My son and I often have odd discussions where we relate gaming to real life. As you do. When watching movies, he often says "Bet that guy has an extra attack or two wounds" when a villain is particularly tough or persistent - referring to ME:SBG where heroes (and arch villains) roll extra attack dice or have extra wounds. Or "looks like he passed his Fate roll" when a villain or hero re-emerges from certain death.
Often when we are out driving, we say stuff like "where would be the best place to set up a machine gun" or "if I wanted to cover this crossroads, I'd set up an anti-tank TOW here and a squad or so here. You could cover all the way to the bridge but fall back onto that reverse slope" Yeah, perhaps we are weird.
Something we have noticed a lot while doing this is how limited line of sight actually is. We live in a very flat part of Queensland, Australia. There are barely any hills and what we might call a hill wouldn't even count as one in any other part of the world.
However, there are plentiful slight depressions and undulations in the ground - easily enough to obscure a crouching human. In fact it's very difficult, even when looking along even a relatively straight road, to find many places where you truly have 300m+ line of sight.
The problem of the perfectly flat wargame table. Flat tables suck.
I always found artificially capped weapon ranges stupid. I remember the hard 24" rifle range in Bolt Action would barely cover the length of an Arnhem/Pegasus Bridge kit they sold. It LOOKS weird. Like, the model could probably pitch a grenade that far, in true scale. (It's why I avoid vehicles in any scale over 15mm). But this range capping may actually not be as stupid as it appears.
In reality, due to depressions in the ground, culverts, ditches, etc in real life terrain - things not properly modelled on our completely ironingboard-flat wargame table - might extremely restrict shooting ranges.
But limiting range on a perfectly flat table seems silly. After all, the target is sitting in the middle of a bowling green. It seems like bullets magically evaporate at 25" in mid air.
So - stop using a flat table draped in a sheet, dummy - make some proper 3D terrain!
Not many of us can store a special foam block base table where slopes, depressions etc are built in. Heck, where I live you can't even get the pink foam beloved of modellers. So making a proper 3D table will depressions, ditches, trenches etc recessed into the table is not always a viable option. (Especially if like me you play 10 genres and need lots of terrain for each).
So why not lots of hills as scatter terrain then?
This leads us to another problem. Or set of problems actually.
Wargame Hills Suck. Wargame RULES for Hills also suck.
Mesa/contour/wedding cake vs Dome/Slope
I'm going to classify the hill types I most often see as plateau-like "mes/contour map/tiered wedding cake" style with sharp edges/defined elevation bands like you see in some Westerns; and a more natural true "long sloped hill" or "single peak sloped dome aka boob style" which looks nicer (ahem) but is less defined game-wise and probably more tippy. Also models tilted 45d sideways on their flat bases looks a bit silly too..
Hopefully my artistic skills show the type of hills I mean....^
Determining who is "Uphill" is a pain
Usually there's a bonus for melee if you're uphill. But it isn't always clear who is actually uphill. If you have single minis and a wedding cake hill, it's probably straightforward enough. I.e. are you on the next contour or closer to the next contour = you are uphill.
But what if only part of your unit is uphill? You have a big square block of troops (al la rank/flank) or a messy blob/squad of scattered minis (Bolt Action/40K) and you+your opponent's units are angled almost parallel to the peak/ridge? (see above)
Actually while we are talking about elevation/uphill....
Line of Sight is a pain
Who can shoot whom? If you're not using true line of sight, it's a bit (a lot!) messy. I'd presume for sloped hills, the peak/ridgeline would block line of sight if neither unit is on the ridge itself. Buuuuut unless you mark it on with a pen or something (boo) the ridge is kinda just inferred. Not very clear cut for game purposes.
Even for wedding cake hills.... whilst you could presume the hill itself blocks line of sight through... what about between levels? (see below)
For natural sloped long ridge hills, you could say a ridgeline goes from one side of the hill to the other which makes it a bit more clearcut, blocking fire across it, but.... ......what if a hill has rounded ends?
Along the hill slope lengthwise should be obvious, but what about a "boob" shaped dome hill? Or around the end/tip of a long, rounded hill?
What about firing over your own units? (my favourite from the PC Total War series). How do you determine when it is feasible? How far away do you need to be from your ally? How steep the slope? Options like arcing fire vs direct fire adds complexity.
