Battle Grid Size

[Osprey]

Hey folks,
I wanted to establish the "official" size of a warcard grid square for the BRCS. This will be of immense aid in designing any sort of conversion rules for Ch 6 and 7 (magic on the battlefield).

#1: Size of a Warcard Grid Square:

I'm going to reprint a grid that Thomas Percy made. I think it's a decent representation of what a typical company of regulars in battle formation might look like. A marching column might look like this but be long and narrow (2 squads wide, 5 long).
[Please disregard the fireball spread, this is all one image].

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/Anuire/Maps/Company.jpg

This makes an infantry company on the field 175' wide and 30' deep.

Using a square grid (as opposed to a rectangular one a la 2e warcard system) allows companies to morph their formations between line and colums or anything in-between. It could allow for 2 (or more) companies to be engaged in a single square without a problem. It could also allow for "stacking" multiple companies in the same square, as in the original warcard system.

Allowing for only a little room to maneuver, a minimum square grid size would be 200' x 200'. About 5-6 companies could be stacked in such a space, in various formations.

Allowing for more play in formations (like loosely-spread skirmishers and light cavalry) would increase the size to about 300' square (100 yards). This size has the added benefit of being a nice round number in yards, which is also conveniently close to 100 meters for our D&D metric-converters out there. ;)
Anywhere from 7-10 companies could stack in such a square.

For those who prefer the old rectangular grid system, I included some rectangular grid sizes in the poll.
The smallest, unit-sized one (200' x 50') would prevent any stacking of units.
The small rectangle (200' x 100') would allow a few units to be engaged in the same space.
The large rectangle (300' x 200') would allow for stacking a large number of units.

Personally, I recommend we use a square grid for the 3.5 BRCS battlesystem, it's sooo much easier to use and adapt to greater detail for those who want it. It also makes conversion from the 3.5 adventure combat system much simpler. Also, smaller rectangular grids assume all companies are of the same size and formation, a "one size fits all" approach.

In general, keep in mind: bigger squares = longer ranges for archers, spellcasters, and other ranged attacks; also longer marching distances.

If you have some serious alternative ideas, please post them.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

I voted Other. If we are trying to keep to the combat square system of 3.5 then it makes sense to make this an approx square for the overall unit itself. Assuming 1 person per 5 ft sq and approx 200 individuals in a unit then 15 by 15 5 ft squares give up to 225 individuals in the area and is 75 ft on a side.

What this means is no stacking, but I have a different concept of how stacking units should work anyway.

IMO the number of units that can be stacked in a battle square should be a function of the number of ranks in warcraft the leader has. No ranks no stacking. Either 1 extra unit per 5 ranks or 1 for every 10, something on those lines. The reason to use warcraft vice lead or leadershp score is that this is a reflection of the leader being able to maximize the effectiveness of his troops.

If there is no leader than only 1 unit per square.

[Thomas_Percy]

Somebody knows how Warhammer Fantasy Battle handle with this problem?

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Thomas_Percy@Mar 3 2005, 02:47 PM
Somebody knows how Warhammer Fantasy Battle handle with this problem?
In Warhammer their is no grid for units. Each member of an army takes up the amount of space of their base .5 x .5 inchess (normal size). Long range attacks are measured by inches, and can effect the figurines within that range, not the units ussually.

[Osprey]

I voted Other. If we are trying to keep to the combat square system of 3.5 then it makes sense to make this an approx square for the overall unit itself. Assuming 1 person per 5 ft sq and approx 200 individuals in a unit then 15 by 15 5 ft squares give up to 225 individuals in the area and is 75 ft on a side.

What this means is no stacking, but I have a different concept of how stacking units should work anyway.

IMO the number of units that can be stacked in a battle square should be a function of the number of ranks in warcraft the leader has. No ranks no stacking. Either 1 extra unit per 5 ranks or 1 for every 10, something on those lines. The reason to use warcraft vice lead or leadershp score is that this is a reflection of the leader being able to maximize the effectiveness of his troops.

