Milimetics and Game Experience

[Timothy OConnor]

Some recent wargame experiences got me to thinking about the "geometry of wargaming" and how measuring stuff can change the game experience. And I'm curious about what others think. Here goes...

When gaming it seems that a game's measurement system and "approach" can make a game experience more fun or tedious and trying.

Example 1: My friend Mark recently ran a WWII game. It was a very pleasant experience. He uses "I Ain't Been Shot Mum" and takes a very free-kreigspiel approach. The result is a very easy going gaming experience in which we almost role-play. We do so to such an extant that even when a choice would not be the best from a purely competitive perspective we still make it (eg I decided that the company commander I controlled made certain decisions about his orders to his platoons and I wouldn't change those orders unless I thought the company CO could do so reasonably.)

When we measure in Mark's games we sort of eyeball stuff and don't really pay attention to "fractions of an inch". Nobody tries to push the limits of a shot or move and declare, "Aha! You're within 1/4" of my MG range!" If it's that much on the edge we tend to not take the shot, make the move, etc. Very relaxing!

The problem is that most games (and gamers) which use rulers/tapes/arc templates don't take Mark's easy going approach and most tradtional games become an excercise in high school geometery. (see example 3 below).

Example 2: In my home grown rules I use 4" squares to regulare fire and movement. The elimination of rulers, tapes, and templates seems to allow players to concentrate on the game "narrarive" while still attaining a high degree of game "precision" with respect to distance, etc. The obvious limiting factor is that you need a game mat with 4" squares, but that's easily and cheaply made in about 20 minutes with a felt mat from any farbic store. In fact, I recently thought about returning to rulers/tapes and my sons strenuously objected!

Example 3: Another friend runs games attended by a very "traditional" gamer. The system uses very traditional rulers/tapes/templates. But unlike a free kriegspiel approach or the square approach the atmosphere is quite tense and there's lots of rubber-ruler antics. It wouldn't be so bad except that the approach is very hardcore in one way (things are binary and highly competitive) but always shifting (one moment an AFV is in concealment and the next the gamer declares it's not, but the model never moved!) I guess by saying "shifting" and "rubber ruler" I'm being charitable.

The experience is so trying that I would rather not play but continue to do so out of friendship.

So here's the question: Outside of a free-kriegspiel approach which really requires all gamers to be of a certain tempermate, what sort of game measurement systems have you seen which make the experience less trying and more pleasant, even among competitive gamers?

Squares/hexes are an obvious one. Broader measures are also good (eg don't take the Field of Glory approach and use 1" increments between troop types for movement! Talk about milimetrics!)

I've toyed with an increment system for tapes/rulers that uses nothing smaller than a 4" increment and only progressively larger increments at longer ranges. The idea is that it's easier to measure broader rather than tiny increments at greater distances. So, the range bands are: 4" / 8" 12" / 18" / 24" / 30" / 36" / 48" / 60" / 72" and all movement and weapon ranges fit within these bands. This is similar to FOW's approach. 40K, another highly competitive community/hobby/segemnt, also uses broad increments (as large as 6" and 12".)

I suppose that given a limited game scope approaches like Crossfire's are good too (NO rulers!).

Your ideas and preferences? Free kreigspiel only? Squares a non-starter? Give me the details no matter the cost in time to measure and triangulate arcs?

[voltigeur]

I guess I'm more on the traditional side but I do admit I have range bands and just look at what band the target is in. That saves the rubber ruller effect. And besides you know the guy whois cheating a 1/4 inch will have a lousy die roll !

I think range bands are the best compromise.

[Rutgervanm]

I think it's more down to the players than the rules. No matter how easy or hard or how shallow or detailed your rulesset is, if you play against the wrong people there are always going to be conflicts or annoyances. The attitude of the players decide whether a rulesset playes pleasantly or not.

Luckily almost all the historical wargamers I've had the pleasure of playing with were easy going guys who cared more about playing the period than winning at every cost. Quite unlike the majority of players from the unholy company with the big red and yellow letters with whom I first started playing wargames.

[Timothy OConnor]

I think it's more down to the players than the rules.

I agree with that! The only caveat I would offer is that assuming "average" gamers, what's a good system for measurement in light of human nature and the often vague nautre of miniature games?

By average gamer I mean someone who wants to be competitive and win, but who's also quite honest and not willing to stretch the rules or worry about tiny measurements.

By that definition, such an individual would still have a hard time with the tiny measurements present in some systems.

For example, Field of Glory specs unit movement in 1" increments from 1 to 7. Yikes!!!! Given how terrain can shift, troops can slide on uneven tables, etc., it seems that trying to stay within a one inch margin can be difficult.

