Prefered Game Scale and Scope

[Timothy OConnor]

Hello All!

I'm curious as to what most of you prefer with respect to game scale and scope for modern wargames (not concerned with WWII for purposes of this discussion). To keep things consistent, I'll define the terms as follows:

SCALE
team scale: 1 stand = 1 team of 3-5 men / 1 model = 1 vehicle
squad scale: 1 stand = 1 squad of 6-13 men / 1 model = 1 vehicle
platoon scale: 1 stand = 1 platoon of about 30 men or so / 1 model = 3-5 vehicles

SCOPE
platoon level: you command a platoon plus a few supporting assets
company level: you command a company plus some supporting platoons
battalion level: you command a reinforced battalion

Of course certain scales are best used in conjunction with a certain scope. For example, playing a reinforced battalion using the team scale would result in a lot of stands on the table! Every additional stand means extra effort in tracking status, moving, resolving combat, etc. By the same token playing a platoon level game using a squad scale would not be very interesting since you would only have 3-4 stands on the table!

With all of this in mind some natural SCALE/SCOPE combos seem to be:

- team scale / platoon level
- team scale / company level
- squad scale / company level
- platoon scale / battalion level (eg GHQ's rules)

And when considering scale/scope combos for moderns, it seems that certain combos don't work well. For example, the Bradley platoon has 4 IFVs but two squads split across the four vehicles. So, this would work with a team scale or a platoon scale, but at squad scale you have 2 squad stands and 4 vehicles! There's also the issue of representing support weapons such as 60mm and 81mm mortars. At platoon scale it's very easy to say that a stand = about 2-4 tubes. But at lower scales, at what point should 1 stand = 1 tube before overwhelming the player with too many stands?

Also, certain scopes provide for more opportunities to use combined arms tactics. In modern fights you're going to have a greater variety of toys on the table with battalion level games when compared to platoon level games.

There's also the issue of what level of command routinely operates independently. Platoons can operate independently but unless limited to representing patrol-type actions they're going to be operating as part of a company in general. And while battalion operations are very interesting these are less common than company-level actions.

So, what scale/scope combo do you prefer to game with and why?

[hauptgrate]

You can approach a question like this from the standpoint you apparently have -- looking at what would work given actual TO&E -- or....go from the opposite view and look at the "big picture". What is your desired "simulation" level? Do you want to recreate small level combat where you as a player are concerned about how much ammunition tank #1 has, and whether or not team #4 has fired it's AT missile...or do you want to play the role of an operational commander ordering his manuever elements across large areas of terrain? Personally, I play operational level games -- sometimes called a "grand tactical" scale. In a given battle, there are usually elements of 4-6 battalion sized battle groups in play. I also have played some very fun "skirmish" level games -- along the lines of the team scale you are referring to. Almost anything beyond true 1/1 scale is going to run into TO&E problems sooner or later...just keep scaling rules as uniform as possible to help smooth over those arguments which are bound to occur...

[Mickel]

Team scale/battalion level. Means there are somewhere between 30 and 200 stands to handle. The forces are points based, so you can get a lot of light troops for every late model tank - so sometimes there is a less than a whole company on the table but at others there are just about two full battalions of forward deployed troops backed up with artillery etc.

Why? Because the force abstraction is fairly low at this point. The four squadies on the base are four squadies, even if they are used as one. There are high levels of supporting arms. An example is that I can justify a battalion of tube artillery strike (sometimes), where a platoon level game might not have that luxury, and still have a mortar section popping away in support of a platoon.

I've got a plt scale/brigade level rule set too, but that leaves me a little cold at the moment because of the lack of action that this level these days. The jury is out as to why since I've only managed one game so far. Works well for WWII though.

Mike

[probert]

team scale/company level

I am not adverse to platoon level, and hope to paint enough models to get up to battalion.

[Timothy OConnor]

You can approach a question like this from the standpoint you apparently have -- looking at what would work given actual TO&E -- or....go from the opposite view and look at the "big picture". What is your desired "simulation" level? ...

That's a very good point! But here I'm sort of backing into the answer based on what's most desirable on the part of the gamer with the following points in mind:

- We gamers seem to enjoy games with a variety of hardware regardless of level. Whether skirmish or battalion level it's fun to make decisions based on a variety of available assets rather than a purely homogeneous force. At squad level this can mean using assault rifles, grenade launchers, MGs, frags, and smoke grenades. At battalion it could mean tank, arty, and air support.

- We want enough troops on the table to result in a tactically interesting situation but not so many that getting the force on the table requires a massive investment in time and money. Too few troops and the game lacks depth of decision making...too many and it bogs down or becomes a second job just to collect and paint.