Cliffs are a pain. Model placement in general is annoying.
The steep bits are a pain for placing models no matter what the hill method. They either tip over (slopes) or can't balance well (wedding cakes)... or are just impassable terrain - which is a cop out (unless it truly is impassable and not just "a bit steep, fine for actual people but no-go to minis on bases").
So what are you telling us?
Anyway, I just wanted to vent. I don't have any good answers here (sorry!) but I was considering making some (sloped) vs (wedding cake) hills my The Forest project, and I didn't like either. My only conclusion are hills are more trouble than they are worth - both annoying to make (can't source pink foam), use (slopes/ledges are annoying with based minis) and play (most rules I own don't do hills - they either ignore hills or mention them very simply in passing) good luck if you don't love 1:1 skirmish+true line of sight/aka bending your face to the table all the time. I have a table permanently set up but tucked away to the side and it is a big pain. Maybe I need a laser pointer. Hmm maybe I need to get some "true line of sight" tips or just have a rant (I suspect I may have discussed this already as we're on... 100+ game design posts?).....
Apparently I promised to make my kids an ice cream spider so any further thoughts on hills/flat ground will have to wait...
Hills are really a PITA, ruleswise and for miniature placement. If you want to make them realistic it could be hard to place any models.
ReplyDeleteA compromise between appearance and usability is mandatory. For sloped hills you have to make sure that the slope is not too steep that models tip over. For hills with cliffs you have to make sure that miniatures fit on each level of the Wedding cake. The production of sloped hills could be sped up by using just some foam cut into form and placed below a gaming mat. That way you could at least create hills faster. This obiously does not work for wedding cake hills.
Rules wise, I don't like true line of sight and prefer area terrain to speed up play. For a hill it could work like this: hill blocks line of sight. If a unit is on the hill it can be seen by every unit that can see the hill. If the hill grants a bonus, it only grants this bonus if the unit that is interacting with the unit on the hill is not on the hill. If both units are on the same hill they fight like they were both on open ground. If a hill has multiple levels, you could use the same rules, just extending blockage of line of sight to miniatures on intermediate level and out of sight to the other unit. Battletech also had levels assigned to units, e.g. a Mech could not hide behind a level 1 hill but only behind level 2 or higher. This is a simple system from my point of view which could be easily introduced to other games.
Wedding cake is more playable, but looks stupid (imo). It's like those plateaus/mesas in the American westerns. It's very LEGO.
Delete:-/
It's why my current tables have NO hills and I've sliced up my hills to make medieval walls...
-eM
We never had any hills when we played 40k, just mostly L-shaped ruins and forrests as they did not case a lot of issues with model placement.
DeleteFor my planned 15mm WW2 project I will build some sloped hills because it was quite often a goal to conquer a hill to have a better scouting or shooting position. I have to read the Battlegroup rules on hills again though.
In games with more terrain abstraction (2D terrain), hills work much better. In Battletech they lead to interesting decisions. Do I hide behind a hill or use a small hill as cover. Do I try to innitiate close combat from higher elevation to kick another mech in the face? It is a lot harder to do this with 3D terrain that doesn’t look ridiculous like the 3D Battletech terrain on offer by GF9 (something like Hextech).
My only current hills are tiered wedding cake ones I use for sci fi 6mm/15mm and undersea submarine dogfights.
Delete..cos it's sci fi and I can be cool with that. Normal hills... jury is still out before I go making any....
-eM
"For my planned 15mm WW2 project I will build some...."
DeleteHey, did you end up starting a blog? How are your projects going?
(remember - ANY progress is progress!)
Today I am rained in and I am basing up Quar. Yep, anteaters fighting WW1...
-eM
I skimmed the Battlegroup rules and found nothing regarding hills. Maybe that is the reason that the scenarios in the campaign books almost never contain any. In contrast, the Skirmish Campaigns books seem to be overflowing with hills...
DeleteI “started” a blog by buying a Wordpress domain, but due to an annoying project at work and family obligations, I did not have any time to set it up. Due to the same reasons, I did not achieve much progress with painting. I finished my Pak 40s and started working on more German artillery and anti-tank guns. Maybe I need to switch to something more colorful as I cannot see “dunkelgelb” anymore. I also have built my Cawdor gang for Necromunda. Maybe I should paint them or my old Eldar miniatures.
