One of the things that have fascinated me is the geometry of the tabletop. Perhaps it began when I began making large hexagon-based terrain for modularity and appearance. The point is that, I have recently come to a theory that the problem with most games is not the rules, but that we do not think about the limitations of the table. Frankly they're too crowded with troops to give the :room aria maneuverability open to our historical counterparts, and this has dire consequences' for both our games, rules, organization, and of course playability and realism.

Thus, the "problem" with most rules may not be the rules at all, but the table. This is a grim conclusion indeed -- if true -- for the widest table we can, have (barring bizarre ideas like cut-outs and access hatches which seem inexpedient) may be limited to around six to seven feet; that is, the limit to which our arms may reach (from any point around the table). Tabletops wider than seven feet and you cannot reach the troops in the center (the most important part), or you have to get up and "crawl" on the tabletop. Not a wise thing to do in most cases, and even if so, we are back to floor games.

General Theory

Now in analyzing historic battle reports and maps and in considering how these things evolved both over' the long 'period and from hour to hour in the individual battle, I have come to several interesting GENERAL observations. These observations are GENERAL "rules", and I am sure each of you can come up with dozens of exceptions and counter-examples, but these exceptions merely prove the rule. In general they hold true so that is where I will begin.

1. MOST (but not all) battles began with both sides just inside or just outside maximum firing; of artillery or missile troops.

2. MOST (but. not all) battles began with both sides occupying a frontage of little more than twice this distance.

3. MOST (but not all) battles began with each side occupying a depth (front rank of front most formation to rear rank of immediate reserves or third or fourth line) of about 1/5th their frontage.

4. MOST (but not all) battles "moved" no more than one frontage to the right or left and if they wheeled of rotated the general frontage was not substantially increased. Battles that exceeded this tended to break up into two separate engagements.

5. MOST (but not all) battles revolved around a "center point" that did not substantially change throughout the battle.

When the center point did change, the various relationships did not and it moved no more than a frontage in either direction.

Now, if we work this out on a nice large, spacious, 6x12" table we get something like that is shown in the figure. The table shown is a 6x12'. The four corner areas are labeled "Periphery" meaning not much happens there and this is usually reserved for the placing of rules; coke cans, and bowls of chips, salsa, and dips. The central lozenge is the General Battle area, and this is where most of the action takes place. The most important parts though are the two deployment areas (one for side A and one for side B), which are quadrangles of 48" by 9.6'x. These are divided by the application of rules 3 and 4 above. The placement and distance between them and related to the center point is derived from the other rules. The most important thing though is that quadrangle.

If we look at Figure 2 (table) we see a table derived from this; and this is where we get into the crux of the matter. Note the line "DEP AREA FRNTGE" (deployntent area frontage) and "Dep Area Depth." If you look under the column on the 6'x12 tabletop you will see these dimensions are equal to the dimensions shown in Figure. Then; if we apply these same proportioris, to all, the other table top sizes you will see the resulting. difnensions,'end the "GROSS DEP AREA" which is the number of, square inches in this rectangle: Now we COULD pack this area solid with troops, but to simulate leaving one or two lines, or at least a general spacing, let's assume that only 66% of this area can be "covered" with stands.

That is, we leave at least an equal :area open within the deployment area of one stand. The figure shows how this would: look to those covered by stands: thus the deployment area that we can us, maximum is 76.80", or the maximum "coverage" of table top space our figures on one side can take, and preserve the spatial ratio's above, You can see how this increases with the increasing size of the tabletop. 

Now given the deployment limit, and assuming that we want at least one stand width between lines, then this means that the maximum depth for a unit (for that tabletop) is 1/3 the depth of the deployment area. At this point I have applied a seemingly arbitrary factor and assumed that the total frontage of the unit is the same, that is, that it can be generally as wide as it is deep. I say not quite to arbitrary because we wart to be able to make formations like squares, and columns etc. and in that the "depth" of a battlefield unit arrayed in many lines does approach this figure very roughly. Also this does not mean that the frontage must equal the depth. The depth could be less by dividing up the allowed depth; by the number of stands one wishes. Thus a maximum depth of unit of 3.2" for the 12'x6' table top could be broken into. thirds, or 1" each. Stands could then be one-inch wide and the resulting frontage would be 3.2x3 or 10.6 inches. The figure for that area then is simply an abstract number which translates to the total area of the stands in, whatever configuration you make them.

Also, we have to be somewhat cavalier about depth because we are locked into unalterable dimensions given our toy soldiers, which, especially for cavalry, but also for infantry, grossly exaggerate depth. (If we consider real scales). Thus the total area of a unit under the 6'x12' tabletop is 10.4" or 3x3.2". Now you will notice that I have labeled this row "Maximum Stand Width" in the chart. This does not mean that the stands for the unit must be this size, they can be less, but remember too that the size of the soldier will specify a lower limit to the width of the stand.

Then, when all is said and done and we divide the total area of the units into the maximum deployment area we get a constant 30 units.

The line "UNIT stand size" is merely a heading. giving a tag line to each unit area derived from the tabletop dimensions: This is echoed on the vertical column "# Unit Scheme A" etc. The cross.referenced shows -then the number of units you could have in the deployment area of a given tabletop by using the stand-basing system of a different tabletop.

Thus if you had your armies based to a normal 4'x6' table top with a max unit area of 2.56 sq inches then you could fit 120 units of this basing scheme into a table top 6'x12';

On the other hand, If you had your armies based on the nominal use of a 6'x12' table top and used them on a 4'x6' table tops then you could put into the deployment area only 8 units! Thus on this part of the chart you can determine the general max area of your units, find the resulting "Scheme" and then cross reference it to see how many units you can get on the table top.

Thus, suppose you had a basing system where the average area of your units came out to about 4.5 sq inches. That would be scheme: C ,or D (they are identical). If you had a 6'x6' table top, you could but 17 units on a side, and still have the room and maneuverability to make it "accurate."

General Discussion

Now, a general discussion before going on. The point of this is to show, with changes in table size - the ranges in effective space you have for deployment and battle. One can also see, rather dramatically, the effect of changes in this size.. Obviously as unit area goes up, and game number down, the troops will be more and more confined, ranges will be extended. (even if not numeric change is entailed) simply by the fact of the shrinking of' the table. The ranges will have a more dominant effect on the table the smaller it is.

The firsr part of the chart above the UNIT/STAND SIZE row assumes that your basing system is fluid (admitttedly an unrealistic assumption, but necessary for the problem). Thus, if you had a 4 x 8' foot tabletop, then to be consistent historically you would have to have units that consumed 4.55 sq. inches of space, with maximum stand width could be 2.13 inches. You could, cut this in half and have troops be 1" by 2" stands and thus 2 sq. inches into 4.55" means you could have two, perhaps three; stands to the unit. However, we all, know that our bases are not on a sliding scale, and are generally fixed. Thus, the only other, recourse, if we cannot dramatically change the size of the base, is to reduce the number of unit.

Similar problems exist with the ranges. Regardless of the size of the table, troops must still set up just outside of general missile range to start and even though you may be using a narrower table, you cannot always cut down the ranges in the rules.

Now, it is obvious that given an observance of these limitations; as embodied in the chart, one could develop very interesting games nevertheless. The deployment. areas need not match, and could be moved forward or back or to line up. One could make an interesting battle where say the left edge of the table is a river and both sides line up in the deployment area with the left side flush on the tabletop, and the right side open. (I am here assuming that we are considering the map from one point of view, not that the right of one is the left of another). Thus maneuver, on a 6'x12' tabletop could be rather open to the. right of these deployment areas. On-side deployments could be ussed, or angular, or even cross'-board deployments. That is, where the battle is fought across, the "short" side of the table. In this case depth no longer becomes a problem for we now have all the depth we desire ,but outflanking is more constrained because the maneuver area to either side is only one unit difference. 

Another use of the chart is for planning. Let me give you an example using my 30YW pile and shot armies. I mount my figures on big stands, with usually, the whole unit oon a single stand. The reason is that I just can't be bothered worryinig about little stands here and there, and I think that small stands defeats the .purpose of stands themselves. They are to move large numbers of soldiers expeditiously and to keep them in a visually pleasing military formation. Large stands are for me, therefore, the ideal. Also the soldiers are less subject to breakage or handling; Thus, in my 30 Years War armies, all pike and shot regiments are represented by 9 pike, 8 musketeers, and officer, color, and drummer on a 4"x4" stand. I handle the use of skirmishers and detached rhtisketeers by the use of Musketeer regiments of 12 musketeers, one of officer, one color and one dr-ummer on four small 2" by 2" stands.: Cavalry are on 4" x 4" stands with 8 figures on them, and dragoon regiments are on 2" by 2" stands like the musketeers but with two figures to each stand. Guns are on 4" by 4" stand with limber and other impedimenta.. Thus each unit is 16 sq. inches of space. Wagons are on 4" by 4" stands though some long models.I put on 2"x8" stands.

Now, I have a 6'x12' table; 307 sq. inches of deplyment divided by 16 sq. inches = 19.1875, rouned to 20 units. Thus, my pike and shot army has 4 pike and shot, 2 musketeer, two heavy cav, two light cav, and two dragoon regts. Two heavy and two light artillery pieces and four supply wagons round out the 20 units. There are also 10 general officers (each on a 2x2" stand). While these officers may exceed base area, since they don't function liike battlefield units, I don't count them.

So take the figures and work with them. I think if you use them to start to compare the battlefield space you have with the armies you field, you'll begin to see how far out of proportion your armies really are. Try cutting the units down, and then see how the rules work.