Enter this thread with caution, for herein lies madness... :lol:
On another forum topic I added some thoughts regarding tabletop structures and thought that it deserved its own thread. Yes, this is it :wink:. As can happen sometimes with me, I "over-thought" a simple rule quote. It never-the-less has got me thinking that I cannot quite drop my mistake and "move on", as I'm currently enamored with the ideas that are percolating at present :roll:. Here is the quote:
Now, as some of you know, I love making structures and terrain. I missed reading the correct meaning of the rule though. My "3-dimensional" brain jumped to the conclusion that the base line that creates the structure's Size rating was measured as a diagonal cross-section in three dimensions, measured from the lowest corner point to the highest opposite corner of the shorter structure's side. That is incorrect for what the rule states. Fair 'nuff.
I'm not saying that I'm not happy with the rule. It is simple and it can work fine. I'm only curious as to how to enhance it for personal play I suppose.
Just kidding, of course :wink:. The existing MGP rule is better than what I'm proposing for "house" play, but it does not go into further detail (which is why it is better after all, lol).
My "verbose" house rule does wrap in the shorter third dimension of the structure and add its measurement to the Size value total of the structure.
This can also be used to give a value to a more complex structure that has more than four right angles as well. This might appear as "thick", but I assure you I am no math genius. Heck, I've forgotten most of what I was taught those many years ago.
Instead of measuring the diagonal of the larger of the two rectangular sides of a structure, we'll be measuring the diagonal base line of a cube structure. It is easier that you might think.
One of the few math items that has caught itself in my fading memory is "A² + B² = C²". Since this is used with right-angle triangles in finding the length of the side opposite of the 90-degree angle , it is perfect for our use. There is an assumption that for this example that as with MGP's rule the structure is a box-like and non-complicated shape. First, measure the roof diagonally and "square" it with itself. Next, measure the height of the structure and again multiply that number by itself. Add the two numbers and calculate the square root of that sum. The "check-mark" key is on about every calculator on the planet Earth for no additional charge :wink:.
As the regular (and simpler) official game rule states, round this number up. This becomes a "3d" structure Size value. What this does is to include and to indeed merge the dropped smaller side of the structure into the final number. While not very much work, you should only need to calculate this number once. You can then place it on a sticker and attach it to the inside of the structure if it is hollow or disguise it by incorporating the Size value as a decal on the finished building (such as BUILDING #8) :idea:. Consider this an idea for your structures that you can accept as compensation for reading this far. Heck, that way you can at least get away from this topic with something :lol:.
Also, as math will teach you when calculating the area of a more complicated polygon, it is very helpful to break it into smaller, more easily handled rectangles. Using this method, you can come up with a Size factor for individual "boxes on top of boxes" and then combine them for a total Size value for the structure. I did this just awhile ago to test the idea, and it gives some interesting values when compared to the official Sizing rule.
Pegasus Hobbies makes a Large Gothic City Building that if built to the kit's packaging cover photo makes a two-story "T" shaped design. Whether it is measured across the head of the "T" or the other way, the 12+" equal measure gives it an official Size of 13 according to the previously stated rule quote. This is where the MGP rule ends which is fine, but what if "the longer path" is taken and care is taken to calculate the 3d diagonal lines of both cubed sections?
The larger cube is 6.5" high and 12.75" on the "skewed diagonal" measurement. This gives us Size 15 for the main section (2 more than for the normal rules) plus the smaller entry "cube" Size of 9 that raises the combined number to 24. While on the surface of it looking as if it is too high a number, the 50% increase in strength could be attributed to the compound 'zigs and zags' that the eight right angles add in stability over a simpler four-cornered structure. I could maybe justify that having double the normal number of right angles (8 vs. 4) that this "compound" structure could gain stability from the additional outside wall contours. As a pic will help more where text leaves off, here is a reference photo of the Gothic building by Pegasus.
http://panzer46.com/BuildingAndBridge/pages/Building1.htm
Any manner of methods could be used to make modular compound structures that could be collapsed by themselves instead of just removing the entire structure.