If, in a rules context, a 1" margin of error puts one in completely different troop categories or weapon range bands, I think the rules are coming close to splitting hairs at the "ergonomically feasible wargamer scale". I guess that's why I'm inceasingly inclined towards squares and/or broader range bands as voltigeur mentioned. In effect, if the bands are big enough they almost function like squares from an ergonomic perspective.

Tim

[Extra Crispy]

Interesting. I have never had a problem of this sort. My old gaming club was quite nice and gentlemanly. We played naval games where movement was 2mm per knot. We play Flames of War in half-scale where movement and ranges are measure in 1/2" increments. And almost every other rule we ever played measured in good old inches.

So I'm going to say it's the gamers, not the game.

[ZMONSTER]

I guess I'm just ASL tainted. I like a hexagon movement system, were each unit has specific Movement Factors, and the terrain costs so much to move through. Range is calculated in hexes and matched to charts, you can hit a target that you can see.

I'm currently writing rules for Miniature play with ASL, as some of the ASL terrain rules as designed are abstract for play on smaller maps where cardboard counters are stacked. Miniature play disposes of the unit counters, and individual units (Crews, Squads, Leaders, weapons, and various vehicles) can actually each occupy a space on the map.

Using the Terrain Maker Hexagons provide a consistant playing surface for me, I use paint color to divide a hexagon from say Woods to Open terrain, and include a number of trees along that border with accompaning brush to add to the density of the woods to open margin.

For villages, I normally have one building per hex, but allow for accessory buildings/items within that same hex with the building, that count towards 1st level occupation of the building location, which applys the buildings modifier.

Movement can be tailered to the level (age) of the player, as well as combat. What I'm reaching for is a level of play that can be enjoyed by children/the novice or the serious adult experience. I discovered this when trying to introducing my son to Wargaming, he and I had the most fun when I kept it simple. While against an adult opponent I still enjoyed the finer details of a bazooka hit, but failed to penetrate.

I guess I had more to say than I thought.

[Pitfall]

Our group uses highly detailed measurements (Seekreig 5, for example), and we seem to function fine with rulers, protractors, turning angles, etc. If there are any disputes, one of the more experienced players (someone whose model isn't firing or being targeted!) usually makes a judgement and we go with it.

Hex or square-based systems are good enough for my personal tastes. I was pleasantly surprised by "General Glen's" rules sytem which uses squares. Nice, simple mechanics for small scale engagements. I first played it at GenCon and I will be playing again this year.

[Timothy OConnor]

I agree with the premise that gamer tempermate really drives this issue. But I just dropped in on the official Field of Glory forum.

Yikes!

Maybe it's the competitive ancients community, but it reads like a lesson in geometry. With squares/hexes you just plop your stands in a square or hex, maybe paying attention to direction/facing if called for by the game rules (usually vehicles require this).

But even with gamers of the nicest sort a game usually with formed troops such as ancients and 18th century) can quickly become dominated with all sorts of measurement tools, angles, etc.

[hauptgrate]

Good thread. For quicker play and a way to bring novice gamers into the hobby, I prefer the hex/square approach. My 1/6000 scale WWI naval game is played on a 1 1/2" hex map -- makes movement, fields of fire, and range straightforward. On the other hand, my WWII microarmor game, which is based upon Command Decision, used rulers and a ground scale of 1cm=50m. But, in that game, we use standard range bands of 3,6,10,15,20,25,30,40,50,60,80 cm. We have been playing so long it is easy to look at a range and figure it to be about 12cm -- hence a game range of 15. Often we don't even measure except to check what we have already determined. One way we avoid arguments is to make a simple yes/no roll for all questionable angles and or ranges, then slightly adjust the models according to the result. After all, as players we are playing at the grand tactical level, and really should not be worried about one degree of arc on a certain tank turret. I guess it all depends on how you want to approach the feel of a given historical time period, how much detail and at what level you want to add in to a game, and how you want the game to flow. I don't fault any given system unless it is inconsistent, or claims to be "the best", or picks and chooses its level of detail in an illogicaly manner.

[Ritter]

I can tell you without a doubt, that if more people had Terrain maker, I would use hex movement - PERIOD!
It is the smoothest method I have found for movement and range although I wish the terrain maker hexes were a bit smaller - say 2 inch. I do realize that that is really out of the question (can you imagine the amount of hexes needed for a game on a 3x6 table! )

Hex movement removes all issues with terrain, rulers and frustrated gamers knocking over minis and trees to measure movement. A smooth game = happy gamers.

On topic, I don't like to play with people that are not in it for the fun...lifes too short to loose sleep on 1/2 inch.

Troy

[BattlerBritain]

We often game WW2 with a set of rules called Crossfire.

It's great as rulers are not needed.

The game plays well, a bit like IABSM, and we all enjoy it.

I think that's the main objective, isn't it?

Nice to 'shake the lead out' as well.