ft. table.

Now I have not mentioned 1/300 models simply because for us they are too small period (again a subjective depending on how you want to use your models) and 28mm personally even in an urban setting you can get too few models on a 6ft by 4ft board and have a plausible rifle range to figure scale (again subjective).

Smaller scales 4, 3 or 2mm scales are so far unattractive to me being primarily strategic and logistic games which do not hold my attention.

So as all these are subjective judgements where do you stand on the figure to ground scale issue and why.

I personally like to match up scales.

I'm rather surprised you don't.

If I'm trying tonreconcile decisions spacially, then mentally shifting between what I am seeing on the table and what that is supposed to represent is an abstraction I'd rather not make.

1:300 scale lets you have matching figure and ground scales, so looks great

I prefer a good visual aesthetic and game play so whatever works.

1/6000 scale ships, might as well be counters and 1/1200 then they overlap.

I agree with Louis XIV. We play with whatever scale looks good on the table using ranges that give a good game.

Dave

I don't even try to reconcile the game scales conundrum. If it looks good, that works for me.

I see the critical point as unit frontage rather than figure scale. Once I know what type of action I wish to represent and what size table I want to fight it on, I have my ground scale. Unit frontage derives from that, and gives me options on figure scale. At 1"=150 yards, a horse & musket battalion might be 12 6mm figures in two ranks, maybe 24 2mm or four 15mm. It's an aesthetic consideration, unless I want to remove individual castings.

Easier in horse & musket, of course. Post-1914, I have to work from frontage in the attack, roughly doubling every time I move up another level in the chain of command.

Dexter Ward – Thats great 1 to one IF your table allows a decent distance with respect to the period of your choice.
Apart from the models for us to be to fiddley, turning turrets on AFVs is far too fiddley for us, it would only give us a battlefield only 600m long on a 6ft long battle field so not even Light machine gun range, hence some out of scale with the battlefield seems to be a requirements but how much?

PzGeneral, bobspruster what looks good, extreme bow range of 25mm used with 25mm figures would not look good to me. Similarly 25mm with a max rifle range of 50mm would not look good to me.

Louis XIV so what scale do you use, that meets your criteria?

I have a 9x5 ping pong table.
Way back in the late 1970s, I noticed that a full regiment of 25mm AWI could hide behind an HO scale barn.
So, I immediately decided that figure to ground scale was something that I would lose no sleep over.
Standard figure to man scale is 20:1 in the rules I play. A barn is … a barn. A tree is a tree.
Even playing a 1:1 skirmish game, anomalies abound. Do we count figure height versus doorway height? (Can I use Pirates with deck tan basing in the forest???)

When I started, the only 15mm figures were the ugly Peter Laing or ugly Minifigs strips. So I played in 25mm, which grew up to be "heroic 25mm", 28mm and larger. Even with scrawny 15mm at 1:1, their footprint is still out of scale.
So, how do I deal with this "problem"? I ignore it, and worry about more important things, like the proper shade of paint for the facings of the 5th Foot.

Allow me to praise here Flames of War 😱😱 by using a "logarithmic ground scale". HERESY! HERESY! FOW is not true wargaming! Excuse me, Bud. You're in my way.

+1 PzGeneral and Louis XIV
You summed up succinctly what I rambled on for far too many words. 😄

I don't get your figure to ground scale. Who cares how tall a model is? If you play Spearhead for example, where a stand if models us a platoon, that shoots 12 Inch, you don't play who is sitting in the windows in the second floor. You use an abstracted BUA. And if you play a really 1:1 skirmish like Chain of Command, your terrain will match your figure scale.

It does not relate to figure scale, but I always found the Designer's Notes for Squad Leader (4th ed.) made interesting observations on ground scale:

"The ground scale of one hex = 40 meters gave us a reasonably good playing area that would show the difference in effective range of weapons and the space to deploy up to a battalion."

