1:1 vs 4:1 Scale Modern

[voltigeur]

The discussion of ranges and terrain representation is bordering on a whole other subject. I agree in the 1:1 world the bigest challenge is not having all the small folds and Knols that exist in the real world. If you did that the building become even more restrictive and plane ugly.

You cannot represent every aspect of combat on a typical game. However I do believe that it can still be a good interactive tool to teach history and have fun with reasonable reality.

[Timothy OConnor]

The discussion of ranges and terrain representation is bordering on a whole other subject.

You're dead right in one aspect of the discussion. Both 1:1 and 4:1 gamers explicitly define their approach by organizational ratio which is also the explicit topic of the thread.

But then both communities (especially those of us in the 1:1 world) often claim a superior level of simulation "accuracy" or "reality" and turn our noses up at the other community ("Well of course 4:1 is less accurate since the organization is abstract and only by painting the indvidual leaves and braches do we get an accurate view of the forest.")

This is where the discussion or ranges and distances is crucial to the thread since it points up the fact that both communities, after adopting their own "realistic" organizational ratio, then proceed to throw a lot of that effort out the window by adopting ground scales that have nothing to do with the scale size of the models and terrain features.

Suddenly those more accurate "1:1" troops can't spot enemy ATGs banging away just a couple of model vehicle lengths away and 4:1 vehicle models drive along roads wider than some towns!

The reason the organizational approach relative to scale ranges and terrain matters is that both go to why we game. For some the top priority is "accuracy", for others it's "convenience", and for all it's some level of entertainment the definition of which drives accuracy and convenience priorities.

After years of gaming, fun for me (personally) is driven by convenience (easy to set-up and play on very game-friendly/fucntional terrain) combined with "accuracy" derived not from "detail" but from broadly representative relationships between model weapon systems. For others "accuracy" could mean "turret ring jams" and the experience just isn't fun without that level of detail and setting up highly detailed battlefields. I'll play either as long as the gamers are friendly!

Tim

[dnichols]

Essentially, there is no 1:1 gaming and no 4:1 gaming. There is only 1:1 organizations playing on 4:1 scaled tables and 4:1 organizations playing on visually 1:1 terrain.

Thank you for an excellent post that was to say the least thought provoking. Your statement above is a very good summary and I agree with you.

Would it be fair to say that it is the organization that appeals most for players that enjoy playing in 1 :1 scale?

---Daryl

[Timothy OConnor]

Would it be fair to say that it is the organization that appeals most for players that enjoy playing in 1 :1 scale?

---Daryl

It certainly was my favorite for many years and for the same reasons others have cited (eg "accurate" proportions between opposing forces).

I changed to 4:1 simply due to greater convenience in certain game mechanics. For example, a group of mortars at 1:1 has multiple mortar stands while 4:1 uses one stand to represent a group of mortars. Same asset, usually the same targeting options, so why get wrapped around the axel on stuff like, "How close must those 1:1 mortar stands be to fire as a group, and if not cooridanted/close enough, what's the effect?"

The 1:1 is more accurate with respect to pure relative numbers. But as I get older and have had more experience, read more history, etc., I just don't think that if one stand represents 3 mortars and an opposing stand 4 mortars your combat model is that far off from a game/entertainment perspective. If such a difference was considered by the professionals to be knowable and absolute all armies would use the same number of tubes per unit! Instead typical mortar units have 2-4 tubes and so my stands represent 2-4 tubes and I leave it at that. Skill and morale count much more!

I think 1:1 is popular, expecially among micro-armor gamers, because it provides the veneer of greater "accuracy" due to the numbers game we like to play when comparing organizations. At least until you consider the warped ground scales in most 1:1 rules and their effect on 1:1 game tactics vs real world tactics! Then the 1:1 "accuracy" arguement goes out the window!

When you add in the greater complications associated with vehicle carrying capacities and stuff like mortar batteries in 1:1 games from a pure convenience/entertainment perspective I found the 4:1 approach for enjoyable.

After observing my 1:1 friends and my 4:1 friends I finally decided that if both suffer from such serious and unavoidable "inaccuracies" I might as well focus on fun and convenience while maintaining at least relative weapon capabilities.

