Better wargames on grounds of Terrain....

[Pijlie]

“The strategy for employing the military is this: There is dispersive terrain, light terrain, contentious terrain, traversable terrain, focal terrain, heavy terrain, entrapping terrain, and fatal terrain.”

-Sun Tzu –

Even back in the day good old Sun-Tzu had some interesting things to say about the ways terrain could work for you in a battle. And unsurprisingly history is dotted with examples where terrain played a crucial and determining role in the outcome of battles and wars. This should teach wargamers something valuable: terrain can enhance your games!



I will not go into the visual aspect of terrain (i.e. how to make your gaming table look better) as rows of books have already been devoted to that. Instead, I will address terrain as a means to make your game more interesting!

It goes downhill from here on.…

Read more on my blog http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl/2017/04/better-wargames-on-grounds-of-terrain.html

[Davout]

Nice article and the pictures are great.

Between the new neoprene mats and the wide variety of options available for terrain these days (Laser cut MDF, resin, Hirst Arts, paper craft and of course scratch built) there are few excuses for playing on an old sheet with nothing between you and your enemy.   

Now having said that my biggest problem with terrain has always been storage. I always seem to be able to cram more miniatures into my hobby space but terrain has a certain bulk that just seems to take up a ton of room. Even building things with an eye for using them in multiple periods/genres a decent terrain collection swallows space. For me that's the biggest hindrance to an expansive terrain collection.     

[Marine0846]

Excellent article.
I could not agree more with what you said.
Terrain makes games much more interesting.
I have had a problem with some of the guys in the group I game with.
They use little terrain.
Sorry, to me it makes a boring game.
Either play a board game or chess.
So when I run a game, lots of terrain.
Funny, they all enjoy the game.

[Elbows]

Terrain can impact your game you say!?

We played a bunch of Mordheim over the weekend, and one scenario involves making a street with clutter...opposing warbands trying to get to the opposing ends (i.e. killing each other and escaping off the end).  The board played a HUGE role in it.



Or how about water-logged Mordheim?  Play up and around...


I completely agree about terrain.  It's the third army and sometimes the most important one.  It's also where most people get lazy.  However, I also understand that it can be a lot of work/money for someone who doesn't particularly care (and most people would rather buy a new model than a clump of trees or an outhouse...)

[Daeothar]

I totally agree with the sentiment that nice terrain enhances any game. For me, the biggest limiting factor (next to time restraints) is storage space though. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

The embarrassing result is, that most of our games are played on cobbled together tables, especially those games that require loads of terrain, even though I would really like to play each game on thematic, expertly crafted terrain.

It's not a lack of skill; I'm pretty confident that I could create an absolutely mindbogglingly beautiful table, and the Emperor knows I have enough ideas for a whole range of differently themed tables.

But somehow, I'm always 'waiting' for the right moment to start those builds. I suppose it's a case of 'just doing it', but limited hobby time and space have so far been stronger... 

[N.C.S.E]

A key issue is cost as well.

Skirmish games are often the games that require the most terrain to run well.

To get the appropriate amount of good looking terrain to cover even a 3x3 table costs an inordinate sum of money. If I say want to do a Victorian urban environment that makes sense then I'd likely have to spend many hundreds of pounds to get a good looking table. Even a small set up like a church and a grave yard is likely to cost more than both the forces on the table (even if those forces had been painted for you by a professional painter!)

I'm not trying to knock skirmish games, its good to terrain is so important in such things, but as I said, terrain does get pretty pricey if you want something that matches the quality in your miniatures.

[Pijlie]

I think it's easier for me since I genuinely like building terrain. But of course not everybody has the money or the skills to buy or make the terrain one would want to include in their games.
And since terrain is all too often regarded as props and stages with a mainly aesthetic function, few people are encouraged to overcome this for something that has no real function in those games.

The point I am trying to make is that terrain can and should have a function in games even if it isn't top quality looking. A piece of doormat can be a fine cornfield that might greatly enhance a game without cositing much in terms of money or effort. A green cloth laid over some towels or books can provide you with elevations. It doesný have to be expensive or labour-intensive. But it really adds to a game. And then perhaps taking trouble to build something is far more rewarding.