"I skimmed the Battlegroup rules and found nothing regarding hills."
DeleteIn general, hills don't seem to get much explanation (at least the rules I own). I suspect if I dug out my old WRG 2000s-1990s rules it might be different...
"Maybe I need to switch to something more colorful as I cannot see “dunkelgelb” anymore. I also have built my Cawdor gang for Necromunda. Maybe I should paint them or my old Eldar miniatures."
-Yep! Do this - do the easy/interesting jobs first. Maybe do Cawdor? Start small - a big job can be paralysing. I have 2-3 projects on at a time, and switch between them; and I often have a small "palate cleanser" task of 3-4 random minis. I seldom paint more than 12 or so at a time either....
A huge WW2 task (camo is boring!) would be tough.... do you have enough of each side to play a (small?) game with what you have?
-eM
I have at least one platoon with support weapons and transports ready for Germany and Russia plus some T-34s. I still need to build some terrain. Then, I should be able to play at least platoon level WW2 games. Maybe a terrain project would be fine but my thoughts are currently more with 90s 40k, e.g. the "over the top" presentation and rules of 2nd edition. Even though the miniatures are much better today, the game back then did not take itself very seriously. So basically everything was possible.
Delete"I have at least one platoon with support weapons and transports ready for Germany and Russia plus some T-34s. I still need to build some terrain. Then, I should be able to play at least platoon level WW2 games."
DeleteWhat are you going to use? Bolt Action is quicker/familiar and would look good with 15mm but how have you based your infantry? FoW style?
I like Chain of Command's 'feel' but it's more involved imo. I haven't played Battlegroup as the rules are insanely expensive in Australia.
"Maybe a terrain project...."
MDF is cheap, and is acceptably looking/quick to make. Dunno if I posted up my 15mm WW2 terrain? Terrain is important if you intend to actually PLAY. As soon as I started my forest terrain it 'unblocked' 3 projects all using/requiring forest terrain... Weirdly it will probably be the biggest motivator...
"....my thoughts are currently more with 90s 40k, e.g. the "over the top" presentation and rules of 2nd edition.."
Sounds like you've got 3 projects to switch between when you lack momentum; WW2, terrain, and more 'fun' oldschool 40K painting.
-eM
One of the first wargame table I played on was a sand table. That was amazing.
ReplyDelete-Eric Farrington
I've got one, but the grit it introduces to model boxes is not worth it. :-(
DeleteAlso I'm not allowed to have it inside....
-eM
Interesting. Not heard of that feedback before. Thanks.
Delete- Eric Farrington
It's like a trip to the beach with kids. You can clean most of the sand off, but some of it makes its way into the car mat/into the house.... :-/
DeleteThat said they are super cheap, easy to make and use and I still have the ones I made a decade ago from MDF, PVA glue and some strips of pine for edges...
-eM
Okay, my conclusion is we're really discussing the cosmetic appeal of terrain, and cosmetics should never get in the way of playability.
ReplyDeleteSo, as we understand that the map is not the territory, then the table is not the terrain.
From this position we can abstract all the line-of-sight problems with rules. For example; models spend points to move, and the distance moved versus the end state (in cover v in the open) is a function of the cost paid, where points to pay that cost may not be available.
Just my thoughts. YMMV.
I'd say cosmetics is A factor but not THE only factor. I.e. wedding cake tiered mesa hills work better 'game-wise' but look silly unless it is some American western game. But they still have issues.
DeleteSloped (aka 'real') hills have more issues with ridges and peaks esp those with rounded ends.
However not many rules I own/have read have dealt well with those issues, such as
(a) line of sight
(b) relative uphill vs downhill / overhead fire
(c) cliffs and steeper slopes than our minis can handle
To a degree it is cosmetic - I COULD use a piece of flat felt as a hill (and simply say you can shoot on/off a hill but not through a hill, or uphill is when you are on the hill and your opponent isn't; making clearcut easy rules) - but this is just a 1-tier wedding cake and would be abstracting away much of what make a hill, a hill.
