I had a chat with Bos of Border Baronies about scaling in wargames, both for distance and for time.
We reference The Discovering Wargames Series and Bill Lamming's Medieval Campaign and Battle Rules: Early Wargaming Rules Volume 5
You can read more of bos’ thoughts on RPGs and wargames at his blog Border Baronies and follow on X Border_Baronies.
The original chat:
Bos — 07/05/2024 5:38 AM
So I have this thesis and I wanna mirror it against you guys to see if there's any credence to it
Or if I'm just shizoposting internally
For FOEGYG I'm very much leaning towards a skirmish-movement strategic system, because I feel like those scale best
Particularly skirmish movement over rank-n-file, since what you effectively say with scaling in such a system is "every fig represents the smallest organisational unit in an army which is still useful to model"
Whereas in rank-n-file the smallest organisational scale is the unit, but you subdivided that into figures
There are advantages to that, in the sense that you can more easily model attrition, but at the extreme it does start to come apart at the seams. In a battle with, for example, less than 20 men on a side, the rules of rank and file don't really figure into play, and probably hinder stuff. Whereas in a skirmish-style game that's no real concern; it just means each 1:1 figure can be moved independently
Bos — 07/05/2024 5:46 AM
The strategic part is effectively a process of elimination. Making a game that could arbitrarily scale up tactical doesn't work well. All the minutiae that a tactical level game require at worst make less sense, but at the worst start getting in the way. With a strategic game at a 1:1 level is just means that we're using larger time increments so all of those details are abstracted out. The combat still works and still feels more or less congruent
Does any of that sound reasonable in any way?
@Bos
The strategic part is effectively a process of elimination. Making a game that could arbitrarily scale up tactical doesn't work well. All the minutiae that a tactical level game require at worst make less sense, but at the worst start getting in the way. With a strategic game at a 1:1 level is just means that we're using larger time increments so all of those details are abstracted out. The combat still works and still feels more or less congruent
Wargame Culture — 07/05/2024 7:54 AM
This is an interesting observation. I think it warrants a long detailed video style answer. But the tldr is, there's only an aesthetic difference in the physical objects used to represent the various units.
1:X scaling with figures or cubes only matters if you want the units to have a certain "look".
A stand (that represents a unit) is a stand, whether it is a group of 20 figures representing 200 men or just a piece of cardboard that has the footprint of 200 men.
It's the ground scale that is the most important piece when it comes to movement. If one inch equals 10 yards, then evolutions like wheeling and facing changes matter, whereas if one inch =1,000 yards then those evolutions can be abstracted away.
Bos — 07/05/2024 8:37 AM
Took me a few tries to parse the first thing to understand what you mean. I get it now I think.
1: yeah, I agree that whatever you use to represent something doesn't matter. However, I do think there are gameplay implications for skirmish vs rank and flank
And yeah, part of that is due to the combination of ground scale and time, but I do feel just from... "game feel" there's also a big difference
@Bos
Took me a few tries to parse the first thing to understand what you mean. I get it now I think. 1: yeah, I agree that whatever you use to represent something doesn't matter. However, Ido think there are gameplay implications for skirmish vs rank and flank
Wargame Culture — 07/05/2024 8:43 AM
All of it is due to ground scale.
If your scale is 1 mm equals 1 yd, then a unit of 150 men that is 50 wide and 3 deep would be represented by a stand 50 mm wide and 3 mm deep.
Basically a matchstick.
At that scale evolutions will still matter.
At the Kriegsspiel scale of 10 mm equals 250 yd evolutions no longer matter.
This is why I said it needs to be a video so I can show you the different pieces and describe the ground scale more effectively
1
Bos — 07/05/2024 8:44 AM
My instinct says ground scale matters because if like... You can move something like 10x whatever 'cost' a wheel would incurr in a turn you might as well make it not cost anything
Sorry, time scale*
Wargame Culture — 07/05/2024 8:45 AM
I have a bunch of 15 mm American Civil War and Napoleonic troops that are mounted 20 pieces or figures on a base that is 60 mm by 20 mm. That base can represent a platoon, A company, or even a regiment, depending on the ground scale
.
The ground scale determines the time scale.
They are inextricably linked.
Bos — 07/05/2024 8:48 AM
They all are
Though the most common external input is man scaling (edited)
Bos — 07/05/2024 8:49 AM
Not yet. I'll have to put more effort into getting it once I'm back from holiday
But my point is: you could feasibly also say
"I need to fit this 50x50 battlefield onto my table. I'll adjust the other scales to fit"
At which point that ground scaling determines figure and time scale
Wargame Culture — 07/05/2024 8:52 AM
You are almost there sir. Ground scale is the very first consideration, everything else is derived.
Bos — 07/05/2024 8:53 AM
Is it? I'd usually start with figure scaling because that's the most common point causing issues
I'd want to scale up/down to both fit my collections (pushing 2000 cubes about makes a game go way longer), as well as not going too small (an army is 1 figure)
Wargame Culture — 07/05/2024 8:54 AM
What issues are you describing?
If the whole army is just one figure, then the battlefield is a 3 cm by 3 cm square
And then you just get out the stupid rule cyclopedia and go through the hecking spreadsheet exercise
Bos — 07/05/2024 8:56 AM
Game length increases (superlinearly) with figure count, but you don't want to go too small because that makes a battle feel less interesting. So I'd try to find a sweet spot in between where I can model any and all units in each army reasonably but not smaller
SO I'd say that generally that comes before ground scale
@Bos
Game length increases (superlinearly) with figure count, but you don't want to go too small because that makes a battle feel less interesting. So I'd try to find a sweet spot in between where I can model any and all units in each army reasonably but not smaller
Wargame Culture — 07/05/2024 9:00 AM
If you want to model all of the units in a reasonable fashion, then you start with the smallest unit.
Figure out it's IRL footprint and use that to determine the ground scale based on the table size you have available.
I think another way to look at it would be to assess the battle from the point of view of where is it going to take place?
How much in game Land do you need to properly simulate this battle?
What is the scale that is determined by representing that land on the tablespace that you have available?
If for example, you want to model the Battle of Gettysburg, and represent the entire town being surrounded by tens of thousands of men, that's going to smash the scale down pretty small.
1
@Wargame Culture
If you want to model all of the units in a reasonable fashion, then you start with the smallest unit. Figure out it's IRL footprint and use that to determine the ground scale based on the table size you have available. I think another way to look at it would be to assess the battle from the point of view of where is it going to take place? How much in game Land do you need to properly simulate this battle? What is the scale that is determined by representing that land on the tablespace that you have available?
Bos — 07/05/2024 9:09 AM
If you want to model all of the units in a reasonable fashion, then you start with the smallest unit.
Figure out it's IRL footprint and use that to determine the ground scale based on the table size you have available.
I honestly believe it's a tradeoff. For example, if both sides bring like... bigger units consisting multiples of 20, you might as well do 1:20 because it speeds up the game without being to anyone's detriment or advantage (or of course some divisor of that if you want multiple figures/stands per unit).
Wargame Culture — 07/05/2024 9:18 AM
Except that you're getting caught up in the idea of 1:X again.
How big is the stand that represents any particular unit?
I have sort of standardized my basing, due to a large purchase I made many years ago, to bases that are 40 mm wide by 30 mm deep.
The number of figures that I put on each of those bases is purely for aesthetics, and being able to identify what kind of unit it is.
A base with three figures, kind of scattered about, is a skirmish unit. A base with six figures in two lines of three is a rank and flank formation.
Each of these bases then just gets a number of hit points, as it were, depending on the scale (by which I mean overall scope) of the battle I'm trying to represent.
Ground scale of the battlefield itself determines how far each of these stands will move, and how long a turn should be. (edited)
Bos — 07/05/2024 9:23 AM
Except that you're getting caught up in the idea of 1:X again.
No I get what you're saying. I'm just trying (and failing) to come at this from a different angle, and that both ground and figure scale can be used as input on trying to figure out the other two and which (or both) you do can be dependent on different factors.
Wargame Culture — 07/05/2024 9:50 AM
When you say come at this from a different angle, what I hear is "I can pound a nail into a board with a hammer or a crescent wrench."
Which is technically true, but using the crescent wrench affects other factors in a way that using a hammer does not.
Figure scale and/or the number of figures on a base is completely irrelevant to the mechanics of the game.
I can put one 54 mm figure on a 30x40 base and call that a platoon, or a regiment.
If my ground scale is 1 in equals 10 yd, then that single game piece can move, say, 12inches/120 yards in 1 minute.
If my ground scale is 1 in equals 250 yd, then that one game piece can move 1/2 inch/125 yards in one minute.
At either ground scale that one single 54 mm figure can represent 10 men or 100. (edited)
Worrying about figure scale is what is causing you the problems.
Thanks for reading!
Be sure to check out the WIP Tabletop Skirmish rules, The Killing Fields. Everyone who runs a playtest and sends an AAR with constructive criticism will receive a complimentary PDF of the completed product!
Share this post