I like the term "third army" a lot

[N.C.S.E]

I've found that terrain is too expensive and not what I feel is right anyway. There's something about mdf (especially the way its joined) that I find to be a turn off when looking at it.

So I'm making my own terrain as well now. I find it very rewarding.

I do honestly think though that terrain needs to be more fully integrated with rules (big ask, but bear with me). Terrain rules, especially for what you'd think would be interesting things like mud, swamps etc seem to do nothing more than slow the game down and so they often aren't included. I have a feeling a ruleset could add a lot if it dealt with terrain differently or set down requirements that a "strategic swamp" has to be placed in X place in X scenario/random set up system etc. I don't know the answers really, but looking at rules for mud and other terrain effects makes for uninspiring reading. ("slow down by 1 inch, 2 inches etc)

[Pijlie]

I do honestly think though that terrain needs to be more fully integrated with rules (big ask, but bear with me). Terrain rules, especially for what you'd think would be interesting things like mud, swamps etc seem to do nothing more than slow the game down and so they often aren't included. I have a feeling a ruleset could add a lot if it dealt with terrain differently or set down requirements that a "strategic swamp" has to be placed in X place in X scenario/random set up system etc. I don't know the answers really, but looking at rules for mud and other terrain effects makes for uninspiring reading. ("slow down by 1 inch, 2 inches etc)

It all boils down to what you consider "slowing the game down" as opposed to "creating interesting dillemas". There can be no dilemma without a downside after all. Use roads and be fast or don't and be slow, but in cover

Randomizing effects can be fun as well. After all there is mud and there is mud. Move 6" on road and D6" through mud, for example. Rolling a 1 means you got stuck .

With regards to expensive terrain, I found that papercraft terrain is usually cheaper, easier to make and better looking than a lot of the MDF stuff (about which I have mixed feelings at best).

[tin shed gamer]

Some interesting points are being raised so I'll add my own musing's to the throng.

Terrain is important there's no getting around it. There's not single land battle through out history where its not been a factor. Table top gaming is multiple layers of uneven scale compression.Terrain and effects being one of the most uneven,and glaring.

Over the years and countless competition games and shows. I've come to the educated conclusion that games devoid of terrain are no matter the period portrayed be it ancients or 40k.  Are  fundamentally all the same game(variation provided by rule systems is just semantics ) Two sets of figures being pushed towards the middle of a table.+/- a rules smith,and a shed load of dice with attrition being the driving force.

Now don't get me wrong if this is your cup of tea then more power to your elbow.
I understand the fun of 'Fast play' games where its straight into the action and dice rolling. Play them myself. I just prefer a pretty table. But that in its self is a ball ache (costs aside) The time it takes to set up a table ,and to put it away for one.

We've been known to set up a table stand back and admire how pretty it is . Only to have everyone turn and look at each other and say "Pub"

All this waffle aside . Once you move from cardboard counters to figures. Then you're playing with terrain effects. As the figures become a form of terrain them selves.
You can't move through them without effect, They effect LOS and target selection,and so on.( its why flying models are such a pain in the arsenal on featureless boards)

When it comes to the expense of terrain. 99% of us have champagne tastes and shandy money.
But a set of core terrain pieces should be seen as an investment not an expensive luxury. A hill ,and a couple of trees. Still look like a hill and a couple of trees. No matter what period figures you use.
So you'll get your money's worth out of them.
Companies like The Last Valley produce handmade trees hedges etc . That are cheaper than making them yourself ( the power of bulk buying raw materials,and a shed load of practice)
Personally I'm more happy to raid the recycling bin to build scenery.  I've even a two and half foot cereal packet spaceship to game in. with three kids at university its normally the only way to build something I can afford(apparently they still need to eat whilst being educated)
But more importantly I think your on the best forum to pick brains,and rob ideas. To make your budget go as far as possible.
It's full of some seriously smart cookies.

Mark.

