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.

Scale is something that wargamers talk about a lot. You hear the terms 28mm, True 28mm, Heroic 28mm, 1.72nd etc. talked about a lot. In this sense, they are referring to the size of the models to be used in miniature wargaming. Normally, it is used to make sure that models, terrain, and board size are all in alignment.

Those who have been following my design ethos since the beginning know that almost all of my games are scale and model agnostic, as long as they look good together you should be able to use it. Therefore, when I talk about scale I am not interested in measurement conventions. Therefore, why do I have a blog post title "The Importance of Scale"? That seems like a topic I would be completely uninterested in?

In this case, I am using a different definition of scale. It does not relate to the measurements on the table top. Instead, I am using it to refer to the size of a conflict that a game designer wants to represent in their game. I tend to break games down into the following categories when I talk about scale:

Model vs Model
Unit vs Unit
Big Battle
Grand Strategy

You can see more about my definitions here: http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/05/wargame-design-importance-of-scale.html

So, do you use a different breakdown? What are differences you see between designing for one scale of game vs. another?

 Easy E wrote:
So, do you use a different breakdown? What are differences you see between designing for one scale of game vs. another?

I think there are two different elements of scale.

The first is as you say, the scope of the game. It is about individuals dueling or vast armies crashing on a continental (or even interplanetary) scale?

Depending on how you choose to scale it, you can have a figure represent an individual or an army.

What I think is even more important (because it is so neglected) is for the player to have decisions and options that are appropriate to the given scale.

For example, many historical games have the player sit in the chair of the army commander, yet he also serves at the corps, divisional, brigade and even regimental scale, personally moving each piece of his army across the map.

Sometimes, this is by necessity - one simply can't arrange to have a full command staff participate, so players have to do double duty, but many designers go beyond what is needed to add pointless and fiddly details.

40k is probably the worst offender. As a commander, the player not only hand-selects his force (including the equipment of every soldier and vehicle), but he also has authority over assets that should belong to independent headquarters, like titans, super-heavies, and aircraft.

While it lived, Warhammer wasn't quite as bad, and there the primary weakness was in the various mechanics rather than a disconnect between scale and command authority.

I think the true test of a "serious" wargame is how it approaches decision making. A game that has a big scope but also keeps decisions appropriate to that scope will frequently be easier and faster to play than one that pushing too far down the chain of command.