What is the physical scale of the map? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Pike & Shot Series



Message

josant -> What is the physical scale of the map? (10/19/2014 8:33:41 AM)

Does anyone know how many meters are each square?

This would be interesting for scenario designers when they make the map.



rbodleyscott -> RE: What is the physical scale of the map? (10/19/2014 8:49:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: josant

Does anyone know how many meters are each square?

This would be interesting for scenario designers when they make the map.


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. 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 scenario map scale therefore needs to be a compromise between the width of the battle line and the shooting ranges, as these are effectively on a slightly different scale.

I appreciate that this is not a straightforward answer, but experience has shown that it isn't always possible to make a good game by pinning down time and ground scales to an exact figure. (And often even the simulation aspect suffers when a bottom-up approach is adopted to wargame design, 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).





pacwar -> RE: What is the physical scale of the map? (10/19/2014 4:28:43 PM)

quote:

often even the simulation aspect suffers when a bottom-up approach is adopted to wargame design, 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


Only if the goal is historical outcome vs. historical realism...the lower the level of the game system the more the bottom up tactical details matter. Accommodations will always need to be made but they should not affect the core historical data...we know how fast the various types of infantry and cavalry formations could move given the timescale, given specific doctrine at any given time, and what factors negatively impacted their movement. At an operational level the details can be fudged but at the tactical level they are important.



TheGrayMouser -> RE: What is the physical scale of the map? (10/19/2014 5:56:29 PM)

Even though the design intent is to be "fuzzy" on such things, I tend to need, and thus "create" some concreteness in my head as I play
So for me I imagine for the earlier scenarios a tile might be 40-50 meters. Since the arquebus has a range of 2, or about 100 meters is about right for general engagements, although certainly a 16th c arquebus had an effective killing range of over 200 meters, as it was basically the equivilent of a brown bess. The later scenarious where eveyone is using a musket, perhaps a tile is closer to 60-70 meters across, giving the more power weapon a longer range of 250 or so meters. It works well with historical frontages of units as well. I believe a Dutch batlion of around 550 men had a frontage of 60 yards while a Swedish "squadron" maybe 70 or so. (of course this doesn't work with the very large german battalions, but very few games allow for double hex/tile wide units, which would love to see more of, the GBOH games being the only one I know...)



mrfeizhu -> RE: What is the physical scale of the map? (10/21/2014 9:57:49 AM)

"As we have stated elsewhere, the ground scale is somewhat telescoped/stretched to balance shooting ranges"
I cant seem to find it elsewhere? The time period of the game is good, so far the games ok to play but the lack of scale and how long a turn is , is a bummer. It reminds me of a total war games with out the graphics. The description of the game says its an Accurate simulation of battle in the 16th and 17th century. But if it is its seems sort of vanilla. On the other hand AI is good. I am not knocking the game there is a lot of potential here.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: What is the physical scale of the map? (10/21/2014 10:22:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rbodleyscott


quote:

ORIGINAL: josant

Does anyone know how many meters are each square?

This would be interesting for scenario designers when they make the map.


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. 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 scenario map scale therefore needs to be a compromise between the width of the battle line and the shooting ranges, as these are effectively on a slightly different scale.

I appreciate that this is not a straightforward answer, but experience has shown that it isn't always possible to make a good game by pinning down time and ground scales to an exact figure. (And often even the simulation aspect suffers when a bottom-up approach is adopted to wargame design, 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).






Ignore the historians or gotta be perfect scale players. You've made a game of challenge and fun and that's what is most important. Too many games that model history or try to are dull and boring and have a lame ai. I'd rather have a good ai and just play it like a game of chess. Where maneuver and surprise are more fun than history. So far you are winning on all those features. A little period history is fine but too much detail is just going to bog the ai down in the long run. Keep up the good work. [&o]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.007813