View Poll Results: How big should a battle grid square be?

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • 300' x 300' (larger square)

    5 31.25%
  • 200' x 200' (smaller square)

    5 31.25%
  • 300' x 200' (larger rectangle)

    0 0%
  • 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%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    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].



    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&#39 would prevent any stacking of units.
    The small rectangle (200' x 100&#39 would allow a few units to be engaged in the same space.
    The large rectangle (300' x 200&#39 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

  2. #2
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #3
    Senior Member Thomas_Percy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    139
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Somebody knows how Warhammer Fantasy Battle handle with this problem?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    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?

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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).
    Duane Eggert

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    irdeggman schrieb:



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

    > You can view the entire thread at:

    > http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...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

  8. #8
    Site Moderator Ariadne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    near Frankfurt/ Germany
    Posts
    801
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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....
    May Khirdai always bless your sword and his lightning struck your enemies!

  9. #9
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    Duane Eggert

  10. #10
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    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&#33 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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.