[Mk 1]

Would it be fair to say that it is the organization that appeals most for players that enjoy playing in 1 :1 scale?

In my case (don't know about "most players"), it is not so much the organization, as the imagination.

It is a different kind of thought process that I get when one model equals a platoon of tanks -- much the same thought process as when one cardboard chit being a platoon of tanks. I need to fill-in with rational processes what I don't get from my senses. My thinking winds up colder, and more rational. Not as full of rich imagery. In fact, it is a bit harder for me to engage my imagination with 1-to-many unit scale than when using cardboard, because I not only have to fill in what I don't see, but I have to first deliberately ignore some aspects of what I DO see, and then fill-in with what I don't see.

I don't have any of that added rationality when I look at one model, and imagine it being one tank. And 3 models, 4, or 5 models, being a platoon of tanks.

If I can't see the battle with my mind's eye, it's just not as much fun.

Oh I like the rational thinking involved in the game, and I think most of the folks I game with will give me at least some credit for my tactical accumen. But I can get all the rational thinking I need playing chess. I don't need Micro Armor for that.

What I long for most of all, is to fall into the world of imagination like I used to when I was a kid. I want to put my head down on table to catch the view, I want to slap my gaming buddy on the back and crow about how that last move / last roll of the dice must have looked to that guy in that turret on that tank.

Tell me that tank represents something other than a tank, and ... well, it kind of lets the air out of the tires on my imaginationmobile. It just ain't the same.

That's why I collect GHQ Micro Amor instead of Avalon Hill board games. My imagination doesn't work quite as well as it used to ... I need my playtime to look like what I'm trying to imagine to get my mind's eye all fired up.

I've even thought of trying out the 2mm scale stuff, and mounting 3 or 5 tanks on a base, in order to play the 1-to-platoon rules that seem to be so popular. I don't reject the "organizational" issues of the rules, nor the loss of control at the detailed level (for the right size of formation). I just want a battalion of tanks to look like a battalion of tanks.

But then I'd need to spend the next 30 years collecting the 2mm stuff to match what I already have in 1/285th. Just think of all the gaming time that would be lost!

[Timothy OConnor]

I don't have any of that added rationality when I look at one model, and imagine it being one tank. And 3 models, 4, or 5 models, being a platoon of tanks.

If I can't see the battle with my mind's eye, it's just not as much fun.

What I long for most of all, is to fall into the world of imagination like I used to when I was a kid. I want to put my head down on table to catch the view, I want to slap my gaming buddy on the back and crow about how that last move / last roll of the dice must have looked to that guy in that turret on that tank.

Tell me that tank represents something other than a tank, and ... well, it kind of lets the air out of the tires on my imaginationmobile. It just ain't the same

If you're playing on a true ground scale of 1:1 I can see how all that makes sense.

But if you're looking at things from the 1:1 tanker model's eye view and you're NOT playing at a true 1:1 ground scale (on a huge table!!!), then you're NOT seeing things from his eye view but a very much abstracted view. You may not be abstracting the organization at 1:1 but you are clearly abstracting the view of the tanker since it would be very different at the usual game ground scale.

(Coincidentally 40K just went to this approach with 5th edition...they call it True LOS and the objective is just what Mk1 says: make things more toy soldier-like and even visceral! BUt tanks typically only shoot about the equivalent of 10-12 tank chassis lengths at a 1:1 scale!)

This is why the divide between 1:1 and 4:1 is usually artificial. I play routinely with both communities and my 4:1 friends routinely refer to their tanks as individual tanks and even individual figures as individual troopers. Nobody ever says, "That tank platoon just got hosed!". They say, "That tank (singular) is toast!" or "That's one brave guy who just toasted the Panther with a bazooka!"

Effectively, my 1:1 friends abstract all sorts of terrain right out of the picture since they don't use a 1:1 ground scale (just like Mk1 unless he's playing at a true skirmish level 1:1 ground scale). And my 4:1 friends truly play as if they're playing with "toy soldiers", right down to the sound effects!!!

