tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654358191889198506.post4404027427798233924..comments2024-03-01T15:09:19.824+00:00Comments on doctorphalanx: Distortion of ranges in Grand Tactical wargame rulesdoctorphalanxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11805618584243510174noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654358191889198506.post-59322144815316269052020-03-15T12:55:07.137+00:002020-03-15T12:55:07.137+00:00Hi Richard,
Apology accepted, of course! Easily d...Hi Richard,<br /><br />Apology accepted, of course! Easily done when surveying a large group of different rulesets, I'm sure. No worries!<br /><br />ChrisChrisBBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522334377353504659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654358191889198506.post-45036692288023920972020-03-14T17:08:08.942+00:002020-03-14T17:08:08.942+00:00Hi Chris
Thanks for raising this.
What I wrote i...Hi Chris<br /><br />Thanks for raising this.<br /><br />What I wrote in my third paragraph was directly inspired by the concept in BBB! which you explain and I should have acknowledged that. What I then wrote in the BBB section was totally inappropriate. I'm at a loss to explain how this happened and I owe you a double apology.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Richarddoctorphalanxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11805618584243510174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654358191889198506.post-88798575273840917862020-03-14T10:07:29.147+00:002020-03-14T10:07:29.147+00:00Oops, forgot to include my signature links!
https:...Oops, forgot to include my signature links!<br />https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles<br />http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/ChrisBBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522334377353504659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654358191889198506.post-24886468787660184742020-03-14T10:06:01.262+00:002020-03-14T10:06:01.262+00:00Hi Richard,
As the author of 'Bloody Big BATT...Hi Richard,<br /><br />As the author of 'Bloody Big BATTLES!', I'd like to respond to your remark about BBB that you 'don't think that a smoothbore musket range of up to 750 yards/metres withstands scrutiny.' If you'd scrutinised the rulebook, you'd have seen it says this:<br /><br />'These ranges are significantly further than the distances the individual weapons could fire historically. The reason for this is that the troops of a unit actually cover a much larger area than the few square inches of its base. The bases merely represent the ‘centre of gravity’ of a unit, and the fire factors reflect a ‘zone of control’. Some of a unit’s component subunits – infantry battalions, cavalry regiments – will in reality be posted 100s of yards ahead as advance guards or outposts, others may be 100s of yards behind as reserve. Those subunits in turn will have thrown out companies or squadrons of skirmishers and scouts 100s of yards ahead again, flank guards, and their own supports and reserves. Thus when two divisions engage at a range of 12”, perhaps 3,000 yards on the ground, with rifles whose effective range was only 1,200 yards, this represents the fact that each of the opposing units’ forward skirmisher screens is up to 1,000 yards ahead of the main body. As units close, they thicken their firing lines and the fire gets more intense, hence the higher fire factors at shorter ranges. Likewise, the 24 or 36 guns an artillery base represents are not necessarily all in a single gun line; instead, individual batteries may be spread around the division or corps area.'<br /><br />Hope this clarifies and justifies.<br /><br />Chris ChrisBBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522334377353504659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654358191889198506.post-34468521445181311942019-10-14T08:06:30.451+01:002019-10-14T08:06:30.451+01:00Chris
Please email me (doctorphalanx at gmail.com...Chris<br /><br />Please email me (doctorphalanx at gmail.com) re Rules of Battle.<br /><br />Richarddoctorphalanxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11805618584243510174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654358191889198506.post-55984366454755997122019-10-13T10:12:38.338+01:002019-10-13T10:12:38.338+01:00Hi Chris
Thanks for your observations which are v...Hi Chris<br /><br />Thanks for your observations which are very much appreciated. Readers are welcome to respond to posts, however old they may be.<br /><br />I was playing C&C Ancients recently in which pila are given a range of 2 hexes in comparison to bows which have a range of 3 hexes. Personally I probably wouldn't have made the pilum a ranged weapon, but given that decision its range can't be any shorter because a 1 hex range (i.e. adjacent hex) is close combat distance with no ranged shooting allowed.<br /><br />Here we have a clear example where game mechanics distort range. Does it matter? I think not. The important thing is that pila are thrown at some point before contact, not the precise physical distance. Wargames are abstracted. This is just another abstraction.<br /><br />Steven originally began with shorter ranges but was driven to extend them by a complex interplay of game mechanics, and I think that is a different situation from setting out with unrealistic ranges.<br /><br />TVBD is still in development and is getting a lot of scrutiny. Try it now and give Steven your comments... That way we can all help to avoid the errata which dog some other rule sets!<br /><br />I'm in contact with the author of Rules of Battle and have made enquiries.<br /><br />Lastly, thanks for your comments about the blog.<br /><br />Richarddoctorphalanxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11805618584243510174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654358191889198506.post-91605969211392164132019-10-12T17:20:38.979+01:002019-10-12T17:20:38.979+01:00First, HFG, which I play pretty regularly. HFG is...First, HFG, which I play pretty regularly. HFG is a good example of how to get the balance right within the constraints of well defined ground and representational scales. Musketry is slightly overstated (200 paces) but still ony a fraction (1/2) of unit frontage (400 paces), which looks right on the table. Troops such as French line infantry project firepower beyond normal effective range because they are deemed to have a skirmish screen deployed ahead of the brigade. Moreoever the writer, Phil Barker, incorporates some very clever but quite unobtrusive mechanisms for simulating the interplay between firing ranges and movement rate. The result is that infantry and cavalry trying to close with defending infantry are subject to sufficient rounds of ranged combat to reflect the effectiveness of defensive fire. It works particularly cleverly for the later part of the period covered by the rules, modelling the increased effectiveness of rifled small arms against cavalry (particularly) very effectively. I think DBA contrives to hit the same balance for archery, in a simiar way.<br /><br />Secondly and briefly, ToDR, which I have also played though not so much. Although I have levelled some criticisms at ToDR for poor proof reading and clarity of layout and drafting, there is still much to applaud in terms of design (with many good ideas being inherited from its progenitor, Twilight of the Sun King). <br /><br />In the context of the this post, I do think that ToDR also achieves a good balance within the constraints of its defined ground and representational scales. In particular, the fact that distant combat takes place at ranges that are relatively small fractions of base width actually improves the look of the game. Lines look 'engaged', whether they are in distant combat of close combat. Moreover, small arms fire cannot be brought to bear to interdict enemy movement at unreasonable distances. If I had any criticism of the way firing is implemented it would be that the rules differentiate between too many ranges unnecessarily, given how short even musket range is. <br /><br />I've been following Steven Thomas' development of TVBD with great interest. After reading the rules I'm really looking forward to trying them out, especially as I'm still not sure that I want to persevere with ToDR, given the number of errata and inconsistencies that I'll need to resolve if I'm to do so. Mostly the TVBD rules read very well but I'm not at all sure about the apparent distortion in the range of distant combat. (I must apologise to Steven at this point. I haven't yet put this feedback to him directly and I know that he is always open to dialogue. I aim to give some considered feedback when I've had the chance to try the rules. Especially as it may turn out that my doubts are unfounded.)<br /><br />I know that it's possible to to get a really enjoyable game even with significant distortions of scale in respect of distant combat ranges. Commands & Colors Napoleonics is a very good example. Artillery range seems ridiculously short and musketry ridiculously long when compared with the apparent ground scale and representational scales but the game is brilliant.<br /><br />Lastly, I was very interested to read your comments about Rules of Battle. You've praised this ruleset before and I've been trying to find a copy but it looks like they may be out of print. Do you know if that's the case?<br /><br />Thanks for a great blog. It's a good read and I return to it pretty frequently. All the best, Chris Helm<br /><br />Note: I'm happier to fudge depths simply because there's no choice for any game above the level of single figure skirmish, given the size of the figures. Depths are always going to be way overscale.Chris Helmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524176522366626487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654358191889198506.post-40654145511304732872019-10-12T17:20:14.785+01:002019-10-12T17:20:14.785+01:00Hi Doc, thanks for a very interesting post on a qu...Hi Doc, thanks for a very interesting post on a question that I think is fairly central to designing good rules. Why do I think this is central? Well I know it's now a few weeks since you posted so I hope you don't mind if I chip in with a few observations of my own.<br /><br />I think we all tend to want to overstate small arms range because we can't quite accept the look and feel of a game in which the separation between units engaged in distant combat is only a small fraction of the base width, i.e. just out of contact, and we carry this prejudice over even into games where the representational scale is unit = (roughly) brigade. <br /><br />Why that is I'm not sure. Maybe it's because most of us have either come out of the 'old school' toy soldier approach, which didn't worry too much about this 'representational scale' stuff, or from a GW background, which is inherently skirmish oriented, so that distant combat takes place at extended ranges on the tabletop. But it does bug me. Maybe because, when I've gone to the trouble of getting the dust under the toenails of the figures just the right colour for Thermopylae, I find it difficult to let go of inaccuracies in other aspects of the game. I'm a geek, I admit it.<br /><br />Seriously though, smalls arms range more or less sets the ground scale for the game and hence unit frontages and depths (but see my note at the end). And there's a tricky interplay between small arms ranges particularly (but also artillery ranges), movement rate and the effectiveness of distant combat that strongly influences the balance of play and is quite difficult to get right. This is the case regardless of the scale chosen but is much more apparent if small arms range in the game is significantly overscale by comparison with other distances in the game.<br /><br />All your examples of this are illuminating in this respect but I'd like to illustrate the point by commenting on two rulesets that I know something about. <br /><br />... contd Chris Helmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524176522366626487noreply@blogger.com