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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 09:21:06
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
A 6'x4' table in 28mm is the size of a soccer field. Is it your belief that 40k is meant to simulate battles limited to the size of a soccer field? And that a bolter's effective range is liitle more than 100 ft? Sorta skipping to the punchline, are you assuming fig scale and ground scale are 1:1 in 40k because unlike those "niche-market" historical games (haha) 40k doesn't entail design notes?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 09:33:24
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Manchu wrote:A 6'x4' table in 28mm is the size of a soccer field. Is it your belief that 40k is meant to simulate battles limited to the size of a soccer field? And that a bolter's effective range is liitle more than 100 ft? Sorta skipping to the punchline, are you assuming fig scale and ground scale are 1:1 in 40k because unlike those "niche-market" historical games (haha) 40k doesn't entail design notes?
Obviously 40k's scaling and ranges are broken, in large part as a result of being a reskinned 1980s fantasy game. But having unrealistic ranges, whether for balance reasons or inherited from a previous game, is not the same thing as having a consistent and deliberate "ground scale". There is no consistent relationship between the 24" range of a bolter, a ~4" wide bunker (the closest terrain piece I have within reach to measure), the 48" range of a large-caliber autocannon used as the main gun on a Predator tank, or the 18-36" movement range of a supersonic fighter jet. The unavoidable truth here is that 40k is a 28mm game with some really stupid range/distance values, not a consistent dual-scale game.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 09:47:36
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
"Consistent dual-scale game" seems to be a term of art you just invented for the sake of this argument. The fact of the matter is that figure scale and ground scale are not the same in 40k, whether or not anyone has actually bothered in the last X years to consider this as a specific design principle. Sure we can handwave away bolters or whatever much more plausible weapons are used in Infinity - not so the Garands and K98s of Bolt Action (or FoW for that matter). Fig scale and ground scale are different, with ground scale being much smaller.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 10:03:10
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Manchu wrote:"Consistent dual-scale game" seems to be a term of art you just invented for the sake of this argument.
No, it's simply stating the obvious: for a game to have a "ground scale" it must actually have a scale. A collection of arbitrary ranges/movement distances/etc, none of them consistent with each other, which happen to not make (fluff) sense in a 28mm game is not the same thing as having a ground scale. For there to be a credible argument that 40k has, say, 28mm models and 10mm ground scale, you would have to show that 40k's weapon ranges/movement distances/etc are all consistently scaled to 10mm. If you don't have that consistency then you don't have a deliberate ground scale, you have a bunch of unrealistic numbers in a 28mm game.
The fact of the matter is that figure scale and ground scale are not the same in 40k, whether or not anyone has actually bothered in the last X years to consider this as a specific design principle.
Ok then, what is 40k's "ground scale"? If you're so sure that it's not 28mm then what is it?
Sure we can handwave away bolters or whatever much more plausible weapons are used in Infinity - not so the Garands and K98s of Bolt Action (or FoW for that matter). Fig scale and ground scale are different, with ground scale being much smaller.