That's why I always tell friends in both camps when they go on about how much more "accurate" or "real" their choice is, "It's just toy soldiers at the end of the day!"

Tim

[chrisswim]

You are right, it is just toys at the end of the day, end of the game, and the beginning of the game. Which is a good thing. I am glad I am not in Georgia now, fighting the Russians.

[jb]

...My question is, for those gamers who prefer the 1:1 scale what is it about 1:1 that appeals to you vs gaming in 1:4 scale?

---Daryl

I prefer both gaming scales. They are both just as educational, and fun as the other. To decide what scale to play depends on what I want to do and the mood of what type of simulation I want to see. Sometimes I want to resolve a tactical/grand tactical situation, other times I would just like to see my forces setup on the terrain board, kind of like viewing a 3D painting. These would be the appealing factors as to the gaming scales I use.
Now, I prefer doing a grand tactical game, for example a part of Kursk using the stand=platoon scale. This would allow me more units on board because in the real battle the whole country side was filled with units. I would also get more of a "feel" because of the larger amount of tank and troop types needed to fill out the units for the game table.
I can also represent more of the pertinent terrain features that this gaming scale features. A little bit of "artistic" skill needs to be used here especially if one wants to historically represent an area. For example if modeling a village that is 300m long you shouldn't expect to represent every single building. Usually a village this small is an agricultural type so represent it with a farm setting, e.g. house, barn, and maybe another building. Now taking this example and the stand=platoon scale game ( Spearhead & Modern Spearhead) I can use only 7 stands maximum may be placed in and around the example village. This still looks realistic even though tactically overcrowded (depending on the situation, I don't think I would just put 7 platoons in such a small vil).
Using this scale also allows a different command level. You command battalions, companies, and move platoons. You aren't really concerned what fire command the platoon leaders are using in their predicament. They are actually using their national doctrine or what they were trained. This frees up a lot of gaming time. For instance if they are trained to use hull down positions they might be firing 3 rounds, backing down, moving over X meters re-engaging. This might happen several times in a game turn, but you just roll the dice one time, don't move the unit back and forth or over, and get a result.
Sometimes I prefer to 1 to 1 scale. Taking the above example concerning a platoon, I would have 3-5 tanks lined up along a crest line. I would engage with 1 to several rounds (I’m now using Panzertruppen rules) depending on the individual tank crew’s skill, range, targets facing, etc. After the firing some might get a subsequent (higher skilled crews receiving better chance) move/and or fire depending on the situation. (The 1 to 1 scale crowd Cheers: D . Of course when playing this scale I wouldn't want to command over a company, of course a well seasoned commander would be able to command a smaller battalion.
Quite the difference between the two examples concerning basically the same unit. So it depends on if you want to play Patton or Captain whts-his-face?

[voltigeur]

The real reason I prefer 1:1 is the command level I want to play. I like tactical problems. Also in my expierence the 1:1 games have at times turned much more brutal and desperate. In one game many many years ago an American mech infantry platoon lost its M113's. I set up a position that my oponent saw as 2 up one back.

In truth I let his BMP's drive in and hit him on all 3 sides with LAWs. A savage fire fight broke out in the middle of this larger battle. On the grander scale T62's had the M60's pinned and unable to come to the rescue. I just don't see that level of intense action at the 4:1 scale.

During a recent 1:4 scale game a recon element got pinned and as JB mentioned I could use my imagination as to how it may have flet in those trees unable to run and not strong enough to stand but in 1:1 we sould have fought it out.

I like the skills needed at the 1:1 scale the interlacing of fire using terrain for defilade constantly putting your oppnent in the worse firing odds possible, laying covering fires so you can safely manuver. I have been many games where I knew I couldn't win. I dug in tight and decided to be a royal pain in the ***. I ended up frustrating my opponent till he conceded. I have never had that type of expierence in 4:1.

I admit that we have to fudge the terrain. (After all the wife gets pissed when you dig a fox hole in her dinning room table) I have played smaller actions where we had floor plans for the buildings but slowed even a small game to a crawl. In 1:1 you get as close as you can and be a true to the real thing as you can. [/quote]

[Timothy OConnor]

The real reason I prefer 1:1 is the command level I want to play. I like tactical problems. Also in my expierence the 1:1 games have at times turned much more brutal and desperate. In one game many many years ago an American mech infantry platoon lost its M113's. I set up a position that my oponent saw as 2 up one back.

In truth I let his BMP's drive in and hit him on all 3 sides with LAWs. A savage fire fight broke out in the middle of this larger battle.

As a fellow 1:1 gamer I would have to add a bit of clarifiaction here. That wasn't a mech infantry platoon that lost its M113s. It was a group of infantry stands that "lost" their M113 models. Those infantry stands then "fired" LAWs at the advancing BMP models.

I've played such actions with nominal 1:1 organizations and nominal 4:1 organizations. Unless playing skirmish level games with individually mounted figures, the game set-up is about the same. Some BMP models got into LAW range of some infantry stands sans M113 support and got toasted. Whether each BMP model represented one BMP or three BMPs is completely, 100%, absolutely, positively irrelevant unless you're tracking stuff like detailed vehicle damage ("Darn! They just shot the shovel off the external storage mount!")

On the grander scale T62's had the M60's pinned and unable to come to the rescue. I just don't see that level of intense action at the 4:1 scale.

"Grander scale" involving T62s and M60 engaging at tank gunnery ranges on the same table top that BMPs are trying to overrun infantry at LAW range implies something other than a 1:1 ground scale. Sounds a lot like the ground scale of a 4:1 game unless it was played out on a basketball court! Doesn't sound like a 1:1 game but a 1:1 organization played using 4:1 terrain and scale weapon ranges.

I like the skills needed at the 1:1 scale the interlacing of fire using terrain for defilade constantly putting your oppnent in the worse firing odds possible, laying covering fires so you can safely manuver. ... I have never had that type of expierence in 4:1.

In my experience that sort of thing happens routinely in 4:1 gaming and is actually more difficult in true 1:1 gaming since at true 1:1 maneuver is quite difficult as you're at short range as soon as you deploy your infantry stands and models. 4:1 ground scales and terrain typically allows for more maneuver and actual decisions regarding fields of fire and such since distance between models actual matters. That's why nominal 1:1 games use something closer to 4:1 ground scales.

In 1:1 you get as close as you can and be a true to the real thing as you can.

The Georgians and Russian paras in Ossetia might take issue with you!

I think that voltigeur's comments are really enlightening. This whole discussion has been about 1:1 gaming vs 4:1 gaming. But those choices don't really exist in most instances (again, excluding skrimish games with a true 1:1 ground scale and individual figures).

When 1:1 gamers talk about 1:1 gaming, we're not really talking about 1:1 gaming (Flames of War is a perfect example of this hyrbrid 1:1 org + 4:1 ground scale and nobody claims those rules are "realistic"). Given the relationships between modern weapon ranges and relative move rates between infantry and fast recon vehicles, there's actually a third and fourth category here. The real discussion is this:

1:1 vs Hybrid 1:1 vs Hybrid 4:1 vs 4:1

I think this is much more accurate if we're honest with ourselves.

Hybrid 1:1 uses 1:1 organizations and 4:1 ground scales since that makes modern gaming do-able. It may not "abstract" the organizations but it abstracts terrain and weapon ranges just like 4:1. And while terrain and weapon ranges are abstracted, as with 4:1 games the 1:1 game is sort of played like a skimish-level 1:1 game when it comes to terrain since we want our terrain to look nice instead of abstract.

Hybrid 4:1 uses a 4:1 organization and ground scale but in execution uses a skirmish-level 1:1 terrain just like hybrid 1:1 gaming since, once again, nobody wants to play games on accurately abstracted scale wargame terrain. After all, we like our toy soldiers to look nice!

Why is this distinction important? Because both the Hybrid 1:1 and Hybrid 4:1 communities really delude themselves when it comes to the accuracy of their "simulations". They often perceive themselves as being pure 1:1 and 4:1 respectively but really aren't.

I have a Hybrid 4:1 gamer friend who hates it when I point out were playing a skirmish game with his 1/72 figures. But he's a really good natured guy and when we discuss game theory he defend his 4:1 rules as really "accurate". But he's so friendly and full of life he's the first to do sound effects and breathe life into his 1/72 models as he describes them as individual tanks and soldiers. When I observe him play those are NOT platoons but individual tanks. And when stalked by a German soldier model with a panzerfaust that tank commander desperately tries to hose the Kraut with his 50.

And I wish I had a dollar every time a Hybrid 1:1 gamer declares how accurate and realistic his simulation is...and then proceeds to use a warped 4:1 ground scale and snap off virtual shots that would be 100% impossible if using accurate terrain. How is that "accurate" if your abstract terrain is allowing engagement at ranges that would be impossible in the real world?

Anyway, this is an excellent discussion with lots of interesting comments! I think it's been very revealing in how we perceive our individual choices of game scale.

Tim
[/quote]

[Timothy OConnor]

So it depends on if you want to play Patton or Captain whts-his-face?

Well said JB! The probem we gamers have is that we want to be BOTH!

We want the color, drama, and intense action of an individual toy soldier hunting a Panzer with a bazooka AND we want the comined arms assets and grand tactical strategy while playing Patton.

We are silly!

And that's fine by me.

[Thomaso827]

I like skirmish level games because that was the type of TV shows I watched as a kid. Combat, The Gallant Men,, etc. Even 12' O'Clock High stayed primarily with the one crew, showing glimpses at the formation situation but always coming back to the staring crew. I'm learning to enjoy higher levels, but I buy rules usually based on the 1-1 level. I found the Piquet WW2 rules to cover all bases, with the 1-1 level, the base = a squad, 3 vehicles a platoon, to the "grand tactical" level that each base is a company, 3 tanks a batallion, etc. I like the flexitility that gives me. Today, I can play the skirmish game of a couple of platoons holding Kampf Gruppe Peiper , tomorrow I can play the whole 90th Division at the Bulge. But I almost always come home to the skirmish level for my own enjoyment. And I have to admit, in part, as a retired NCO, that is the level I spent most of my career at. That was why I used the games as a training aid. If I had been an officer, studying how to run larger elements, then I would have played the bigger picture, the larger level games. Now I play to enjoy, and I come back to a skirmish level. My comfort zone, I guess.

Tom Oxley

[Mickel]

Maybe I got lost reading all that, but isn't ground scale vs figure scale a moot point for the discussion at hand? Let's take terrain out of this for a moment and go to sea. By and large, naval games are fought with 1:1 units, since the forces are typically few in number and in discrete formations. Now if I'm using a 1:2400th ship and a 1:18,000 ground scale is this hybrid anything? Nope. So what's the difference on land? Sure, in enclosed waters, it's more visually acceptable in 1:6000 because there is a bit more apparent (but only apparent) manoeuvre room. But the relationship between the ship scale and the ground scale doesn't change a thing from a gaming point of view. Naturally, any land masses must be to ground scale to have the same historical impact.

Assuming a table between 4-6' x 6'-10', can anything since WW-I be played in 6mm at 1:300 ground scale? Not much really. Will does, but only with very small units. So we compromise with terrain. A 1:plt (or 1:4 or whatever) troop scale cannot be converted to a ground scale. 2,000m divided by one plt or 1:4 is ummm..... While the relationship between the various units, friendly or enemy remains governed by a consistent ground scale there is no fudging required in 1:1. So Mr 1's tanks aren't too close together, based on the ground scales it appears he (like me) uses because any area fire effects, or weapon ranges are worked out on the same scale. Tanks resorted to ramming one another on occasion. Can’t get much closer than that.

FOW is an awful example of a ground scale. There isn’t a consistent ground scale for a start, just some rubbish about it being exponential. Hence it contains a fairly fundamental flaw to anyone grognard-like (like myself). It’s used to justify requiring artillery on table, without looking at the ramifications.