"One point that counted for a lot of our forced fudging was the range of some of the shorter weapons vs. the size of a "street". No, by no stretch of the imagination, were all European streets 40 meters wide…So some things like SMGs and flamethrowers were liberalized so that you could fire effectively "across" a typical alley or street."

And as even the smallest building on a SL mapboard occupies most of a hex…"Obviously our buildings have been greatly enlarged. As such, they represent clusters of smaller residential homes, farmhouses and their outbuildings, apartment complexes, collective farms etc."

200 yrs ago I was a board gamer. Just counters with numbers and everything was perfect. Basing sizes and the amount of figures to a base was a foreign thing to me. When the miniature bug hit, it was usually 1 figure to a base. In the last few years, multi-figure stands started to appeal to me and all of the above issues started to appear.

My personal solution was twofold. What is a good base size
and what looks good. To answer the first question, we went to counters to test rules. Just cut up some shirt cardboard and test out the rules. Sometimes the pieces were too large and unwieldly for the table. Sometimes they were too small and fiddley.

The second question, what looks good is a matter of taste.
I went small. From 15mm to 6mm or 10mm. That is the window dressing part. As long as each base is proportionate to it's little friends, it's O.K. for me. If the frontages and depths seem to make sense and it looks good, it's a keeper.
Angst-Free. Apologies for the size of the post.

That's what I did.
I got so tired of rebasing, so I settled on 2"x1" bases for 3 infantry, or 1 cavalry. If the rules don't like it, that's their problem. Not mine.
Terrain is … terrain. It (they) conform to my basing. But the 25/28mm basing stays.

Due possibly to me, not TMP, there is a duplicate thread where Timeportal and advocate have posted some interesting comments. They use reduced scale model building, a diffrent approach to me but that is what this thread is about, diffrences, not right or wrong.

Decebalus personally a base say with a single figure at 28 to/32 mm (it may be even bigger now) with a rifle range of 12" would not sit with me, too much of a stretch of reality. I would like to run 1 to 1 at company level but that would require an impossibly big board so it's about your personal compromise.

Even me, a hater of non linear scales, compromises a bit, like Consul Paulus, extending the "range"of short range weapons t better relate to physical road and building size. Further more our representation of 3 story buildings is a compromise they have model scale features, but are small footprints compared to the real thing. We avoid large buildings as the out of scalke nature become increasingly evident and unacceptable to me.

Interestingly we commisioned some Large modern trucks When we prnted the model I queried the scale, being vastly bigger than a modern tank! They were dead on size, the designer made me check for my self . Alas that made them unuseable, they looked out of scale even more than the tanks and infanrty. Again compromise.

I had less of a problem many years ago, when in the early days I played ancients. However the Ork counting system comes in, "one, two, some, lots" count comes in. Beyond a certain level you don't notice so much, as it just seems to be lots which allows suspension of belief to take over to some extent.

I'm with Louis XIV, PzGeneral, and Bobspruster. I'm usually playing science fiction games, which I think makes this issue easier.

"Smaller scales 4, 3 or 2mm scales are so far unattractive to me being primarily strategic and logistic games which do not hold my attention."

Ush, you've already pre-judged an answer.

What follows works, it's all within a 1" = 100m ground scale (Tactical), and the bases are all within a matching unit scale with combat frontages observed – and it's the opposite of the Flames Of War phenomenon where players stack individual models as close as allowed by the rules, or by the GMs collection (a visual issue that often ruins bigger scale games).

Terrain can be area-defined, and so can units (for tactical WWII or later period units – so not just for linear warfare gaming). Shout out to CAPTAIN BEEFHEART, and to boardgames that do exert stacking limits, and instead now we're welcomed to miniatures warganmng where sometimes, there's not even expressed ground scales (why ruin things the clever designer's quip).

Now granted, no comparison between the detail allowed on bigger scale models vs. 4, 3, 2, 1….mm, but now you go for the dioramic effect, and you start to get a better scaling to the look of a multi-kilometer tabletop [and now battlefield].