[warlord frod]

Playing games involving miniatures without varied terrain is very unsatisfying. Over the years I have played with poor quality terrain and well crafted terrain. I prefer both to the absence of terrain. As the years have gone buy and my lead and plastic hoards have reached the realm of well rounded completeness I have begun to purchase more and more terrain. Yes it costs a bit but it has enabled me to play on terrain that looks as good as my soldiers. I agree with others the biggest problem is storage. My wild west town consisting of 18 4ground buildings is a pain to store but so much fun to play around. 

[Pijlie]

Playing games involving miniatures without varied terrain is very unsatisfying. Over the years I have played with poor quality terrain and well crafted terrain. I prefer both to the absence of terrain.

Hear hear.

I share Shed's impression on terrain-light tables. 40K can be excused, since it is fantasy after all. Maybe the grimdark future has razed all terrain? But the empty Ancients tables always puzzle me. Terrain usually had a huge impact on the outcome of battles, so it is strange that Ancients tables feature so little terrain. Perhaps it is because there is no room left after placing 400 figures on each side of the table filling it from left to right. 

Carelessly placed terrain can just as easily ruin a game by the way. I have seen many a beautiful ACW or AWI table with those iconic wooden fences running across the table, separating the troops and proving unsurmountable by the large formations moving on the table. Or game scenarios with a time limit that proved impossible because the terrain simply prevented the troops to even cover the necessary distance within the time limit, even without being opposed.

[jon_1066]

Interesting post.  I think it comes down to scenarios.  Often ancient battles were fought in pretty dusty plains for exactly the reason described - except it wasn't 400 miniatures it was 40,000 soldiers who had to fit.  Terrain had the most impact on where the battle was fought rather than the battle itself.

The terrain I dislike is the "place D6 bits of terrain in X section of the board" style of rule.  It should look like a place that could exist rather than a disjointed mash of terrain pieces.  This is where historical scenarios have an advantage - you can research what the terrain actually looked like at a certain place.

[Major_Gilbear]

Historicals aside, I always find it odd that the writers of games never give you examples of the terrain that they envisaged when designing and testing the game. I mean, terrain is clearly a big factor in balance and design, but instead most rulesets just give you a list of penalties (normally speed) or benefits (normally cover) for some typical examples, and that's it.

There are some good points raised so far in this thread:

We played a bunch of Mordheim over the weekend, and one scenario involves making a street with clutter...opposing warbands trying to get to the opposing ends (i.e. killing each other and escaping off the end).  The board played a HUGE role in it.

Necromunda had similar scenarios too, reducing the board to a long narrow strip with a player's forces at each end. Although clutter along the street helps (reminds me of those third-person cover shooter videogames), it is pretty limiting in terms of tactics since the "street" is specifically intended to corral the participating forces. Also, I may be obtuse here, but which of the two photos is of the street you played along?

Now having said that my biggest problem with terrain has always been storage. I always seem to be able to cram more miniatures into my hobby space but terrain has a certain bulk that just seems to take up a ton of room. Even building things with an eye for using them in multiple periods/genres a decent terrain collection swallows space. For me that's the biggest hindrance to an expansive terrain collection.    

For me, the biggest limiting factor (next to time restraints) is storage space though. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

You guys are not alone!

I love making terrain, but I have always struggled with trying to come up with a compromise between something useful, robust, and attractive, and then trying to store it somewhere/somehow without spending forty minutes after a game making a jigsaw of it all to get back into the storage box.

What's worse for me is that although I don't mind a compromise on scenery that looks a bit less "realistic", I struggle to make things like bigger hills or taller buildings that provide strongly interesting elements on even small 4'x4' tables.

Then, there is variety/theme, which increases the volume of general terrain needed.

I do the best I can with two or three boards, and a variety of hills and vegetation, relying on buildings or similar "hard" elements to provide more specific themes. Even so, I struggle to make more terrain when in the back of my head I'm always wondering where I'm going to put it all.

I've found that terrain is too expensive and not what I feel is right anyway. There's something about mdf (especially the way its joined) that I find to be a turn off when looking at it.

So I'm making my own terrain as well now. I find it very rewarding.

I find that the MDF stuff is a fair compromise to provide something sturdy, durable, and practical vs cost and storage space. I don't love the stuff, but at least it's consistent.