If there is no leader than only 1 unit per square.

But if your grid square is only just big enough to fit a single unit, how could there be any room for stacking at all? I don't quite understand where your idea is coming from re. stacking units. Are you saying that multiple troops under a skilled commander could actually fit more than 1 man per 5' square?

Having only perfectly square units seems...odd. Just because it's a convenient "minumum square unit size" isn't too convincing to me. 1 person per 5' square makes some sense, units are many men together. Is it really a good simulation to force all units into square formations only, just so we can justify why units cannot share the same space?

[irdeggman]

How can units stack at all?

There is the shield wall formation which packs more people into a space than is normal.

There is the 2 friendlies can occupy the same unthreatened space rule that can be extrapolated.

There was the coordinated attack, I can't remember exactly where I saw that one but it pertained to using reach weapons from behind an ally so that both could attack efficiently.

The only 1 person per 5 ft square is an abstaction for combat in D&D as is the entire combat system.

Units stacking, IMO, is a reflection of how tight their formation is and how well they function together. By stepping up and falling back in unison (or at least in a coordinated fashion) a unit can effectively have more individuals in a square than "normal". This is why, IMO, warcraft comes into play since it the reflection of how well the units can be coordinated (matching similarly trained or synergestic styled units together).

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3017

>

> irdeggman wrote:

> How can units stack at all?

>

>There is the shield wall formation which packs more people into a space than is normal.

>

>There is the 2 friendlies can occupy the same unthreatened space rule that can be extrapolated.

>

>There was the coordinated attack, I can`t remember exactly where I saw that one but it pertained to using reach weapons from behind an ally so that both could attack efficiently.

>

>The only 1 person per 5 ft square is an abstaction for combat in D&D as is the entire combat system.

>

>Units stacking, IMO, is a reflection of how tight their formation is and how well they function together. By stepping up and falling back in unison (or at least in a coordinated fashion) a unit can effectively have more individuals in a square than "normal". This is why, IMO, warcraft comes into play since it the reflection of how well the units can be coordinated (matching similarly trained or synergestic styled units together).

>

I guess it´s just the result of the 2E Birthright game rules where the

battlefield was only 5X3? squares+reserve.

To field any army of sizes normal for realms on that "battlefield" at

once, and not play a dozen skirmishes of parts of that army, it was

necessary to allow several army units in one square.



It also was the only way under the 2E Birthright rules, that archers

could be protected by e.g. from a fast cavalry charge by infantery as

archers could shot their arrows only into the next battlegrid, so no

realistic "archers behind pikemen and firing over their heads was possible".



This sort of stacking could have simply meant that the 2E battlegrids

were much larger and allowed several units in their formation and only

for purposes of abstraction simply placed them all on top of each other.



By the way - if no stacking is allowed, and so only one unit is in one

grid at all times, then that alone would make nearly all battlespells

listed in the 2E books weaker, as no "Hammer Storm" would roast 10 units

stacking in one square but only 1 unit at a time - as it should have

been from the very start of that spell who seems to have been wrongly

converted from the conventional 2E Spiritual Weapon spell.

bye

Michael

[Ariadne]

I voted “other”, because I think, the space should be as large as for 200 Individuals with the formation of whatever the general prefers: Triangle, rectangle, Phalanx or whatever....

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Ariadne@Mar 4 2005, 12:48 PM
I voted “other”, because I think, the space should be as large as for 200 Individuals with the formation of whatever the general prefers: Triangle, rectangle, Phalanx or whatever....
Hmmm this makes things real difficult since we are talking in the abstract here. Trying to find ways to make unit markers and represent them on some sort of map.

[Osprey]

I'm thinking 200'x200' squares sounds good to me.

Allowing for limited stacking makes sense as a middle ground between 2e [unlimited stacking] and BRCS [no stacking].

