Map and Time Scale

[awralls]

I've read the manual, but I don't see a statement of time and distance scale anywhere? What am I missing?

AndyR

[rbodleyscott]

I've read the manual, but I don't see a statement of time and distance scale anywhere? What am I missing?

AndyR

Pike and Shot is a top-down wargames design, not a bottom-up design.

As we have stated elsewhere, the ground scale is somewhat telescoped/stretched to balance shooting ranges with movement distances that give a game which is not too "stodgy". (Even if the latter might be more realistic - we make the compromise to make an enjoyable game out of something which cannot have been very enjoyable for most of the historical participants!)

No doubt there will soon be mods that halve the movement distances and shooting ranges, which would be more realistic, but we think less enjoyable to play. We shall see.

Therefore 4 squares is maximum practical musket range in vanilla pike & shot, and this effectively defines the ground scale, as far as shooting ranges are concerned - the exact distance depending on what you believe maximum practical musket range to have been - opinions differ. Even though we assume that there are (non-depicted) gaps between units on adjacent squares, the unit models are therefore depicted smaller than they should be on this scale. The ground scale is therefore a compromise between the width of the battle line and the shooting ranges, as these are effectively on a slightly different scale.

Likewise, the time scale is not specified, because we are working on a modern "initiative/counter-initiative" top-down model of warfare, not on the traditional "1 turn = x minutes" model. Since most battles last 20 or 24 pairs of turns, one would have to say that the time scale is 1/20th or 1/24th of the length of a typical battle per pair of turns!

I appreciate that this is not a straightforward answer, but experience has shown that pinning down time and ground scales to an exact figure does not always make the best game. And often even the simulation aspect suffers when a bottom-up approach to wargame design is adopted, because the cumulative effects of incorrect assumptions, or over-valued tactical factors, are greater with a bottom-up approach and can result in the final game being quite unhistorical.

[awralls]

OK, I get that, but I simply want to start designing a scenario. I need to know how big to make the map. I can extrapolate from the movement rates, but that seems woefully imprecise.

AndyR

[rbodleyscott]

OK, I get that, but I simply want to start designing a scenario. I need to know how big to make the map. I can extrapolate from the movement rates, but that seems woefully imprecise.

I usually design the scenario maps based on the width of the deployed armies. Obviously how much map you want around that will depend on how much pre-combat manoeuvring your scenario involves. The skirmishes are straightforward encounters and so have much smaller maps than some of the historical scenarios (e.g. Newbury, Nantwich) that involve a lot of manoeuvring prior to the clash of arms.

Because pike and shot units are very powerful against cavalry frontally, even in straightforward battles you want enough width for the cavalry to be able to outflank the enemy infantry if not countered by the other's sides cavalry or blocking terrain.

[awralls]

Hmmm, well, if I mention specifics, maybe that'll explain my slight concern at that approach. I was thinking of starting with something really small, Roundway Down, as a learning exercise. As you know, the battlefield was physically constrained by the steep-sided terrain and I wanted to ensure that this was represented accurately. Using your stated design philosophy, you seem to be advocating being less focused on ensuring the dimensions of the hills are right rather than positioning them so that their effects are provided by relative proximity to the participants. Am I getting that right!

AndyR

[rbodleyscott]

Hmmm, well, if I mention specifics, maybe that'll explain my slight concern at that approach. I was thinking of starting with something really small, Roundway Down, as a learning exercise. As you know, the battlefield was physically constrained by the steep-sided terrain and I wanted to ensure that this was represented accurately. Using your stated design philosophy, you seem to be advocating being less focused on ensuring the dimensions of the hills are right rather than positioning them so that their effects are provided by relative proximity to the participants. Am I getting that right!

What I am saying is this:

Determine how much of the hill the Parliamentarian forces covered.

Then, having determined the width of the historical Parliamentarian line in units that will be represented in the scenario, the hill can be made proportional.

Sorry, I am not trying to be deliberately obscure, but it is more important to make the terrain fit the battle-line as it will be in the game than it is to fix it to a specific width. From a tactical point of view, what is important is that the terrain is the same size relative to the width of the battle-line in the game as it was in the real battle.

So, for example, if an army was deployed with both its flanks protected by terrain (as in Wimpfen) it is important that the map is designed so that the army when deployed actually does have its flanks protected by the terrain, otherwise the battle will play out very differently from how it did historically.

[awralls]

OK, that's clear; thanks. I guess it just means a bit more pre planning in scenario design before committing it to the editor, but that's no bad thing.

AndyR

[Interlocutor]

I've read the manual, but I don't see a statement of time and distance scale anywhere? What am I missing?

AndyR

No doubt there will soon be mods that halve the movement distances and shooting ranges, which would be more realistic, but we think less enjoyable to play. We shall see.

Has anyone done a mod yet which reduces movement distances and/or shooting ranges?

[fogman]

that would be great. my biggest beef against the game is shooting. reducing ranges will also drastically impede the unrealistic ability to concentrate fire on one enemy unit.

[Interlocutor]

If no one else has done this yet, then I'll take a shot at it.

[Nicholas Bell]

I've read the manual, but I don't see a statement of time and distance scale anywhere? What am I missing?

AndyR

No doubt there will soon be mods that halve the movement distances and shooting ranges, which would be more realistic, but we think less enjoyable to play. We shall see.

Has anyone done a mod yet which reduces movement distances and/or shooting ranges?

Yes. Been playing with weapon ranges cut in half since this issue was first brought up last fall (except for artillery ranges due to scenario deployment issues). Left movement rates as is. Much more realistic IMO, and I've no problems with it breaking any of the scenarios best I can tell.

[Interlocutor]

That's great news, Nicholas. Would you be willing to share your modified scripts/files with me? I'd love to try it for myself.

[shawkhan2]

Reducing fire effects would of course make melee combat more important, thus making the Tercios and Keils much stronger.

[TheGrayMouser]

Reducing fire effects would of course make melee combat more important, thus making the Tercios and Keils much stronger.

Might be hard to stop Swedish Salvo ( or even French Impact Foot) w muskets only reaching two grids!

[rbodleyscott]

Reducing fire effects would of course make melee combat more important, thus making the Tercios and Keils much stronger.

Might be hard to stop Swedish Salvo ( or even French Impact Foot) w muskets only reaching two grids!

Unless move distances are reduced accordingly.

[Interlocutor]

Reducing fire effects would of course make melee combat more important, thus making the Tercios and Keils much stronger.

Might be hard to stop Swedish Salvo ( or even French Impact Foot) w muskets only reaching two grids!

Unless move distances are reduced accordingly.

Agreed. I'd want to "halve move distances" as well as "halve ranges", either starting with Nicholas' mod, or doing it all myself.

[Stardog765]

I am very interested in this mod or a mod as described here.

Has there been any more work on something like this?

Halved distance and ranges.

Thanks

[rbodleyscott]

I am very interested in this mod or a mod as described here.

Has there been any more work on something like this?

Halved distance and ranges.

See

viewtopic.php?f=322&t=62692

Interlocutor is just putting the finishing touches to it, then we will put it up on the ftp.

[Stardog765]

Sweet Georgia Brown!

Thank you

[JocaRamiro]

Hi,

And the Eagle has landed - I just downloaded a set of reduced movement and fire distance files. It looked to me as if these were both multi-player and solitaire, but I cannot see how to set up a challenge using these parameters.

Was I over optimistic, did I not see a function I should have, or is there still something to complete?

JR