- Most gamers only have a limited amount of time to play. This means limited opportunities to play (once or twice per month) as well as limited duration for any given opportunity (2-4 hours).

- We also have limited space since most shops have 4' x 6' tables or we might be playing on a large dining room table. Some have larger tables (mine is 5' x 8') but 4x6 seems to be the most common table size. At 4 x 6 one needs to be aware of force to space ratios. Too many stands relative to table size and maneuver decisions are moot and it's the old hub-to-hub deployment followed by frontal assualt.

- We like detail but abstraction usually makes collecting easier. For example, at team scale / platoon level a typical US infantry platoon might include 1 platoon leader stand, 6 SAW-Assault Rifle Stands, 1 GPMG Stand, and 1 ATGM Stand (and that would be the entire core force!). At platoon scale / battalion level a single infantry company (only part of the core force) might be represented by 1 company command strand, 3 infantry stands w/ATGM capability, and 1 60mm mortar stand. The former approach requires the basic infantry stands to be distinguishable between SAW and GPMG stands. The latter approach does not require such visual distinctions.

I made some cuts at scaling various US formations from platoon up to battalion and using a variety of scaling approaches. Will post for review on Friday.

Tim

[hauptgrate]

Wow! Timothy, your list above is just about the most well written, succinct listing of the dilemmas wargamers face. My point about what level a player wants to simuate could be added. I can't tell you how many times I have had conversations covering these same points... and everybody has a different opinion as to what they think is best. This is great "educational" food for thought.

Another way to scale a game is to play at a low level but pretend it is a higher level. When I first started gaming in the early 80s, we played HO/72nd scale and used individual figures for infantry. We played the actual tabletop game on a 1/1 scale as far as the level of detail went -- we even had names for individual soldiers -- but....we "pretended" that is was at the company scale so three tanks was a "company". Sounds weird but it allowed a great mixing of different equipment. For the last 15 years, we have played a Command Decision based game using the platoon level but...it is also "double scaled" so that a battalion represents a regiment, and a regiment a division. Thus we are able to get a full mix of organizations and support options without having to "fill the table hub to hub with miniatures".

[voltigeur]

Great thread!

My short answer is one player has control of one company in 1 to 1 games. If a Battalion or Regiment is played then the overall commander usually plays the recon suporting arms and reserve. This may sound like a lot but actually will hardly ever be played at the same time.

I also set up the games so the first round down range is fired no later than turn 3. The units out of contact can skip most of the turn phases so a turn is played in about 10 min. and after contact a turn takes about 20 to 30 min.

When I design a scenario I keep in mind the world doesn't end at the table edge. This allows for new units to arrive throughout the game preventing the "parking lot". I actually did a regimental vs Armored Cav troop level game on a 4x6 table one time and it flowed quite nicely. Game started at 6am (Maybe that's why I don't have opponents. ) and went to 10:30 PM. Started as Cav vs Recon company, then Cav vs the 1st 2 battalions, then Cav trying to stay alive and get off the table vs the 3rd Battalion. Head aches and fatiuge prevented the arrival of a Battalion fo 3AD. The Game end was only due to exausted players.

One of the interesting and some times agrivating variables is the aggressiveness or timidity of the company commanders. Will they work together? Over all it helps if they know how to follow orders.

One thing I HATE is points! Screws the TO&E and blows away all historical perspective. I have seen many different ways to do a game with a unit that has suffered casualties in a previous engagement. The best is doing a campaign but a percentage roll for each weapon system is relativly quick and the player can reorganize his command as he sees fit.

Ok the Prozac has kicked in.

[Timothy OConnor]

Another way to scale a game is to play at a low level but pretend it is a higher level. When I first started gaming in the early 80s, we played HO/72nd scale and used individual figures for infantry. We played the actual tabletop game on a 1/1 scale as far as the level of detail went -- we even had names for individual soldiers -- but....we "pretended" that is was at the company scale so three tanks was a "company". Sounds weird but it allowed a great mixing of different equipment. For the last 15 years, we have played a Command Decision based game using the platoon level but...it is also "double scaled" so that a battalion represents a regiment, and a regiment a division. Thus we are able to get a full mix of organizations and support options without having to "fill the table hub to hub with miniatures".

I've had an ongoing related discussion with two friends of mine. One is a die hard 5:1 man who loves the Command Decision scale approach and plays with 20mm figures. The other is a die hard 1:1 man who uses GHQ models (his high quality presentations led me to return to GHQ...I now collect moderns in both 15mm and GHQ's 1/285 because of him!)

Both friends seek historical accuracy (based on their individual perspectives) but over time I realized that both were essentially playing the same scale game! To Haptgrate's excellent point the primary difference is ratio of basic troop stands/models to exotic support troops.

