"Pre-Measuring? It's Allowed!" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Are you allowed to pre-measure?

45% said "yes, I can pre-measure"
24% said "no, I cannot pre-measure"

I prefer it not to happen

I allow it in my games. I find that it eliminates arguments about " was I in musket range or not?" and other things of that ilk.

No -- I don't recall Dark Ages warriors using laser range finders… you want to shoot or charge? Declare it and THEN measure, eh?

I like it. Troops tend to know about these things. It is an amusing mechanism to add humour if players wish it.

martin

How unhistorical.

Tom

The gamers I've known who were all in favour of no pre-measuring just happened to be great at judging distances on the tabletop.

Me, I just have to compensate by taking measurements between key features every time I'm allowed to put a ruler on the table. Yes, I can pre-measure.
=^,^=

Well – if you can't premeasure maybe you get better at jugding distance on a tabletop…after the Nth time of declaring a charge and then moving your stands and still not contacting and then getting shredded by musket fire or mass archers… although, some game systems do allow for some range correction, like Clear for Action. You can't premeasure your naval gunnery range but when you fire, based on training and fire control you can adjust your shot by a certain number of inches.

Clear For Action is one of those games I will just never play. Given the size of the playing area, that is only to be enjoyed by folks who are good at estimating distances.

Real commanders have a whole trained crew providing them with estimated ranges, they aren't just eyeballing it and calling out numbers. Nothing realistic about making players do that.

miniMo – I am a carpenter of 40 years, has no bearing on my gaming.
( retreats fast full distance)

14Bore, I'm super near-sighted. It works great for fine scale modelling, I can eyeball very short measurements quite well down to 1/64" of an inch, and line up the XActo for quite well for 45º and 90º cuts. Full scale carpentry, does not go so nicely for me!

It's good to know there is somebody still playing Clear For Action. I actually consulted those rules recently while cobbling together a game for the attack on Force Z.

Usually I don't mind pre-measuring. I encourage it. But there is no pre-measuring allowed in the Force Z game. It's a coop game with all the players Japanese pilots and they need to estimate when they want to drop their torpedoes. There's a long range, a short range and a failure to arm range and they have to make their best guess.

Never understood the no preameasuring thing, its seems to daft as part of a simulation. I cannot pull a Longbow even poorly but should that stop me using tham in a game? Any decent general for any period will highlight distances to objects or even put out range markers to avoid such instances. As a last resort they would allocate an experienced Officer to call out the range.

Nothing wrong with no pre measuring as a "fun" mechanism but it has no reasonable philosophical basis, as many players have none of the skills of their model counterparts.
I guess certainly in the UK many cannot ride a horse, due to lack of skill or infirmaty (like me) but should that stop them deploying horse?

Never understood the no preameasuring thing,

As a simulation, a wargame exists in an entirely constructed environment. That creates an advantage in detailed knowledge and understanding between the players, who make the decisions in a wargame, over the decision makers who are represtented inside the construct of the wargame. This is commonly called the "God-like knowledge" problem.

No allowing measuring before committing to a decision is a method to re-intorduce some uncertainty into the process as a surrogate for real world uncertainty.

As you point out, it is good tactical practice for a military commander to enable all methods of ranging available to them to enhance their decisions. You did skip the point that it is also well-known good strategic practice to deny as much of that capability to your opponent as you can.

Beyond the various means of denying ranging capability to your opponent (primarly forcing a disadvantageous time/place of engagement and operational deception), even when a real world commander has ranging capability, it and the engagement capability that it supports is not as simple and clearly defined as it is in a wargame.

Stopping just inside or a little past the tree line affects the targetability of my troops. Stopping further away from my adversary (inside the tree line) also affects my troop's accuracy of shot. In a wargame if I know the exact table distance between the tree line and enemy, I know exactly how much various positionings affect my engagement capability. In the real world, real combatants do not have that precision knowledge.

Not allowing premeasuring reintroduces real world ambiguity into decisions.

Not allowing premeasuring reintroduces real world ambiguity into decisions.

I agree it does but it puts new players at a disadvantage.

The gunnery effectiveness in any era is mostly effected by the shooters range estimation error. This is why the first shot at a new target is called a "Ranging Shot" because there is no real expectation of a first round hit. The flatter the trajectory of the shell the less your range estimation error will effect accuracy.

