Switch Theme:

Balancing the scale of minis and tabletop size  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





I imagine that much like anyone else into this hobby, regardless of whether you are still new to it like I am or have been around for a good long while, that you have at one time or another thought up an idea for your own tabletop game. There might even be a piece of paper with some scribblings about rules and rough drawings sitting next to your desk as you read this very post! The reason I bring it up is that I have an idea for a game and I am curious how to scale it.

What size minis do you think offer that sweet spot between offering delicious detail at a size that is fun to paint and yet small enough to enjoy on the table top?

What size tabletop is that balance between offering a great gameplay experience and yet able to comfortably fit in the home?

It is also of interest to me how many of you actually own your own gaming table(s), and what size it is(they are). So if you would not mind sharing that information that would be great!

Some of you may be thinking that it's all relative to the type of game and while you are correct, my idea is very scalable in that regard.
   
Made in us
Three Color Minimum





Denver, CO

That depends on the focus of the game. Small scales are great for vehicle-centered games like FoW, DzC, or Epic.

Larger scale games are needed for greater detail on humans/aliens/monsters.

Games that try to do both (like 40k) struggle with the balance of scale. Sure, you can get great detail on everything, but too many units makes even large tables feel crowded.

The scale you should aim for largely depends on if you plan on focusing more on vehicles or on humans.




“I do not know anything about Art with a capital A. What I do know about is my art. Because it concerns me. I do not speak for others. So I do not speak for things which profess to speak for others. My art, however, speaks for me. It lights my way.”
— Mark Z. Danielewski
 
   
Made in us
Swift Swooping Hawk





Omaha, NE

Size does matter!!

I think the best option for conversions is 28-35mm

I think the best option for cheap and available is 20mm

I think the funnest scale to play at is 15mm

The easiest in my opinion would be a 15mm game that has all you need to get started -- kinda like the Open Fire box set from Battlefront miniatures.
You dont have to have a wargame table, the kitchen table works fine and at that scale, the center of gravity on those little stands means you can drape a tablecloth over stacked books for hills and the figs wont keep tipping over.
And BTW-- I have my own 5' X 6' gaming table in my own basement and still prefer to play at the 15 and 20 mm levels...more stuff and a grander "sweep" of the battles.

-3500+
-1850+
-2500+
-3500+
--3500+ 
   
Made in us
Basecoated Black




PA, USA

Keep in mind that figure/table scale is less important than the relationship of movement rate to firing range/effect to table size. The minis only affect scale if you want a WYSIWYG game as minis relate to the tabletop. This is, IMHO, a remarkably stupid design ;->
Better, to me, are minis that are explicitly NOT to table scale. In my opinion it is much easier and more convincing to consider the exact position of a mini representative than it is to assume that all weapons ranges and movement rates are to table scale. The latter leads to all kinds of spurious explanations and silly rules. Like, for instance, a state-of-the-art infantry small arm (say, a bolter) that has an effective range the size of an Olympic sized swimming pool ;->
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





Jack_Death wrote:
Keep in mind that figure/table scale is less important than the relationship of movement rate to firing range/effect to table size. The minis only affect scale if you want a WYSIWYG game as minis relate to the tabletop. This is, IMHO, a remarkably stupid design ;->
Better, to me, are minis that are explicitly NOT to table scale. In my opinion it is much easier and more convincing to consider the exact position of a mini representative than it is to assume that all weapons ranges and movement rates are to table scale. The latter leads to all kinds of spurious explanations and silly rules. Like, for instance, a state-of-the-art infantry small arm (say, a bolter) that has an effective range the size of an Olympic sized swimming pool ;->


That is a very good point. In a way my system incorporates both methods simultaneously as strange as that might sound.

FarseerAndyMan wrote:Size does matter!!