A 200' square space by default allows for more than one unit to occupy it without any special requirements (like extra-tight formations).

For instance, 2 pikemen companies in dense squares could stand in front of 2 archer companies in long rows behind. Nice little cavalry-killing section of your army.

This seems like it could work pretty well with the 2e warcard idea of defenders choosing which units defend first. There just needs to be a cap on how many troops can not only fit, but fight and maneuver effectively within a given area.

Keeping the stacking limit fairly low - 4-5 seems about right - will keep battles simpler than the confusion that was unlimited stacking.

If you have unit-sized battle squares (or rectangles), then sticking to 1 unit per square limit for battlefield purposes sounds smarter - and instead change the size of the battlefield map to mnake it significantly bigger. At which point missile fire must be given more than 1 square range, artillery 2.

1 way or another, archers (especially longbowmen!) should be able to fire over friendly troops' heads. This is such a basic concept of warfare that was edited out by the BRCS battle rules, though not by the 2e system.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 5 2005, 03:00 AM
I'm thinking 200'x200' squares sounds good to me.

If you have unit-sized battle squares (or rectangles), then sticking to 1 unit per square limit for battlefield purposes sounds smarter - and instead change the size of the battlefield map to mnake it significantly bigger. At which point missile fire must be given more than 1 square range, artillery 2.

1 way or another, archers (especially longbowmen!) should be able to fire over friendly troops' heads. This is such a basic concept of warfare that was edited out by the BRCS battle rules, though not by the 2e system.
Something to keep in mind when deciding on the size of a battle grid 'square', that is range increments of missile weapons.

The 3.5 ranges run from 60 ft (shortbow) to 120 ft (heavy crossbow). There is a -2 penalty for every range increment (at 60 ft {not 61 ft} a shortbow gets a -2) and there is a maximum of 10 increments that a missile weapon can be shot. Sure there are some feats that can help here (far shot specifically) but it is IMO best to keep things simple since we are talking about the troops and not heros.


If a square is 200 ft then a unit is already at a -2 to attack, unless it is up close and personal with the unit pressing them (pretty much the whole point of the size of the square was to allow a buffer unit between the archers and the charging knights as I understood it).

I would recommend using a default simplification of 100 ft for ranges of missile units (while not extremely accurate it is close enough and allows a quick method of measure and keeping track of these things). So at a 200 ft square the "max" range that a unit of archers could cover would be 4 squares from where they are and that would be at a -10. I refuse to accept the direct corollary with the standard combat system where the square a character is in doesn't count and any portion of a square is eligible to be hit - the logic just breaks down drastically when the distances in question are complete range increments.

Using the 75 ft square I proposed barely fits into the range increment but basically any place in that square is within range, while a 200 ft square is not. A 100 ft square could easily be used as well since it is within the "default simplification" of 100 ft range increment.

If using the assumption that the unit is not specifically located at the exact rear of the square then 75 ft could be have the archers located 25 ft from the end and the adjacent square would have the opposing unit at 25 ft from the end {max} (exactly 1 range increment - close enough to allow no penalty, IMO). The same logic could apply to a 100 ft square, placing the units thus (archers at 25 ft from the end and opposing unit 25 ft from infigning end - since they are approaching, now if both sides are archers then a single range increment penalty makes a lot of sense).

Regardless, these are things to consider when voting.

I am personally dead against flat out changing range increments to battle squares, especially since it is going against the general feeling of how magic should be working and not changing its range increments when using standard spells. Neither group should be gaining something over the other here.

The next poll on battle grids will be on how the battlefield should be laid out - like the 2nd ed one or more like a standard battle map.

[Osprey]

Duane,
Most of your points are pretty good ones, a lot along the lines of what I've been thinking too.


I am personally dead against flat out changing range increments to battle squares, especially since it is going against the general feeling of how magic should be working and not changing its range increments when using standard spells. Neither group should be gaining something over the other here.

