25mm 8'x5' Table Analysis and Playtest Proposal

[korvus]

Summary

Putting aside my gamer hat and putting on my professional systems architect hat I did a little impartial analysis of some key dynamics of FoG and came up with three key factors that appear to have a significant impact when making a change to the table size to 8x5 for 25mm in FoG. They appear to be:

- Command Radius
- Depth of field and movement
- Terrain coverage

Other factors were considered, but fell off the list when I could not find a significant relationship to scale.

Analysis shows that a 1.25" MU preserves depth of field, movement effects and terrain coverage, but a 1.5" MU is required to replicate command radius.

My proposed solution is to use a 1.25" MU for movement and terrain as this preserves the look and feel of the game between scales. In addition, commanders command radius must be extended to compensate, or use 1.5" MU for command radius only. I believe the former is the superior solution, and they should be TC = 5 MU, FC = 10 MU, IC = 15 MU.

Next this should be playtested, ideally by people who play both scales to ensure that the look and feel of the game is preserved between scales with these changes

Scope:

This discussion will only consider an increase to 8x5 tables as this is what is readily available for tournament and hobby play in North America.

Assumptions:

1) FoG should have the same interactions when played in 25mm as 15mm.

Key Factors Analysis

Command Radius

Command radius clearly represents a key difference in play between 15mm and 25mm. A comparison of the relative command radius to base width clearly shows that fewer base widths of bases can be affected by commanders than in 15mm. In order for commanders to have the same effects in 25mm as in 15mm the MU would need to be 1.5".

Depth of Field

In order to preserve particular troop interactions, particularly the ability of non-skirmishers to push skirmishers off the board, the depth of field must be preserved, or certain troops become less effective, which has significant play balance effects. In that case, in order to preserve these interactions between the scales, a 1.25" MU would be required.

Terrain Coverage

This is a slightly more complicated discussion. However, I believe that the ratio of maximum terrain piece size to total playing area on a 6x4 table in 15mm will allow an informed discussion of the subject. Considering that factor the relative sizes should be:

Regular

15mm: 12" diameter
25mm: ~15" diameter

Large:

15mm: 16" diameter
25mm: ~20" diameter

A quick analysis shows that a 1.25" MU is required to provide the same terrain coverage between the two scales. I will gladly provide the detailed math if people are interested.

Width of Field

An 8' wide table represents a 1.33 increase in the width of field. However, if 1.25 " MU were adopted this would only represent an approximately 6 MU increase in table width, which does not appear to be significant relative to the other factors discussed above, and can be dropped

Conclusion:

After considering these factors, it seems that there are two different requirements. In order to preserve movement and terrain interactions between 15mm on a 6x4 table and 25mm on an 8x5 table, a 1.25" MU is required.

In order to preserve commander effects between 15 mm and 25mm, a 1.5" MU is required. However, in order to support this for movement and terrain, a 9x6 table would be required.

As these are not readily available, my conclusions are:

1. 25mm FoG on 8x5 tables should use 1MU = 1.25"
2. Command radii should either be increased as follows:

- Troop Commander: 5 MU
- Field Commander: 10 MU
- Inspired Commander: 15 MU

or players can adapt on the fly to use a 1.5" MU for command radius ONLY.

Next Steps

Playtesting is essential. Is there any chance I can convince anyone besides my local group to give this a spin. I would be particularly interested in seeing some people who play both 15mm and 25mm try it and see if this solution preserves the flavour of the game across both scales.

Thanks!
Cole

[neilhammond]

There was a similar post recently which concluded that the ideal MU distance for 8x5 for 25mm 800AP armies was 1MU = 30mm. Your analysis fits in with that. I wouldn't bother with differening meaurement mechanisms for command radius - just leave it as per the rules as it's simpler in the end.