Grids?

[mollinary]

The only bit we have struggled a bit with is working out LoS for long range shooting in FKaP - but its not too much of a problem as long range shooting for artillery is so ineffectual no-one is too bothered if a unit is targeted.

Interesting. Would it be easier working out lines of sight without the grid?

[fred.]

Its probably just what we are used to. We are very used to putting down a tape measure from the centre of a unit to the centre of another, and seeing if there is LoS. Then there is some negotiation over whether its a clear shot or not.  

I think in FKaP as long range shooting is quite rare, we just haven't really got our heads round it. I think the main one that is a bit confusing is where a unit is in a box along the line of sight. As the unit only takes up some (say 30-40%) of the box its less obvious that this box is blocking LoS compared with if it contained a wood.

[mollinary]

Its probably just what we are used to. We are very used to putting down a tape measure from the centre of a unit to the centre of another, and seeing if there is LoS. Then there is some negotiation over whether its a clear shot or not.  

I think in FKaP as long range shooting is quite rare, we just haven't really got our heads round it. I think the main one that is a bit confusing is where a unit is in a box along the line of sight. As the unit only takes up some (say 30-40%) of the box its less obvious that this box is blocking LoS compared with if it contained a wood.

Thanks Fred.  By 30-40% do you mean by area, or by frontage?  My units occupy about 90-95% of the frontage of a box, but only about a third of its depth. As a rule of thumb I would be inclined to make an assumption  that the unit occupies the whole box for LoS issues.  Of course, given we are not talking of explosive shell, but lumps of iron ploughing through terrain, any unit in a square between the gun and its target, other than immediately in front of and below a gun on a hill, will prevent it firing.

[Norm]

On boardgame maps, the terrain is printed in place and will never move, so sorting Line of Sight is pretty straight forward and most system will say that for LOS purposes the entire hex is considered blocked if it has any blocking terrain in there. Having said that, I have a tactical game that has both blocking terrain and degrading terrain. When degrading terrain is considered, it is only when the LOS goes through the actual degrading terrain feature itself (say one of a group of four single trees in the hex) that it counts. Measuring LOS is taken from the centre of the hex to the centre of the target hex and all hexes have a small dot printed in the centre to assist with this.

When using figures on hexes, it can be difficult to fit both terrain and units into the same hex, so the positioning of the terrain might get nudged a bit to allow the figures to fit better, or trees lifted so units can move easily through woods, because of this moving around of terrain, it is just simply more sensible to say the entire hex blocks regardless of exactly where in the hex a unit or terrain piece actually sits. Measuring still takes place from the centre to centre of hexes.

It strikes me that whatever a LOS looks like between two hexes at the start of the game, it should look the same at the end of the game, so that all situations throughout play are treated equally and fairly, giving neither player a greater or less advantage at any point in play.

[fred.]

Thanks Fred.  By 30-40% do you mean by area, or by frontage?  My units occupy about 90-95% of the frontage of a box, but only about a third of its depth.

Ours our similar.

I think it's the lack of depth when on the diagonal that makes what appears to be a clear shot, not a shot when you look at the square space carefully.

I'll try and find some photos to give a better example.

Norm - we have always played area terrain rules, whether gridded or not. Where a piece of terrain is defined by a fixed base, but the trees or houses on it can be moved to let the figures in. 

[Subedai]

Up until I read this thread I've always been anti-grids, mainly because they remind me of boardgames which I am not a great favourite of. However, the old Greek naval rules Trireme used an offset grid if memory serves and that seemed to work okay. Now I may even give them a go. Looking at that pic has made me think again.

[Deadbee]

I think hexes can look unobtrusive and if done with some decent art, can have some advantages as Norm said. See the GNW battle map on the below link:

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2081519/fields-battle-volume-1-great-northern-war?size=large

[fred.]

I think it's the lack of depth when on the diagonal that makes what appears to be a clear shot, not a shot when you look at the square space carefully.

I'll try and find some photos to give a better example.

