First the caveats. This addresses only those players who as a guide use ground scales of 1mm on table representing 1m or less.
Second probably only WW2 onwards since there were earlier wars but representing for instance in England the current field layouts originated sonly from 1760 when the enclosure acts started. It may apply earlier but I have insufficient information to make any useful affirmation.
The post only applies to real world fantasy/exercises that take place where real world terrain is an assumption.
In addition rules that use say exponential range allocation are excluded as they cannot model real world situations. I can provide a boring explanation for this but it seems unnecessary.
So, given these caveats if there is anybody out there that even recognises the requirement/Intention what do you consider??
So the question how representative of the real world are you table layouts?
As an example we restrict sight line to a maximum of about 1500m or less based on a Brassies statement that intravisibility is limited to about 10% above that figure generally for northern Europe where we set our scenarios.
Typically or hedge and ditch lines are spaced based on typical map analysis of the situation.
Villages are spaced about 2000m apart based on BAOR assumptions.
Typically we reflect sight lines but contour heights are not.
represented accurately (model to ground scale discrepancies).
Road spacing is based on that of a representative area of real map.
Our observation based on limited experience is that many tables have far to few hedges, ditches and villages than the real world.
So what in game terms (not just in artistic models but in tactical terms) do you model and why?
