| Author
|
Thread |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Owen
General
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1000
Location: DECATUR IL |
|
|
 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cerberus:
Bill,
...wouldn't Inch based HE templates be likely to cover MORE vehicles, not less? More microarmor vehicles can fit into the same space as 15mm vehicles....
Hi ya Mitch, yes, inch scale templates could tag more micro vehicles if they were compacted more than could be done by 1:76 vehicles.
But my point is that if you keep a CONSTANT dispersal of the center of each stand (which may be clearer on the webpage diagram I referred to), then 2 micro armor vehicles' edges might be more than 2" apart and thus only 1 gets hit. Two 1:76 vehicles' centers that are 3" apart might have only 1/2" between their edges and thus both would get hit.
Now there's 2 responses to this: (and not saying either are wrong per se)
1. Players should NOT be allowed to ignore doctrine and bunch up their vehicles and so you should rebase all your microarmor on 2" (or even wider) stands... or require dead ground of 1.5" between vehicles.
2. Players should be allowed to use bad tactics which are punishable by good artilery templates!
Wargames represent a balance between concentration of forces and risks inherant in that. So I lean towards point #2 above. How many games do you see the following? The Chevy 1:76 scale Tank Lot look of numerous tanks 'parked' bogey wheel to bogey wheel, and, where only 2 tanks can get hit by a template.
When playing inch scale with microarmor, each platoon really represents a center of gravity (1 or maybe 2 tanks) for a formation of 5 tanks that might actually be dispersed across several inches.
Incidentally, the Tiger I is one of the widest tanks in WWII and in Inch Scale it's actual size would be just over 2mm wide. So if they were parked bogey wheel to bogey wheel, the platoon would fit into less than 1/2"! If based at all, this is a common base size for micro armor but I've also seen 3/4" to 1" wide also.
Please consider these examples:
A. (2) 1/2"-wide based micro tanks (whose centers are 2.6" apart) are separated by 2.1" of ground in inch scale and has 10 tanks spread across possibly 155 meters (or more since each platoon might disperse out to either flank)...
Let's say a 105mm howitzer with 2" (100 meter) wide artillery barrage template drops in the middle of this 155 meters and can only hit 1 platoon in the game (2.1" between them, remember).
B. (2) 2" wide 1:76 Tiger tanks whose centers are also the same distance apart (2.6") has only .6" of ground between them...
2" (100 meter) wide artillery barrage drops in the middle of this 230 meters of tanks and easily hits both platoons in the game (.6" between them, remember)... A & B are 2 different games!
C. Hog Muffin (Handbook on German Military Forces=HOGMF) said that typical doctrine for a tank company (leading with 10 tanks) was to be dispersed across 500 meters (10" in inch scale) which means that a 100 meter barrage might only impact about 2 of the 10 tanks spread across 10" ...which was probably the point of the doctrine. Even if circumstances had them compact tighter and fudge the doctrine, there would be a point where artillery still hit only 5 tanks before it might hit 6+ or more and thus 2 platoons.
How routinely in wargames do we see tank platoons, in any scale, 8" apart?!
This is simply to say that if microarmor gamers use inch scale, your artillery template should be either be approx. double the size (4" instead of 2")... or ...keep the templates the same size (2") and make the measurements 60-80% of size, i.e. little inches. My original point.
Otherwise you're playing a very different game that has fundamentally greater concentration of direct fire forces with lessened impact by indirect fire.
I'll test this. And I'll post the pdf's for anyone else who wants a leg up on making the measurement sticks. Y'all can do whatever y'all likes! 
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids: www.g-design.us/cd
|
Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:58 am |
 
|
|
|
|
Cerberus
Captain
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 227
|
|
|
|
Bill,
I understand your examples, and you have a point. But in actual practice, I've seen things happen a little differently. In larger vehicle/stand scale, a 2-inch template will rarely hit more than two stands due to the physical constraints. But it isn't that uncommon to see three micro armor vehicles/stands hit. Mainly, I think because the smaller models LOOK more dispersed even when they aren't. You have to think more deliberately about the dispersal issue because the visual cues are not as obvious.
If I stick with microarmor (I've got so much of it, including a huge amount of buildings and assorted terrain and my progressive lenses help a lot), I am really tempted, due to this conversation and someone's earlier suggestion, to go with 1-inch standard bases, with an increased number of infantry for personnel stands, and two models for vehicle stands. This would visually reinforce the platoon-level emphasis of the game. It would largely solve the template problem and any similar measurement difficulties. The downside is that my basing would be incompatible with the vast majority.
Regards,
Mitch Osborne
|
|
Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:50 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
phpBB Template by Vereor
|
|
Just had a flashback to Corp Commander days...