Except when we look at the typical "ground" these games are played on it usually seems pretty consistent in scale with the models. For example, the length of a building is appropriate for a 28mm game, which means that the ground it sits on is also scaled to 28mm. To have a smaller ground scale you'd have to have something like a game of 40k on 6'x4' table with Epic buildings/roads/etc and 28mm infantry models. But we don't normally see this kind of thing. We see people setting up tables that represent a small area of a battlefield at 28mm scale, and then playing games with 28mm scale models on the 28mm scale battlefield.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/24 10:05:39
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 10:34:50
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
I'm from the future. The future of space
|
Priestly recently released a book on wargames design that specifically addresses the ground scale issue of games like 40k(and by extension games like FoW), Bolt Action, Antares, etc.,. . The answer is not that there is no answer but that there are goals for the games which make a fixed ground scale not an option. It has a variable ground scale. Not a thoughtless lack of ground scale. The weapon ranges relative to the size of the figures are chosen for specific reasons. The ranges and inconsistency between the figures is intentional to allow a greater variety of unit types on the table. And to make sure the game works for a certain table size. Tabletop Wargaming by Rick Priestly wrote:Slow units movement = M/2. Standard units movement = M. Fast units movement = 2M Short range fire = M. Standard weapons range = 2M. Long range weapons range = 3M+ Where M = T/8, and T = width of the playing table (normally 48″, hence the 6″ movement). Meeples & Miniatures review of the book wrote:What is more, this is then complicated by modern weapons that have much larger ranges. In order to cater for the use of both the pistol, and artillery, with the argument that since gamers like to get all their toys out on the table, despite the fact that artillery should be far off the table, the game designer has to allow for these things to be placed on the table so players can use them and manufacturers can make them. In order to accommodate all this on the tabletop, it is suggested that a Sigmoid Curve approach to range is adopted, so that short-range weapons can be used, as can long-range weapons, but it means that the mid-range weapons have their firing distances severely distorted. The author then goes on to suggest that the Bolt Action rules are a very good example of this working in practice. These games don't have no ground scale, they have an intentionally variable ground scale so that a company can sell artillery models and guys with pistols and submachine guns to the same customer and have them both end up seeing play on the same table. So, in contrast to that, this thread is about games that have a 1:1:1 figure:ground:range scale. Whether or not a variable ground scale counts in anyone's estimation as a ground scale at all is totally pointless. The contrast between that and a defined 1:1:1 figure:ground:range approach is all we need to talk about how this might work and be different.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/02/24 10:49:00
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 13:54:15
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
Even with variable scale, the scale ranges from about 1:100 to maybe 1:1000, still way out of line with the figs. The point is that the figs don't match the table action.
Whether that is good or bad is another question entirely.
|
-James
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 17:09:49
Subject: Re:"Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader
|
On the subject of model posture, I'm applying a rule in my system that the height of all models counts as being standing. i.e. if my opponent wants to determine LOS to one of my infantry units and they are posed lying prone (less visible) or prancing on top of a rock (more visible),I place a proxy standing figure next to them and use that as a basis for LOS.
This can be applied as a house rule to most game systems. Besides being a fair solution, it also allows players to model their units however they like without having to worry about being accused of modelling for advantage.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/24 17:11:48
I let the dogs out |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 18:12:00
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote:You realize that ground scale and figure scale are different in most miniatures games, right?
I'm well aware of many designers using grossly oversized models on compressed playing areas. It's a major design flaw, that few designers address, counting on the ignorance and blindness of the players. When the ratio gets to be off by a factor of 5 or more, it breaks immersion. Even 2x or 3x starts to be problematic to anyone who's at all knowledgeable about the actual items in question.
____
frozenwastes wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:@frozenwastes - thanks for the picture! The constant jumping making the full volume targetable is the first part of my objection, and the dowel replacement is the logical conclusion.
The dowel replacement is not the logical conclusion unless aesthetics don't have any priority.
Look at any actual army level game where a base of figures represents hundreds of figures.
In any case, the vagaries of crouching / kneeling models are a much smaller issue within a TLOS system. After all, they can't fire over things that standing models can. 
A given crouching soldier not being able to stand up and take a shot is as realistic as one being taken out from the area above their heads being attacked. As in, neither makes sense. What we probably want is abstraction that doesn't give us jarring moments like either of those examples.
Tying it to shoulder height is just a half-step toward TLOS, so you're getting there! Keep going along those lines, and you'll end up with a LOS system that actually works! 
For skirmish games where the ground and figure scale is the same, TLOS works really, really well. Area terrain and base volumes do work though. While I have some major problems with warmachine, that's not really one of them except for the issue that the volume for a 3 foot tall gobber and a 6 foot tall human is the same. For the most part the model volume mechanic works.