Or as an alternative, you could take my idea of 'hiding' the structure Size value from the advanced rulebook "in plain sight" as decoration on your structures and forget the rest of this topic. :lol:
On another forum topic I added some thoughts regarding tabletop structures and thought that it deserved its own thread. Yes, this is it :wink:. As can happen sometimes with me, I "over-thought" a simple rule quote. It never-the-less has got me thinking that I cannot quite drop my mistake and "move on", as I'm currently enamored with the ideas that are percolating at present :roll:. Here is the quote:
Now, as some of you know, I love making structures and terrain. I missed reading the correct meaning of the rule though. My "3-dimensional" brain jumped to the conclusion that the base line that creates the structure's Size rating was measured as a diagonal cross-section in three dimensions, measured from the lowest corner point to the highest opposite corner of the shorter structure's side. That is incorrect for what the rule states. Fair 'nuff.
I'm not saying that I'm not happy with the rule. It is simple and it can work fine. I'm only curious as to how to enhance it for personal play I suppose.
Just kidding, of course :wink:. The existing MGP rule is better than what I'm proposing for "house" play, but it does not go into further detail (which is why it is better after all, lol).
My "verbose" house rule does wrap in the shorter third dimension of the structure and add its measurement to the Size value total of the structure.
This can also be used to give a value to a more complex structure that has more than four right angles as well. This might appear as "thick", but I assure you I am no math genius. Heck, I've forgotten most of what I was taught those many years ago.
Instead of measuring the diagonal of the larger of the two rectangular sides of a structure, we'll be measuring the diagonal base line of a cube structure. It is easier that you might think.
One of the few math items that has caught itself in my fading memory is "A² + B² = C²". Since this is used with right-angle triangles in finding the length of the side opposite of the 90-degree angle , it is perfect for our use. There is an assumption that for this example that as with MGP's rule the structure is a box-like and non-complicated shape. First, measure the roof diagonally and "square" it with itself. Next, measure the height of the structure and again multiply that number by itself. Add the two numbers and calculate the square root of that sum. The "check-mark" key is on about every calculator on the planet Earth for no additional charge :wink:.
As the regular (and simpler) official game rule states, round this number up. This becomes a "3d" structure Size value. What this does is to include and to indeed merge the dropped smaller side of the structure into the final number. While not very much work, you should only need to calculate this number once. You can then place it on a sticker and attach it to the inside of the structure if it is hollow or disguise it by incorporating the Size value as a decal on the finished building (such as BUILDING #8) :idea:. Consider this an idea for your structures that you can accept as compensation for reading this far. Heck, that way you can at least get away from this topic with something :lol:.
Also, as math will teach you when calculating the area of a more complicated polygon, it is very helpful to break it into smaller, more easily handled rectangles. Using this method, you can come up with a Size factor for individual "boxes on top of boxes" and then combine them for a total Size value for the structure. I did this just awhile ago to test the idea, and it gives some interesting values when compared to the official Sizing rule.
Pegasus Hobbies makes a Large Gothic City Building that if built to the kit's packaging cover photo makes a two-story "T" shaped design. Whether it is measured across the head of the "T" or the other way, the 12+" equal measure gives it an official Size of 13 according to the previously stated rule quote. This is where the MGP rule ends which is fine, but what if "the longer path" is taken and care is taken to calculate the 3d diagonal lines of both cubed sections?
The larger cube is 6.5" high and 12.75" on the "skewed diagonal" measurement. This gives us Size 15 for the main section (2 more than for the normal rules) plus the smaller entry "cube" Size of 9 that raises the combined number to 24. While on the surface of it looking as if it is too high a number, the 50% increase in strength could be attributed to the compound 'zigs and zags' that the eight right angles add in stability over a simpler four-cornered structure. I could maybe justify that having double the normal number of right angles (8 vs. 4) that this "compound" structure could gain stability from the additional outside wall contours. As a pic will help more where text leaves off, here is a reference photo of the Gothic building by Pegasus.
http://panzer46.com/BuildingAndBridge/pages/Building1.htm
Any manner of methods could be used to make modular compound structures that could be collapsed by themselves instead of just removing the entire structure.
Or as an alternative, you could take my idea of 'hiding' the structure Size value from the advanced rulebook "in plain sight" as decoration on your structures and forget the rest of this topic. :lol:
