Man to Man Ground Scale

[ODDYSSEUS]

The ratio of figures to men assumed is 1:20, the ground scale is 1":10 yards, and one turn of play is roughly equivalent to one minute of time in battle. The troop ratio will hold true for 30mm figures, but if a smaller scale is used it should

be reduced to 1:10. (CM 8)

So when using 25mm/1" bases the ratio of figures changes to 1:10 and the 1":10 yards remains unchanged. 1 Man in 10 takes up 3 feet.

When two figures are within melee range (3")... (CM 25)

So if the ground scale does not change in Man to Man, melee range between 2 figures is 90 feet? OR does the scale change to 1":1 yard (3 feet)?

3" = 9 feet seems reasonable for melee range in Man to Man.

Unless I'm wrong?

[Mushgnome]

Man-to-Man Combat

Instead of using one figure to represent numerous men, a single figure repre-
sents a single man. Use this system for small battles and castle sieges. When
using the Man-To-Man combat system all preceding rules apply, except where
amended below.

1 figure = 1 man in Man-to-Man combat
1" = 10 yards
melee range = 30 yards

[waysoftheearth]

Notwithstanding this is the Chainmail subforum, S&S p2 has figure basing sizes for the 1:10 figure scale. "Related" space requirements are given in GH p15 for the 1:1 figure scale.

CM itself does not (that I'm aware?) concern itself with ground scale changes. If anything, fixed missile ranges across figure scales imply that ground scale remains unchanged. However, if you are considering the use of CM for 1:1 figure scale combat in a D&D context, then U&WA informs us the ground scale is 1" to 10 feet underground/in built-up areas (p8, p32) and 1" to 10 yards outdoors (p17).

That said, CM's 3" melee range has been discussed at length in other topics on these boards.
My recollection is that 3" is the range from which a mass combat unit can be drawn into a melee (see CM3 p16, Misc Melee Information, point 3). IIRC this section was changed in CM3 (1975). CM3 p15 also says missile troops can move back 3" to be out of melee contact.

On the other hand, the word "contact" appears frequently in relation to melee.
It seems clear that melee occurs with figure-to-figure contact. Under Wraiths CM has: <<actual contact or coming within 1" of>> (CM3 p34) giving us 1" for melee contact (as opposed to melee range, above). We might infer that 1" is a near equivalent to the (relatively modern) concept of "base to base" contact between figures, but for 40mm figures that didn't---in the 1970s---have uniformly or appropriately sized bases.

Hence, the statement in M2M (p25) of <<melee range (3")>> is potentially awkward.
Personally, I read it as a simplification/adaption of the mass combat "drawn into melee" rule for men in individual combat. What this practically means is you can't push a bunch of men into contact with a single opponent while his friends, just 2" or 3" away, stand there and do nothing while he is slain. YMMV.

[ODDYSSEUS]

Chainmail...
Melee Range = 3" = 90 feet applies to Mass Combat.
Melee Contact = Base-to-Base up to 1" = 30 feet applies to Man-to-Man and Fantastic combat.

Adjusting for D&D...
Melee Contact (Indoor) = Base-to-Base up to 1" = 10 feet
Melee Contact (Outdoor) = Base-to-Base up to 1" = 30 feet (Same as Chainmail)

Q1: Assuming 1:10 figure scale in previous post does (for example) 1 Chainmail heavy foot human fit in 3 feet?
Q2: Assuming 1:10 figure scale in previous post does (for example) 1 S&S human armed with a flail fit in 3 feet?
Q3: Assuming Q1 and Q2 are answered "yes" does that mean (for example) 9 S&S humans each armed with flails fit in 1" = 10 feet (D&D Indoor)?
Q4: Would missile ranges remain unchanged despite ground scale changes e.g. Short Bow Maximum Range is 15" = 150 yards = 450 feet (or 45" at 1" = 10 feet (D&D Indoor))?

Am I still off base? Once again, thank you all for your collective patience.

[rsdean]

This is all making my head hurt.

Honestly, I think that you are overthinking this. Even today, many popular miniatures wargames have a very abstracted relation with ground and time scales. If you take Chainmail’s stated time scale of 1 minute per turn for the usual mass battle, you’d come to the conclusion that historical battles took minutes to be fought, rather than hours. I don’t feel like digging out the citations now, but some of the roughly contemporary horse and musket rules go through a lot of scale work, and then promptly throw out the time scale by then using a wargame day of, say, 15 turns, implying a time scale (for battle translation) of half an hour or so per turn despite the measurements having been based on one minute turns. There was A LOT of “these ratios feel about right regardless of what we said about how we calculated things” in wargaming design then. (Today’s designer’s notes acknowledging that it’s abstract and just feels about right are more real…)

I’d be willing to bet that the designers put no thought into scale issues for man-to-man, so if you NEED to translate it between a semi-abstract game and some sort of real (-ish) world, you are pretty much on your own.