If you're not going to use the actual model for LOS and other purposes, but you want a strongly tactical game, you need dowels.
Those army level games look *far* more realistic than something like Bolt Action. If the flats were slightly raised and textured, even better!
The above is a proposed multi-base that supports 1:1 figure:ground scale; humans stand 2.5-3mm tall.
The not crouching / not standing thing in TLOS produces far less offensive results than MC. By far. The ability to target MC when you can't see ANY of the model is just awful. The resulting "LOS" between MCs where neither model can see each other is completely indefensible as a design decision.
KOG light is TLOS with a 1:1 ground:figure scale, with unlimited range & "toe-in" (all-or-nothing) cover. Getting back to the OP, it's realistic weapon ranges all the way.
I have no issues with area terrain in a TLOS context. They aren't mutually exclusive. Area terrain is good for slowing / dangerous terrain. Or providing blanket cover within, as mutually agreeable.
The volume thing leads to certain very silly results at the other end of the spectrum, too. Like the Wrack model being taller than the MC volume. You might see a model's head, but not have LOS to it. And yes, I agree, it can work. Anything can work. I just think that TLOS >> MC because it's a lot simpler, with fewer counter-intuitive results.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Is it your belief that 40k is meant to simulate battles limited to the size of a soccer field? And that a bolter's effective range is liitle more than 100 ft?
Yes, and Yes. 40k is blackpowder ARW/Napoleonics on a manicured lawn. That's why Bolters are just huge smoothbore muskets.
No excuse for FoW / BA, though.
____
frozenwastes wrote:Priestly recently released a book on wargames design that specifically addresses the ground scale issue of games like 40k(and by extension games like FoW), Bolt Action, Antares, etc.,. . The answer is not that there is no answer but that there are goals for the games which make a fixed ground scale not an option. It has a variable ground scale. Not a thoughtless lack of ground scale. The weapon ranges relative to the size of the figures are chosen for specific reasons.
Blah, blah, blah. It's a terrible handwave that says "to hell with realism and scale".
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/24 18:17:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 18:26:37
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
JohnHwangDD: Do you not find it disruptive that TLOS rewards crouching/prone models and penalizes expansive poses even though in-game, the units would not be doing either? You seem to be advocating a very simulationist approach (TLOS as modeled, 1:1 groundscale), but since models are an abstraction, is a literal rule like LOS really appropriate?
I think in many games, scale that varies from the model scale and abstraction of LOS can work very well. For example, Clix games generally use squares for tracing LOS and have shortened range, but, in context, it usually works very well.
In fact, if you are trying to make a concrete clarity game, manual measuring and LOS determination will constantly cause problems and standardized areas such as squares, hexes, etc. will often prove superior.
Imagine that a standard 4x4 table could be divided into a 48x48 square surface. Now, you instantly have eliminated movement distance issues. 6 inches becomes 6 squares, no fudging. Each square is now either clear or blocked/cover/etc. according to the rules of your game. Sure, you can no longer make fractional moves, but I would be skeptical about how much that adds to gameplay vs. the clarity such a system adds (again, assuming such clarity is a goal).
|
-James
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 18:42:15
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
No, not really. There are compromises in all LOS systems. Compared to the nonsense targeting of MC, the posing issue of TLOS is the least bad of all, by a rather significant margin.
I very strongly prefer visual verisimilitude, which necessarily mandates 1:1 ground scale and 1:1 weapon ranges as a direct consequence. While models are an imperfect abstraction, TLOS rather neatly solves the LOS question rather cleanly and directly.
I like freeform movement and variable terrain, something that grids just do not permit.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 19:11:50
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
I'm from the future. The future of space
|
JohnHwangDD wrote: Those army level games look *far* more realistic than something like Bolt Action. If the flats were slightly raised and textured, even better! The above is a proposed multi-base that supports 1:1 figure:ground scale; humans stand 2.5-3mm tall. Something like this: As well, realism isn't the only consideration when it comes to aesthetics of army level games. If you thought those cards or pogs looked better because their height was more realistic, then all I can say is we have very very different ideas of what looks good. I know from conventions that if I do cards or chits people will walk by the table and just glance down. If I run a 54mm battle, they'll stop and look at things with wonder on their faces. The not crouching / not standing thing in TLOS produces far less offensive results than MC. By far.
