Some of the most fundamental errors committed in wargaming design are in the determination of the scales used in the games. Errors made here tend to be somewhat invisible and yet they permeate the entire fabric of the game, generally making the rules more complex and lower in "historicity." The biggest offender of them all is probably the troops to casting ratio. Now this may seem the potentially least offensive of all the scaling decisions that must be made, but typically it is the first scale decided, and there in is the problem.
The method used to determine the troops to casting ratio seems to be one of two basic techniques. The first is largely economic, "I can afford about 20 castings per unit, so the scale is 50:1 since the average unit was a 1000 men." The second is tradition, "Everyone always does this period at 30:1, so I will too."
The problem I see with such rules-of-thumb is they will almost inevitably lead to problems elsewhere between rule playability, game objectives, and the historicity of the playing. Deciding the troops to casting ratio first is having the tail wagging the dog. I should like to propose that there are at least two (depending upon game objectives) logical, mathematical ways of determining the troop ratio that results in all scales being consistent with each other as well as the overall objectives of the game.
In the following example, let's assume we are setting out to design a rule set for some period in the horse-and-musket era. Changes necessary for other eras will be obvious. The following historical and gaming data are needed:
- The width of the typical battle front to be gamed.
The desired amount of maneuver space to the flanks of the battle front.
The actual number of troops in a "typical" unit. The actual frontage of the troops in a "typical" formation.
The actual effective range of artillery and musketry.
The width of the typical playing area.
The desired range for artillery and musketry. The width of a single casting when mounted..
The first question to be resolved is the scope of the game - is it to model entire battles of the period, or only "actions" that may be part of a larger battle or that are of very much smaller scale than a full fledged battle? If this is to be an "action" oriented game, then you do not need the first two pieces of information, although they can be used as a check. If it is a full battle game, you do not need to know the desired range for artillery and musketry. We will proceed under the assumption that we are doing a full battle game first.
Let's assume that the typical battle of the period occupied a frontage of three miles; further let's say that we want maneuver zones of one mile on each flank of the battle line. (Now it is not required that these "maneuver zones" be included, however, wouldn't be nice to allow room on the table for flanking moves and have something different than the same old head-on smashing contest?) If we now assume that the playing area is 12 feet in width, we can directly calculate the distance scale of the game. It is 12 feet equals 5 miles, or, in slightly more convenient form, 1" = 61.1 yards. For simplicity's sake, say 1" equals 60 yards.
Next, let's assume that the typical unit of 2000 men in a line of battle would have a frontage of 450 yards. At a scale of 1" to 60 yards, a 450 yard line would be 7.5" long. If we now assume a 15mm casting, when mounted, occupies a frontage of .375" (that's 3/8 the of an inch); this means that the 7.5" line would have 20 figures -across the front (7.5"/0.375" per casting). If we decide that one rank of castings is all that will be used to represent the unit in line, then our figure scale is 100 troops per casting (2000 troops/20 castings). If we wanted to use two ranks of figures, the ratio would be 50:1 (2000 troops/40 castings). Simple isn't it? Would you have guessed 100:1 based on period and general information and the game objectives given? If not, it would have resulted in problems later in the rules development.
If we were doing an "actions" oriented game, we would follow the same approach but with different parameters, for example: Assume the typical effective artillery and musketry range is 1200 yards and 240 yards respectively. Furthermore, let's say we decided that we would like the artillery's effective range in the game to be 48". The ground scale is therefore 48" = 1200 yards, or 1" = 25 yards. This makes musketry range 9.6" (say 10") and our line of 2000 men would now be 18" long. This represents a frontage of 48, 15mm castings, and, again assuming 1 rank of castings, a troops to casting ratio of 41.7:1, call it 40 to 1.
This process can be very helpful in balancing your ideas for the game and should be done early in the design process. You may come out with unexpected results that will cause you to re-think your basic assumptions and objectives. But in the end, this method ensures that the troops to casting ratio, the unit frontage scale and the game objectives are consistent and proportional to each other. This will provide better rule mechanics and better play than just grabbing numbers and hoping they work out.
Back to MWAN # 41 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1989 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com