I dig my 1/144th scale WWII and Moderns minis, they're a step above skirmish in utility, and scenarios can be company-level+, but there's always a limit to how big is too big.

'4mm' 1/500th scale -

I tried this unit basing above with 1/285th miniatures once, also as platoon-bases – it didn't work so well, not because the dioramic concept wouldn't work with my GHQ collection, but your typical gamer's hand couldn't be trusted to hold a weighty wide stand by its edges, and not lose grip……human limitations, not rules/design limitations.

Depends on the rules I'm trying to write. For an accurate simulation type game then the relationship between ground, time and figure scales have to be accurate, for a more gamey 'wargame' anything goes.

One important factor is detail of rules, if I want to calculate individual tank shots you really have to have individual tank models, which means they need to be fairly close to the ground scale so 6mm models at 1mm – 1 m or yd works, 25 mm doesn't really.

As to figure scale to ground scale it's almost entirely aesthetics so, what looks right to me. You could play 1 figure to a unit [battalion ,brigade] they are after all just counters, but it does look odd and figure depth is then often then an issue as it is way to large where troops fight in linear formations.

Without a doubt for me, the setup Flywire does for his Dunn Kemp game with 6mm models and realistic-looking 3D terrain gives the best scale look.

One important factor is detail of rules, if I want to calculate individual tank shots you really have to have individual tank models, which means they need to be fairly close to the ground scale so 6mm models at 1mm – 1 m or yd works, 25 mm doesn't really.

I use 1" = 25m for micro and 1/144 scale.

For 28mm with individual figures, I use 1" = 2m, so it's almost a 1:1 scale.

All ranges in my game are in meters so that you can scale it to any model. When I play a game and someone says the range on the German 88 is 24", I just cringe.

For large naval games, I use 1/6000 because it scales well and looks like a real battle without the model ships banging into each other.

Wolfhag

"Smaller scales 4, 3 or 2mm scales are so far unattractive to me being primarily strategic and logistic games which do not hold my attention."

This comment was because I clearly needed to state that I cannot make useful comments on them, like I cannot make comments on Football, That is not to say that they are good or bad but I cannot relate to them so making comments on them would be absurd and counter productive.

What follows works, it's all within a 1" = 100m ground scale (Tactical), and the bases are all within a matching unit scale with combat frontages observed – and it's the opposite of the Flames Of War phenomenon where players stack individual models as close as allowed by the rules, or by the GMs collection (a visual issue that often ruins bigger scale games).

What we define as tactical clearly varies massively. A 6ft by 4ft board at this scale would be 4800 by 7200m. Even at 1500m frontage that would be a minimum of 3 companies wide in defence, somtimes more. In attack that would be 3 times that number. I work on the informatonn provided by an ex serviceman that the last tactical command is a Company. Beyond that the command task moves to the critical logistics side, the further up the scale the more logistics is the key parameter. Even in our "unique" big games the high level bits of the command become when to replace units, when can units be re-surplied, how close to the front to put re-supply bases and where and when to move low level artillery suppoer such as mortars, which idealy want to be opertaing well below maximum range.

+1 Wolfhag, not only do ranges in meters make the game scaleable, it helps relate the wargames table to the real world. I have on numerous occations takem a player to the window of the club in our urbam evioroment and pointed out houses 200m away and asked them of the large nunber of houses how he would spot a man standing back from a window not shooting quickly; he would have to study each window in sight with binoculars even in an attempt to spot a man not wanting to be seen. Having the real range helps understand game scale to real world discrepancies.

Ground scale to model scale at the extreems cam be a real issue, It already is for built up areas, but for linear features like hedges and ditches it can be an issue. In an early game many years ago we did a village close to a WW2 airfield using 1/72 models. On a 6ft by 8 ft table we needed more than 90 ft of hedges, we only had 90 ft so we had to misss few out. (the ground scake was 1" to 10 m). It was a show game and at least 1 person said it ws Unrealistic too many hedges, and anyway who would fight there? We showed him the map of the village and it being ajacent to the airfield perimeter.