To you. I find the figure being locked in a single position and issues of crouching to be far, far more offensive. The ability to target MC when you can't see ANY of the model is just awful. The resulting "LOS" between MCs where neither model can see each other is completely indefensible as a design decision. It actually has a very, very simple defense as a design decision. The ability to not have advantage/disadvantage based on modelling (or rather to not have to worry about it at all) is put at a higher priority than not having such a moment of empty volume shooting empty volume come up in the game. "I prioritized X over Y because of Z" is always a valid defense of a design decision. It's okay that you don't care about Z. Not all games or approaches are for all people. You seem to conflating your priorities with something objective though, which is strange. KOG light is TLOS with a 1:1 ground:figure scale, with unlimited range & "toe-in" (all-or-nothing) cover. Getting back to the OP, it's realistic weapon ranges all the way.  My first thought was that realistic weapon ranges, a low model count 1:1 ground:figure scale would be mated very well with TLOS, but the more I think about it, the more I see the advantages of a model volume approach. It opens up the design space of allowing players to decide what posture their models are taking. If I have a guy with a rifle on a flat roof, I can put a little marker on him showing he's prone or crouching and now the small brick wall around the top of the building can suddenly grant cover or even outright LOS blocking. Very important in a game with unlimited ranges. If I go with TLOS, I have no decision to make. The model is going to be in one of those modes already and I won't be able to choose.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/24 19:23:08
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 19:24:15
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
And now you're adding "posture" markers? More unnecessary complexity!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 19:27:34
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
I'm from the future. The future of space
|
If I'm playing a lower model count game, then why not? Complexity doesn't have to be a bad thing. I want a game to have as much complexity as required to allow for player decisions that matter to me. If you have decisions made multiplied by the number of figures you need to decide about get too high, then things will bog down. If we're keeping model counts relatively low for a 1:1:1 figure:ground:range game, then that won't be an issue. If I want the players to have the ability to decide what approach their soldiers are taking to a piece of terrain, then indicating it is not "unnecessary complexity" but is actually necessary. In a lot of situations you don't have to add markers at all. You can just say "yeah, the guy on the edge of the roof is going to be peaking over to take shots, exposing himself as little as possible." That can be the default assumption for any model touching cover so you only need to mark those that are totally hiding.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/24 19:35:07
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 20:00:07
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
I knew there was a discussion on this:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/696996.page
Since there is some good back and forth, probably better to head there.
|
-James
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 20:14:30
Subject: Re:"Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Well - I didn't think it would be necessary to explain that ground scale and figure scale are rarely 1:1 but now that we have ...
The volume of a man-sized 28mm miniature on a 25mm round base, where that base is considered to be in the same scale as the miniature, is roughly 170 cubic feet. When we talk about range, we are talking about the effective range to hit a target that occupies some space within that 170 cubic feet and where the shooter is only guessing at where in that volume the target will be when the shot potentially impacts.
Now, if we measure the same volume but account for the radius of the base in terms of the smaller ground scale, the volume will obviously increase. Since we know that rules using limited ranges (24" bolter or 24" K98) are using a smaller ground scale than figure scale, this is the proper measurement of the target volume. This is just a rationalization of limited ranges; it doesn't have anything to do with LOS mechanics because we already (usually) measure ranges base-to-base.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 20:24:01
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
OTOH, a person can comfortably fit in a suitcase, something well under 10 cubic feet. So it's a 17:1 volume ratio, which is even worse if one is using unrealistic ranges for ground scale compression. If the ground scale compression is a fixed 3:1 (and it's often worse), then the 27x factor bumps effective volume ratio up to 459:1...