I think the best option for conversions is 28-35mm

I think the best option for cheap and available is 20mm

I think the funnest scale to play at is 15mm

The easiest in my opinion would be a 15mm game that has all you need to get started -- kinda like the Open Fire box set from Battlefront miniatures.
You dont have to have a wargame table, the kitchen table works fine and at that scale, the center of gravity on those little stands means you can drape a tablecloth over stacked books for hills and the figs wont keep tipping over.
And BTW-- I have my own 5' X 6' gaming table in my own basement and still prefer to play at the 15 and 20 mm levels...more stuff and a grander "sweep" of the battles.


Indeed it does! I tend to agree with your point about conversions, and that is certainly a tempting avenue given the strong hobby aspect of tabletop gaming. That being said you can certainly do more with the smaller scales.

Sounds like you have an awesome table! I want to build a 6'x6' one of these days.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/13 21:24:39


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Dorset, Southern England

What sort of game?

The ideal game should be easy to play on the dining room table, in all honesty. Just whip out some terrain or a mat. That's the sort of size you want most of the time.

However, I have no idea what you want to do. It really correlates to the game; a compact skirmish takes up less space than a space epic.

BlapBlapBlap: bringing idiocy and mischief where it should never set foot since 2011.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:What sort of idiot quotes themselves in their sigs? Who could possibly be that arrogant?
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
What sort of game?

The ideal game should be easy to play on the dining room table, in all honesty. Just whip out some terrain or a mat. That's the sort of size you want most of the time.

However, I have no idea what you want to do. It really correlates to the game; a compact skirmish takes up less space than a space epic.


It's a game with a point structure and list that could be compared to 40k, however it's model count will be around 10-30 models per side with 90% of them being infantry sized. What's unique about it is how the movement works and the depth of the combat. I'm working hard to make it simple to learn yet at the same time pack a tactical depth. I am a 40k player so that's where most of my references will be coming from, but imagine a 40k codex in which every unit was viable and could be effective in surprising ways. The idea being to give the player enough options to really customize their play style. My guiding light is essentially this: If a meta list can be made I have failed. That is of course very hard to do, and trying to balance it with different "armies" is the trick.

Of course as I mentioned above it's all very scalable, I can rework the system at this point to accommodate a scale that people will be comfortable with. I don't want to start with 15mm out of the gate though and make the painters and conversion gurus feel like my game will offer them nothing. At the same time I don't to suggest a gaming table that is 8'x4' unless I know people are comfortable with that. I'm sort of using 40k standard table size as the baseline, because while it really does not fit anything above 750 points imho, it is at the very least something people are accustomed to thanks to the popularity of 40k. I may even end up doing a split system in which the two primary elements of my game are divided into two different model scales. It really depends on the feedback and research.

You and I are of two different mindsets about size though. I prefer a dedicated table, something that sets the experience apart from regular boardgames.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Dorset, Southern England

It's not I prefer a dining table to a dedicated board (quite the opposite), it's just a good size guide. If your game is so huge it takes up a larger area than that, it'll be incredibly difficult to find room, but that doesn't seem likely unless for some reason you go to a huge scale. So I'd say a 4x4 board for a small skirmish game, and for yours, 6x4, maybe? Of course, this is at 28mm heroic.

BlapBlapBlap: bringing idiocy and mischief where it should never set foot since 2011.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:What sort of idiot quotes themselves in their sigs? Who could possibly be that arrogant?
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






You have to adapt to the times you are living in. I would seriously go to a large event to see board game/table game sizes such as Gencon and Perhaps Adepticon, since that con does more than just 40K.

Also look at your local conventions and ask your games stores on sizes as well.

In my case I would go no larger than a 4x4 table. A 4x6 table (and larger) works great if you live in the 80's/ 90's when houses had larger rooms to play as such. No so now due to the economic downturn and its current effect, more people are renting than owning and more people are living in smaller apartments as well.

Adam's Motto: Paint, Create, Play, but above all, have fun. -and for something silly below-

"We are the Ultramodrines, And We Shall Fear No Trolls. bear this USR with pride".