Terrain effects (and by association, lines of sight/fire) are rules dependant. Some rules allow failure to see something over what is depicted as flat terrain for the simple fact that the terrain isn’t necessarily flat, even if modelled as such. Now you could argue that some people put too much, or too little, terrain on the table. But that has nothing to do with troop scale.

Whether each BMP model represented one BMP or three BMPs is completely, 100%, absolutely, positively irrelevant unless you're tracking stuff like detailed vehicle damage

Why do you need to track vehicle damage to make that relevant? Was the effect of fire sufficient to render the unit combat ineffective for the remainder of the game? Yes or no? No more detail than that is required, regardless of the the level being modelled. You might like to go into more detail, but it's not necessary.

I play both 1:plt and 1:1ish (the squadies are small groups, be that a group of riflemen or a single heavier weapon, but each squadie in the group is one squadie). 1:plt allows, for example, a late WWII German player to field a company of Tiger IIs and not necessarily dominate the battlefield to the extent that it might do in a 1:1 game with a similar number of models. It allows for higher level support weapons to be deployed without the nagging feeling that there’s too much of it.

But at some point 1:plt gets too restrictive. The later the period, the smaller the forces may become, as troop densities have fallen. So some games are pointlessly small at such a high level. I suspect that higher than battalion level operations were the exception rather than the rule in Vietnam. A grab-a-prisoner raid isn’t exactly suited to 1:plt.

Each to their own.

Mike

[Timothy OConnor]

Maybe I got lost reading all that, but isn't ground scale vs figure scale a moot point for the discussion at hand?

It's central to the discussion at hand. One can't really claim to be playing a highly "accurate/realistic" 1:1 game if one is using a ground scale that's not 1:1.

The reason is that once you start abstracting the ground scale and fail to account for all the ground clutter and changes in elevation that occur over a given distance at that ground scale your tactical choices are inherently not "realistic".

Let's take terrain out of this for a moment and go to sea. By and large, naval games are fought with 1:1 units, since the forces are typically few in number and in discrete formations. Now if I'm using a 1:2400th ship and a 1:18,000 ground scale is this hybrid anything? Nope.

The hyrbid comment referred to the combination of organizational ratios relative to ground scale and had nothing to do with figure size. (For example one of my friends plays hybrid 1:1 games using 6mm figures and another friend plays hybrid games using 20mm figures.) You may have mis-read the comment.

Assuming a table between 4-6' x 6'-10', can anything since WW-I be played in 6mm at 1:300 ground scale? Not much really. Will does, but only with very small units.

Fully agree with that!

So we compromise with terrain. A 1:plt (or 1:4 or whatever) troop scale cannot be converted to a ground scale. 2,000m divided by one plt or 1:4 is ummm.....While the relationship between the various units, friendly or enemy remains governed by a consistent ground scale there is no fudging required in 1:1. So Mr 1's tanks aren't too close together, based on the ground scales it appears he (like me) uses because any area fire effects, or weapon ranges are worked out on the same scale.

I don't think anyone suggested such a thing. However, when it comes to unit frontages, organizational ratios, and ground scale, yes, all of these are very closely related.

As I noted about the photo of the panzers, if using a true 1:1 ground scale (ie 1/285th) then the tank models are too close together given typical units densities/frontages in combat. And thus, I also agree with you that since most 1:1 gamers are really hybrid gamers and use a 4:1 game ground scale (eg 1" = 50m or 100m) the tanks in that photo are NOT too close together based on the likely ground scale being employed.

FOW is an awful example of a ground scale. There isn’t a consistent ground scale for a start, just some rubbish about it being exponential. Hence it contains a fairly fundamental flaw to anyone grognard-like (like myself). It’s used to justify requiring artillery on table, without looking at the ramifications.

Here I would have to call "Grognard Elitism!" Yes, FOW uses a "telescoping" ground scale. It goes something like 4" = SMG range, 16" = rifle range, 36" = tank gun range, etc. And you're right, it's used to justify the inclusion of onboard arty in a 1:1 game so you get both fire team-sized stands and arty on the same table.