However, expecting a gaming novice to be trained for manual range estimation without aids is going to be tough. When you get a hit on a target the gun is assumed to be "Ranged In" and Ranged In for any new target within 50-100 yards.

I think it comes into play in the scenario. If you are a defender and had time you'd measure off distances before the battle and even put out range markers and make range cards with a known distance to easily identifiable landmarks.

If you are trained it should be no problem estimating the range to +/-20%. Experienced to +/-10%. A rangefinder to about +/- 2 to 5%.

Artillery could range in on probable enemy locations before the battle (Terrain Reference Points). This allows an accurate barrage to be fired without sighting rounds.

This is just standard military training.

What game has the expectation where you can charge a musket armed defender and not get shot at? A Civil War regiment moving at the Double-Quick would move 150-180 yards in one minute. So with a reload time of one minute, the charging unit would be shot at only once inside 150 yards and twice from over 200 yards. Those are the numbers but I'm no Musket Era expert.

Before radar ranging, naval warfare gunnery it took time (normally 2-5 minutes depending on conditions) to get the range and bearing on the enemy. Firing the first accurate salvo gave you and advantage. The ladder method could be even more accurate and quicker. An opening salvo at 15,000 yards might have an range estimation error of 300 yards or more depending on the conditions.

Personally, having players "guess" the range without aids is historically inaccurate and too gamey except maybe in ancient era. There are other playable ways to do it.

Wolfhag

I agree it does but it puts new players at a disadvantage.

If you mean new to wargaming, nearly everything in the game does that. If you mean new to a set of rules, new concepts and signficant interactions of new with old concepts does. If you mean new to a scenario, the new dynamics (which could be the entire scope of the game do, as well.

The gunnery effectiveness in any era is mostly effected by the shooters range estimation error.

I have to push back on that. I'm reasonably decent at naval gunfire, the factors are:

target position, course & speed
own ship motion
ballistic effects (gravity, coriolis, drift)
gun wear, temperature, shot variation
platform instability (roll, pitch)

Range estimation error is only part of part of the first one (target position); it's a system of systems of errors. Relative motion of targets (the composite of target and own ship motion) is usually the dominant, but weather (driving coiriolis, instability, and drift) can quickly become the largest error term.

Naval Gunfire Support (NGFS) – "shore bombardment" is easier than ship to ship naval gunfire because target platform stability issues are removed. And you can add in ranging markers, which are still more error prone than in land-land artillery.

Land artillery has a different interchange because platoform instability and relative motion errors are significantly more controlled, and fold into terrain complications.

Those factors illustrate my point – in a wargame, the constructive nature of how entities are treated reduces everything on the above table to a known.

Note that I didn't say range error must be added to the system, but that range estimattion error can be a surrogate for other real-world uncertainty.

Your charge example is another great example. In a wargame with pre-measurement you know whether or not you are getting one volley or two … or none in a given situation. In the real world some people fire three times, some twice, some once, and some don't get a shot off. On Tuesday instead of Monday, the same people firing against the same charge get a different mix of shots off.

etothepi, so because there are random variables in battle, the player should be presented with a random random variable that is based on their own personal capabilities, and provide that player with the same player personal advantage or disadvantage that carries over to any game.

So instead of Napoleon always gets +2, Marvin who is always great at estimating ranges always gets to hit his targets, and you may or may not. That's wonderfully historical!

miniMo,

I have no direct answer to your question.

the player should be presented with

Point out the place where I said "should" anything in this discussion.

UshCha said a bunch of derrogatory things about not allowing premeasruing and that it made no sense. I pointed out that not allowing premeasuring directly correlates to a real-world phenomenon (something UshCha usually brings up), and can be used as a surrogate for the lack of other real-world factors that necessarily get filtered out in a wargame.

Wolfhag brought up a different point, and I agree with everything he said, except, that range error is the overriding concern in artillery and other ranged combat problems.

Whether or not any particular event should allow or not allow premeasuring is a different issue than how the approach correlates with real world phenomena from a wargame. Just like whether or not a player should get a +2 because the forces he gives orders for represent those under Napoleon's command.

That's wonderfully historical!