If I place 2-3 infantry stands on the table I can play a team-scale game (so they represent a squad) or a platoon-scale game (so they represent a company). If part of team-scale game using the platoon as the highest level of command, then on-table support options would be fairly limited. If part of a platoon-scale game with battalion as the highest level then the battalion mortar platoon might be represented on-table as well as attached tanks. In either case players will move their troops a certain distance and shoot a certain distance based on a ground scale typically developed to work on an average table size so that troops can't move/fire clear across the table in one turn.

What seems to really matter is this: at what level can a model or infantry stand represent a fairly homogeneous unit of men, weapons, and vehicles? (perhaps with a modifier for special equipment such as ATGMs.) For game purpuses this generally means that a single infantry stand or vehicle model can stand in for 3-5 smaller elements (squads or real vehicles) without too much distortion. So, 4 Bradleys with a few infantry stands can represent a BFV platoon or a BFV company and in many cases there's little difference to the gamer except for details related to infantry stand definitions.

Our collective problem is that we gamers want to make low level tactical decisions (fire the panzerfaust at the tank) and command large combined arms forces for max variety and grand tactical decision making opportunities (prep the objective with arty, fix the enemy with suppressive fire, and then close assault for the kill). Other periods suffer the same problem (every Nappy gamer wants to be Napoleon or Wellington but then deploy company-level skirmishers...the result is games such as Napoleon's Battles in which nominal brigades use battalion-level formations).

I know this is all a gross simplification and I don't mean to lump all rules systems together, but having played lots of different systems I can't help but notice that even when we SAY that our tank models represent 3-5 actual tanks we, as players, talk about them and refer to them as individual tanks. And when we gamers play 1:1 games we still want to have lots of different weapon types on the table so that platoons and companies end up with lots of battalion-level support assets!

Thus the question that I posed above. Regardless of one's prefered scale and scope, at the end of the day (the start of the game!), we'll fill our table with model terrain that LOOKS attractive (otherwise accurately scaled roads might be thinner than spag noodles!) and then populate it with a selection of model AFVs and infantry stands. Scale and scope will then determine the ratio of various troops and the definition of infantry stands with respect to abstraction level.

So maybe the real question is to what degree does desire for detail or tolerance for abstraction drive desired scope and scale? If I want to have a platoon level weapons represented seperately (eg GPMGs and ATGMs) then team scale is my upper limit which begins to define my scope. But if I'm willing to abstract these weapons into platoon-scale infantry stands then battalion level becomes perfectly feasible and even desirable.

There seems to be a middle area that allows for sufficient detail that conveys a sense of tactical flavor (postion that ATGM over there!) while also allowing for lots of weapon differences (hit 'em with the Apaches and mortars and then roll the Bradleys!).

Maybe most rules are really double-scaled so that platoon-scaled games feel like 1:1 games as we maneuver individual AFVs (which are nominally platoons) while team-scaled games creep ever upward in scope so that companies end up with lots of supporting assets.

[1ComOpsCtr]

Tim,

The desired ground scale has a lot to do with making the decision regarding a convenient unit size. How you visualize that representation allows a rules designer to adjust how to fill the battle space.

Desired Battle Space representation gives the designer the upper end of the scale, both for ground scale and figure representative scale and allows an easy conversion up or down the figure representative scale so that stands become fire teams rather than squads and back.

In our rules we use the 1 for 1 figure and vehicle representations, but our fire team stands could easily be used for squad or platoon stands in a larger battle space representation on the same sized table by simply changing ground scale.



You can see the tags, which would allow the platoon to become a company, one step up the ladder of representative figure scale.

Will

[jb]

I've always believed in using 1 to 1 scale. I also firmly beleive that a player should PLAY no more than a company. Now,I also beleive that to have operations replicated on a higher level simply means to have a higher commander. More people should be used to play the chain of command. This is one of the drawbacks-get more people.
I believe in using maps and setting up battles as they are discovered on the maps. This method closley resembles the "real deal". Things like recon play as important a part as the teeth companies. Situations and battles develope because of your recon-offensively or defensivly. This method also to a degree gets rid of the 3000M high general that can see into and over all the woods and villages.
Now what Will mentioned previously about the ground coverage of your units is probably the determining factor of the troop scale to be used. I like to play 1"=100m,so if I mount 4 troops on a 1X1 inch square,I have troops s p r e a d o u t way too much.
A USMC squad covering 300M is just too abstract. One thing I did with my rules is make the first 1" =30M. I did this just for the above reason and for Close comabt (reaction combat in my rules). My troops are also based on 3/4"X3/4" stands so I figure each tropp has about 7M approx between each other. Somer of my troops are mounted on 5mm X 5mm metal bases. These in turn are set on 3/4" X 3/4" bases that have 5 small magnets on it. I can assemble fire team/squads with a different mix if desired. I can also take single casualties.
I've also have been torn on using the 5:1 scale,just because of lack of players. I will still use the chain of command,but each player wouild be now be using a battalion. I also like to see different assets on table.
Like Will I've got my units tagged to where there is no problem on forming units with the current tags. With the magnetised bases my single base which would represent a platoon can have each individual represent a fire team/squad. You see I can also attach a LMG team or an AT team to any platoon.
These are just some of the ways that I enjoy this pursuit...