Also, how does one apply to be a member of the Ultramodrines? Are harsh trials involved, ones that would test my faith as a wargamer and resolve as a geek?

You must recite every rule of Dakka Dakka. BACKWARDS.
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





 Adam LongWalker wrote:
You have to adapt to the times you are living in. I would seriously go to a large event to see board game/table game sizes such as Gencon and Perhaps Adepticon, since that con does more than just 40K.

Also look at your local conventions and ask your games stores on sizes as well.

In my case I would go no larger than a 4x4 table. A 4x6 table (and larger) works great if you live in the 80's/ 90's when houses had larger rooms to play as such. No so now due to the economic downturn and its current effect, more people are renting than owning and more people are living in smaller apartments as well.


That's a good point. The group I game with meet in the basement of one of our members, and we have a nice table made there, but I guess this is not really the norm.

That being said, any game system can be played without a table, a table just adds to the experience. I think I am starting to formulate an idea though on which direction to take this. Probably aim all of my energy on creating a good starter kit that can be played well on a 4'x4' area, and then add in rules for larger scale scenarios.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Sighdan wrote:
 Adam LongWalker wrote:
You have to adapt to the times you are living in. I would seriously go to a large event to see board game/table game sizes such as Gencon and Perhaps Adepticon, since that con does more than just 40K.

Also look at your local conventions and ask your games stores on sizes as well.

In my case I would go no larger than a 4x4 table. A 4x6 table (and larger) works great if you live in the 80's/ 90's when houses had larger rooms to play as such. No so now due to the economic downturn and its current effect, more people are renting than owning and more people are living in smaller apartments as well.


That's a good point. The group I game with meet in the basement of one of our members, and we have a nice table made there, but I guess this is not really the norm.

That being said, any game system can be played without a table, a table just adds to the experience. I think I am starting to formulate an idea though on which direction to take this. Probably aim all of my energy on creating a good starter kit that can be played well on a 4'x4' area, and then add in rules for larger scale scenarios.


That is a good way of thinking on your game system.

I've been in the entertainment industry in one form or another for 30+ years. Been war gaming since 1970. I've been blessed in talking to people at the right place at the right time. But I have also seen a lot of misfortune in dreams being crushed by reality. Myself included. There is a reason why I went into investing into real estate and not into the pursuit of some of my cherished dreams at that time.

But everything starts with a good plan, knowing your market, knowing how distribution works and knowing that you will have a great deal of failures before reaching your goal.


Adam's Motto: Paint, Create, Play, but above all, have fun. -and for something silly below-

"We are the Ultramodrines, And We Shall Fear No Trolls. bear this USR with pride".

Also, how does one apply to be a member of the Ultramodrines? Are harsh trials involved, ones that would test my faith as a wargamer and resolve as a geek?

You must recite every rule of Dakka Dakka. BACKWARDS.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

If you are thinking of designing your own game, then you should start by expanding your gamer horizons.

I write an article for the Ancible magazine, which published in issue 18 (I think it was) listing the top ten games that those interested in games design should learn to play (the list, to be fair, mentions a great many more than ten games and in some cases the suggested game is a placeholder for a general category or style of game that I recommend).

http://the-ancible.com

Regards,

Robey

   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

From my perspective, the tabletop is vital space and the miniatures scale contests this vital space, to design a wargame you must leave space for maneuverability and the models volume and terrain is contesting this space.

In my opinion 28-30mm models are fit for proper skirmish games only, no more than 20 models per side, no true vehicles, walkers and maybe bikes being an exception, if you want to design a wargame in this "scale", better concentrate on the individuals and the synergy individuals can bring.

15mm is for me the correct size for proper vehicles to get in the game design, not vehicle formations just vehicles, FOW has it in my opinion almost right, if you think current 40k size armies to have a proper vital space to maneuver the games should have been in 15mm (of course in my opinion), game design at this scale should be concentrated in formation chemistry and not on the individual or even squads, rules should be more abstract than 28-30mm and concentrate more on command than this stand/ vehicle/ whatever does this spacial shot on that stand/ vehicle/ whatever.

