Ruminations concerning the interesting matter of ground
measurements on the tabletop
I have my own Prinz Eugen rules for the WSS working
pretty well now. They could do with a lot of playing in, but I’m pleased with
them. Now that I have just about got them sorted out, the Imp of Perversity
bites, and I am suddenly very interested in the Twilight of the Sun King
rules from the Pike and Shot Society, for the same period. I do not propose to
jump ship yet again, but there some central ideas in this game which I like a great
deal – these are philosophical approaches rather than cunning calculations –
and I think they could potentially enable bigger games than Prinz Eugen.
Whatever. I make no apology for my interest, and at present I am
only trying to prepare a working draft for a few solo work-throughs, to see how
it goes.
My WSS armies have been deliberately designed so that the
basing and the unit organisation will work with Prinz Eugen (which is played
on a hex grid), and with Beneath the Lily Banners, and Maurice,
and Field of Battle, all of which are not. There is an implied ground
scale in my own game, to be sure, but frontages and measured moves and all that
are less important in the hexagonal world.
My cavalry regts (3 squadrons) and infantry battalions are all
based on 3 stands, each 50mm wide, the implied ground scale being 1mm = 1 metre,
so that a unit in line will be 150m wide, which is getting on for 200 paces.
That’s about right, according to Nosworthy and Chandler, and I use a single
vanilla organisation for all nations. Near enough for jazz.

As published, Twilight of the Sun King may be played
in “Standard, (Brigade) Scale” or “Regimental Scale”. Central to this is that
the game units are each 2 bases wide (BW = “base widths”), and all distances, battlefield
sizes, ranges, movement allowances and everything else are measured in BWs. In
the Standard game, the unit is a brigade, assumed to be 4 regiments/battalions
wide, and the frontage of 2BW is assumed to be 600m. In the Regimental game, the
unit is what 100 years later might have been termed a half-brigade – 2 battalions,
say – and the frontage of 2BW is now 300m. I am working with a lower level
still – in my experimental version, a unit is a single battalion or cavalry
regiment, with a total frontage of 150m (for infantry that’s about 600 men in,
say, 4 ranks, plus some spaces), thus for me BW, which is half that, is
equivalent to 75m – getting on for 100 paces.
That’s all fine – in fact the authors of TotSK should
really have been a bit more specific about some aspects of the game scaling, I
think; if you double all linear distances for unit frontages and movement then
you have to do the same for weapon ranges, and the assumptions for the elapsed
time in a turn are affected too. Do not worry, my version will be sorted for
this.
Next issue for me is that my units, as described above, are
actually on 3 bases each, so the BW terminology becomes confusing, since my BW
will be the width of 1.5 of my bases in line, which is 75m, sure enough, and is
correctly half a unit, but it has nothing to do with the actual bases in use
for my game.
So I need some new word which is less uncomfortable for my
own game context.
Hmmm.
I’ve seen a number of rulesets where they used an idea like Base
Widths for a scalable game; I recall that Doc Monaghan’s Big Battalions
used “bands”, and I’ve seen “spans”, which smacks of biometrics. Other devices
too.
If I have a new unit of measurement, then it would be nice
if it had a real-world provenance; military would be even better. This terminology
thing gets twitchy quite quickly. TotSK also measures the strength of a unit in
“hits”, which I find counterintuitive; it doesn’t mean “how many hits they can
inflict on someone else?”, it means “how many hits (morale failures) does it
take to eliminate them?”. To me, this is equivalent to stating the establishment
strength of the Coldstream Guards in “corpses”. Something not quite right
there. Similarly, I wouldn’t like to measure the strength of a game unit in “tiddliwinks”
– not dignified enough.
You can take this too far. I had a friend, years ago, who
insisted that all measurements on his table should be expressed in yards. He
even had a home-made ruler which showed measurements in scaled-down yards. This
becomes silly when some stipulated, scientifically authentic yardage in the
rules has to be converted into 3.7 inches for the benefit of those players who
only have normal rulers with them. In passing, this friend resisted all
attempts to update his games to metres (which idea was only put forward to wind
him up, of course), and refused to accept that his imposition of yards on
Ancient Romans made little sense in any case.
So what is out there? I need an old-fashioned sounding,
preferably military, word which means “75 metres”, or even “about 100 paces”. I
often read contemporary accounts which talk about a distance of “half musket
shot”, which is the right sort of idea, but in a game this would be confusing
when discussing anything other than, well, firing muskets. I could, of course,
call it a “stroll”, or a “bong”, or even a Base Width, but none of these is
ideal.
The history of measurement systems in Britain, I thought,
should offer something suitable, but I haven’t found anything yet, though I’ve
looked at Scottish and Viking land measurement systems. I love these old terms
like “toise” (which was about 2 yards), and all my siege plans are suitably
marked out in toises. People talk colloquially of “a stone’s throw”, but it’s
too vague unless you define it in terms of something else. A big stone? An
Olympic thrower?

It really doesn’t matter, but any ideas? If you have no sensible
ideas then even silly ones would be welcome. I am old enough to remember when
athletics events used to be measured in miles, and all that. My budding career
as an athlete seems to have been adversely impacted by metrication, by the way –
just another bad break, I guess. However, I remember that the 220yds used to be
referred to (only by journalists, of course) as “the furlong”, and furlongs are
still sort of alive and well in the world of horse racing; there never was a
traditional name for the 100yds, though. No-one ever won the “musket shot sprint”
event at my school sports.
[I’d also like to have a moan here about some very odd
quirks in Blogger tonight – I’ve had an interesting challenge to get this post
to stay where I put it, without changing the formatting.]