The Importance of Scale

[Easy E]

Scale is something that wargamers talk about a lot.  You hear the terms 28mm, True 28mm, Heroic 28mm, 1.72nd etc. talked about a lot.  In this sense, they are referring to the size of the models to be used in miniature wargaming.  Normally, it is used to make sure that models, terrain, and board size are all in alignment. 

Those who have been following my design ethos since the beginning know that almost all of my games are scale and model agnostic, as long as they look good together you should be able to use it.  Therefore, when I talk about scale I am not interested in measurement conventions.  Therefore, why do I have a blog post title "The Importance of Scale"?  That seems like a topic I would be completely uninterested in? 

In this case, I am using a different definition of scale.  It does not relate to the measurements on the table top.  Instead, I am using it to refer to the size of a conflict that a game designer wants to represent in their game.   I tend to break games down into the following categories when I talk about scale:

Model vs Model
Unit vs Unit
Big Battle
Grand Strategy

You can see more about my definitions here: http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/05/wargame-design-importance-of-scale.html

So, do you use a different breakdown?  I have seen a lot of confusion about what is Skirmish, what is Grand Strategy, Corps level vs. Divisional, etc.  I am sure there are other ways people define a game's scale.

Other than Scale, is there another; better term to describe it? 

How does "Bathtubbing" or "Small armies/Large Battles" fit into these ideas? 

What are differences you see between designing for one scale of game vs. another? 

I find being exposed to different ideas and thoughts on subjects like these really help get my creative juices flowing!  So thanks in advance!

Your thoughts?

[Elbows]

I've only developed skirmish games (colloquial phrase for your 'model vs. model' designation), and one rank-n-flank game using units consisting of 'bases' (3-12 bases per unit).

The rank-n-flank game has been significantly easier to design, simply because it is operating on a more abstract level.  In my skirmish games you're more likely to be concerned about the mental, physical and equipment status of each model...and that's simply not the case in the rank-n-flank.

The rank-n-flank game is also abstract enough that it's 'scale' agnostic regarding the size and number of the models.  My personal collection is what I called a "Warhammer" sized army, in that it's a rather fictitious size of an army, with units consisting of 6-30 miniatures each.  So an "army" purely by wargaming standards.  However, each 40x40mm base that I use could just as easily hold 20-30 6mm figures and the game would play the same, so that's convenient.

A base/unit game simply doesn't get dragged into the level of minutiae you'd find in a skirmish game addressing single models.

[fred]

Interesting ideas (as always!)

I don’t think wargames have really established the ‘scale of the game’ in any really definitive way. You see this with rule sets that talk about being ‘battalion level’ and then potential players ask if this means a battalion a side, or if each manoeuvre element is a battalion.

I think your list is a good starting point. But I would question if model vs model is quite right, I do think that were a model is a man the representation level of the rules will be quite different to where a model is a ship/starship.

I think I could also argue for splitting unit vs unit to large skirmish and battles - but this is perhaps splitting hairs.

Figure scale seems to loom very large in wargame rules and for wargamers. Preheats this is down to the very practical level that if you have 28mm figures and I have 10mm ones, then the game will look very weird! My experience is that most games play fine with pretty much any scale of figures.

[tikitang]

I think we should use table types to describe the sorts of game we're playing, and keep the word "scale" refering to model measurements.

How about:

Tea-tray: 3-5 miniatures per side
Coffee table: 5-20 miniatures per side
Dining table: 20-100 miniatures per side
Wargaming table: 100+ miniatures per side

[Harry Faversham]

Love it, wargamers never disappoint when it comes to being long winded bastids!
Wot about. I love this toy and want to play wiv it, it's a nat's bollock out of scale...
so fookin' wot!!!???

[fred]

Love it, wargamers never disappoint when it comes to being long winded bastids!
Wot about. I love this toy and want to play wiv it, it's a nat's bollock out of scale...
so fookin' wot!!!???

Woosh!

Did you even read any of the original article?

[frd]

As someone who is far from a veteran when it comes to wargames (I'm by no means new to the hobby, but am far from being able to call myself an expert), I have to say I do like your classification a lot, Easy E.

It tells you a lot more about the flow of the game and avoids confusion that comes with the more common terms: skirmish can be model-vs-model with couple minis aside, or it can be unit-vs-unit with dozens of minis a side depending on who you're talking to.

Although I see how using the term "scale" could make it confusing. I think I would prefer the term "scope" instead.

Also, not sure about the "Big Battle" term - it just feels a little out of place. Maybe Army vs Army would be a better name for it? Especially considering that the turn-by-turn actions would be similar between the first three terms (maneuver miniatures on a battlefield), and keeping it X vs X would reinforce that notion and also highlight how different the Grand Strategy is compared to the other three.

I have only designed wargames for myself so far and I have to agree with Elbows that when you get down to model-vs-model scale, things become much more granular. Not only you need to consider status of each model on the battlefield, but also have systems to distinguish different capabilities of each model. Once you move up a step, even to a unit-vs-unit, you can abstract a lot of it.

Unlike Fred, I think model-vs-model works on human and larger scale models. From the perspective of the rules, it doesn't really matter if the model represents a man, a plane or a ship. Each is treated in similar way: they have some statistics, some abilities and status on the battlefield. It might be just me, but if I see a game about starships described as model vs model I don't expect to worry about each man on that ship, just the ship itself.

Anyway, if I ever decide to release any of my half baked wargame ideas I will for sure be using this scope in its description.

[has.been]

How about:

Tea-tray: 3-5 miniatures per side
Coffee table: 5-20 miniatures per side
Dining table: 20-100 miniatures per side
Wargaming table: 100+ miniatures per side
« Last Edit: May 17, 2023, 07:57:42 PM by tikitang »

Oh I do like that, especially 'Tea-tray' I'll have to keep an eye out (Junk/charity shops)
for several & model the terrain onto the tray.

[Silent Invader]

I’ve played a great escape and evasion game that could be described as Model vs Unit, with the Europeans being scaled as tea tray, the Zulus as dining table and the terrain as wargaming table.

[Ran The Cid]

Although I see how using the term "scale" could make it confusing. I think I would prefer the term "scope" instead.

Scope is the word that came to mind for me also.

[Easy E]

Scope makes a lot of sense to me as well.

[carlos marighela]

I'm no doubt biased as for me 'scope' has a specific legal meaning and as a result I tend to think of scope as a term to limit/delimit conceptual matters and subject classes included within agreed parameters rather than the definition of the actual size or scale of a thing.

I suppose you could apply that to gaming and force levels but see no real semantic advantage over describing something as game scale vs figure scale. Ie this is designed to provide brigade sized battles (game scale) using 15m figures ( figure scale).

I've seen attempts to classify along military lines sub-unit, unit and formation but that's rather dependent on period and familiarity with the meaning of such terms.

End of the day, size works for me. No doubt many of you have at some stage heard the expression 'size doesn't matter, it's what you you do with it', no doubt from a woman barely able to suppress a smirk on their face.

[ced1106]

> "Bathtubbing"

Bathtub: 3-5 miniatures per side
Hottub: 5-20 miniatures per side
Swimming Pool: 20-100 miniatures per side
Who farted? : 100+ miniatures per side

[vodkafan]

Oh I do like that, especially 'Tea-tray' I'll have to keep an eye out (Junk/charity shops)
for several & model the terrain onto the tray.

  Look you have started him off now ....and I was just getting him calmed down since the last time ...

[ithoriel]

I should've copyrighted "tea tray wargaming"