Page 1 of 1

Learning and discovering: scales question

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:42 pm
by Jcfrog2
learning the system, will try to have French players to use GDA instead of that Fr system they all want. Not easy.

I have a scale problem:
15mm: 15cm = one column move and musket fire. it states 1mm=1m ok. And then that a turn is 10 minutes (hardly we would want less as no way they would change their minds every 10 minutes on orders etc.)
So a column has the feet in mud? 6x 150m = 900m it only moves max 900m an hour!!!! way too slow. and cavalry ...1.5 km /hour?
really? look at the real stuff in Kriegspiel (even with 1/4th time for stopping etc. realign)
it looks like 1980s rules that were doing a turn per minute then cheating stating assuming 15minutes or something completely warping distances time and play. Or did I miss something?
I feel it hard tinkering with it as it might strongly disturb the game's inner balance. And do not tell me it is unimportant, please.

Re: Learning and discovering: scales question

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:54 pm
by Peter
Is it important? Yes for a simulation; relationship between time and movement may well be one of the things that goes in order to ensure playability though.
Even during a battle, troops spend lots of time doing nothing. Without having complicated rules for transmitting orders, and eliminating the 1000 foot general (which allows rapid reaction to a changing situation), these delays are really hard to introduce. So most rules play with the timescales above. Doing a battle in real-time-and motion is very difficult.
The alternative is an abstract system where unit attacks are resolved as a single action (often with little chance for the defender to react much) and the time then calculated out. I've never seen these rules, but often pondered how I might achieve the objective.


Re: Learning and discovering: scales question

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:46 pm
by siggian
Time scale and distance scale are useful tools to help ground any set of rules with reality, but a game really needs to feel right and play well. Ultimately, this means that an absolute scale is not all that important, but a relative scale is. Let's say that muskets have a maximum range of 100 yards and artillery has a maximum range of 1000 yards (the actual numbers aren't that important). But say a game says 12" for musket fire. An absolute scale would be 120" (10 feet) for artillery, which really isn't practical for most games (because of its size). A relative scale might tone that down to 48". In game terms, marching infantry that 48" to close with the artillery might be scary and damaging enough that it seems like 120".

This is a long winded way of saying that that the interaction between infantry, cavalry, and artillery in terms of moving and firing seeming relatively correct can be more important that being literally correct.

Re: Learning and discovering: scales question

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:58 pm
by DCRBrown

One cannot accurately reflect a military simulation on a table top that measures, on average, 6 foot x 5 foot, when using 15mm or 28mm figures. The table size we use limits the ability to reflect the true depth of battlefields.

On a map, as used in military wargames and of course Kriegsspiel, one can be more accurate with movement rates, because one is not limited by depth. (Though Von K does state the movement rates in Kreiegsspiel are the maximum.)

Though as a counter-point, I do recall walking a certain section of Salamanca, and our pace was not far off 2kph, and that was without kit, realignment, death, etc.