6mm is a good size for proper formations it should be more abstract than 15mm and should be more concentrated in more bulk things, again command especially how the orders pass in the chain of command.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Top quality 15mm figures offer a surprising amount of detail compared with a very tabletop friendly size and wallet friendly cost. There are good examples in Ancients and in SF.

20mm is a good option for small scale modern battles because of the large selection of model kits in 1/72 scale.

I agree that if you want to play with large armies and artillery, 6mm is the best scale. The range of modern weapons limits the utility of larger scales.

Everything is a balance of aesthetic factors. If you like a large army with realistic looking troop density, there are options such as 2mm based on 15mm scale bases, or 6mm based on 28mm scale bases. In other words, if the rules call for a base of 60mm x 20mm with four figures on them, you can instead use four blocks of 6mm figures for a total of 24 soldiers in the formation. This looks more like a real formation and has the advantage of making the vertical scale much closer to the horizontal scale.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





precinctomega wrote:If you are thinking of designing your own game, then you should start by expanding your gamer horizons.

I write an article for the Ancible magazine, which published in issue 18 (I think it was) listing the top ten games that those interested in games design should learn to play (the list, to be fair, mentions a great many more than ten games and in some cases the suggested game is a placeholder for a general category or style of game that I recommend).

http://the-ancible.com

Regards,

Robey


I've been going through the list stickied in the top of this forum section to get a better idea of game systems, is your list similar?

PsychoticStorm wrote:From my perspective, the tabletop is vital space and the miniatures scale contests this vital space, to design a wargame you must leave space for maneuverability and the models volume and terrain is contesting this space.

In my opinion 28-30mm models are fit for proper skirmish games only, no more than 20 models per side, no true vehicles, walkers and maybe bikes being an exception, if you want to design a wargame in this "scale", better concentrate on the individuals and the synergy individuals can bring.

15mm is for me the correct size for proper vehicles to get in the game design, not vehicle formations just vehicles, FOW has it in my opinion almost right, if you think current 40k size armies to have a proper vital space to maneuver the games should have been in 15mm (of course in my opinion), game design at this scale should be concentrated in formation chemistry and not on the individual or even squads, rules should be more abstract than 28-30mm and concentrate more on command than this stand/ vehicle/ whatever does this spacial shot on that stand/ vehicle/ whatever.

6mm is a good size for proper formations it should be more abstract than 15mm and should be more concentrated in more bulk things, again command especially how the orders pass in the chain of command.


I agree that 40k feels cramped at any points level beyond 500-750 and even then it depends on deployment. I am leaning 15mm-20mm at the moment. I need to do some mock-ups of my units at each scale and see how they interact with the table.

Kilkrazy wrote:Top quality 15mm figures offer a surprising amount of detail compared with a very tabletop friendly size and wallet friendly cost. There are good examples in Ancients and in SF.

20mm is a good option for small scale modern battles because of the large selection of model kits in 1/72 scale.

I agree that if you want to play with large armies and artillery, 6mm is the best scale. The range of modern weapons limits the utility of larger scales.

Everything is a balance of aesthetic factors. If you like a large army with realistic looking troop density, there are options such as 2mm based on 15mm scale bases, or 6mm based on 28mm scale bases. In other words, if the rules call for a base of 60mm x 20mm with four figures on them, you can instead use four blocks of 6mm figures for a total of 24 soldiers in the formation. This looks more like a real formation and has the advantage of making the vertical scale much closer to the horizontal scale.


It took several hours of combing through google, but I eventually stumbled on a few 15mm providers that have some stellar sculpts given the size. Most were in sci-fi, but it's nice to know that a certain level of detail can be had at that level. I am starting to think 20mm might be the sweet spot though, something that allows enough detail for painters to feel like they can accomplish something, and yet still small enough to make the game work well.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Unless you are planning on doing figures...I wouldnt get too hung up on what size figures to use. Setting a figure size is a concept of miniature companies who write rules to sell figures. DBx, FUBAR, 5150... most games for that matter, are not locked into a size...though they generally will write the rules in relation to a specific size, just to simplify the language.