But nominal 1:1 gamers who use a 4:1 game ground scale (1" = 100m) take a similar, if less extreme, approach to justify the inclusion of both fire-team or squad-sized stands and tanks and ATGMs on the same table. The only difference is that FOW telescopes the ground ratio to get the arty and SMGs on table while the Hybrid 1:1 game uses a fixed ground scale to get fire teams, tanks and ATGMs on table (which goes directly to your point below).

But at some point 1:plt gets too restrictive. The later the period, the smaller the forces may become, as troop densities have fallen. So some games are pointlessly small at such a high level. I suspect that higher than battalion level operations were the exception rather than the rule in Vietnam. A grab-a-prisoner raid isn’t exactly suited to 1:plt.

Fully agree here and by the same token that's why true 1:1 is too restrictive and thus the popularity of Hybrid 1:1. Gamers want combined arms!

If you want combined arms at 1:1 organizationally that means at minimum infantry and tanks. And that means if you want distance between models on the tabletop to mean SOMETHING with respect to tactics 1:1 gamers use ground scales from 4:1 games and NOT true 1:1 ground scales (1/285th or 1/300th) since the true 1:1 ground scale would be too restrictive. Put your tanks on the table and BAM, they're at point blank range.

So, Hybrid 1:1 gamers warp the terrain and ignore the fact that their LOS is much to great since it fails to account for the stuff that would be there (which would modify their tactics). Their 1:1 organizations are thus blessed with fields of fire which would otherwise be impossible (same goes for 4:1 gamers!!!)

If you want combined arms at 4:1, you still suffer all those terrain problems but you get a richer mix of arms at higher levels. That's another problem with FOW inherently and with many 1:1 Hybrid games: they add supporting arms out of proportion to the unit level. In FOW that means a little ole infantry company gets tanks, TDs, Arty, mortars, MMGs, engineers, recon, and air support in a tiny sector of the battlefield.

So 4:1 Hybrid Gamers warp themselves the opposite way. They use 4:1 organizations but functionally play lower level games whether or not it makes sense. I'm absolutely guilty of this and have great fun doing it! I field reinforced battalions at a rough 3:1 ratio and routinely play actions such as "Capture the Fleeing Dictator" or "Save the Convoy Survivors".

These scenarios would make great lower level or even skirmish games but at battalion-level it's fun to run a task force with multiple objectives (eg secure the airfield, capture the dictator, and crush the militia trying to storm the governor's palace.) Effectively we're playing several lower level games on the same table at the same time but using a 4:1 organizational ratio.

That's the beauty of Hybrid 1:1 and Hybrid 4:1 games. We get our preferred level of organizational detail (1:1 organizations) or rich assortment of supporting arms (4:1 organizations) all on the same table (1" = 50m or 100m) while playing in a toy soldier-like environment (our terrain functions like 1:1 toy soldier terrain.)

The unifying feature of both 1:1 and 4:1 is that once we're rolling dice both communities are moving stands of infantry and individual tank models across funcationally 1:1 toy soldier model terrain.

Tim

[zaevor2000]

I agree with much of what has been posted here.

There is a place under the sun for both 1:1 and 1:4 or 5...

Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses.

1:1
Strongest possible visual display.
Units limited to 1 battalion or less with 2 players (also limits variety of weapon systems available)
More ambush type gaming. When a unit is engaged this usually determines the battle.
Allows use of tactical manuevering as employed by many of us former NCOs and soldiers (I can actually use bounding overwatch within sections on movement to contact, set up my range cards and reference points when on the defence, etc. just like I did in 2nd ACR back in the 80s)

1:4 or 5
Very diluted visual display
Battles up to division level can be handled by 2 players
Players have more staying power since there are multiple units on the board combined with a greater distance. This allows multiple combats, regrouping and combined arms tactics to be employed.
Tactics must be abstracted (especially at the platoon level and below)

Both sides have their place. Sometimes I like to fight out regimental and larger engagements (using 1:4), and other times I like to run 1:1 and use the tactics I actually used out in the field with a company (or my Cavalry Troop to be perfectly honest ).

Like probably many others I like both scales. They are like apples and oranges. Both have their strengths and weakness and both have their place in the sun...

Frank