Map Scale and Size/Make Up of Units

[leightwing]

I’ve been perusing the forum regarding scale and I am finding varied examples of what designers are using. I assume designers take liberties where scale is concerned. For instance I saw a post where a designer made 1 hex = 0.5 mi, and another where 1 hex = 250m, which I’m fine with, but then it’s implied that the unit size changes somewhat accordingly, right? I also saw a post where someone mentioned that the standard is 1 hex = 3km. Is this true?

Also, is there a standard” size /make-up of individual units? Are they regiments, squadrons? Is there a data base somewhere of these? Mind you I’m not looking to critique scale of infantry vs mechanized or naval units or map size. I am in the playability trumps historical accuracy camp, but I was still wondering if there might be a standard interpretation of what a unit represents and a reasonable/acceptable range of scale for hexes for that standard unit interpretation.

[bebro]

Generally there is no fixed size or scale in use in OOB, similar to PanzerCorps or even the classic SSI games.

The reason is simply that there is a large variety of battles with hugely different sizes, and a fixed size would not allow to depict each of those in sufficient detail. Some battles like Stalingrad (city fighting) represent an area of a few dozen km, larger operations can go over hundreds of km.

An example I always like to illustrate the problem: If you make scenarios about DDay or Sealion in a typical map size similar to those used in PG/AG, then want to make the assault on Tarawa/Betio in the same scale you'd have difficulty to place Betio at all, as it would have to be less than one hex to remain in scale.

[leightwing]

I understand what you are saying bebro. Generally speaking I think it's a good thing that there's fluidity for designers where scale is concerned. For instance, I think I read somewhere in these threads that the movement scales of land base units seems out of proportion with their naval counterparts. And that's all good if it makes for better game-play. But I was thinking that given the differences in strategic and tactical emulation the game offers there might be an optimal map scale? Surely the developers of the game itself had something in mind when they were creating unit attributes - and especially things like artillery ranges!

Or perhaps I should rephrase the question. At what scales do the mechanics of the game start to feel historically absurd?

[conboy]

leightwing,

This is a perplexing question but the flexibility provides the designer with a huge variety of options. In UoC, the maps are provided, so you always know the scale you are working on but I found that restricting. We have had in-depth discussions on the scale issue before. "Absurd" is in the mind of the beholder, as elucidated by Bru:

viewtopic.php?f=374&t=93192&p=797100&hilit=scale#p79692

There are giant flagpoles sticking "hundreds of feet" into the air. There is a colossal tank that the town could barely contain and which would cover almost the entire airfield. Yet there are soldiers who are taller than trees and buildings and who could not even fit into the tank individually. Concerning distances, one man could lay down and span the bridge!

Yet the mind overlooks these things somehow. My mind, anyway, and I would venture to guess that of most other OOB players. That includes the relative counter sizes, their representations as variously-sized units, and the distances they travel over time....A good scenario designer will try to allow for these things with map size and time calibration but after that is done, the game player's imagination must take over.

Here are some technical thoughts of mine in the same thread -- if you review the posts therein it will give you some context as to how hard it is to grapple with this issue, until you just let it slip away into your box labeled cognitive dissonance...

… in which the OoB tokens represent battalions. I noticed that when the hexes represent about 0.5 miles, the march speeds of infantry cannot match the actual pace of the battle. … I can make some adjustments by changing turns from 1 per day to 2 per day, but that makes for some long scenarios if one tries to hold to actual calendar dates for sequential events.
On a 1/2 mile hex, OoB march speeds are still slow at 2 turns per day and tactical artillery range is much reduced. For example, the German rail guns at Anzio could bombard the port from the hills north of Campoleone but the max range is 8 hexes, or 4 miles on that scale -- not enough to reach the port from the hills on a half-mile scale. Also, smaller guns only reach 2 miles as opposed to 6. Infantry road marches are about 3 miles per turn at that scale and only 12 miles per day with setting at 2 turns per day. No wonder I'm having trouble meeting operational timelines in such scenarios as Operation Dragoon, in which VI Corps units moved administratively 75 miles in a day, or 90 miles in 36 hours.
Anyway, I'm more concerned with infantry tactical speeds of 6 hexes detrucked and only 8 trucked (relying on memory...)
Trucks should at least double infantry march speeds and more appropriately treble them.
An intermediate step (e.g., 1.5 turns per day) would help with speed but not artillery range.

I recommend you read Kondi's thoughts on the matter as well. He contributes to same thread that I linked to.

I think there was a loose consensus that the OoB scale is basically corps-level but I made a whole campaign at division level with battalions as the main units...

conboy

[leightwing]

There are giant flagpoles sticking "hundreds of feet" into the air. There is a colossal tank that the town could barely contain and which would cover almost the entire airfield. Yet there are soldiers who are taller than trees and buildings and who could not even fit into the tank individually. Concerning distances, one man could lay down and span the bridge!

Of course, the above has nothing to do with game mechanics, which is what my question is about. They're just animations that provide a "close-up" view of something that might have happened during the skirmish. Nonetheless, and at the risk of de-railing my own thread, they're so much better and easily parsed than symbols on a piece of cardboard, though I wouldn't mind seeing one or two more metrics in the hex at the expense of graphics. Maybe something like a more accurate efficiency/fatigue number. I've got to believe that the current color-coded system doesn't work for folks with certain color-blindnesses.

[koopanique]

As others have mentioned, map scale is very flexible in OOB... some game mechanics throws any "real life logic" out of the window for good though, in order to make for better/more fluid gameplay.

For example airplanes stay up in the air for 10+ turns which is, all in all, absurd if one is to believe that one turn = one day. But it works ingame. Other games model airplane action in a different, more realistic way, but in OoB it works better as it is right now I think.

Another one (and one of my personal pet peeves in OoB) is the way the artillery must stop firing every 3 turns or so. That means one turn is equal to only a few minutes or hours... which is fine for very small-scale, tactical scenarios... but if you scale up the map and turn duration, artillery "de-heating" every three days doesn't make sense anymore.

I wouldn't mind seeing one or two more metrics in the hex at the expense of graphics. Maybe something like a more accurate efficiency/fatigue number. I've got to believe that the current color-coded system doesn't work for folks with certain color-blindnesses.

Maybe another way would be an option to toggle on colors specifically made for colorblind people. Some modern games have that and I'm sure it's a huge help for colorblind people.