That's a common gross oversimplification. Ignoring you not saying what you mean by 'historical', I await your explanation of some people having better outcomes than others not being 'historical'.

Ah, my mistake then. I presumed that by laying out the argument for adding a random variable you were advocating for the same.

If some players consistently have worse outcomes due to a particular game mechanic, that does not fit into fighting historical games. It merely fits into playing rather unpleasant games.

I've played against folks who are ace at estimating distances, and are also ace at gloating over their ability. I don't play against them any more. Nor do I play those games any more. My desire to play an enjoyable game is far greater than my desire to play whatever the heck history that was supposed to be.

No big.

and are also ace at gloating over their ability. I don't play against them any more.

Good move, in my book.

My desire to play an enjoyable game is far greater than my desire to play whatever the heck history that was supposed to be.

This gets back to what you consider "historical" to mean, which is a different discussion.

TMP link

If some players consistently have worse outcomes due to a particular game mechanic, that does not fit into fighting historical games. It merely fits into playing rather unpleasant games.

In the pre-measuring context, I agree. (Pre-measuring also fits in with other meta-game elements. If I am not allowed to pre-measure, but I am allowed to take a move back … am I de facto allowed to pre-measure?)

If advance and transfer are considered to be a key part of age of sail capital ship combat, and implemented in a game, but someone just doesn't grok a&t (it takes a while for some people), I think that inhibiting their command is historical.

Still makes for a sucky game for them, and in general, I consider a sucky game for one to be a sucky game for all.

By using hexes it will make pre- measuring not a problem

and can be used as a surrogate for the lack of other real-world factors that necessarily get filtered out in a wargame.

Not sure how sound the philosophyy is behind this approach. Replacing some variable which may not be valid for a condition with another simply to add random factore representing an unrepresented vartiable seems a very strange approach and not one that would be acceptable in an engineering simulation so why would it be valid elsewhere?

If small changes in range or time at a position are so critical, then the simulation has serious flaws associated to time at range. Logically if you were unsure whether a tree line was in range the obvious thing would be to halt in the treeline under cover and then advance to ensure minimal exposure to fire, whether just "in" or just "out" of range.

and not one that would be acceptable in an engineering simulation so why would it be valid elsewhere?

Ignoring the category collapse, everything in modeling and simulation is representing a real world phenomenon with a mathematical representation. It's not just acceptable, it's the entire basis.

Every piece of a model is a surrogate for a real-world factor.

Replacing some variable which may not be valid for a condition with another simply to add random factore representing an unrepresented vartiable

So (1) you are not replacing a variable, you are representing a real world process, (2) "may not" is not an argument, it is a vague dismissal, (3) what do you mean by unrepresented variable?

Logically if you were unsure whether a tree line was in range the obvious thing would be to halt in the treeline under cover and then advance to ensure minimal exposure to fire, whether just "in" or just "out" of range.

That is a tactical solution to the real world challenge, but is irelevant to the implementiaton in modeling and simulation. Whether or not you stop here or there, you need a method of adjudication what happens.

If I have a moderen tank with a kintetiv projectile ming at perhaps 1700m/sec aiming using modern Lazer range finders with high end accuracy giving about 95% hit rate.
Now you are suggeting that to compensate for opther issue I use range estimation at about 1500m range (1.5m distance on table) I can gurantee missing untill the third shot I am poor at range estimation. You imply that range gussing compensates for other issues but this seems unrealistic. Me, mssing at that rate mesns I cannot shoot at targets of a fleeting nature which is unrealistic to say the least.

Now you state the system can be used but, fail utterly to present a situation where the results overall are more representative. certaibnly my example porves beyond reasonable doubt it is by no means a universal option save for fantasy games which I have no interest in.
Please define a usefull situation where you proposition makes an improvnet to overall simulation.

If I have a moderen tank with a kintetiv projectile ming at perhaps 1700m/sec aiming using modern Lazer range finders with high end accuracy giving about 95% hit rate.

So, you've grossly oversimplified your understanding of a tank, and removed a bunch of important information about it. Got it.

Now you are suggeting that to compensate for opther issue I use range

Point out the part where I suggested you use anything in any way.

