'nominal' vs actual scale

[gwgardner]

A question for Curtis Lemay, designer of the Leipzig scenario. Or anyone else who can answer.

The notes for Leipzig state that the map's

'nominal scale is 2.5km/hex, the actual scale is 480 meters/hex'

Having thought about that a while, I just can't figure out what it means. Please advise.

[DanNeely]

the scenario designer says "2.5km", probably because it was designed in an older version of TOAW where that was the smallest scale allowed. The map however was drawn at 480m scale, and various modifiers were applied to the scenario to try and bring other values into line wiith it.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

the scenario designer says "2.5km", probably because it was designed in an older version of TOAW where that was the smallest scale allowed. The map however was drawn at 480m scale, and various modifiers were applied to the scenario to try and bring other values into line wiith it.

That's it. The actual source map scale was 480 meters/hex. But the lowest TOAW scale was 2.5 km/hex. So I used the 2.5 setting, while making adjustments to get it to act like it was 480 meters.

[gwgardner]

Thanks for the replies. I'm going to give the scenario a try very soon. Reminds me of the old table-top Leipzig from SPI days. (think it was SPI; so long ago)

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Thanks for the replies. I'm going to give the scenario a try very soon. Reminds me of the old table-top Leipzig from SPI days. (think it was SPI; so long ago)

Operational Studies Group. (Some of the flotsam and jetsam from the SPI Titanic).

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

the scenario designer says "2.5km", probably because it was designed in an older version of TOAW where that was the smallest scale allowed. The map however was drawn at 480m scale, and various modifiers were applied to the scenario to try and bring other values into line wiith it.

That's it. The actual source map scale was 480 meters/hex. But the lowest TOAW scale was 2.5 km/hex. So I used the 2.5 setting, while making adjustments to get it to act like it was 480 meters.

Hi Curtis - out of interest, what were the key adjustments?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: The Land

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

the scenario designer says "2.5km", probably because it was designed in an older version of TOAW where that was the smallest scale allowed. The map however was drawn at 480m scale, and various modifiers were applied to the scenario to try and bring other values into line wiith it.

That's it. The actual source map scale was 480 meters/hex. But the lowest TOAW scale was 2.5 km/hex. So I used the 2.5 setting, while making adjustments to get it to act like it was 480 meters.

Hi Curtis - out of interest, what were the key adjustments?

Basically, Force Movement Bias = 400 (x4) and Combat Density Penalty = 50 (halved).

Also, guns had bombardment ranges of 2 km (1 hex) and extended ranges of 2 hexes (1 additional).
Howitzers lacked the extended range.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Basically, Force Movement Bias = 400 (x4) and Combat Density Penalty = 50 (halved).

Also, guns had bombardment ranges of 2 km (1 hex) and extended ranges of 2 hexes (1 additional).
Howitzers lacked the extended range.

Thanks! Is there a way to scale "target density" as well?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: The Land

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Basically, Force Movement Bias = 400 (x4) and Combat Density Penalty = 50 (halved).

Also, guns had bombardment ranges of 2 km (1 hex) and extended ranges of 2 hexes (1 additional).
Howitzers lacked the extended range.

Thanks! Is there a way to scale "target density" as well?

How does your term differ from Combat Density Penalty?

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: The Land

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Basically, Force Movement Bias = 400 (x4) and Combat Density Penalty = 50 (halved).

Also, guns had bombardment ranges of 2 km (1 hex) and extended ranges of 2 hexes (1 additional).
Howitzers lacked the extended range.

Thanks! Is there a way to scale "target density" as well?

How does your term differ from Combat Density Penalty?

*scratches head a bit*

So there seem to be 3 different density effects in the manual
- density above a threshold means you take more casualties ("target density")
- if attacker's unit density >> defender's, the defender can count as being 'flanked' even if attacked from only one hex
- density of certain equipment causes traffic congestion ("traffic density")

Does that variable affect only the first? Initially I read it as something different, because the manual doesn't consistently use the term. If so, why do you *reduce* the penalties for density when scaling down - surely a battalion in a 500m hex suffers more penalties than a battalion in a 2.5km hex?

Thanks!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: The Land

*scratches head a bit*

So there seem to be 3 different density effects in the manual
- density above a threshold means you take more casualties ("target density")
- if attacker's unit density >> defender's, the defender can count as being 'flanked' even if attacked from only one hex
- density of certain equipment causes traffic congestion ("traffic density")

Does that variable affect only the first?

Yes.

If so, why do you *reduce* the penalties for density when scaling down - surely a battalion in a 500m hex suffers more penalties than a battalion in a 2.5km hex?

The subject is Napoleonic warfare. No HE, so the penalty must be greatly reduced. Had the scale remained at 2.5km, I would have reduced it far more.