The big thing is figuring out what you want to represent and how you want to represent it. After that, the users will figure outwhat works best for them. I myself prefer larger figures on larger tables with lots of terrain. Others dont have room for a large table (dining room table being their best option) or storage of dozens of buildings and other bits (especially urban dwellers whose entire apartment would fit inside my game room). Others prefer games where maneuvering is more important and like open playing fields. For them, smaller scale with a large board are nice...especially if you actually have significant differences in movement rates to allow for flanking and quickly reacting to flanking maneuvers.

That still doesnt get into the differing levels of control and per figure detail. Something that is fairly abstract like DBx uses bases of figures, simple movement and variable figure size (I have seen it plaid with 28mm on a 4x4 board, 15mm on a 2x2 board and 6mm on a 1x1 board that the person kept in a brief case). The extreme opposite are games that are more like an RPG combat system and character generation...just without the role playing itself. Again, what size figures and what sized boards will vary (large figures on a small board that is setup like dungeons, caves or a spaceship for example).

On the figures themselves...15mm and even lower can be highly detailed (I would recomend not overthinking search terms for Google..."detailed 15mm miniatures" returns lots of examples and would save you a few hours). The big issue is how much someone is willing to pay for a given sculpture. It isnt a huge saving in time to sculpt a detailed small figure as it is to sculpt a detailed large figure...reductions in surface area are counter acted by more fiddliness in the details. Although materials in casting are reduced, those materials are a small portion of the overall retail price (haven't purchased metal recently...but it was something like 10 cents of metal versus 45 cents of metal for my own castings in 1/72 versus 1/48). You get more figures on a mold in smaller scales, but even mold and master fees are nominal (my untrained monkey paws get about twice as many figures per mold in 1/72 versus 1/48 and each mold costs me about $20 or so). Production is cheaper by about half...though again, it is minimal in the grand scheme of things (most contract casters charge a fee along the lines of a dollar per spin).

Like a lot of things, how much you do yourself will dictate costs. If you can sculpt, you avoid the highest bar in the cost of entry. A detailed 15mm figure will run a couple hundred each, while a detailed 30mm will run a few hundred each. Discounts for multiples may apply...or may not depending on the sculptor, project and your relationship to them.
   
Made in us
Fusilier Paramedic




Illinois

The type of game you are talking about sounds like Infinity. Small teams sizes(around ten) and all the armies are balanced.

CKD's Warband

 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Personally I find wargame systems that are not taking into account the scale and base of the models, not good, for me a game system should take into account the physical volume of the models and have army lists even if there is no intention to produce miniatures, all the generic scale or generic "here si how to make your own force" game systems are not good in my opinion and suffer in the balance.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I find wargame systems that are not taking into account the scale and base of the models, not good, for me a game system should take into account the physical volume of the models and have army lists even if there is no intention to produce miniatures, all the generic scale or generic "here si how to make your own force" game systems are not good in my opinion and suffer in the balance.


I agree, and they are also the systems that are relegated to a cult following at best.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maryland

Sighdan wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I find wargame systems that are not taking into account the scale and base of the models, not good, for me a game system should take into account the physical volume of the models and have army lists even if there is no intention to produce miniatures, all the generic scale or generic "here si how to make your own force" game systems are not good in my opinion and suffer in the balance.


I agree, and they are also the systems that are relegated to a cult following at best.


I'd think I'd rather play a high quality set of rules that lets me do what I want and has a 'cult-following', than play a poor quality set of rules that attempts to sell itself to the lowest common denominator.

Army lists? I've got two braincells to rub together, so I can make two opposing forces and their stats. Balance? I can make that as well, through game objectives.