[hauptgrate]

Good point about ground scale -- it needs to mesh with troop scale. This is especially true with buildings. Let's say you are playing micro armor and have accurately scaled buildings but have a ground scale of 1cm = 50m....your buldings all of a sudden become way too big compared to the ground scale. My friend built a beautiful 1/285 model of an industrial complex he used to work at...the actual size of which was about a city block, but given the ground scale of the game represented an area many times that size... What is a gamer to do? No matter what scale is played, for a game to work and have the right feel, everything -- representational figure scale, basing scale, ground scale, building scale has to work together. It was already pointed out that unless you are literally playing a true 1/1 including ground scale, all roads are too wide....

This is a really good thread because it discusses the philosophy of the hobby while providing ideas. Keep it coming...

[jb]

Good point about ground scale -- it needs to mesh with troop scale. This is especially true with buildings. Let's say you are playing micro armor and have accurately scaled buildings but have a ground scale of 1cm = 50m....your buldings all of a sudden become way too big compared to the ground scale. My friend built a beautiful 1/285 model of an industrial complex he used to work at...the actual size of which was about a city block, but given the ground scale of the game represented an area many times that size... What is a gamer to do? No matter what scale is played, for a game to work and have the right feel, everything -- representational figure scale, basing scale, ground scale, building scale has to work together. It was already pointed out that unless you are literally playing a true 1/1 including ground scale, all roads are too wide....

This is a really good thread because it discusses the philosophy of the hobby while providing ideas. Keep it coming...

...in my games 1 building represents a "block"...
of course some abstraction is required for most rules and scales

[Timothy OConnor]

Desired Battle Space representation gives the designer the upper end of the scale, both for ground scale and figure representative scale and allows an easy conversion up or down the figure representative scale...

Will

Good point Will! Once I figure out a desired level of command I look at typical organic support weapons to determine the outer limits of weapon ranges. I then compare this to the typical table space available and the frontage a given level of command is expected to control.

For example, at battalion level in WWII 81mm mortars represent the longest range support weapons organic to a rifle battalion (not counting the 120mm mortars eventually deployed by the Russians and later the Germans). One can compare their effective range to the battalion's frontage and table space (eg 4 x 6) to back into a ground scale.

On the other hand I've long since given up on strict adherence to ground scales in some ways. Let's say one uses 40 yards per inch (not unreasonable for 81mm mortars firing down the long axis of a 72" table). At that strict scale a model street or road would be very narrow indeed (especially disconcerting in 15mm)!

And if playing true/strict 1:1 in 1/285 basic squad weapons with a range of 500 yards would fire ~63" leaving little margin to maneuver on a 4' x 6' table.

One reason that I've enjoyed my return to microarmor is that model terrain can be more representative compared to 15mm gaming. My friend Mark Luther runs games that look like works of art! From a tactical perspective his terrain is always interesting and better proportioned compared to my 15mm games.

At some point I suppose one must balance strict adherence to ground scale and the practical limitations of model terrain and miniature figures.

[1ComOpsCtr]

Tim,

The reason I went to 1 to 1 scale and 3mm per meter actual terrain scale in both horizontal and vertical is because the games/simulations I run don't totally depend on the table size to be conducted, ...and yet I maintain all unit's miniatures that participate in the conflict accessible. If necessary we use small portable position boards made to work for an off board artillery position, road junction, river crossing, or important bridge tied in with the AOR map.

I refer you to: http://commandoperationscenter.com/friendly_forces.htm and to this next page: http://commandoperationscenter.com/serv02.htm ...which provide a view of some of the smaller sections of the overall simulation.

By directly relating your main board to a detailed map you can add representations of other positions in detail or in general depending on the level of exercise you wish to conduct.

Will

[Hugewally]

I'll admit at first that I didn't read the whole thread...

With that, I prefer more of a skirmish scale for gaming. I can't stand using miniatures in a game where the game scale is so large that you can't throw a hand grenade over a tank or the gun barrel is actually longer than the gun can fire (as an exaggeration).