As in many hobbies, there are certain questions which automatically leap to mind when first introduced to another wargamer. "What era? What manufacturer? What rules set? 15's or 25's or whatever?" and likewise with new rules sets, "Ratio of figures to men? Yards to inch? Removal of figures or fatigue/morale system?" I'm not quite sure why these particular questions, and the favourites of your own, reach general popularity, but there is one area in which I'm surprised so little attention has been given. To give it a title perhaps we could use vertical scale. Vertical scale is the dimension of height as we see it on the board, and as it is reflected in terrain features and figure height. I was once told that if a "real" man were placed on the board, his height would about equal the base on which lead figures stand. This made sense to me as I compared base height to typical heights of the terrain systems, say a Geo-Hex mountain. However, at the same time, it does not work well with other features. Houses and trees seem more scaled to the actual 15mm or 25mm figure. So, in effect, what often occurs is a double scale; one for the overall view of the terrain, and a second based almost purely on figures. This many not seem terribly profound, or of any great importance, until some of the implications become clear. Movement is certainly critical to scale. Some players can't believe my Sarmatian light cavalry can move 24 inches in a turn, but as I view the system it makes sense. What is difficult for me to comprehend are the mini-moves involved in WRG for example. Another place this stands out is line-of-sight. Certainly it makes sense that units on opposite sides of a hill can not see each other, even it their banners or flags are above the 3/4 inch level of that hill. But then, when they reach the the slope of the hill, sighting is acknowledged if the figures are in each others "sight". Even determinations on turning a flank could be effected. I would think that this also has implications regarding figure size and scale. After all, if we can accept a double standard for vertical scale, why not in figure size? This may not be visually pleasant, and probably should be avoided for that reason alone. However, for utilization of rules systems, usage of 6mm, 15mm, or 25mm might be much less a critical factor. As stated earlier, this may seem like overly fine distinctions for the purpose of wargaming. It is intended to serve two purposes; both related to clarity. Most argument that come up, tend to result because an earlier judgment does not seem to be consistent with the one under contention. Secondly, on a higher plane, the real purpose of rules and rules sets should be to clearly delineate the wargaming world as the rule writer views it. If new and experienced players are going to be excited about your rules, and supportive of your judgments, the writer must invite them to understand every aspect of his world. I think "vertical scale" might help to do that. Any suggestion as to how an organized approach might address this issue. Or am I just splitting hairs. Back to MWAN # 38 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1989 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com