So, the question is, what is it that you are trying to set up to play here?

If you are dealing with 10 foot corridors, for example, I’d probably recommend keeping everything in terms of feet; so a shieldwall of guys with 3 foot diameter round shields overlapping might take 2 feet per person (and they will be restricted to thrusting with their weapons, most likely), giving maybe five to fill a corridor. Based models having no flexibility will likely prevent you from physically setting models up in that space in their own scale (e.g. 25mm =6 feet, gives a tight shieldwall of 3 figures per inch; commercially available figures would be hard to build into such a diorama.)

You’re going to end up abstracting something, and I’m not sure what to advise without an idea of the ultimate goal.

(And when you are dealing with how much space a 1:10 figure should take up, you are implicitly dealing with what you imagine their formation to be…are they in 1,2, or 3 ranks? Pikemen in a third rank could have pike points extending beyond the first rank and therefore be contributing directly to a combat; a third rank of guys with two handed swords or axes are mostly looking fierce and waiting for their turn to step forward…)

[ODDYSSEUS]

Jul 29, 2022 3:40:46 GMT -6 rsdean said:

So, the question is, what is it that you are trying to set up to play here?

Chainmail Man-to-Man Combat / Fantasy Supplement dungeon crawl.

[rsdean]

Jul 29, 2022 4:53:23 GMT -6 ODDYSSEUS said:

Jul 29, 2022 3:40:46 GMT -6 rsdean said:

So, the question is, what is it that you are trying to set up to play here?

Chainmail Man-to-Man Combat / Fantasy Supplement dungeon crawl.

So, when you say that I am envisioning a party of a few ( say 4-6) characters with weapons and armor specified as per the man-to-man combat tables encountering a party of similarly armed orcs in a 10’ wide dungeon corridor? When you say ‘Fantasy Supplement” are you considering using the FCT matrix (e.g. hero vs troll) for a single roll resolution of a combat between a hero and a troll, or are you imagining that the hero is getting 4 2d6 man to man attacks on the man-to-man tables against a troll “counting as” 6 Heavy Foot in some way?

The basis of your question is “How Many Adventurers fit across a corridor based on their weapon type”?

Are you on the Discord associated with this forum, by the way?

[rsdean]

BTW, when considering missile ranges, arrows in real medieval combat are taking a parabolic flight path for long range shots, and would therefore bounce off a low ceiling in an indoor situation, limiting range. If you’re in a 20’ square room, the maximum theoretical range will be somewhat academic, since you’ll be limited to the maximum lkine of sight anyway.

I recall discussions of board wargame design from the magazine BITD, in which they noted that the theoretical range of a tank main gun was pretty much irrelevant in the European theater of operations, as there were very few places where you could get a line of sight out to the maximum range anyway.

[ODDYSSEUS]

Jul 29, 2022 5:45:52 GMT -6 rsdean said:

Jul 29, 2022 4:53:23 GMT -6 ODDYSSEUS said:

Chainmail Man-to-Man Combat / Fantasy Supplement dungeon crawl.

So, when you say that I am envisioning a party of a few ( say 4-6) characters with weapons and armor specified as per the man-to-man combat tables encountering a party of similarly armed orcs in a 10’ wide dungeon corridor? When you say ‘Fantasy Supplement” are you considering using the FCT matrix (e.g. hero vs troll) for a single roll resolution of a combat between a hero and a troll, or are you imagining that the hero is getting 4 2d6 man to man attacks on the man-to-man tables against a troll “counting as” 6 Heavy Foot in some way?

The basis of your question is “How Many Adventurers fit across a corridor based on their weapon type”?

Are you on the Discord associated with this forum, by the way?

Your vision represents what I have in mind. Yes, I would differentiate between "Normal" and "Fantastic" combat. No, I am not on the Discord.

[ODDYSSEUS]

Jul 29, 2022 5:52:11 GMT -6 rsdean said:

BTW, when considering missile ranges, arrows in real medieval combat are taking a parabolic flight path for long range shots, and would therefore bounce off a low ceiling in an indoor situation, limiting range. If you’re in a 20’ square room, the maximum theoretical range will be somewhat academic, since you’ll be limited to the maximum lkine of sight anyway.