-eM
Flat "hill" counters are the standard for vintage hex-and-chit wargaming, but it defeats the entire point of 3-D miniatures wargaming, and begs the question why one isn't playing a boardgame. Game aesthetics should be consistent, with hills and terrain that match the dimensionality of the pieces.
Delete- GG
"...the table is not the terrain." This. While I appreciate the visual appeal of a well done model of the battlefield, I view a game as modeling the action, so that the idea that "cosmetics should never get in the way of playability" is more important. So: The models of the "stuff" (troops and terrain) should contribute to the players' ability to gain a usable picture of the tactical situation -or at the very least not present a visual that requires ignoring (as in the Pegasus Bridge example).
ReplyDeleteFor hills I think having something physical helps create a proper picture. I use foam sheets covered by a cloth (either flannel sheet or light blanket) which indicates contour lines (or pinned to show cliffs). The ground scale determines the height of the levels (usually the minimum required to provide 100% cover). Ridgelines -if not obvious- can be shown with pipe cleaners (or similar) under the cloth.
For general undulations and/or dead ground, rules are the solution. I've tinkered with the system in "O Group" (WWII battalion-level) which uses a 'spotting die' rolled along with the 'to hit' dice to indicate how well (at this particular moment) the target is visible which affects the quality of any hits that may be obtained. RAW, it's binary, but I've found it no trouble to create/apply a graded result that takes into consideration both the type of ground and range to the target.
"For general undulations and/or dead ground, rules are the solution. I've tinkered with the system in "O Group" (WWII battalion-level) which uses a 'spotting die' rolled along with the 'to hit' dice to indicate how well (at this particular moment) the target is visible which affects the quality of any hits that may be obtained...."
DeleteThanks for that - probably due to the genres I play of late I don't see many spotting rules (my historical rules tend towards the light end of the spectrum).
I'll tinker with spotting dice - I had considered just making range modifiers more extreme past a certain point vs certain targets etc.
-eM
I think you'll find it usefull. By modifying the effect of an attack (in addition to a possible modification of the 'to hit' roll) the use of the spotting die does add an extra step/roll (i.e.: a defensive 'save' roll), but the large variation in results can represent most (all?) differences on the battlefield unique to each situation of terrain/range without the bother of applying separate mechanics to each variable (which would take up more time, imo).
DeletePS- The granularity can be adjusted/tuned by using whatever die for the spot produces the most attractive results: d6, 8, 10...220-221, whatever it takes! ; )
DeleteSpotting dice should trade quantity of hit for quality, which makes sense in modern sniper doctrine. The spotter gives a +n to the sniper's to-hit roll(s), converting misses to hits, hits to crits, denying cover saves, etc.
Delete- GG
I'm a laser pointer TLOS 1:1 scale guy.
ReplyDelete- GG
+1. It's one of the benefits of taking time to build contours-under-cloth - the little red dot doesn't lie! https://brawlfactory.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/down-in-the-stream.jpg (sorry for the klumsy klogging of goof-posts)
DeleteTLOS, while generally a quick solution when rules writing, assumes your little army men are frozen very precisely in place, standing upright at all times atop a base which adds to their height. This exacerbates the terrain LoS issues.
DeleteTLOS is just as silly/abstract in its own way. It's like "spot the statue on the pedestal of the soldier in parade stance"
-eM
As opposed to magic cylinder?
DeleteAny presumed movement on the part of either model is just part of the to-hit roll, or possibly the cover save.
Or do you imagine a need for a full set of standing, crouching, kneeling, prone models?
- GG
Feel free to disagree with the assertion: "true line of sight is also abstract/silly" by giving explanations and examples of why it is not silly, or why is it indeed the most accurate method of showing spotting/who can or can't shoot where.
Delete-eM
I think the problem with TLOS is that you model your miniatures to your advantage. By using only kneeling miniatures you are harder to see than standing miniatures of the same unit while paying the same points. I could imagine that competitive players will abuse such a situation. Infinity tried to solve the issue with siluettes, e.g. magical cylinder.
DeleteIn Battletech, every unit type had a height level IIRC. This way you could see in a fast way whether LOS was given. I am not sure whether this would be feasible in a tabletop wargame with real terrain as the level Information for terrain would need to be documented somewhere else than on the terrain itself.