At smaller ground scales you would have to abstract that level of hedgeing, making tactical games less pausible at that level. Again the ground scale to model scale does effect the rules in comples ways. We could do our game using 1/300 scale models but one issue is the increasing reality brings its own problems. Thre would now likely be 4 times the number of houses compared to the 1/72 scale verion of the same realistic footprint village. That would slow the game down massively, admittedly being more realistic, but like in engineering, speed of solution can me a factore in decising the level of abstraction that is acceptable for a model.

"I work on the informatonn provided by an ex serviceman that the last tactical command is a Company. Beyond that the command task moves to the critical logistics side, the further up the scale the more logistics is the key parameter."

Biggest load of BS I've ever read here on TMP.

And logistics are critical at all levels of command – unless maybe you're throwing rocks, or just more BS.

My approach is what sort of action do I want to represent.

What space woild thag occupy in RL?

What scale "models and ground" will I need to use to represent that at as close to 1 to 1.

I like 28mm… I've even gamed outside with 1/35.

But 6mm and 3mm allow me to play with realistic numbers and distances. And they also don't take lots of space to store, and don't cost a lot and are easy to get table ready.

I am surprised at the one term fits all approach by many gamers.
As a Quartermaster officer and MI S4, logistics is important all the way down to platoon and squad.
Tactical command is at the squad and platoon level for infantry. But for armor tanks it is company level due mainly to the importance of maintenance to keep a platoon viable.
Another aspect is nationality. Soviets tend to focus tactical operations at the company level for both infantry and armor.

I am surprised at the one term fits all approach by many gamers.
As a Quartermaster officer and MI S4, logistics is important all the way down to platoon and squad.
Tactical command is at the squad and platoon level for infantry. But for armor tanks it is company level due mainly to the importance of maintenance to keep a platoon viable.
Another aspect is nationality. Soviets tend to focus tactical operations at the company level for both infantry and armor.

Wargamers having a myopic and monolithic view… really? 🤔🫣😉 I've never heard such a thing! 😉🤷

And logistics are critical at all levels of command – unless maybe you're throwing rocks, or just more BS.

This comment misses the point and is so obvious perhaps a little thought would be better.

A rifleman is no good without bullets. However He dose not manage much if any of the logistics trail, which is massive, complex and in many cases uses more troops than the combat section. Even at Coy level his work load is not too Onerous, he lists what he needs and passes it on. That request goes up the supply chane being integrated with others. Many key logistics decisions are made higher up like suerveying sites for DROPS loads if you are that lucky, otherwise you have to set up supply bases not too far from the front for troops to either fetch supplies, proably infantry, or move to pick up POL if AFV based.

Somebody has a LOT of work to schedule supplies, where and when, having wagons que up for loads for longer than necessary is suicidal, tankers have to be given practical routes to practical supply points, no good sending a tanker across terrain passable only be AFV's. Sheduling suopplys from more distant bases gets increasingly mopre complex and consumes much more of thr high level command. Hemnce like the serving man said the command task gets more involved and uses more of the command time available to maintain an efficent logistics train. Moveing artillery withougt a surveyed place to re-deploy will cause delays not appreciated at the front. Somebody has to allocate missions to units on the basis of available ammunition, beaaing in mind which batteries can be re-supplied and by when. It's just about possibe to play at Company level for a few hours assuming the company are all re-fueled and have ammunition for that task. The endurance of modern AFV's though helped by drop tanks is still limited once the fighting strts and the drop tanks released.

Somebody has to tell the front line where and when they can get new ammo and know they have transport if neccessary. Ther are accounts of WW2 battles wher there is a passage of lines so fresh units can continue the fight ON THE SAME DAY. So my point stands the functions of higher command levels are more dominated by logistics. QED.

