So initially when we were working out the rules for the tactical scale game, we didn't have any idea on scale wise except to say we would be using models from other games as proxies. Not so far as to say using chess pieces to proxy infantry and soda cans to proxy vehicles. Without wanting to invest into designing and building our own line of plastic models, yet; and without spending the time to make cardstock proxy models. Why not use already purchased models that are infantry in some game.
Then as the rules were being designed, I started nominally referring to everything as a 1:60 scale. Because it was easy for everyone else to think in terms of 1 inch is equal to 5 feet, especially when everyone there was so used to thinking in terms of five foot squares. Although the rule and model scale would be more nominally 1:72, have you ever actually seen a Dungeons and Dragons game played with six foot squares? Obviously when we get around to begin development of the Roleplaying game then we should do everything in three foot squares.
Anymore the scale is just simply referred to as the Tactical Scale, less numbers that way, and that way anyone who doesn't read this blog or was familiar with the early years of development will just have to keep guessing what the scale is.
Hint: One set will possibly be released as something really huge like 1:48, that way we can have models with holes in their feet that click onto the bases, and their hands will just be c shaped so you can click appropriately sized round pieces into their "grip".
2015-07-30
Strategy Scale
When I was designing the Tactical Scale game I always had personal problems about the lack of space. When playing on a 8'x6' standard wargame table, then at a 1:72 scale you are only dealing with a 576'x432' field. Which is, depending on which city you are in, a block or smaller then a block. Pretty much a firefight, at least if you have that all taking place in open ground. Although if you design the entire table to be levels of a ship then you could have a lot more going on with it.
So I wanted something where you are dealing with more then just a squad or short platoon, but perhaps fielding an entire company or even up to a battalion.
My scale comparison was that approximately a team of 2-7 infantry, as defined by the Tactical game, could fit onto one of our bases. The difference between the scales would be moving a unit of 2-7 bases that is 2-7 infantry, whereas in the other game you are moving a unit of 2-7 bases that is 2-7 teams, effectively a platoon.
There is the factor of calculating how to really do that difference, rolling for an entire team, and calculating team loses, versus individual models. In that tactical, you have a casualty, you remove one model, you have less weapons. In the strategy... it is less simplistic, or I am just looking at it too closely.
The one non-negotiable factor about the Strategy Scale, almost what I consider more important then the actual rules, is a playability between the tactical and the strategic. You have the entire strategy game being played, you are moving your platoons around, you have artillery pieces hitting locations. Then you have two platoons get into a firefight. So you setup another table with the Tactical game going on, effectively playing out the firefight between those two platoons, all while the strategy game is being played. And let's say another firefight starts, you setup that game and play it at the same time. Then you hit locations with artillery in the strategy game, works as off-field artillery in the tactical game. Or if you send more squads into the firefight then it is reinforcements coming into play.
For this concept you would of course need more then just two players, but you would want lieutenants that would deal with the firefights while the captain is concentrating on the overall battle. Sounds like a good idea, or so I personally think.
So I wanted something where you are dealing with more then just a squad or short platoon, but perhaps fielding an entire company or even up to a battalion.
My scale comparison was that approximately a team of 2-7 infantry, as defined by the Tactical game, could fit onto one of our bases. The difference between the scales would be moving a unit of 2-7 bases that is 2-7 infantry, whereas in the other game you are moving a unit of 2-7 bases that is 2-7 teams, effectively a platoon.
There is the factor of calculating how to really do that difference, rolling for an entire team, and calculating team loses, versus individual models. In that tactical, you have a casualty, you remove one model, you have less weapons. In the strategy... it is less simplistic, or I am just looking at it too closely.
The one non-negotiable factor about the Strategy Scale, almost what I consider more important then the actual rules, is a playability between the tactical and the strategic. You have the entire strategy game being played, you are moving your platoons around, you have artillery pieces hitting locations. Then you have two platoons get into a firefight. So you setup another table with the Tactical game going on, effectively playing out the firefight between those two platoons, all while the strategy game is being played. And let's say another firefight starts, you setup that game and play it at the same time. Then you hit locations with artillery in the strategy game, works as off-field artillery in the tactical game. Or if you send more squads into the firefight then it is reinforcements coming into play.
For this concept you would of course need more then just two players, but you would want lieutenants that would deal with the firefights while the captain is concentrating on the overall battle. Sounds like a good idea, or so I personally think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)