It's a wargame, so of course, TLoS is an abstraction, and every abstraction makes tradeoffs. I just prefer using the actual model over defining magic cylinder because the models are the point, or we'd be playing hex-and-chit. I don't really care about 'modeling for advantage' because TLoS is inherently symmetric - if I can shoot you, you can shoot me. If someone wanted to model everyone prone or kneeling, that's a choice, and they would be denied the ability to shoot over obstacles that a standing model inherently clears.
Delete- GG
I like to question everything rules-wise. I agree TLOS is quicker to write and SEEMS more straightforward. It has a sense of fairness - you see me, I see you.
DeleteIt also contains many abstractions and inconsistencies. Usually it includes many generalisations and sub rules i.e. do arms count, what is 1/2 or 1/4 cover? There's the extra height of a base interacting with visability, which may be 'fair' but makes terrain that should cover the mini less relevant. No one believes the man is crouched the whole game, but it kinda is for spotting purposes.
Random thought: Maybe we should measure TLOS to the base only? It's about the height of a fully prone figure... Anything above that you must state if it is peeking/fully prone or hidden. Would only work with 1:1 skirmish; TLOS breaks down with 40K esque groups anyway....
Often TLOS includes abstracted terrain as well i.e. even with TLOS forests are often the area; not individual trees. So it's not consistently "true" TLOS....
Lol I just googled "true line of sight" and one of the first hits was me complaining about its universal, prescriptive use back in 2015 from all the 40k copiers...
https://deltavector.blogspot.com/2015/02/game-design-27-true-line-of-sight.html
TLOS is OK and seems quick to write (but probably not clarify) but isn't the optimal or only solution.
I'm primarily disagreeing with "Have TLOS+laser = all is fine."
:-P
-eM
Well... TLoS + laser == perfectly fine.
DeleteI never claimed optimal, nor that others needed to like it. It's just a personal preference, like marzipan-filled chocolates, or hot fudge sundaes with pistachio ice cream. I wouldn't read more into it than that. LOL
As for the issues you called out, they're much easier to resolve than you're making them out to be. Personally, I prefer taking LOS between head/torso/hull, ignoring arms and weapon barrels. Models (bases) in terrain receive a minimum cover save, regardless of the extent to which they're obscured by modeled terrain (because full scale terrain density is hardly playable).
Measuring to the base defeats the point of having models in the first place if you're just going to ignore them. Might as well only use bases, and that point, you've reinvented 'magic cylinder' with very short, shallow cylinders.
Or, you could replace the model with its name, but then simplify to use an glyph or icon, so you've reinvented using counters. You might as well do the same with terrain and copy a vintage hex-and-chit ruleset.
- GG
IMO, it seems like you're working really hard to invent problems with TLoS, when it's your personal preference for magic cylinder. Logically, each player should bring a set of cylinders to use so both sides can verify LOS cylinder to cylinder, although standees would work just as well.
"IMO, it seems like you're working really hard to invent problems with TLoS, when it's your personal preference for magic cylinder."
DeleteIf you read the comments, you may realize you are the only one repeatedly bringing up the 'magic cylinder' - by which I presume you mean some sort of Infinity-esque size template?
I'm not imagining you have any particular beliefs or likes. Unless someone invented TLOS why would anyone care?
I'm just encouraging the idea there may be other ways to do spotting - TLOS of sight is certainly very prevalent in the rules I use. A bit like I reckon there might be more to morale than "take a test once you've lost 50%" I question "TLOS and call it a day."
So yep, I do point out problems.
I'm interested in answers to things like why TLOS is the best choice; what are alternatives, where does it "fall down" and we could do better?
I mean having to refer to a separate cylinder (if that's what you mean) sounds consistent - but pretty annoying to do often - unless you have very few men.
A lot of rules have baked in 'tradition' from their ancestry/inspiration. Usually it's because it works fine. But I enjoy getting ideas and playing devil's advocate, curious if there is a better way.
-eM
I misunderstood that you were playing Devil's Advocate - sorry about that.