All I'm seeing is more reason why 1:1 ground scale and TLOS and unlimited range is preferable.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 20:27:43
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
I'm from the future. The future of space
|
The reason I think it belongs here is that when you have effectively unlimited weapon ranges the lethality of the game can go up so you have to consider what approach to LOS you are going to take. For example, a sniper on top of a building is in a great position because they can shoot at lots of targets but is hard to hit (or even spot) in response. If you go with a true LOS then a sniper becomes super exposed, standing tall over the edge of the building. If you can indicate or assume that the soldier it is representing is doing the smart thing and only exposing himself to fire as much as needed to shoot, then you can actually represent the advantages of a sniper in a good position. Model volume that is too high will also fail here. Unless you back the figure away from the edge and then assume the model is shooting out of a tiny sliver at the top of the volume. Which is sort of silly. So I think a hybrid approach is best. Have a reduced height volume and assume the soldiers are adopting the posture that makes the most sense unless you declare otherwise. As well, I'm not sure it really is TLOS vs Magic Cylinder. Either one plus assuming the soldiers are doing what make sense and indicating it as needed probably produces the same third option. A meeting in the middle where you neither have models shooting out of the air above their heads nor being locked into what the sculptor chose for your tactical options. How you determine who can be shot and how effective the fire will be can matter more when 1:1:1 figure:ground:range is being used, so how you handle LOS can matter a lot.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/24 20:36:20
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 20:29:21
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Speak for yourself!
The volume-based conception of a figure's location also takes in to account scale of time and - presumably - fog of war factors. As I mentioned, one could think of it as incorporating micro terrain cover (which is usually not represented by a separate mechanic). Automatically Appended Next Post: frozenwastes wrote:when you have effectively unlimited weapon ranges the lethality of the game can go up so you have to consider what approach to LOS you are going to take
Fair point - but it don't think it works the other way: using limited ranges doesn't overcome the "frozen in time" problem of TLOS. ( BTW I freakin love your avatar.)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/24 20:31:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 20:46:28
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
I'm from the future. The future of space
|
Manchu wrote: The volume-based conception of a figure's location also takes in to account scale of time and - presumably - fog of war factors. As I mentioned, one could think of it as incorporating micro terrain cover (which is usually not represented by a separate mechanic). "conception of a figure's location" <-- I like that. Spotting rules might be another thing worth considering in a 1:1:1 game. Again more complexity, but if we're talking about lower figure count, that might not be an issue. The Battlegroup series of rules has spotting for direct fire but not for suppressive fire. I think they work. They don't have realistic weapon ranges though. They do the same thing as FOW but with SMG fire being 10" instead of 4." If I were to house rule it to have in scale ranges, it would probably become more static for conflicts with more open ground (Kursk) but should work fine for areas of more closed in terrain (Normandy bocage and towns). Manchu wrote:Fair point - but it don't think it works the other way: using limited ranges doesn't overcome the "frozen in time" problem of TLOS. ( BTW I freakin love your avatar.) I think it comes down to differing definitions of what a miniature is on the table top. The "frozen in time" characteristic of TLOS is the result of assuming that the soldier in question is always in that pose and standing in that way whereas some sort of base based volume approach assumes the volume is the space in which a soldier might be. It's the space in which a given soldier interacts from and can be interacted with. So I guess it's a matter of the miniature equals the soldier or the base size and some volume above it being the space in which a soldier operates. Games that use the centre of the miniature/base have fallen out of fashion, but that's another option. As for Space Cop, I tend to be a fan of movies that are intentionally bad. So many great one liners in there.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/24 20:58:06
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 20:55:49
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Like many posters here, I came to miniatures gaming via 40k. So I never really thought about ground scale until I started to read what Peregrine called the "niche-market historicals" rule sets. Also like Peregrine, I guess I just assumed ground and figure scales were 1:1 in games like 40k. But when I discovered otherwise, it actually didn't bother me that much. The argument for 1:1 seems to be about tactical realism, especially from gamers/designers focused on squad-level WW2 gaming. Setting aside how much tactical realism we are ever going to achieve with a miniatures game, I think the ground/fig scale difference doesn't bother me because it doesn't actually make games less fun. To the contrary, it makes them more fun - for me - because it increases the variety of weaponry I can use in a game.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 21:09:30
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
I'm from the future. The future of space
|
There's definitely something to Priestly's approach. It does let you put a heavy mortar on the same table as guys with SMGs and have them both matter during a game. I spend most of my time gaming 19th century stuff in 54mm where one figure is a "battalion" (whatever that means depending on the period and place) and the basic unit of maneuver is the division. Very abstract stuff. I do have a bunch of 15mm WW2 stuff and have played games with a 1:1:1 (at 1:100) approach. Though recently I've been going with Battlegroup with its 10" range bands and being able to choose whether or not artillery is on the table or not. By which I mean that the ranges while bigger than Flames of War still allow for artillery models to show up on the table top. In 2nd edition Flames of War there was a rule in the Mid war eastern front book to allow for off table artillery but I think they scrapped that as there are models to be sold (and painted and put on the table). A design question for 1:1:1 approaches. When do you make range matter. The inverse square law shows that a target that is further away basically shrinks and becomes harder to hit. So when and how does a given set of rules account for that, if they do? How much does it matter? Do you prefer a simple optimal range/long range split? I tend to go with that approach. Usually the easiest way to convert a variable ground scale game to a 1:1:1 approach is to make the existing ranges optimal and then allow attacks at any range past that at some sort of penalty.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/24 21:21:53
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/24 22:24:43
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
The sniper on the roof is a great example of where TLOS falls down hard for a skirmish game. I kind of like the idea of letting the active player declare the visibility of the models in cover. So if he can see to shoot, he can be shot back. If he is clinging hard to cover and cannot shoot (IE hiding), he cannot be seen. Well, unless maybe until they get closer (or get around the cover) and spot him....
Range is a very interesting question. If we are still taking about skirmish gaming, then there is also going to be the difference between firing on the move, which is largely short ranged and suppressive, unless you can catch them unawares or pinned, and the careful, aimed shot (usually made at some distance). Interestingly, the second is usually also at an unaware target. Once a target is aware that they are under fire, they tend to move to cover and/or shoot back, which makes aiming hard.
So, range, then is generally the range of effective direct fire. I would say generally this is a direct function of state and equipment. Firing on the move with a pistol? Very short effective range. Still with a scoped rifle aiming at an unaware foe? Whole table with no real penalty (too close would actually be tougher).
SMGs and battle rifle should be ideal for close encounters and move fire, rifles for long range, and pistol for when you have nothing else! MGs are for laying down heavy swathes of fire at very limited angles.
So maybe cut the range of most weapons on the move (hard cap) or use incremental penalties (say a weapon with range 10 accrues a penalty of 1 for ranges beyond 10, 2 beyond 20, 3 beyond 30, etc.). But they all need not be exactly the same. The rifle, for example, might have a minimum range, especially while scoped. And, of course, I like fixed length lines for things like flamethrowers. Anything within X distance of the line gets scorched!
|
-James
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/25 00:13:49
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
frozenwastes wrote:A design question for 1:1:1 approaches. When do you make range matter. The inverse square law shows that a target that is further away basically shrinks and becomes harder to hit. So when and how does a given set of rules account for that, if they do? How much does it matter? Do you prefer a simple optimal range/long range split?
KOG light is a 1:1:1 game set in the near future. As the default unit is a robot suit (or tank or powersuit), I assume accuracy based on modern computer-aimed devices (e.g. M1 Abrams fire control system), so range doesn't really matter - LOS (i.e. terrain) matters.
In the case of KOG light, I simplify things to have unlimited range (which really means more than 100 meters), and then apply a non-optimal long range penalty. Automatically Appended Next Post: jmurph wrote:The sniper on the roof is a great example of where TLOS falls down hard for a skirmish game.
If that's what you need to model under TLOS, simply allow the player to lay the model on it's side for a prone position...
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/25 00:21:26
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/25 01:35:59
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Posts with Authority
I'm from the future. The future of space
|
For myself laying models on their sides is a deal breaker. I think it looks awful and will never do it. As well, even varnished models are far more likely to be damaged if you regularly place them prone.
|
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/25 02:29:51
Subject: Re:"Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Manchu wrote:Well - I didn't think it would be necessary to explain that ground scale and figure scale are rarely 1:1 but now that we have ...
No, I understand perfectly well what it means to have a difference between ground scale and figure scale. My point is that 40k doesn't work that way. 40k doesn't have a separate ground scale, it has a bunch of ranges/distances that don't make sense fluff-wise. You can't explain it with the ground scale concept because the various nonsense ranges/distances are still equally ridiculous no matter what you pick for a ground scale. You can't have an assault rifle with 24" range and a 40mm (or more!) autocannon with 48" range, no matter what you decide the ground scale is at least one of those numbers is absurd.
And when you look at other popular games you see the same kind of thing: the table is representing a very small area of a battlefield at the same scale as the models, and various ranges/distances are inconsistent and unrealistic. The only games that fit your model are space combat games like BFG/Starfleet Battles/etc, where ship models are clearly out of scale to everything else so they aren't tiny specks.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/25 04:02:29
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
You're still barking up the wrong tree: 40k doesn't have a separate ground scale
referencing the rhetorical device you unilaterally introduced earlier, the notion of a "consistent and deliberate ground scale" - i.e., where ground scale is mechanically relevent to the game design (such as with frontage). But that was never the contention.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/25 04:16:05
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Manchu wrote:You're still barking up the wrong tree: 40k doesn't have a separate ground scale
referencing the rhetorical device you unilaterally introduced earlier, the notion of a "consistent and deliberate ground scale" - i.e., where ground scale is mechanically relevent to the game design (such as with frontage). But that was never the contention.
Uh, what? If a ground scale isn't relevant to game design then how exactly does it exist? If the designer isn't saying "this is the ground scale" as they're creating movement distances/terrain size/weapon ranges/etc then the ground scale exists only in your imagination.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/25 04:31:49
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
You missed the point again. The "official ground scale" of X game was never relevant to my point, just the observation that ground scale is self-evidently smaller than model scale as a matter of limited ranges. Therefore, the volume of the "magic cylinder" is larger than it might casually appear.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/25 05:39:17
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Manchu wrote:You missed the point again. The "official ground scale" of X game was never relevant to my point, just the observation that ground scale is self-evidently smaller than model scale as a matter of limited ranges. Therefore, the volume of the "magic cylinder" is larger than it might casually appear.
Then I really don't understand what your point is. You're describing a "ground scale" that doesn't exist in the game, wasn't ever a part of the design process, and isn't at all consistent across the various things that would be part of a ground scale. I don't know, maybe it makes you feel better to try to rationalize away the unrealistic distances like this even though it has nothing to do with the actual game? But from a game design point of view 40k is a 28mm game with 28mm model scale and 28mm ground scale, and some distances that are set for game balance reasons* rather than realism.
*See previous quote from one of the original designers of 40k, about how those distances are set to fractions of the table size for game mechanics reasons and have nothing to with "realistic" ground scale.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/25 05:40:33
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/02/25 05:53:46
Subject: "Realistic" weapon ranges - your thoughts?
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
lolno 40k is a setting as well as a game and bolters can shoot farther than 100 feet ... if it being a fictional setting confuses you too much then by all means think again about Bolt Action or Flames of War
|
|
|
 |
 |
|