Making your own is/can be cheap. Of course, "cheap" is subjective, and still requires some effort to get a reasonable result from. For me, "cheap" is a decent amount of terrain to cover a 4' x 4' table for under £70. That's a very possible thing to acheive, but it takes some persistence - just gluing rubbish onto a base and spray painting it will look... Well, like spray painted rubbish.  

I do honestly think though that terrain needs to be more fully integrated with rules (big ask, but bear with me). Terrain rules, especially for what you'd think would be interesting things like mud, swamps etc seem to do nothing more than slow the game down and so they often aren't included. I have a feeling a ruleset could add a lot if it dealt with terrain differently or set down requirements that a "strategic swamp" has to be placed in X place in X scenario/random set up system etc. I don't know the answers really, but looking at rules for mud and other terrain effects makes for uninspiring reading. ("slow down by 1 inch, 2 inches etc)

This is an excellent point, and one that I have wrestled with often.

Slowing a unit down is usually regarded as a fairly soft penalty compared to losing models or skipping that unit's move for a turn.

Then again, terrain which requires rolling on a table for random effects each time also has a similar game-slowing effect, as well as requiring the tables to roll/consult on.

A nice compromise I saw (eventually) was in Infinity:

- Some terrain reduces the number of shots a model's weapon makes through it

- Some terrain causes dangerous checks if certain weapon rolls are made (setting off a pocket of gas or such), or if certain defensive/physical rolls are made/failed whilst in it.

I liked these because the rules are usually pretty easy to remember, the penalties/benefits are not always "in play" unless something happens to trigger them, and therefore the terrain rules provide a tactical choice instead of always being something to avoid or get into quickly.

Another issue I have with terrain rules is Line of Sight. I hate models being penalised because of pose / basing / model choice, but if you abstract the rules completely, it makes the game as a whole feel more abstract. Most games use true line of sight (or close to it), which then makes dense terrain a nuisance to play on when you can't really tell clearly who can see whom.

Carelessly placed terrain can just as easily ruin a game by the way. I have seen many a beautiful ACW or AWI table with those iconic wooden fences running across the table, separating the troops and proving unsurmountable by the large formations moving on the table. Or game scenarios with a time limit that proved impossible because the terrain simply prevented the troops to even cover the necessary distance within the time limit, even without being opposed.

The thing is, as much as I agree with you, that's actually what fences/rivers/walls do in battles! Therefore in wargames, they are supposed to separate forces, and make it difficult to get past. Does this make for a bad game? Depends on whether it's a specific scenario or not I guess.

With respect to "bad" terrain setups in general, I agree - too often a poor terrain setup serves to do little more than constrain the opposing forces, who then fight through the remaining open areas as best they can. But that partly also comes back to how games are designed - often with the emphasis on models interacting with each other rather than the with the terrain. If you have a Wild West game for example, and you're playing around a town, a handful of boxy little buildings with flat roofs and a road down the middle is about par for the course.

I will also point out that specific scenarios are far more conducive to using and placing terrain meaningfully than generic scenarios designed for pick-up games. They allow more of a fixed goal in terrain terms, and they also permit the use of asymmetrical forces to offset the (dis)advantages the terrain provides.

The terrain I dislike is the "place D6 bits of terrain in X section of the board" style of rule.  It should look like a place that could exist rather than a disjointed mash of terrain pieces.

Yes I agree. I understand that it's supposed to distribute an amount of terrain in a way that is arbitrarily "fair", but it almost never actually adds much to a game - often the elements are reduced to something you go around rather than interact with.

It's the third army and sometimes the most important one.

Very much this.

Even so, many players often seem to find dealing with the "third army" frustrating, which in turn leads to just simply avoiding it altogether... See 40k for an example of the typical mentality/result.

[N.C.S.E]

The problem is even worse with Naval games.

I ran a large game of Jutland recently and reading the histories of the action made clear weather was a big deal.

Yet I ran into the same problem as discuss above - how to make those problems felt without slowing down the game.

The solutions provided by the rules (it being a naval wargame) weren't all that helpful and ultimately we played without weather, which I honestly think is a real shame.