Plenty of high-quality rulesets allow for multiple scales and base sizes - if anything, I'd discount your 'qualifications' before the quality of those rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/14 19:42:47


   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Dorset, Southern England

 infinite_array wrote:
Sighdan wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I find wargame systems that are not taking into account the scale and base of the models, not good, for me a game system should take into account the physical volume of the models and have army lists even if there is no intention to produce miniatures, all the generic scale or generic "here si how to make your own force" game systems are not good in my opinion and suffer in the balance.


I agree, and they are also the systems that are relegated to a cult following at best.


I'd think I'd rather play a high quality set of rules that lets me do what I want and has a 'cult-following', than play a poor quality set of rules that attempts to sell itself to the lowest common denominator.

Army lists? I've got two braincells to rub together, so I can make two opposing forces and their stats. Balance? I can make that as well, through game objectives.

Plenty of high-quality rulesets allow for multiple scales and base sizes - if anything, I'd discount your 'qualifications' before the quality of those rules.

Which scales?

BlapBlapBlap: bringing idiocy and mischief where it should never set foot since 2011.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:What sort of idiot quotes themselves in their sigs? Who could possibly be that arrogant?
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maryland

Scale is interesting - I know that Tomorrow's War can support anywhere from 6mm (I've seen batreps using Epic tanks) to 28mm (with Infinity and 40k stand-ins).

I know (and seen) Black Powder played in 6mm, 10mm, 15mm, and 25/28mm with a variety of basing methods. I've seen Flames of War in 6mm and 15mm. Battlegroup Kursk/Overlord supports 15mm/20mm, and I've seen games in 6mm.

Future War Commander has been played in 6mm, 10mm, and 15mm. The same goes for Cold War Commander and Blitzkrieg Commander - I've even seen 3mm scale models.

Hammer's Slammers can be played in 6mm, 15mm, and 28mm scales, and I've seen FUBAR played in multiple scales.

I've been working on This Very Ground in 15mm, which can be used for 28mm as well. Muskets & Tomahawks, while playable in 15mm, will be a 28mm project for me.

Tabletop size is variable as well - I've seen the 'standard' 6x4, some 4x4, some smaller than that, and others larger.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/14 20:05:01


   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

I would rather have a high quality complete product that is balanced and well thought of, without excessive rules, just because somebody might need them and then modify on it if needed, than have a pile of rules to accommodate all the needs that may ever be and have the heaviest load of design work, balance, placed firmly on my shoulders.

You discount my qualifications? you have never heard of them, so what are you discounting exactly?

I present one side of the game design philosophy that demands tight and clear rule sets, balanced forces and uncomplicated solutions and as less randomness as possible, this does not happen in "open" wargame systems that are not concerned for the scale of the combat or the forces involved.

As a hobby I collect wargame rules and game design is a passion of mine, I have read, analysed and played many of the wargames mentioned and much more and my opinions are shaped by persona preferences in game design and experience in playing and modifying wargame rules.

I firmly believe the games forces and their balance is the sole responsibility of the game designer and he or she should provide it, not let it to the players hands to short it out, likewise the "let the dice decide" approach in my eyes is an anathema and a cheap way to escape the serious backbreaking task of sorting out the game system properly.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Sighdan wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I find wargame systems that are not taking into account the scale and base of the models, not good, for me a game system should take into account the physical volume of the models and have army lists even if there is no intention to produce miniatures, all the generic scale or generic "here si how to make your own force" game systems are not good in my opinion and suffer in the balance.


I agree, and they are also the systems that are relegated to a cult following at best.


I think you will actually find that not to be true - though it does require getting outside the realm of what is sold in game stores. Although it is much more common in historical gaming than it is in science fiction gaming - most rules are scale independent. Field of Glory, Hail Caesar, DBx (and HoTT) - they may have army lists, but they don't care if you are using Foundry 28mm, Xyston 15mm, Baccus 6mm or Irregular 2mm. Scaling up or down are easy enough to address using simple math at worst. Lots of people use Bolt Action to play in 1/72 (20mm more or less - with the ready supply of plastic vehicles and even plastic figures) or in 15mm using the equally large range of figures which existed before Flames of War and which has expanded since. Force on Force follows a similar pattern. They are written with a scale in mind to simplify the text - but the players use a variety of different scales depending on what they are representing. Same goes for Tomorrow's War.

