Buildings

[Bankinista]

On the wargames table, what does a building represent? Is it one building or a building and its surroundings?

I reckon that the answer varies from period to period!

Footprints: What area does a model building occupy and how does that compare to the footprint created by a typical unit of figures?

Typically ACW units will be brigades but other periods will vary. In WW2 onwards a figure may represent 1 or a few men. In AK47, for example a base of figures is not specified but this works! A group of bases tends to be a "unit" with the associated (realistic?) uncertainty as to size. (In my last campaign a player's units were his own "pumbas". Groups of bases were large or small pumbas.)

Compare the two areas and see what that suggests about what the building represents.

And now controversially – could it be that on some occasions 5mm buildings are more realistic for 15mm figures than15mm ones!

I suppose it all depends on whether you see the table as a "diorama" or a representation of the ground and the troops upon it – a sort of 3D map.

To mess things up even further look at bridges. Their size is all but irrelevant. They represent a point at which it is possible to cross a river with dry feet. The footprint is all but irrelevant.

Derek

[Traffic]

Period to period and scale of the game.  I know a lot of people who use a scale lower for their buildings than figures.

[martin goddard]

I have found there to be several "camps"(pun) on this matter.
None of them is the obvious choice.

Personally I like the buildings to be same scale as the figures.
I would not use a differing scale.
The visual is part of the appeal to me.
If a game did use "wrong scale" houses I am still happy to play.

Having said all this; I really dislike rules in which the location of doors and windows matters. AArgh!

All just personal thoughts, as it does not affect game play unless the silly door/window thing  happens


martin

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

The dreaded figure scale Vs ground scale debate.
Ground scale needs to be not too out of whack with that of the figures otherwise it just looks plain silly on the table. Ranges become too small and all sorts of other problems arise. Many C20 period games have a third reduced range scale otherwise most combat would be off-table which is worse for naval games etc.
Most games that have a figure scale of more than 1 figure represents 10 men use a delineated zone/area with models representing the various terrain but moveable. Skirmish games tend more towards using buildings as individual terrain pieces with specific LOS, blindspots etc. For practical purposes when using 25/28mm figs I tend towards using 20mm scale. Only in fortifications will LOS from windows etc. matter and they have most blindspots engineered out. It is only by conferring an additional defensive advantage through covering fire from a second enciente or tower that it matters.
One option is to have buildings occupying a certain area and have rules conferring defence and cover advantages to the entire area regardless of where figures are physically placed. That means you can have a building or range of buildings more in scale with the figures to convey visual appeal. In more open terrain a scatter of scenery conveys period and geographic feel but have no bearing on LOS or other gameplay. They can also be more in common scale with figures. This appears to be the way RFCM games lean. It is a tradeoff.
I agree that long terrain such as bridges, rivers and railways too are a tough call to blend into rules.
There is a certain amount of 'shrinkage' or scale reduction in commercial terrain while my scratchbuilt terrain tries to work in concert with these without appearing too oversized.
Personally I tend towards Company level sized games. I'd argue that larger brigade sized actions should really be played out on a scaled map in Kriegspiel fashion... It is a personal choice between diorama vs movement and manoeuvre...

[Leman (Andy)]

I tend to go with whztever suits. I tend to use 15mm buildings with 15mm figures, but depending on the size of the battle I will use either 10mm or 6mm buildings with my 10mm figures. I used to use 3mm buildings with 6mm figures, but have gone back to using 6mm buildings. Never really able to get my non-technical/mathematical head round scale/footprint stuff. I go by how it looks on the table, ie. does it look good to me.

This looked right to me - 10mm figures(SYW) with 10mm buildings



But so did this in a different SYW game, as I needed a smaller footprint for the church on the hill - 10mm figures with 6mm building.

[martin goddard]

That looks like a battle folk would want to look at Andy.
I like the look of those "to size" buildings


martin

[Bankinista]

I believe Andy has summed up the whole situation well. It would be a nightmare (and it rarely matters) to work rules, moves etc around footprints. When all is said and done we all know that in "wargaming" the emphasis is on the "gaming" and not the "war". (Believing that we still all acknowledge the situations we are recreating). There are a myriad of errors with any set-up but providing the players are happy with what occurs on the tabletop, it fits their perceived reality and they have an enjoyable game, little else matters.

Derek

[Leman (Andy)]

That looks like a battle folk would want to look at Andy.
I like the look of those "to size" buildings


martin

It is unfortunately a 10mm game in a period not covered by any RFCM rules and might not be appropriate for this particular forum. I did do a battle report on the HOW forum (my preferred rule set for SYW).