Awesome topic, @evilstu ~ I normally don’t get involved in these kinds of threads but saw that you tagged me and then … included an Excel spreadsheet!  Okay, now I am fully invested.  😀 😀 😀

Okay, some replies:

180 cm soldier:

I’ve always had a “problem” with this.  My “native” miniature gaming scale is 15mm, which is usually equated as 1:100.  Well, we know this is nonsense, because men are taller than 1.5 meters (approx 60 inches, or 5′ 0″).

The way I’ve always understood it, and I could be wrong here … is that the 1:100 scale is supposed to not measure the man’s height, but the height of his eyes.

The reason for this was that so many miniatures, especially old-school historical minis like Napoleonics, have elaborate headgear.  So it’s never really easy ti precisely measure how tall a man really is (i.e., where is the top of his head).

This reconciles (at least for me) how 15mm minis are actually usually 17, 18, or even 18.5 mm tall, and brings us closer to a real 1:100 scale.

I’m assuming that this is the same general mechanic / logic that can be applied to 1:72/20mm, and 1:56/28mm.  The men might seem a little small if you do a direct math conversion, but I think that’s because the 15, 20, or 28mm is measuring to the eyes which makes them half a head shorter (approximately 1/12 of their height).

Valor & Victory

This is a fun, accessible, and passably realistic game.  But it doesn’t try to be a real “grognard’s grimoire” kind of thing (like GDW Assault, PanzerLeader, Advanced Squad Leader, etc).  It isn’t the most tactically or historically realistic thing out there.  That’s part of why I use it on the site, it’s a “bridge” between minis and the heavy-duty stuff I don’t usually talk about, at least not here on this site.

Pertinent to this conversation, on thing they do admittedly leave out is a hard-and-fast declaration  of now wide a hex is supposed to be.  We use 30m / 100ft as an approximation for our maps / units / scenarios, but that’s by no means official.

Maximum Range v. Effective Range

One thing to bear in mind, especially in unit-driven games rather than WYSIWYG skirmish games, is the difference between effective range and maximum range.  The maximum range is how far a bullet can possibly travel, usually on a parabolic arc under ideal conditions.  For example, a 5.56mm / .223 Remington bullet has a maximum range of about 3000+ meters.

That’s nuts, because the maximum effective range for that cartridge is usually listed at about 500m.   That’s how far the average trained soldier can hit a man-sized target standing still at least half the time.

In a unit-driven game, the effective range would how far MOST men in a given unit can hit MOST targets under MOST conditions MOST of the time.  This number would be even smaller (often 200m or less for today’s smaller-caliber assault rifle ammo loads).

As you can see, it all becomes about averages.

Too many wargame designers think Wikipedia or YouTube is “research,” they look up the max range on a given weapon, then apply that number into their scales, see it’s impossible, and so give up on the whole thing under the blanket term “abstraction” (I’m really starting to hate that word).

So don’t be TOO harsh on your game scales.  You’re right, they’re still way off, but a little closer than we may think.

Things like the 90m range for an MG in BattleTech (as you mention) are just mystifying, though.  That’s a hex and counter game.  There is no reason for that short of a range.  Mini games have to worry about scales and playability and tables the size of tennis courts or golf courses, but in a H&C game that’s just silly.

Why I hate the words “Abstraction and Immersion”

Just two more words that are tragically misunderstood (in my view) by the wargaming community at large.

I’m not saying its happening here on this thread, but in many threads “abstraction” is tossed around like it’s a bad word.  “I don’t like hex & counter games because of the abstraction.”

Okay, two  things these people don’t understand.  What the word “abstraction” means, and how war actually works.

Take Infinity or Bolt Action.  I have a high-tech weapon, I aim at a target, pull the trigger, and fire.  Okay, first of all, you’re not doing on a 30, 40, of 100 foot table.  So your ranges are totally wrong.   So some game designers try to muddy the water with some nonsense about “logarithmic scale.”  There’s your abstraction.

I wouldn’t mind some sort of scale differentials, like this 28mm figure on a 6’x4′ table = a FIRETEAM of four men or a SQUAD of 8-12 men, each inch is 20 feet or some such.

But all these games rely on true line of sight rules.

The tragic Achilles Heel of this design paradigm is that the miniature and the terrain have to be in scale with each other, so players can put their eye on the table and feel like they are “there” for the sake of “immersion.”

So sorry.  So, so sorry that this is all so, so wrong.  The only place that game is taking you is a fantasy world where people are 40 feet tall or firearms only shoot 30 feet.  Anyone who actually knows about these things takes one look at this and in instantly taken OUT of the world.  Immersion is ruined.

The whole idea of the “skirmish” wargame is, frankly, abstracted to hell and back.

Here’s a quick spoiler alert:  Wars are not won by men.  They are won by UNITS.  War is a social art.  Any game where each playing piece represents an individual, rather than a group of people dealing with a range of battlefield stresses and psychological cohesive factors (loyal camaraderie and mortal terror, and anything / everything in between) …

… is getting it wrong.

Wars are not won by shooting individual people with individual bullets.  War is not a “medical” issue.  War is a group of people imposing its will, through fear and terror (admittedly using collateral damage and injury as a delivery mechanism) to break the other group’s will to fight.  And again, not on an individual basis.  You have to inflict enough pain, terror, and confusion so that other group cannot work together effectively.

Not to get too philosophical here, but any game that really wants to address how combat works needs to figure this out.  Some really do, like Battlegroup.  Sure, you shoot at enemy squads and blow up tanks, but how you actually win is by exhausting your opponent BattleGroup Rating, his “morale,” his “cohesion, his “will.”  That’s the whole army.  The whole army might still be there, but can no longer function as a group.

Compare against skirmish games, where you eliminate individual units that are worth x y and z points, and score up to see who won.

This wouldn’t bother me, to each their own and all, except these are the people who often cry out that unit-based wargames are “too abstract.”

I’m sorry, what?  Didn’t you just put a victory points value on your casualties (i.e., human life)?  Immersion?  I’m supposed to be … I’m sorry … immersed  … in a battle simulation where the two commanders met before the fight to “point up their lists?”

Indoors and Modern Wargaming:

I agree 100% with what you said about “Space Hulk” (and I don’t even play GW games).  More and more combat in the modern arena is taking place in heavily urban areas or even indoors – and here, of course, the ranges get murderously short.  This allows us to play with 28mm minis (if that’s your thing) and still keep meaningful engagement ranges on any weapon in the “smokeless powder” era.