I work on the informatonn provided by an ex serviceman that the last tactical command is a Company.

Incorrect, and so you can't possibly understand combined-arms-tactics, its level of command and coordination.

Smaller scales 4, 3 or 2mm scales are so far unattractive to me being primarily strategic and logistic games which do not hold my attention.

I've seen a few strategic or logistics? games played with 4, 3 or 2mm scales, but they're wargaming scales, and the miniatures designed for doing tabletop battles with.

Wargamers having a myopic and monolithic view… really? 🤔🫣😉 I've never heard such a thing! 😉🤷

Gamesman6!

I'll play any scale just as long as the scale is believable and the table is big enough that you can disperse the units realistically. I've played 28mm with 1" = 2m with one-man stands, but must operate as a team/section as much as possible.

For me, logistics is mostly a pre-game exercise to see what units might run out during the battle. For extended infantry engagements, players must send someone to the rear for an ammo run. I was going to track how much ammo is in a tanks ammo rack, but most engagements are short enough I don't have to. It would have involved having the crew reload the rack during a lull, which was too much to track.

Wolfhag

(and what passes as believable on a tabletop is subjective of course)

Wolfhag, I'm sure you'll remember this thread -

TMP link

What's believable on a tabletop does involve some context, as opposed to gaming fantasy I suppose.

Pulled this snippet from the linked thread by MildBill -

Having the terrain have the correct affect on the scenario is just as important as the combat power between the forces. Get those two items right and unless the rules are just terrible, you should get outcomes within historical probabilities.

Sort of sounds like what you just wrote Wolfag.

The past few weeks I've been zoned in on keeping it plain and simple (not simplistic, but more fundamental) –

Mission, Maneuver, Firepower

A scenario within a plausible environment, some ability to use the environment, and a system to adjudicate decision-making – firepower.

It's just a game, but how people struggle as presenter or participant.

Robert P. might appreciate these fundamentals too – being a three-legged stool.

KOCOA, MOOSE MUSS we're taught to officer training classes. I did an article for the Courier magazine back in the 1980s.

TimePortal, do you have the issue vol./date for your Courier article – I would like to read it!

(Couriers are still available via download at Wargame Vault)

Wolfhag, I'm sure you'll remember this thread -

Some of my best work <grin>

I use a 6x9-foot drop cloth that I spray-painted green. I use pastel chalk to draw the roads, outline wooded areas for individual movable trees, ponds, gullies, and depict other terrain types. I can erase them and customize the geographical areas, roads, and trench width to match the scale I'm using. On the other side, I leave white for winter scenarios.

For measuring ranges, I use range sticks 2 feet (600m), 4 feet (1200m), and 6 feet (1800m). The range sticks also come in handy to point out things on the table and smack players in the head who are on their cell phones.

Using a scale that realistically matches the figures and vehicles allows you to use real unit formations more accurately. Smaller scales allow a better chance of flanking because the unit density is not as dense.

Wolfhag

You have yourself there a system!

The range sticks also come in handy to point out things on the table and smack players in the head who are on their cell phones.

I enjoy using range sticks too – and having one gives you instant authority.

Mission, Maneuver, Firepower, Sticks

:)))

@ Timeportal "Tactical command is at the squad and platoon level for infantry. But for armor tanks it is company level due mainly to the importance of maintenance to keep a platoon viable."

An interesting idea. In my day in armour tactical operation was at the troop level, but we were trained for European warfare; the men who came back from the invasion of Kuwait had found in the desert that the lack of terrain to exercise your tactics meant that it was line up and fire at what ever level was present, up to and including regimental level. I think the issue is also complicate by the level of force and the mission, in my experience recce almost always work at a lower level than main force.

Found the article I've been looking for on Combat Commands, task force tactics, combined-arms coordination, in regards to US Armored Divisions utilized during in WWII –

link

SUMMARY

The armored division fights as combined arms teams at all levels of command from the platoon to the division itself. These teams can use a variety of methods of attack. The method used depends on the mission, the enemy situation, the terrain, and the plan of action. Whatever method is used, the armored infantry and the tanks support each other.

Within the combat command, reinforced battalions are formed by attaching tank companies to armored infantry battalions, or armored infantry rifle companies to tank battalions. Attachments are made in such a way that the resulting team, a reinforced battalion, contains the right proportion of tanks and armored infantry for the tasks assigned. This attachment may be a mutual exchange of tank and armored infantry rifle companies. However, in a situation requiring a reinforced battalion heavy in armored infantry, the armored infantry battalion might retain all four of its rifle companies and have one or more tank companies attached. Conversely, when the situation favors tank employment, a tank battalion may keep all of its tank companies and have one or more armored infantry rifle companies attached.

The team is commanded by the battalion commander to whom the attachments are made. Regardless of the ratio of tanks to armored infantry, the reinforced battalion employs tanks and armored infantry in mutual support. When necessary, armored engineers are attached to either or both types of reinforced battalions.

Tactics don't stop at the platoon, or company level of command, but involve the combination or units and arms into mission-tasked teams, organized and commanded at the battalion-level (and at times above).

This was in large part the essence of the German Kampfgruppen concept of WWII, which was also combined with the assigning mission-based orders to the immediate commands to achieve.

It's a level of tactical command we rarely see in miniatures wargaming, as it involves players understanding command levels beyond the usual experience – of skirmish games, or with scenarios fielding a few mixed platoons. However, it's above this level of usual play, that combined-arms coordination, and combined-arms groups are formed and commanded, or where smaller tasks/team forces may be derived.

Early in this thread is a game pic, it's a reference to playing scenarios at this battalion-level (it's just a teaser taken from a larger scenario), but about using tactics of combined-arms forces functioning as combined groups (which I believe is the sweet-spot of WWII or modern-age warfare to present with miniatures, if you can).

Maybe the minis are small, the stands based as units, but then the battlefield starts to expand, the role of the player starts to evolve and involve combined-arms maneuver and concentration of firepower, and under the umbrella of mission tasking – the scenario.

Wasn't the Command Decision rules an excellent example of gaming this sweet-spot (from Frank Chadwick and with all his board gaming pedigree)?

To a degree, board games manage multiple command levels well, they can scale warfare – but what's happened to miniature gaming. I still see what Gamesman6 wrote above as pretty appropriate -

Wargamers having a myopic and monolithic view… really? 🤔🫣😉 I've never heard such a thing! 😉🤷

Maybe it's what sells, or maybe it's what's being sold over and over – so here's another Version of this or that skirmish set (the "game designers" expect we'll buy it up like candy….but it aint actually the sweet-spot afterall).

People stick to what they know… we arent good with change, and once they accept something they aren't happy to change.

With scale, I see the advantage of smaller scale figures is they allow me to play at a 1 to 1 level over a larger area, though I don't see that across many players and rule sets.

But then when I look at most rule sets I'm seeing the same basic pieces just being moved around in different patterns

Good points.

Let me reinforce your point on scale(s) – Fistful Of Tows III allows for playing at this Combat Command/KG-level, using platoon-based units, but I've seen it played where one miniature represents a whole platoon of AFVs.

Conversely, you mention smaller miniatures scales allow play at closer to a 1 to 1 representation.

Taking these two different basing approaches, I see potential player confusion caused by one, and player-information enabled by the other (what would a tank platoon actually look like?).

Way back in this thread, I mentioned trying out this diorama-like basing with 1/285th scale Micro-Armor – that was unsuccessful (basing was heavy compared to achieving a scale footprint – then that compared to the effort needed to safely hold onto and move around one of these stands), but -

This same unit-basing approach has worked with 1/600th scale minis, and also with this 'custom' 1/500th Moderns set pictured above.

As you mentioned, once something is accepted, it's hard to change (maybe in regards to gaming scales collected too).

The good thing is, the smaller scales are mostly cheaper, so having collected for small-unit gaming action in one scale, doesn't become onerou$ to tackle if thinking of using a smaller scale to feature larger combat arenas, and enable greater battlefield context [style of gaming].

Rulesets? – players might want to imagine alternative systems, but we'll double back to your first points above.

I've never liked multi figure basing. Even with crewed stuff. I do sometimes at 3 or 6mm do battle buddies on a base or a crew served weapon.

Conversely I don't like the blobs of individual figures I see in too many bolt action games.

Anyway I'm in effect playing a "skirmish" game, regardless of ground or figure scale

Re rule sets, I've always tinkered but finally realised it wasn't working so I went back to scratch.

I thought what is some one in action, squaddie, sqd ldr, plt, Co etc focused on? doing stuff, but the issue is will they do what "you" the player wants pr will they do something different.

Most rules focus on out comes. We make decisions about what we want to do Then roll dice etc (don't get me started on my frustration with numeric dice) to see if it actually happens.

Anyway the focus similar to what wolfhag talks about. The fewer artifical constructs i start with the easier and better the result will be, for me.

Realting figure and ground scale as close to 1 to 1 as possible the better.

We make decisions about what we want to do Then roll dice etc (don't get me started on my frustration with numeric dice) to see if it actually happens.

Oh you mean that "Friction" thing – where a decision as a game NCO or LT you may need to make, but then it must go through the ole randomizer grinder?!

That's supposed to provide us game narrative….yeah, I rolled dice and F-U'ed, (exciting narrative).

That's supposed to provide us game narrative….yeah, I rolled dice and F-U'ed, (exciting narrative).

You need an imagination <grin>.

We're back to the old decision of designing for cause (the reason why) or effect (just the result).

In a Time Competitive system, the reason is normally pretty clear as to why something went wrong. You were too slow because your Situational Awareness was poor (suppressed or surprised/flanked), the weapons platform performance was too slow (turret traverse, reload speed), slow/poor crew, the shot missed because of a player's Snap Shot decision, or wrong tactic. There is always a small chance of a historical SNAFU when you shoot, which can increase your time to execute an order or shoot (friction). The dice play only a small role.

The "friction" is portrayed as having orders take longer to execute. There is no "chance" of successfully executing your order. You will execute in several turns unless the enemy stops you first or you use a Risk-Reward tactic to shoot first.

At the battalion level and below, I always use 1:1 for leaders, vehicles, and guns. For scales below 20mm, I base teams/sections on a 1" base (25m).

Wolfhag

I just imagine my decisions are random enough as-is. <grin>….<wink>.

Proably as I have never done it personaly, one issue I may have missed, Hill scale. This I thought fell into figure vs ground scale but it may not be for everybody.
We live with the approximation that all hills, really a misnomer for us, as they are "pimples" in reality; are only as high as they appear in figure scale so only a few feet tall. I think our highest was only about 6, 12mm figures high, physically about 90mm high. That is becuase a contour is just over 1 figure high on the table. Steepness of slope sets a limit for the size of the slope, so it limits the physical size of the hill due to table size.
Pure personal bias, but I don't like stepped hills that is purely personal. However you could define your contoures as more in line with the ground scale. My hills at 90mm physical would represent a hill 90m tall. still not bigger. However it gets harder to interpret, our trees by tradition are 3 countours high regardless of depiction so are relatiely easy to assess when a tree can be seen over from a house or hill. With a hill nearer ground scale that gets harder. Far lower on a hill than a tree could see over it as they are wildly diffrent vertical ground scales.

So what is your approach and again why? No right or wrong answer and it may depend to some extent on the period being represented.

Flyxwire
"Oh you mean that "Friction" thing – where a decision as a game NCO or LT you may need to make, but then it must go through the ole randomizer grinder?!"