I did take a photo of the game at the point in question (or at least close to it)



The artillery is just out of shot nearest the camera (the edge of its movement tray can just be seen). I was trying to shoot at the enemy cavalry to the left of the T junction, or the foot unit on the T junction

This is a sketch of the situation



Ignore the hedges around unit b - that was my careless drawing.
So drawing a line centre of box to centre of box, unit 2 seems to be a valid target, with the merest touch of the box unit b is in.
Unit 3 was the one we were least sure of, there is a slight clip of unit e's box, but I'm not sure we noticed that in the game. The problem was unit 4, this is clearly in front of 3 so blocking shooting 3. But 4 isn't a valid target due to my unit c. But it hardly seems likely that my gunners would worry that unit 4 is partially blocking unit 3. This is where it felt a bit odd. And took a long time to work out what was going on. Having sketched it out this morning, its a bit clearer, but even then is quite marginal.

[d_Guy]

Fred, thanks for putting up the picture and the diagram, very useful for understanding what is going on.

I like squares (or hexes) since, in mind at least, they elimate many of the problems that arise in discussions about what is possible. I use a very rigid, all or nothing interpretation. The actual placement of unit(s) in the square (save their relative position to each other) is irrelevant. Likewise area terrain is homogeneous within the square. It's the square, the whole square and nothing but the square. I think all of this has been said in one way or the other. This interpretation is admittedly more boardgame-like but it's a matter of what you want to spend time doing when you play a game.

Using a rigid interpretation, I don't thing either 2 or 3 are allowable targets. e blocks LOS to 3 and b blocks LOS to 2 (by a very thin slice).
In any event, looking at the picture, taking a shot would require greater precision then the field gun had (plus one or more of the COs of your forward foot units would likely come back and give your gunner a thrashing if he took the shot!  )

BTW - I like the way you sabot your units.

[mollinary]

Thanks Fred, that makes it much clearer. Dealing with the easiest first - unt 3 cannot be a target because the centre to centre line crosses the box containing unit 4, which blocks line of sight. Unit 4 itself cannot be a target because it is in the ZoC of unit c.  I would say Unit 2 cannot be a target because the centre to centre line goes through the corner of the box containing unit b.. As a general rule I would propose that if it is really close, it is not allowed, for exactly the reasons d'Guy puts forward, hurling around large lumps of iron with windage and inexact ranging is a dangerous business, and not to be engaged in if friendly units are close to the line of fire. Long range artillery fire does not seem to have been a feature of ECW battles, apart from before they advance to combat, when both sides are quite happy to engage in an ineffectual bombardment until they get tired. After that, they only seem to appear when the enemy is directly attacking them, when they seem to have a mixed record at best!

[fred.]

Thanks both. That's very helpful. Both to understand from a game perspective and the history. As a group most of our gaming is fantasy or Sci fi, and it tends to be if there is a gap to see an enemy it will get shot at !

It's good to understand the limitations of historical artillery.

As I said above this is the only bit of the game that we have struggled with, the rest has flowed very well, and become instinctive quickly.

D_guy glad you like the basing, I discovered that I had lots of bases that already worked for FKaP.

[paulr]

Thanks Fred for putting the time in to draw this up & d_Guy & Mollinary for thoughtful comments

A good looking game Fred

[Norm]

The hexes are obvious and so is the terrain, but some may not like that. There is a certain mechanical nature to the board.

This is McPhersons Ridge, opening scene to Gettysburg.

[paulr]

 

[petercooman]

Fred, in cases like that, i would suggest agreeing on a "minimum gap" before the game.

Say for example half the width of a suare. guessing a square is about 10 cm, make that a 5 cm gap. Keep a spare 5cm wide base handy. When in doubt, see if the base can fit through the gap you are shooting through. If you can fit it, you can ake the shot, if you can't the shot is impossible.

This is off course after you checked for things blocking line of sight as usual. only for those 'when in doubt' moments.


And why half the width of the square? if you are shooting at a regiment of 600 men, i think you have a viable target if you can see half of it. solid cannonballs just needed to hit a point of a regiment/battalion/troop/whatever.