A lot of people get stuck in the rut of the big two (GW and PP) or the big three (GW, PP and FoW) or if they are really outside the box thinkers the big four (GW, PP, FoW and Infinity) when it comes to wargames - as in large part those are the games that hobby shops carry. It would do them well to pick up a copy of Wargames Illustrated or Miniature Wargames from time to time. Although the other game systems are smaller - they are far and away beyond what might be considered a "cult following" (at least no more so than wargaming in general is a cult following...). Miniature wargames rules are a highly fractured business - and even the big dogs probably make up less than 25% of the whole market when you combing them all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would rather have a high quality complete product that is balanced and well thought of, without excessive rules, just because somebody might need them and then modify on it if needed, than have a pile of rules to accommodate all the needs that may ever be and have the heaviest load of design work, balance, placed firmly on my shoulders.


That is a different issue entirely from your first issue. Balancing army lists is not problematic. It is a good thing for people who like to play a casual pick up game. You can balance an army irrespective of the scale that it might be played in though.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/14 20:26:17


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
 infinite_array wrote:
Sighdan wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I find wargame systems that are not taking into account the scale and base of the models, not good, for me a game system should take into account the physical volume of the models and have army lists even if there is no intention to produce miniatures, all the generic scale or generic "here si how to make your own force" game systems are not good in my opinion and suffer in the balance.


I agree, and they are also the systems that are relegated to a cult following at best.


I'd think I'd rather play a high quality set of rules that lets me do what I want and has a 'cult-following', than play a poor quality set of rules that attempts to sell itself to the lowest common denominator.

Army lists? I've got two braincells to rub together, so I can make two opposing forces and their stats. Balance? I can make that as well, through game objectives.

Plenty of high-quality rulesets allow for multiple scales and base sizes - if anything, I'd discount your 'qualifications' before the quality of those rules.

Which scales?


Most Ancient/Mediaeval rulesets like WRG 6th and 7th, DBx, FoG, etc provide the basis for using 2mm, 6mm, 15mm and 25mm models. It is easy to use 10mm or 54mm by extrapolation. Various other rulesets for different periods such as the Baccus rules for most periods and Sam Mustafa's rules, use the "base width" as the unit of measurement and can easily be used with any scale of figures you like.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





 infinite_array wrote:
Sighdan wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I find wargame systems that are not taking into account the scale and base of the models, not good, for me a game system should take into account the physical volume of the models and have army lists even if there is no intention to produce miniatures, all the generic scale or generic "here si how to make your own force" game systems are not good in my opinion and suffer in the balance.


I agree, and they are also the systems that are relegated to a cult following at best.


I'd think I'd rather play a high quality set of rules that lets me do what I want and has a 'cult-following', than play a poor quality set of rules that attempts to sell itself to the lowest common denominator.

Army lists? I've got two braincells to rub together, so I can make two opposing forces and their stats. Balance? I can make that as well, through game objectives.

Plenty of high-quality rulesets allow for multiple scales and base sizes - if anything, I'd discount your 'qualifications' before the quality of those rules.


Did I rub a nerve when I said cult following? There is nothing wrong or derogatory about that, it merely suggests that those types of game system are not nearly as popular as other systems. Now are you suggesting that I am attempting to design a game that caters to the lowest common denominator and has an inherently bad ruleset? Or am I just being sensitive?

As for balance, well that's not your job as a player. It is the designers responsibility to ensure that balance is in place before the product is launched. By the way, balance is not easy at all unless you are making a chess clone. For a game in which every "army" plays fundamentally differently than the one before it, balance can be a daunting task that requires many hours of play testing and rewriting of rules. To suggest that any one with 'two brain cells' can do it is insulting and ignorant.