It's the application of friction and randomisers. I'm more for front loading them and have the player use them rather than arbitrate at the end.

"That's supposed to provide us game narrative….yeah, I rolled dice and F-U'ed, (exciting narrative)."

Yes… I'm reading AARs which might as well describe a game or snakes and ladders.
I would have won the battle but… I rolled a lot of 1s😔.

Tying back to the OP. It's , for me compromising what we're representing for a game. The abstractions of scale, figure and ground and gods… when. I see figures next to tiny buildings… 😭

But that's me… what people do in their control games room. 🙃

"Hills"
They imo should fit the ground scale, otherwise it's another abstraction that's affecting interpretation and decisions.

Most of my historical game scenarios are based on studying the topography of the action when deciding if a game can come off.

If I don't think I can model the lay of the land well enough with some accuracy, and having hills and dales exert some influence on the game (where "friction" actually applies) – I don't do the game.

Here's one of the scenarios I've worked on, for one of the days in January 1944 when the US 11th Armored Division was attacking north out of the Bastogne saliant. The map began with an original aerial, then a study of the topography and game scale consideration, then my colorization of the aerial photo…..

This one has never come off – not because I can't do the game mat now, but the underlying hills will be quite the job to craft.

There's a cost-benefit consideration that goes into pulling the trigger on this too – is it worth my effort to physically apply it to the tabletop?

I would certainly brief my players on game day – that this is the real deal guys, but do they really care that much about history, the place and the times, or even about studying tactics so they give the effort its due?

Hills? They can break you! ;)

I also make my own hills. The purpose they serve in the game is to block LOS and use the Reverse Slope Defense tactic.

A unit starts Turret Down (not spotted over 200m) and acquires the target. Then the unit moves to a hull-down position and shoots. After shooting, it immediately reverses to Turret Down again and reloads or relocates to a new firing position.

The shooter is exposed as a hull down target for 4-8 seconds/turns which makes it very difficult for the defenders to engage it and get an accurate shot off unless their gun was already pointed where the shooter appeared.

Soviet tanks could not use this tactic as their guns could not depress enough.

I think more important than hills are depressions. I use a clear transparency to outline depressions and their depth, somewhat like a contour map.

I also use low rise (like an elevated road or rail line), which allows for a hull down position if behind it.

Wolfhag

FlyXwire has a point hills are a pain. Our approach is VERY approximate, we just model the ridge lines, too low but its the best you can do. Again what you do is dependent on the player skill and motivation, a game where anybody can turn up and potentially have no idea about the period, tactics or technology, are a different set to wild enthusiasts that eat live and sleep the period.

A German tanker said one option they used was to tell the driver pull back on the second shot. After the first the engine was revved ready and as soon as the second shot was off, reveres was engaged immediately.

🤔 not sure he said they were a pain, only that there is a cost benifit decision to be made. 🤷

As Wolfhag says depressions are as important and are even harder to model on a table.

Either way, smaller figure and ground scales make it easier to model on the table top.

Not sure that depressions are that hard with Kalistra Hex, just one level down, you could raise the overall surface mostly by 1 hex easy. Besides Hills are easy and lots of them so why not model the easy stuff. Not sure in my readings depressions were that critical. In the desert they were so large you could just model the bottom as base level and the edges as high ground.

Certainly Northern Europe where I set my battles, depressions are not a major factor, hills are.

😃 not everyone uses kalistra.

Model the easy stuff to the exclusion if the the hard… 🤷🤔 that doesn't sound like you.

I know you are uk based so I wonder what you think about all those dips in the ground when one is out in nature but roads etc. 🤷 if I was under fire I'd be looking at those depressions and low points that I see around me.

Anything blocks or reduces direct fire etc.
Are they as much of a factor as hills? No but so? They are still a factor, depending on the level we are representing.

Accounts, focus one what the author reports, similarly games focus on what tbe designer believes are factors major or minor, whether that's got anything to do with what they claim to be modelling