How does one compensate for such a thing? Only allow close range when indoor?

[ODDYSSEUS]

I just came up with a table to determine figure base sizes per my chosen scale. It is based on Swords & Spells. Considering the close relationship between Chainmail and Swords & Spells and Chainmail providing a table for variable base sizes in relation to men I thought it might work. My men are 25mm / 1 inch (1":3' scale). I'm not a math wizard either so do not judge too harshly if I made mistakes somewhere. The adjustment was necessary because S&S has men on a 5/8" base so I scaled men up to an inch and adjusted the rest accordingly.

Table: Adjusted Swords & Spells Figure Base Sizes


Inch (Decimal)     Adjustment (+)    Total       Ground Scale    Simplified Ground Scale

.625                    .375                    1”           3’                    3’

.75                      .375                    1.125”    3.375’              3.5’

1                         .375                   1.375”     4.125’              4’

1.375                  .375                    1.75”      5.25’                5’

1.625                  .375                    2”           6’                    6’

Of course, a red dragon on a 2" base is terribly small compared to the gargantuan miniatures some gamers use. In nearly every "old-timey" painting of Saint George and the Dragon the horse is bigger than the dragon! Fafnir in the Arthur Rackham illustrations works for me. Not every dragon needs to be Ancalagon to be the end all be all of antagonists.

Edit: I also realize dragons are not listed in S&S on pg2 so perhaps scaling them up to 3" base would be appropriate?

What do you think?

[ODDYSSEUS]

For comparison I typed up the Chainmail table for sizes. I am having trouble figuring out what the sizes should be in relation to 25mm.

Table: Chainmail Figure Base Sizes

Type                                                                                Man – 40mm     Man – 30mm      Man – 25mm        Average (Simplified)
Hobbit, sprite                                                                   20mm (.5)        10mm (.33)        12.5 / 8.25          10.37 (10)
Dwarf, gnome, goblin, kobold                                            25mm (.625)     20mm (.66)        15.625 / 16.5      16 (15)
Elf, fairy, orc                                                                    30mm (.75)       25mm (.83)        18.75 / 20.75      19.75 (20)
Human, lycanthrope, wight, ghoul, wizard, wraith               40mm (1.5)       30mm (1.18)      25                       25
Balrog, ogre, troll                                                            54mm (1.35)      40mm (1.33)      33.75 / 33.25       33.5 (35)
Djinn, dragon, efreet, elemental, ent (tree), giant, roc        70mm (1.75)      54mm (1.8)       43.75 / 45            44.375 (45)

[rsdean]

So, those are recommended figure heights from a time when there were no hobbit miniatures as such, not base sizes…

[ODDYSSEUS]

Jul 29, 2022 10:38:42 GMT -6 rsdean said:

So, those are recommended figure heights from a time when there were no hobbit miniatures as such, not base sizes…

!

Chainmail Figure Heights?! I assumed they were base sizes. What were standard base sizes and how did players determine them per scale used?

[rsdean]

altefritz.blogspot.com/2022/01/elastolin-40mm-prince-valiant-figures.html

More to follow…

[ODDYSSEUS]

It can be from a minimum of 4' to a maximum of 7' wide, and it should be at least 8' in length. (CM3 pg5)

I always thought a 7' by 8' play area was extravagant but after seeing how big those figures and accessories were it all starts to make sense. That link was awesome. Thank you.

[rsdean]

I wish there were a few more pictures extant of Chainmail battles on the sand table, but, anyway, as far as we can tell, they just stood the figures on their integral plastic bases, so there were no D&D based basing conventions prior to Swords and Spells in 1976. The few pictures from the actual rules (pp4-5) show units of 6-20 or so, fairly widely spaced. I would bet that combat was probably run in actual play by unit on unit, and things like the 3” melee distance were probably more notional than a matter of careful measurement arguing over sixteenths of an inch.

My friend Ross games with an extensive collection of 40mm Elastolins as well, though he’s got them on 1” washer bases (I think) and is using homebrew skirmish rules of some sort:

gameofmonth.blogspot.com/search/label/Prince%20Valiant

[rsdean]

OK, back to bases: Depending on what you want to accept at canon, p15 of Greyhawk has minimum frontage for safe wielding of weapons as a footnote, with weapons counting as unfootnoted, 4’, 5’ or 6’ to etiher side. Some of those numbers do not look reasonable to me, but Gygax was the polearm guy, so I’ll let it pass. Presumably by the way, two warriors with 6’ grade weapons can generally wield them in the same dead zone, which would mean 1 warrior for every 6 feet…implying that 1 man is all that would fit in a 10’ corridor. Hope he’s a tough one.