Umm, you lost me here. I don't get it. What do you mean by "changing range increments to battle squares?"

I started this poll in part so that a direct comparison between personal and battlefield range, movement, etc. could be drawn up. If a battle square is 100' square, then it's a pretty direct comparison for a lot of stuff: long range spells (fireball et al.) will have a 4 square base range, plus another square every 2-1/2 levels (3/5/8/10/13/15, etc.).


The next poll on battle grids will be on how the battlefield should be laid out - like the 2nd ed one or more like a standard battle map

And perhaps that poll should be run before any of these are closed - the size of a battle grid square is pretty directly related to the size of the map. The bigger the map, the smaller each grid square will be. The smaller the map, the larger each square will be.

The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that the 2e warcard map must have really, really large areas - unlimited stacking? Archers have a range of only 1 square?

While longbowmen may be able to fire at about 100' without penalty, they can also fire at 1000'...ten times the base range is a HUGE difference - it's one of the things I've been wrestling with while making designing my own battlesystem (allowing for extended range fire at penalties). While regulars may not be able to hit much at a thousand feet, veteran and elite archers might, especially when we're talking about massed fire on a 200-man unit - that's not sniping, it's aiming at a large blob on the field.

The difference for a hero is that they can pinpoint a single target at a thousand feet or more, and maybe even hit them! Now that is high fantasy at its best...and they said mages are overpowered. Ever see a high level archer with Far Shot and a comp. longbow of distance? Give him an open field, and watch the slaughter start from far, far away. [Sorry for the tangent, but it does provide some comparison of units vs. heroes].

What did they have in mind for the original system? A lot of fudgery, methinks, and I don't recall if 2e missile ranges were quite so drastic in their span, either.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 12 2005, 01:30 PM


I am personally dead against flat out changing range increments to battle squares, especially since it is going against the general feeling of how magic should be working and not changing its range increments when using standard spells. Neither group should be gaining something over the other here.

Umm, you lost me here. I don't get it. What do you mean by "changing range increments to battle squares?"


What I meant was that I am against changing range increments for equipment just to suit a battle square. That is, many people are interested in making sure that a unit of archer can shoot over a friendly unit. If the squares are 200 ft then this is impossible, unless the range penalties are implemented {but that hasn't been addressed yet and might not be, it depends on how complicated we want the system to be}. What I mean is that shooting 2 squares (at 200 ft per square) makes the range increments a 400 ft (or even a 200 ft one depending on how you look at things).

And yes I agree that 100 ft squares makes things pretty simple and equivalent, but that is not necessarily how the polls are running currently.

The point being that if standard spell ranges are being measured using standard distances then range increments should be in the equivalent form (or ranges).

2nd ed measured in battle squares for battle field units.

Also note that the smallest size of a square in the poll is currently 200 ft by 200 ft and there are only 3 votes for "other" currently.

[Osprey]

What I meant was that I am against changing range increments for equipment just to suit a battle square. That is, many people are interested in making sure that a unit of archer can shoot over a friendly unit. If the squares are 200 ft then this is impossible, unless the range penalties are implemented {but that hasn't been addressed yet and might not be, it depends on how complicated we want the system to be}. What I mean is that shooting 2 squares (at 200 ft per square) makes the range increments a 400 ft (or even a 200 ft one depending on how you look at things).

OK, but keep in mind that a 200' (or larger) square, as I presented it in the poll, would certainly allow for units stacking inside. 4 or 5 units, probably. If units stack then your pikemen can defend your archers no problem.


And yes I agree that 100 ft squares makes things pretty simple and equivalent, but that is not necessarily how the polls are running currently.

Well - if there is no stacking of units, then this is definitely my first choice for the size of a battle grid square. After doing some math, I know why you thought 75' was good - it was the closest round number to hold a single foot unit occupying 5' squares.

With no stacking, 100' squares allow for extra play in unit area: like more spread-out irregulars, or bulkier cavalry units.