DeleteYou repeatedly propose a standardized height relative to the base - the very definition of 'magic cylinder', so I don't understand why you won't call it that for simplicity's sake. It's like you're going out of your way to avoid using the proper name. Even if you're playing DA, it's poor form to feign ignorance and force me to do the work when you know very well the name of what you're proposing.
As noted, your 'problems' with TLoS are largely invented, like your strange use of TLoS vs cover convention in the thing you linked. In every TLoS game I've played, having the model's base in / on bounded terrain provides some level of cover save, and now I really wonder why that's such a problem for you. Is that another made-up debate point that you'll concede or an actual issue on the tabletop?
If the flaws you raise are invented rhetoric without actual tabletop correspondence, then I think it's fine for me to dismiss them with a handwave.
Regardless, I do not understand why anybody would choose to use something other than the actual miniature as reference for physical, visual gameplay elements to the maximum extent possible. You keep saying TLoS has problems, yet you refuse to engage with magic cylinder and chits being the obviously worse alternative in every possible way.
I simply want to use the actual miniatures on the tabletop as the absolute reference in a miniatures tabletop wargame - it's the very name of the game type. Perhaps you can explain why the miniatures on the tabletop in a miniatures tabletop wargame shouldn't be the ultimate arbiter of LoS. I'd really like to understand the objection when you are implicitly fine with using the actual miniatures and tabletop for movement and range, as opposed to a grid or hexes.
As I repeatedly stress, it's perfectly acceptable if people use plinths / flying stands to increase model height, or kneeling/prone poses to reduce model height, as TLoS is inherently symmetric (or can be forcibly mandated as such within the rules itself), because the head/torso/hull is of essentially fixed dimension, and any presumed advantage from height is offset by targetabilty - and also the reverse.
Thanks,
- GG
"You repeatedly propose a standardized height relative to the base - the very definition of 'magic cylinder', so I don't understand why you won't call it that for simplicity's sake."
DeleteActually, I don't. You are the one who repeatedly brings it up and say I prefer it. I had a thought about going off the base if standardization is the aim - to avoid recourse to an extra cylinder.
The reason I'm trying to clarify is magic cylinder is just a variation on TLOS, right? It's a standardization. You are still drawing TLOS to the cylinder, right? You replace the mini with a token and grab the laser pointer. It's TLOS with an extra step for standardization.
I feel like I'm saying "I don't think physical money is the best way"
"Oh, you say you love coins not banknotes" when I have not brought up coins at all.
The opposite of TLOS is, as far as I know, "area terrain" where the whole unit or miniature is either in the terrain or not - regardless of what arms or legs are sticking out. If you are drawing line of site to a token or a chit it is the same thing. TLOS to x object.
a) Area terrain = you are in the forest or on the wedding cake, you have cover ("I can't see you or "you have cover" You don't check what the mini can see.
b) TLOS = I can see your arm/head/whatever your definition (or cylinder) = I can see you
In area terrain the minis still define what is in cover - they (their bases) are within the area feature or they aren't. It's just their individual body parts/cylinders etc are irrelevant. You don't need a laser, you just look, see the model is within "wood" area and say "OK he is invisible" without checking what the model actually sees.
"....having the model's base in / on bounded terrain provides some level of cover save, and now I really wonder why that's such a problem for you."
^This is area terrain? "On the terrain?" This reminds me:
"...it's poor form to feign ignorance..."
"that another made-up debate point that you'll concede"
I AM starting to get tired of you repeatedly assigning "emotions" and "people having problems" in your posts which I have noticed in comments in other posts recently.
Please confine yourself to discussing the topics or debating assertions/ideas and not assigning people imaginary emotions/intentions/ideas that exist only in your head or your comments will be removed. This is not reddit.
-eM
40k has no problem using area terrain and TLoS, so I don't understand why you think one must necessarily preclude the other.
DeleteWRT "imaginary emotions/intentions/ideas", it's been very unclear to me whether I was in an authentic "good faith" discussion or a contrived "Devil's Advocate" debate.
As I'm unable to ascertain where things sit, I guess I'll just close with this:
- https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Line_of_Sight_and_the_Magic_Cylinder
It even covers Area Terrain.
- GG
That article is pretty interesting. Thanks!
DeleteI'll have a good look and give a better response, but my initial reaction is magic cylinder is not Infinity like I thought (drawing LoS to a standardized model silhouette as per p18 of N5 rules).... i.e. a 25mm base is 25mm high, a uniform 'square' to draw LoS to rather than the arms/legs/head etc of the model....
...but seems to be focussed on height? (i.e. terrain extends up to infinite height depending on relative size classification) rendering the game table almost 2D? It's more about LOS OVER things. But you referred to comparing cylinder v cylinder, so I assumed Infinity silhouettes...
Thanks AI:
"A devil's advocate is someone who, regardless of personal belief, argues against an idea or takes an opposing view to provoke debate, test the strength of an argument, or uncover flaws. It is used to ensure a thorough, balanced discussion by challenging popular opinions or plans"
That's what I presume we are here to do! Explore wargame concepts and ideas, question assertions and see "is there a better way?"
A good faith argument is when everyone follows the normal interactions like in normal life; no personal attacks, putting words into others mouths, etc.
They are not mutually exclusive or opposites. One is what, the other is how. It's the IDEA, not the PEOPLE we poke at to see if it works.
I was annoyed to be accused of "feigning ignorance" and "poor form" especially if the definitions are not (actually still not) clear. That's the sort of thing I would class as "bad faith" = lack of respect for other people.
-eM
One of the problems (at least with WW2 and onwards) is that our little guys are standing instead of hitting the dirt and hugging cover. That means any hills/depressions have to be big enough so that one standing guy can't see another - and it's hard to do that on a 6'x4' table without making them so steep you may as well go with the wedding cake anyway.
ReplyDeleteWhich is what I've finally resigned myself to. That and just hard-defining some pieces as LOS-blocking whether they actually do or not.
One way to improve the look of the wedding cakes is to treat the sides the same way you do the top. i.e. don't texture and paint the sides of the "cake" like rock - just flock it like the top, and then everything blends in better.
As usual, abstraction is the key to this. Contours that are not modelled are often handled mechanically by "spotting distance", reduced effective weapon ranges, and other "to-hit" factors.
ReplyDeleteRealistically, a modern US Marine can reliably plink targets at 300 yards over open sights. That means, battles have to be either in incredibly built-up areas, we put forces on two different tables, or we do something to abstract the distances for game playability.
These are games and not simulations. Simulation is only part of the equation. It still needs to be fun and a game first. For our purposes anyway.
-Eric Farrington
That 300-yard shot is at a shooting range under perfect conditions. As we saw in Vietnam, real world range is greatly limited by perception and reaction. That's why the US switched from semiautomatic rifles to fully automatic carbines. That "300 yard" range is useless when someone pops out of the jungle at close range and unloads a 30-round AK faster than you can snap 5 rounds...
Delete- GG
On one hand, we have the US adopting heavier rounds for range (presumably due to experience in desert/open areas) and increased kill power.
DeleteOn the other hand, we have the astonishing ineffectiveness of soldiers actually hitting anything in actual stressful combat. I think I saw a stat of something like ~5% accuracy at 50m.
I've also seen a stat that something like 90%? of shooting occurs under 300m and a good part of that (70-80%) under 100m. It was an old book so maybe it's Vietnam era? I'd like to see sources of reliable 300m shots outside a range/in actual combat (barring a specially set up sniper, ofc)
While things obviously need to be scaled and abstracted, I do mind what looks overtly silly on the tabletop though.
....If it looks like the soldiers can bowl a baseball further than they can shoot (Warmachine - admittedly fantasy - had 12" rifles) then I'm out....
-eM
Here we go:
Deletehttps://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0377335
Enjoy! (It's Korean era tho). The graphs make my eyes hurt, but I think it's .4 under 100m which is better than I thought, accuracy then falls off a cliff.
-eM
I like 1/144 figure size because tabletop range matches better, but the US switch to a new rifle is probably more novelty/variety than actual battlefield effectiveness. It's like the US wants every soldier to carry a DMR that also doubles as a LMG with doubled weapon weight and doubled ammo weight! If we posit that modern troops are carrying about as much gear as they reasonably can, then they are going to end up bringing less ammo to the fight, so modeling future American doctrine suggests that they run out of ammo rolling snake eyes.
Delete- GG
I find it interesting that ammo shortage is suddenly a big concern NOW - it's not like bigger round ARs 7.62mmx39 (AK47 etc) or x51 (FN FAL, Galil etc) haven't been used before....
Delete-eM
Yeah, I guess I was not super clear. Engagement ranges are super far. Missiles, drones, and even guys with rifles can fire across open ground long distances. The real issue isn't how far they can shoot accurately, because it is pretty far. I mean skilled snipers have to take into accout the curvature of the earth and its rotation for long shots. The real test is how far can they perceive the target to initiate the "kill chain".
DeleteTherefore, a weapon range of 24 inches does not represent the true range of a rifle, but how far the shooter can effectively perceive and fire the weapon and score a hit/kill. You are abstracting a lot of variables into this range that often go unmentioned such as terrain is never flat, most soldiers hate actually shooting at people like targets, you can only see so far, etc. The rifle can probably actually shoot across the table, but the soldier can not perceive across it.
The point is, we are using abstraction to play the game. Therefore, perfectly flat and tiered wedding cake hills are the norm. The devil is in the details, so we avoid the devil be abstracting a lot of the details away.
- Eric Farrington
The US army has a 55-lb standard loadout with 7 magazines. Currently, that's 210 rds of 5.56mm, but a stated concern is shrinking to 140 rds of 6.8mm with a somewhat heavier rifle. If field accuracy is 5%, they're going from 10+ hits down to 7. Nobody likes going into a fight with LESS ammo than before. OTOH, compare with the switch from the .30-06 M1 Garand to the M16 carbine, and they were carrying a lot MORE ammo, on a lighter, fully-automatic weapon, so that kind of makes up for the switch.
DeleteThe new rifle's longer range is great, but that's what the DMR is for. Otherwise, it's overkill under 300 yards, assuming you don't run out of ammo. The notion of doing mass combat against near peers in body armor seems grossly outdated Cold War doctrine, in the same vein as assuming permissive airspace for A-10 operation with a safe rear free of drones and missiles.
That is, my sense is that the US is overspending on a weapon that was obsolete as soon as the Ukraine War started, and got even worse with the Iran War. They should have gone all-in on counterinsurgency with burst-fire bullpups and semi-automatic snipers, while developing all-new doctrine around drone operators.
- GG
Otherwise, we're agreed on potential range vs real world engagement.
In Early Gunpowder to Modern games I am always wondering how to "model" a smoke factor into the rules. I know some Horse and Musket games have official mechanics for smoke from firing, others abstract it in other ways. However, smoke is something always present but rarely seen on the tabletop.
ReplyDelete-Eric Farrington
That's interesting. I've used the usual cotton wool balls as out-of-ammo markers but the overall fog of gunpowder - I remember reading entire formations being obscured.
DeleteThat's a true fog of war! I wonder what the implications are on the table... range shortens every volley?
-eM
El alcance efectivo de un arcabuz es muy corto (comparando los metros de alcance con la velocidad de avance de una unidad) y su efectividad baja mucho disparando a más de la mitad del alcance. Por eso se disparaba a un grupo grande cuando estaba cerca y sin apuntar demasiado.
DeleteSinceramente, creo que el humo no supondrÃa una gran diferencia al disparar por su forma de uso.
MM
No representarÃa el humo como una penalización plana a la punterÃa, sino como un factor que reduce claridad táctica tras intercambios de fuego sostenido: dificulta evaluación, coordinación o reacción, especialmente a media distancia, más que afectar directamente al impacto individual.
ReplyDeleteMM
So something like a penalty to activate a unit after it has fired once or twice... rather than a -1 to hit?
DeleteYou reckon smoke wouldn't hinder firing at the shortish ranges of muskets?
-eM
Una penalización a activar lo veo más viable.
ReplyDeleteUn arcabuz tiene un alcance máximo de unos 100-150 metros y una cadencia media de un disparo por minuto.
En un minuto un soldado promedio avanzaba 100 metros sin forzar la marcha para perder la cohesión.
Se disparaba al conjunto de la unidad, no a un hombre, por lo que creo que no serÃa demasiado problema como para incluir un modificador.
Creo que el problema principal serÃa recargar el arma con tanto humo y que el humo dificulte la relación con esa unidad y sus aliados (como la comunicación).
MM