That’s basically a very strong suggestion that those weapons not be carried into a dungeon under most circumstances.

The unlisted ones? The doorways in my house are about 33”, which is in the reasonable size range for a Viking round shield. According to this reenactor site on late Roman drill www.comitatus.net/romandrill.html, that’s in their normal order, and they can squeeze into half that in close order. So, at 18” per man-sized warrior, you could pack a corridor with about 6 men across.

So now we’re back to what you want your ground scale to be?

[ODDYSSEUS]

(Yet to be Discussed or Tested) Table: Chainmail Meets Swords & Spells

Type                                                                                                           Base Diameter       Height to Eyes        Ground Scale
                                                                                                                  (Inch)                   (Millimeter)           (Feet)

Hobbit, sprite                                                                                               0.625” (5/8”)        10mm                   1.875’

Dwarf, gnome, goblin, kobold                                                                        0.75” (3/4”)           20mm                   2.25’

Elf, fairy, orc                                                                                                0.875” (7/8”)         25mm                   2.625’

Ghoul, human, lycanthrope, wight, wizard, wraith                                           1”                         28mm                   3’ (Standard)

Gnoll, hobgoblin, lizard man, pony, wolf                                                         1.125” (1 1/8”)       30mm                   3.375’

Ape, bugbear, gargoyle, horse, lion, tiger                                                       1.375” (1 3/8”)       35mm                   4.125’

Balrog, bear, centaur, horse, ogre, troll                                                           1.75” (1 3/4”)        40mm                   5.25’

Djinn, efreet, elemental, ent (tree), giant, griffon, hippogriff, pegasus, roc        2”                          54mm                   6’

Dragon                                                                                                        3”                          70mm                   9’


I was thinking square bases. Squares would make it easier to gauge spacing on a grid and you would always know what is forward facing for the purposes of flanking and such.

You can see there is a little Chainmail and Swords & Spells in here. I did take some liberties with the base diameters at the smaller end and more or less matched the numbers. For example, no Balrog in S&S BUT there is one in Chainmail and it's height matches the Ogre and Troll in that game so it's a reasonable guess it takes up about the same space base wise.

[rsdean]

That generally looks reasonable, although most balrog models in my collection have wings and would overlap the 1.75” bases. It is quite a collection of base sizes to keep track of for actually basing things. Most of my vintage 25mm cavalry are on 1” (25mm) wide bases and look reasonable; 1.75” would be fairly loose order. But less so if you are looking at current Reaper or other models…

[Mushgnome]

I would simply rule that, if the figure has a 1" base, then it needs 10 yards to maneuver. Easy peasy!

Man-to-man combat isn't meant to accurately model troops fighting in formation on the battlefield (we use the Mass Combat system for that). Gygax mentioned in interviews that man-to-man combat was partially inspired by the Errol Flynn sword duel in The Adventure of Robin Hood. If you watch that scene, there is a mass combat raging out in the hallway while Robin Hood and Sir Guy are having their duel. Both fights occupy about the same amount of space on the "battle map" even though the mass combat has dozens of fighters and the man-to-man duel is only 2 combatants. Man-to-man combat is cinematic, hyperactive, and takes up a lot of space. Another good example is the sword duel in The Princess Bride: they don't just stand in one place and chop at each other!

So I would rule that a Chainmail "figure" controls the same amount of space in both 1:1 man-to-man combat and 1:20 mass combat: 10 yards per inch of base.

[ODDYSSEUS]

How exactly does the world of miniatures gaming account for things like dragon tails and wings? In my head I was reasoning the body size more or less determined the base size. If you account for dragon wing span and tail or balrog wings wouldn't you end up with a base taking up half the play area? You could fit a lot of heroes under a dragon wing. I've seen dragon minis with the wings more or less folded and the tail more or less wrapped around the base. That is what I had in mind or is that not really a consideration? Forgive my line of questioning as I've not really delved into the minis thing before, I normally use dice or fancy rocks to represent characters and monsters.

[Starbeard]

Jul 30, 2022 7:15:06 GMT -6 ODDYSSEUS said:

How exactly does the world of miniatures gaming account for things like dragon tails and wings?

It tends not to matter. If you think about it:

Let's say you are using a figure scale of 1" = 6 feet, but the surrounding terrain has a ground scale of 1" = 30 feet. The dragon miniature is actually 5x larger than it would be in real life, so all that matters is the base size. The whole of the dragon and its range of motion (including the ability to move forward, attack and move back again within one round of combat) is all subsumed into the area of the base.

Now let's say you have terrain that is 1:1 scale with the figures themselves. Everything is 1" = 6 feet. In this case, the base size doesn't matter, because the figure itself can either fit into the area or it can't.

[ODDYSSEUS]

Another question for those in the know...

What was the industry standard for measuring scale in the 1970s, from eyeline or top of head?

[Starbeard]

Jul 30, 2022 16:12:56 GMT -6 ODDYSSEUS said:

Another question for those in the know...

What was the industry standard for measuring scale in the 1970s, from eyeline or top of head?

I can't go digging up references right now, but I'm pretty sure (but not entirely sure) the sources I've read from the time explain it as foot to eyes.

[Starbeard]

Jul 28, 2022 8:28:31 GMT -6 ODDYSSEUS said:

Chainmail...
Melee Range = 3" = 90 feet applies to Mass Combat.
Melee Contact = Base-to-Base up to 1" = 30 feet applies to Man-to-Man and Fantastic combat.

Adjusting for D&D...
Melee Contact (Indoor) = Base-to-Base up to 1" = 10 feet
Melee Contact (Outdoor) = Base-to-Base up to 1" = 30 feet (Same as Chainmail)

Q1: Assuming 1:10 figure scale in previous post does (for example) 1 Chainmail heavy foot human fit in 3 feet?
Q2: Assuming 1:10 figure scale in previous post does (for example) 1 S&S human armed with a flail fit in 3 feet?
Q3: Assuming Q1 and Q2 are answered "yes" does that mean (for example) 9 S&S humans each armed with flails fit in 1" = 10 feet (D&D Indoor)?
Q4: Would missile ranges remain unchanged despite ground scale changes e.g. Short Bow Maximum Range is 15" = 150 yards = 450 feet (or 45" at 1" = 10 feet (D&D Indoor))?

Am I still off base? Once again, thank you all for your collective patience.

I have chosen to interpret the 1" vs 3" ranges as what later games standardized as 'engaged' vs 'zone of control'.

At 1" figures are engaged in melee and may fight each other without moving: though miniatures wargaming habits die hard and it's difficult to keep people from wanting to push them into base contact anyway.

At 3" figures exercise a zone of control, so that no enemy figure may move within that zone unless it is to face off for melee. So, no moving within 2" of a figure on your way to start melee with another figure: you would have to attack the first figure or stand your ground at 2" so that both are locked into each other's ZOCs.

Any figure that finds itself within its 3" ZOC of a melee may freely move up to join the melee.

[Mushgnome]

Another perhaps relevant tidbit can be found in the OD&D rules for pursuit, which state that the encounter ends if the fleeing party can open up at least 90 feet distance from their pursuer (90 feet = 3" if using 1" = 10 yards).

[retrorob]

ODDYSSEUS

check out All About Wargames by Jack Scruby where you find the 'point of contact' explained.

When the movement phase is completed, the players check if there was a 'point of contact', e.g. they are within melee range - then, if the players want, they can add such troops to melee, if they got movement points left. This was called 'post move'.

Units within 3"of a melee may be drawn into it if the player to whom they
belong so desires. However, the unit that joins a melee cannot have been
moved over one-half of its normal movement during that turn. The unit
joining the melee may move up to 6" into battle.

I have a post about melee range in Chainmail on my blog. It's in Polish, but you can run it through Google translate: roberdponury.blogspot.com/2021/04/melee-range-w-poszukiwaniu.html

[rsdean]

Jul 30, 2022 16:12:56 GMT -6 ODDYSSEUS said:

Another question for those in the know...

What was the industry standard for measuring scale in the 1970s, from eyeline or top of head?

I don’t know that there really was one…size varied considerably by manufacturer, with Minifigs and Grneadier being notably smaller than Hinchliffe or Archive, let alone the multi-part Dragontooth personalities.

On dragons, by the way, I am generally using rules these days that either don’t specifiy base size (e.g. Dragon Rampant) or that use a 60mm frontage for blocks of troops with open, loose, and close order troops 2,3, or 4 across that front. A dragon for that basing scheme is generally alone on that base, and I try to avoid models that overlap too badly. I generally choose dragons in a rearing position (like this one from Ral Partha www.miniatures-workshop.com/lostminiswiki/index.php?title=Image:RP-01-072.jpg ) if possible.

[ODDYSSEUS]

The "cold drake" from the link, would you then put that on a base or leave it as is for the table?