And of course, if we use 100' as the default archer range increment, it's awfully handy for determining their range.

I'm using 100' squares for my battlesystem, btw...it's helping to revamp missile ranges to put them more in balance with unit movement (in my old system, w/ long missile ranges, elite archers would wipe up every single battlefield, leaving melee as only a finishing action; not too exciting, even if it is somewhat accurate as far as medieval battles go).

[RaspK_FOG]

I don't know about you, people, but I think the best way to handle this is to change the unit size to 100 ft. × 50 ft., representing a number of 200 infantrymen; this generally maintains the square-based logic of 3.5e (2 squares) to an extent that allows little change to be made to the main background themes and ideas of our mentality and knowledge (columns) as well as game rules (ranges of spells).

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Mar 13 2005, 05:32 PM
I don't know about you, people, but I think the best way to handle this is to change the unit size to 100 ft. × 50 ft., representing a number of 200 infantrymen; this generally maintains the square-based logic of 3.5e (2 squares) to an extent that allows little change to be made to the main background themes and ideas of our mentality and knowledge (columns) as well as game rules (ranges of spells).
Actually I disagre with the concept of trying touse rectangular "squares" at all. Using a non-square formation requires many changes to the standard D&D combat system, which is abstract in it's desing.

Using rectangles implies and almost, if not actually, requires use of "facing". Facing is non-existant in 3.5. The only time direction has a meaning is when charging comes into play. A character must move in a straight line when charging and if a character uses a ready action to set for a charge certain weapons do double damage. Now this setting for a charge concept actually works since a charge requires a minimum distance to move, thus allowing the defender time to "position" himself for the charge in response the movement required prior to the actual attack.

Using 50 ft by 100 ft squares has an archer on one end firing a range increment (at least) in order to hit a target on the "flank". Bad game concept, IMO. It also messes the setting for a charge concept pretty dramatically too, suing the same style logic.

As far as I can tell the main reason people are talking about rectangular formations is to mirror historical ones (and equate to representations from some PC games). Well this only works if the combat system is not an abstract one. The D&D combat system is very abstract by design. Most of the design criteria was use to make the combat flow more readily than a more detailed system, involved facing or weapon speeds, etc. would.

We must think about the ramifications of messing with the core combat system mechanics too drastically. We are not about rewriting the D&D combat system here, although as a house-rule that is fine if you are comfortable with that level of detail in play (some are very much comfortable with it while some are not).

IMO, and at least one other person has expressed the same opinion, is to hve the battle field combat system not be any more complicated than the adventure level one - and in fact to try to make it more simple so as to avoid having to resolve the 400 or so individual actions (2 200 member units engaging) involved in a adventure level combat system.

[RaspK_FOG]

Sound reasons to disagree; I will then side with you and accept what you say as better than my idea: it seems to have no holes so far.

[Osprey]

Here's an example of one poll where discussion and reflection has changed not only my vote, but the poll choices I would have inserted.

My own vote would now be for a 100'x100' grid square in a non-stacking field. It's a nice round number with some room for maneuvering and units passing through one another, but not so big as to allow units fighting in the same space. It's also quite convienient for spell and missile range conversions. :)

[irdeggman]

Time to close this poll. Here are the results:


How big should a battle grid square be?
300' x 300' (larger square) [ 5 ] [31.25%]
200' x 200' (smaller square) [ 5 ] [31.25%]
300' x 200' (larger rectangle) [ 0 ] [0.00%]
200' x 100' (smaller rectangle) [ 1 ] [6.25%]
200' x 50' (smallest rectangle; unit-sized) [ 1 ] [6.25%]
Other [ 4 ] [25.00%]
Abstain [ 0 ] [0.00%]


It is very inconclusive.

We need to have another thread to narrow things down here by specifically listing the options called out in "other" prior to calling for another poll, although I think most of those would come down to 100 ft squares.