Also, if you want a response to the idea, what "other issue" are you talking about?

certaibnly my example porves beyond reasonable doubt it is by no means a universal option

Not even vaguely close to a proof. You didn't even give a copmlete example.

Who said anything was a universal option? The only thing you have demonstrated is your ability to create a strawman argument.

resent a situation where the results overall are more representative.

Representative is not some absolute concept. Representative can only be defined in terms of the intent of the simulation. Good demonstration of reification.

fantasy games which I have no interest in.

Except your fantasy tank at the beginning of your post.

You clearly are pooly informed or are wilfully misinterpreating the truth. In a gunnery excersise the commander od a Challenger 1 and inferior beast in some ways to the Challenger 2 only achoived an 80% hit rate but he clearly stated the system was not at its best. So as usual your knowledge is not a large as you confidence. Please get you facts right!

Challenger 1 and inferior beast in some ways to the Challenger 2 only achoived an 80% hit rate but he clearly stated the system was not at its best.

My knowledge is challenged as to what this actually means. Anyone decode it for me? Then tell me what some type of individual statement from one tanker at one gunnery event has to do with any of the points I rasied?

Personally, having players "guess" the range without aids is historically inaccurate and too gamey except maybe in ancient era. There are other playable ways to do it.

In the field, a trained observer is estimating the range not by guessing but by observing the details of what he can identify. Can you see individual branches or just the entire tree. Can you clearly distinguish the windows of a building or not. I'm sure ancient battlefield commanders could use the same technique.

With a little practice, any rifleman can do it. Here is an example using the front sight of an M14:

Quick Reference (8 MOA Front Sight & 20" Target)

Front Sight --------- Estimated
Target Coverage ------- Range
Full Front Sight ------ 250 Yards
3/4 Front Sight ------ 335 Yards
2/3 Front Sight ------ 375 Yards
1/2 Front Sight ------ 500 Yards
1/4 Front Sight ------ 1,000 Yards

Range Card: In a static position, the range can be measured or walked of the specific locations and a range card drawn. This is SOP for crew served weapons. When the enemy shows up at those locations you have pre-measured the range for a better chance of a first round hit.

Range Marker: In the musket era ranges were walked off and a stake driven into the ground as range markers. You can see this being done in the movie Zulu.

Terrain Reference Point: Artillery registers their guns on specific locations so they don't have to use multiple ranging shots at the enemy. Good maps help too.

The German TZF 5 gun sight had range markings for the MG and main gun. From a static position, the gunner could use the MG to range in on a location to make a range card without physically walking off the range.

Many other gun sights had stadiametric range finders which helped but took longer to use for a first shot. The scissors binoculars can be used for range finding too.

I have a war surplus Swedish army coincidence range finder their mortar teams used.

Maps: If you have a good map and know your and the enemy location you have the range.

As etotheipi stated, naval gunnery is more complicated but I assumed we were discussing land battles. In naval warfare it's not just estimation but keeping the range salvo after salvo as the range, bearing and speed changes. This is difficult because of poor environmental spotting and ranging conditions. You generally don't have those problems in ground warfare.

I did develop a naval warfare salvo plotting table that takes into account the factors in building a range solution and range keeping. It plots salvos sheaths and determines hits based on the ships bearing, danger space, and shell angle of descent. There are some necessary abstractions as it is not a true scientific engineering design but is easy to play with no calculations and pretty accurate.

DIY range estimator for naval warfare for a 25 foot playing surface: Take a clear ruler which has millimeter increments. Place your warship broadside at the end of the room. Measure how many millimeters it is and determine what the range is. The move the ship in one foot closer closer, repeat.

ChatGPT can build you one if you give it the right specs.

Commercial rangefinders may work but the ranges you'll be playing at are probably too short to be accurate.

I don't see any reason to not pre-measure the range in most games since historically it was often done under the right circumstances with trained observers but even with aids they will still get a 5%-10% estimation error unless it is a laser rangefinder.

Wolfhag

I don't see any reason to not pre-measure the range in most games since historically it was often done under the right circumstances with trained observers but even with aids they will still get a 5%-10% estimation error unless it is a laser rangefinder.

So what without aids? I found this summary:

Up to ~500 m; Typical error: ±10–15%
500–1000 m; Typical error: ±15–25%
1000–2000 m; Typical error: ±25–40%
Beyond 2000 m; Typical error: often ±40–60% or worse

For those with familiarity with the training standards does that look good for the mk1, mod0 eyeball as a fallback system?

I am asking because the follow up question is what abysmal accuracy of estimation on the table are we talking about?

People are pretty good at estimating half and quarter (half of half), and in a wargame we are looking down on the table … 4'x6'? so 1' is an eyeball grid one way and 1.5' the other.

So, you're looking at +/-2"..4" or so.

15% (the real world reference above) of 6' is +/-10.8" error.

Things like is that exactly 11" or 13" … hard.

Is that inside or outside 12" … pretty easy.

------

Many other gun sights had stadiametric range finders

I first read that as "older gun sights". We had stadimeters on the on the binnacle on the bridge wings.

And I'm not THAT old …

Regarding Mk 1 range estimation. A Marine friend of mine was in Yemen on a rooftop. A bad guy was walking across a berm too far away to take a shot at and they called for a Scout Sniper.

He was not going to arrive in time before the guy disappeared so my friend rested his M4 carbine on the rooftop ledge estimating the range to be about 750 yards put the target at 750 in his ACOG sight. He estimated the lead because the target was walking at 90 degrees. He squeezed off the round and the guy dropped.

He said it was a lucky shot but I was his marksmanship instructor when he was on the US Juniors AR-15 Championship team from California.

Wolfhag

Again, as stated above, I am not advocating either way, but Wolfhag's example is a great illustration of where no pre measurement models the real world decision.

The shooter didn't have 100% confidence about the range. He took the shot anyway.

In a wargame we have the artificial construct that we take a discrete penalty at a discrete range (unless you are doing a small bucket of integral calculus in game!). Without premeasuring, you don't have 100% confidence whether your unit's target is just inside or just outside the penalty range. You take the shot anyway. Or you withdraw.

Thanks etotheipi.

There are actually some historical restrictions on shooting. One of them being the gun sight reticle if it shows ranges.
Generally, a lower velocity will have max range marks on the gun sight lower than high velocity guns. An exception might be guns specialized for firing HE rounds.

The AP German 88 is 4000m, the 75 is 3000. The HE can be up to 5000m.

I have read an account where a gunner elevated his gun past the max range line on his gun sight and did achieve a hit. As always, there are always exceptions.

"Effective Range" is normally stated as the max range of a 50% chance to hit so opening fire past effective range would be common and use bracketing fire.

Another factor is the "Fire Control" method the gunner is using. The first round is normally called a ranging shot because you are not expecting a hit but to get close enough to bracket the target and make corrections for the follow up shot which should be more accurate. I can't recall any games that reflect that other than mine but I think there are some.

In my system there is no "penalty range." I use 100m range increments with a D20 roll to hit. I plead guilty to being somewhat of a gunnery nerd and have the trajectory spreadsheet calculations to prove it reflecting error budgets used by the Ballistics Research Lab.

Wolfhag

I can't recall any games that reflect that other than mine but I think there are some.

I don't have a lot of scenarios where this would be relevant. In a lot of the scenarios, the turns cover a period that would include multiple shots by multiple people in a unit. In most of the others with single engagement = single shot, the combatants are in rapidly evolving conditions where the various types of test shots (ranging, tracer rounds, spotter shots (3rd party correction is common in naval gunfire), walk on, salvo spread, shoot-shoot-look-shoot, etc.) don't apply, either.

When it is relevant, the scenario usually just gives all shooters a "-1" on the first shot, then you remove the "hasn't shot yet" token. If it's a dense engagement, one maneuver without shooting at a legit target adds the token back.

I mentioned this being rare because that's the reason we do this in scenarios. It sounds like your game would result in scenarios where more detailed test shots would be highly relevant, so it makes sense to be in the rules vice scenarios.

"Effective Range" is normally stated as the max range of a 50% chance to hit

People who design rules based on documented effectiveness data should be forced to repeat this as a mantra for 2 minutes, four times a day!

I used to generate those numbers for a small number of military systems, then oversee teams that did it for larger numbers of systems. Nowadays, I do that mostly for non-military systems (but there's a lot of cross-over, esepcially in "high-tech"). Misuse of that data makes me cry.