   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

The issue with these systems that use base with as their measuring scale is that the battlefield should expand accordingly, once you realize that you can find the optimal base with that the game is scaled for and disregard the other scales if you want to, an advantage these games have as far as different scales are concerned is that they are essentially 2D games disregarding the vertical plane.

I my personal opinion, different models scale should demand different requirements from the game system, at 30mm the game system should be more concerned for single models than formations likewise at 15mm individuals should not be a concern.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Sighdan wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I find wargame systems that are not taking into account the scale and base of the models, not good, for me a game system should take into account the physical volume of the models and have army lists even if there is no intention to produce miniatures, all the generic scale or generic "here si how to make your own force" game systems are not good in my opinion and suffer in the balance.


I agree, and they are also the systems that are relegated to a cult following at best.


I think you will actually find that not to be true - though it does require getting outside the realm of what is sold in game stores. Although it is much more common in historical gaming than it is in science fiction gaming - most rules are scale independent. Field of Glory, Hail Caesar, DBx (and HoTT) - they may have army lists, but they don't care if you are using Foundry 28mm, Xyston 15mm, Baccus 6mm or Irregular 2mm. Scaling up or down are easy enough to address using simple math at worst. Lots of people use Bolt Action to play in 1/72 (20mm more or less - with the ready supply of plastic vehicles and even plastic figures) or in 15mm using the equally large range of figures which existed before Flames of War and which has expanded since. Force on Force follows a similar pattern. They are written with a scale in mind to simplify the text - but the players use a variety of different scales depending on what they are representing. Same goes for Tomorrow's War.

A lot of people get stuck in the rut of the big two (GW and PP) or the big three (GW, PP and FoW) or if they are really outside the box thinkers the big four (GW, PP, FoW and Infinity) when it comes to wargames - as in large part those are the games that hobby shops carry. It would do them well to pick up a copy of Wargames Illustrated or Miniature Wargames from time to time. Although the other game systems are smaller - they are far and away beyond what might be considered a "cult following" (at least no more so than wargaming in general is a cult following...). Miniature wargames rules are a highly fractured business - and even the big dogs probably make up less than 25% of the whole market when you combing them all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would rather have a high quality complete product that is balanced and well thought of, without excessive rules, just because somebody might need them and then modify on it if needed, than have a pile of rules to accommodate all the needs that may ever be and have the heaviest load of design work, balance, placed firmly on my shoulders.


That is a different issue entirely from your first issue. Balancing army lists is not problematic. It is a good thing for people who like to play a casual pick up game. You can balance an army irrespective of the scale that it might be played in though.


While it is true that I am primarily focused on the bigger names in the industry there is a reason for it. They are the most profitable, they are offering something that is attractive to a larger audience than say historical war gaming. The reason scale is important to my ruleset is that I do intend to create miniatures specific to my game. In fact It is a necessity because the type of miniatures required are either nonexistent or incredibly rare. Not to mention the models themselves will have to have a synergy between them or the game cannot work.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Everything will be scaled - regardless of the manner in which it is designed. Almost every ruleset - to include simplistic ones like DBA take into account terrain and elevation. Granted, you don't have snipers in bell towers or flying units in something like that...but you do have flyers in HoTT. You can scale elevation just as easily as you can scale the length and width of a board or the distance figures move or can fire their weapons.

If you look at a company like Rebel Minis - their core business is 15mm skirmish figures. They have expanded since a good bit - but if you look through their catalog...most figures will be based for one for one movement as opposed to stands of figures. You can find plenty of other examples of base movement or figure movement across the different scales (down to about 6mm where it almost always becomes stands of several figures on one base).
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

then I said 2D and height I did not mean they disregard the height as a concept, but as a dimension, they do not need physical terrain to function a piece of paper saying forest or hill is enough, I am not trying to lower them, its a design philosophy, but I think it works only in historical games up to the world war, from there on it is not ideal.
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: