A small critique
Before I go into my small critique,I want to first point out that I really like your rule set and supplements.I think they are very well researched and the lists given are excellent.Also,you and your colleagues rapid response on the forum and in depth explanations are first rate and perhaps one of the best for any wargaming web site out there. :shock: :D My small critique is the maps.They are nice in that the show you what is present on the battlefield,required table size,length of game,and uniform suggestions for the engagement. I think where they fall a bit short is in scale.It's left up to the player to decide how large every terrain piece is on the field and where it is exactly. The best maps I've seen in any wargames supplement were designed for a system called Fire and Fury for The American Civil War.Their maps showed how large each terrain piece was and where exactly on the battlefield. I thought this might be a nice suggestion for your third supplement.Still it's just a minor flaw from your otherwise very nice supplements,because the player can still figure out the placement from your maps,it just requires a little more effort.Am I being too lazy? :lol: I'm looking forward to your next supplement! :D P.S.When I'm refering to Fire and Fury my reference is the published Rulebook and supplements and not any web sites additional scenario's where many of the maps are dubious at best to downright terrible. :wink:

I don't have a firm opinion either way on terrain, but I will validate your observation. There does seem to be quite a bit of variance in terrain scale from table to table, and from topographical feature to topographical feature on the same table. Having not actually fielded my army yet, I can't say if variable terrain scale is a good, a bad, or a neutral thing with respect to game play. It does tend to look off to the eye though.

Yes, I see. However, I don't think many of us expect identical results to another instance of the battle. As long as the players within the immediate game being played are all subject to the same parameters, the game should be fair. I agree that variance in the terrain have an associated potential for producing different results. I think the alternative is to dictate (perhaps as you suggested in your original post) scale, elevations, etc. to encourage a uniformity, allowing us to compare our battles more directly. The disadvantage to this might be the creation of obstacles to new gamers and to the lazier sort among us. Also some of us must make due with topographical objects we already have, or with the small, cramped tables that fit in our homes. I'm not sure we should adopt barriers to play. That said, I am all for gamers voluntarily implementing a "proper" topographical scale uniformity. It suits my visual sensibility as a graphic artist ... I'm really not too concerned with scientific accuracy in comparing my battles with those of my peers. In the end, a gamer is really just doing what the generals had to do -- use the terrain, as he finds it, to best advantage. It may also be of general benefit to acknowledge the difference between a wargame and a war simulation. A game is less exacting and designed for fun, whereas a simulation is designed principally for accuracy and authenticity. I am not saying your approach is wrong; it all just depends on what you are hoping to receive from the experience. Perhaps terrain guidelines could be an optional layer in the rules.

Cornet wrote: I think the alternative is to dictate (perhaps as you suggested in your original post) scale, elevations, etc. to encourage a uniformity, allowing us to compare our battles more directly. The disadvantage to this might be the creation of obstacles to new gamers and to the lazier sort among us. Also some of us must make due with topographical objects we already have, or with the small, cramped tables that fit in our homes. I'm not sure we should adopt barriers to play. Yes,that is exactly what I'm getting at in that a more accurate assessment can be reached for those who wish to do so.You just said it better then me. :wink: I do not see a real disadvantage because all maps are subject to the players involved and cannot be dictated by the author.The map is only a guideline and is there to help players recreate the battle and this can always be changed and/or altered to comply with players needs and capabilities.I do understand your point that some may feel "dictated",but that really is not the case. The advantage with a scaled map is that it allows for a more accurate field for players that wish to go in that direction and I think that out weighs any negative from my perspective. Like I said,perhaps I'm just being too damn picky. :lol:

Scale topography is tricky, given that there are at least two authourised base sizes involved, the areas heights and angle/length of incline would have to noted in 28and15mm inches/cms, you would then end up with a mass of numbers or two separate maps. This is without getting into the 'dead ground' question, and that is before addressing woods, water-courses, swamps, rough ground... Most wargames 'hills' on sale seem to have flat tops, so there is only one level of elevation the question is how long it takes to get up there... by using a flet cloth - as I do - you just pile up what ever is roughly the right shape underneath it and can decide how tall hills are quite easily. There are more visually appealing methods, but you can't beat it for flexibility. Perhaps the introduction of spot-heights on the maps (and thus a clear differential between different levels) would be the best way to approach this - enabling the relative proportions to be maintained... BUT, the topography is largely built-in within BG! in the movement dice and DPs, so even playing on identical terrain you will not get identical movement. (It is not possible to step into the same river twice - as they say.) The maps could be more pricise(dictatorial?), but the movement in BG! does the job of 'precision' terrain. As long as the distances between objects is roughly right the essence of the specific 'field' should be there... if you want more precision use google-earth and take advantage of the height-above-sea-level feature, but do you really want 'scale' hill height? I did this for the Bennington redoubt-to-river-level distance, but a scale 300feet would still be 4ft2inches high even in 1/72 let alone 28mm. My Bennington hill was 9 inches and looked HUGE. IMHO it is the essence we should be looking for really... AND not having to feel a certain scenario can't be palyed becasue your hill is 16inches across not 18... GJ

Scale topography is tricky, given that there are at least two authourised base sizes involved, the areas heights and angle/length of incline would have to noted in 28and15mm inches/cms, you would then end up with a mass of numbers or two separate maps. This is without getting into the 'dead ground' question, and that is before addressing woods, water-courses, swamps, rough ground... Yes,indeed you are correct.It would require more work for the author and probably two maps,although it is possible to bracket one map showing inches used for each scale.I did say I'm being a bit picky,but I know it can be done cleanly and with success.I've seen it done. His maps are fine and a player can get a rough estimate by doing the grid work himself.I'm just suggesting a possible upgrade and not a must have overhaul. :wink: Most wargames 'hills' on sale seem to have flat tops, so there is only one level of elevation the question is how long it takes to get up there... by using a flet cloth - as I do - you just pile up what ever is roughly the right shape underneath it and can decide how tall hills are quite easily. There are more visually appealing methods, but you can't beat it for flexibility. Perhaps the introduction of spot-heights on the maps (and thus a clear differential between different levels) would be the best way to approach this - enabling the relative proportions to be maintained... BUT, the topography is largely built-in within BG! in the movement dice and DPs, so even playing on identical terrain you will not get identical movement. (It is not possible to step into the same river twice - as they say.) The maps could be more pricise(dictatorial?), but the movement in BG! does the job of 'precision' terrain. As long as the distances between objects is roughly right the essence of the specific 'field' should be there... if you want more precision use google-earth and take advantage of the height-above-sea-level feature, but do you really want 'scale' hill height? I did this for the Bennington redoubt-to-river-level distance, but a scale 300feet would still be 4ft2inches high even in 1/72 let alone 28mm. My Bennington hill was 9 inches and looked HUGE. My meaning was not exactly to scale from the actual topography itself,because like you said often this does not translate very well on the tabletop.My meaning was more in the lines of uniformity of maps to achieve more comparable results.Contour lines help in height and shades help in type of land being traversed. I also want to say again,I was only offering a suggestion and not a swipe on his maps,which are perfectly playable. IMHO it is the essence we should be looking for really... AND not having to feel a certain scenario can't be palyed becasue your hill is 16inches across not 18... Please be a little fair on that,because I never implied or said that.I said it only in the terms of achieving a more comparable result.Please keep in mind,my title was a minor critique.I never said the system or maps are broke and in fact went out of my way to compliment the author on his work.I was only offering a suggestion and that was all. :wink:

Suggestions are good. Better decisions are made when issues are discussed candidly and publicly. @AB, you've got an extra close-quotation tag at the end of your last post. Would you might removing it. I suspect that is the bit that is throwing the layout of this thread off kilter.

Don't worry AB! Your 1854 post appeared while I was typing the 1857(GMT)... I agree, it's just that a lot of people are a bit easily-put-off and maps can be scary to some folk! Contemporary sketch maps made at the time be persons-in-the-field are frequently vague... I like the possibility of more detail on scenario maps and am intrigued by the F&F maps you mentioned, will see if I can get a look at one :wink: GJ

@Gentleman Johnny No problem Sir,all is quite on the western front. :lol: I agree,sometimes maps can worry some folks into thinking things are a bit more complex then they really are. The books are not that easy to get anymore,but you can try http://www.caliverbooks.com/ which I'm sure your familiar with. I am lucky enough to own an original copy of Fire and Fury.It's a beautiful rulebook with stunning colored pictures inside.They were the trend setters that started the full colored pictures to be included in rulebooks that I'm aware of.I also own the supplements,but only the covers are colored plated. A word of caution when and if you order the rulebook itself ,it is possible that the inside pictures will be in black and white.The original books are no longer in print and other publications are simply doing a reprint and I've heard it is often without color.I strongly advice you ask ahead of time or search the internet for the colored version,because it well worth it. :wink: