Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Grumpy Gnome on July 18, 2021, 08:34:02 AM
-
I have heard this idea expressed before, the idea that terrain is the “third player” or “third army” on a table. But I just read an old comment by Major_Gilbear that really has me thinking…
“Most games are like this, and it's often compounded by the fact that most terrain rules are added on to the core rules rather then being an integral part of the game.
What's weird to me is that:
1) Terrain (and therefore table set up) is effectively the "third player", but is often treated as an afterthought by many.
2) It's not hard to have 3-4 pages showing example tables with some author's commentary on particular features.
3) Terrain rules are often clunky, which leads to players avoiding anything detrimental or complicated - terrain therefore often just functions to make areas of the table no-go areas, rather than providing opportunities for a clever tactic, an interesting choice, or interaction.
For skirmish games, where every model counts, this importance is exaggerated.”
Part of the reason this has become important to me is that I am looking at getting into the *grave series of games, Ghost Archipelgo most likely first, and trying to figure out board layout so I can plan my build requirements has been challenging. GW’s Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game Battle Companies, which we have already been playing, has been much less challenging to plan and build for, largely down to pretty clear terrain suggestions in the scenarios.
What do you folks think of this concept of prioritizing terrain so highly?
What ideas do have for terrain as a tactical choice presenter rather than just line of sight blocker?
What games do you think have the best Terrain rules? Why?
-
Most wargames that I have seen take place in fine weather and on snooker table flat ground.
In my army service virtually every operational briefing and orders group started with, in order, “Ground”, “Weather” and then “Enemy Forces”.
Ground affects mobility, often quite randomly. With changes to the surface, roads, bridges, fords, rough, rocky etc) with concealed areas of soft or rocky ground, gullies that trip horses, boggy areas that mire formations, horses, wagons, vehicles, observation, morale. So why, as you say, is something so important dealt with, if at all, by tables. Some effects are relatively predictable – road speeds, for example. While cross country over long distances can be fairly accurately estimated whereas over tactical distances the effect of terrain is less predictable and more influential on the outcome. Dense terrain like woodland, gullies, mountain passes, built up areas, jungle and the like can affect morale adversely while locals used to the terrain could score a morale advantage over their foes. The terrain does not necessarily need to be potentially hostile to affect the morale by being closed in. Maritime operations are affected by sand/mud banks and channels that move making navigation hazardous in rivers and coastal waters. My real experience is that tactical actions nearly always take longer than expected.
Weather is another often ignored. Here again the effect on troops can be on their morale as well as the physical. The extremes are obvious – heavy rain, snow, high temperatures etc all affect the physical performance and morale of troop. Mobility and visibility are affected by heat (mirage, sandstorms) as much as cold (snow, rain, sleet, freezing fog) then there is always the effect of morning haar, mist). Not only that the heat can dry out ground and vegetation making a swamp or water obstacle much shallower. For example we went on a “cruise” on the Elbe a few years ago only to find the river level so low that the boats were grounded and people could wade easily from one bank to the other. Conversely a deluge could make streams impassable. The weather does not even have to be “on table” but could be in highlands miles away. And, of course, gunfire can ignite dry grass and vegetation causing smoke and mobility issues. Wind is another factor as even rifle bullets are affected. My marksmanship training included lessons on “aiming off” for wind. Naturally weather is vitally important at sea or in the air. Any reading of the Eastern Front in WW2 will illustrate the effect of autumn rain, winter freezing, spring thaw and summer heat on operations.
All this is so complex that an accurate representation in rules is probably going to fill a significant proportion of a set of rules for a simulation level game. However, in my opinion, terrain and weather definitely should be written in to the scenario and also made variable and relatively unpredictable within reason. It all depends on what you want out of your games.
Me? I want to play a socially interactive game not wade through several pages of geographical and meteorological information. This means that my terrain and weather rules are generally simplified. That said, as we usually play scenario based games where weather and terrain peculiarities are often included to increase the challenges faced by the players. For example, we had a seaborne raid on a town as part of our Morval Earth Medieval fantasy campaign. The weather, no wind and sea fog, delayed it for several days and so the attackers suffered physically from being trapped on their ships while the defenders’ morale suffered and the levy had to be sent home. Then the wind changed and the ships sailed in.
Although vital, terrain and weather rules should not get in the way of playing a game but enhance it.
-
A timely question, given the theme of the “Build Something Competition” this year is Difficult Terrain...for anyone that hasn’t seen the entries they are here:
https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?board=48.0
I guess part of the reason that some gamers treat terrain as an afterthought is cost, or lack of storage.
A well-thought out table can provide a much more enjoyable game, and also make it a fair fight for two (on paper at least) mismatched forces, whether it’s on a skirmish-level, or more strategic.
I hope that Lord Raglan won’t mind me mentioning his thread, but the following setup is inspiring ...so many choke points, line of sight challenges, possible sniper or observation posts...it could be a tactical nightmare, but so enjoyable to play on.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4rSVAKWYAAL1ZG?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4rSWi9WEAQDKLA?format=jpg&name=large)
-
Some excellent points dadlamassu. Weather is something we added to our Battle Companies games. Just a simple random chart with minimal impact but it helps make playing even the same scenario again feel a bit different every time.
Great point about military operational impacts from terrain. METT-T as used by the US Army for mission planning includes Terrain as one of those T’s.
I think it is important to balance the complexity to retain enjoyment but getting the balance right can be challenging.
As AKULA has pointed out, doing something well can be difficult. Lord Raglan always makes great terrain boards.
-
I think there are several key reasons you find a lot of...obscenely bad wargaming tables.
1) General laziness. There are a lot of gamers out there who don't paint miniatures, or sometimes even play with half-assembled miniatures. It's either laziness or they're not particularly into the hobby as a whole and it's just about collecting plastic and rolling dice. So this...let's say 20-30% of gamers (mostly in popular games such as Warhammer 40K, etc.) will never be assed to build anything additional. The spectacle or story of the game is irrelevant to this portion of gamers, so we can't expect much. A lot of terrain involves work or scratch building. When you have players who won't even prime their miniatures - the idea that they'd invest time into scratch building fences, trees, etc...is unlikely.
2) As mentioned above storage can be an issue with terrain for large tables. I have stacks of bins as tall as myself ...filled with terrain. My resin dungeon collection weighs more than I do, etc. So that's a valid issue for a lot of people.
3) Large games such as Warhammer, etc. have historically had absolute garbage rules for terrain. I see it locally where a heavily terrained table is seen as a nuisance. As if it's getting in the way of just shooting each other off the table instantly. Back when I was still playing I'd have friends complain that their mega-tank didn't fit on a certain part of the table...to which I'd respond "that's the point". It was a nuisance to them to have to consider terrain during army construction. We frequently played with "acid" lakes or rivers which could damage infantry easily. So planning out transport vehicles (which would take minor damage, but wouldn't explode) or troops with jump packs, etc. was something you likely wanted to consider. Again though, this stuff was generally considered a nuisance...instead of an interesting tactical challenge.
A typical 40K table I'd build when playing:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rSCUNOUrxQs/XQbleIHzyHI/AAAAAAAAFEQ/KovxdukDHpAYHSDOmlSCgeQx1JORqfv8wCLcBGAs/s1600/JohnandJoshJune19.png)
As for how terrain matters in my games?
-In the dungeon crawl the construction of chambers is important. Small passages or small doorways may protect the hero party from particularly large creatures.
-In the dungeon crawl the unwalled spaces are open to the "abyss" a perilous pit or lava flow, etc. Some creatures (and some heroes) have abilities to push or throw other models...so a giant can kick your hero off a bridge and he'll fall to his death, etc.
A dungeon crawl table:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8UxVaiVmXAA/YAS-VTCiDLI/AAAAAAAAGdo/pnYSV0ScU_M1FL5QraxtWQ2O1_ax77_OQCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/SoA2021%2B%25281%2529.jpg)
-Chambers or zones in the game can be "Pitch black" limiting line of sight to simply adjacent squares. This impacts both enemy and friendly casters, and those heroes with missile weapons, etc.
-Chambers can be flooded which reduces movement. Certain creatures however can fly or have an amphibious trait. There are some treasure items which allow heroes to ignore this penalty. The thief's speed makes him more likely to explore a flooded chamber to retrieve treasure, etc. Since chambers and creatures are randomized...your encounter can get pretty bad if you're in a large chamber trudging through waist-deep water while being attacked by a flying Wyvern, etc.
-In my Old West game all the buildings are interactive. Through special events the "town" can assist the Lawmen and turn against the Outlaws. Buildings can also be set on fire by the Outlaws. Through special cards buildings can lock their doors (Outlaws must break the doors down while Lawmen may enter freely), they can begin shooting at Outlaws (a building will fire at Outlaws within 6" radius), they can simply evict Outlaws at gun point (forcing Outlaws out of the building, where they're often exposed to enemy gun fire, etc.). I use special event cards in scenarios to represent dust storms, the approach of night, creek beds being flushed out during monsoon season (so if you're in the creek bed you're swept away, etc.)
A typical Old West town for SnS:
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xArTpnYz6xU/WqPYsx5cEuI/AAAAAAAAEOE/BwNng_ByDAI_aGzfSgI7gCdfAS5EuK_RACLcBGAs/s1600/WayneBadass%2B%25287%2529.jpg)
-In Mordheim I built some pivoting/swinging bridges, some with crank handles. So during the game a character could perform an action to turn a swinging bridge 90-degrees or lower a small draw bridge, etc. I had intended to install the equivalent of ziplines as well...but never got around to it!
A Mordheim table:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0ejhMgrD7Po/WS2SYlgIoZI/AAAAAAAADYg/UU-juwv8tzUEDEUnN5z8PTCK2JXccY2zgCLcB/s1600/Mordheim3.png)
I think if I had to make a sweeping statement about terrain, it's that it has little "sex appeal" to those who consider wargaming a simple hobby as opposed to a genuine passion.
-
Elbows you make some excellent points. Your Wild West buildings being interactive like that is particularly genius and just the kind of thing I was after. Each of those tables you have presented look amazing to me and I am envious!
-
terrain & weather difficulties CAN add interest
to a game, but no-one likes reading through
pages of information on how a bog differs from
a marsh, or what visibility changes are involved
if the mist becomes a fog.
Far easier if you have an umpire who is prepared
to Krieg spiel a little.
My first encounter with 'weather' rules was an ECW
game. I was to attack the bridge that led to the
village. I selected nearly all musketeers & a light
cannon, only for the dice to decide it was going to
rain cats & dogs ! :(
Not only was all the gunpowder damp & almost useless,
but plan 'B' had been to get a few of the Musketeers
across the river & outflank the bridge defenders...
but all the rain raised the river level!!! :'(
My opponent with his heavy pikemen stayed on the bridge
& tried not to laugh too much.
Good game though.
-
Elbows you make some excellent points. Your Wild West buildings being interactive like that is particularly genius and just the kind of thing I was after. Each of those tables you have presented look amazing to me and I am envious!
In Shoot N' Skedaddle, each side (Outlaws and Lawmen) have a special deck of 36 cards which add variety/chaos to the game. Each side draws two cards per turn (a turn = all characters have activated twice). This is randomly determined by the activation deck. While both decks share about 50% commonality, the rest of the cards are "themed" toward the Lawmen or the Outlaws respectively. In general the town is on the side of law and order, so the Lawmen special cards allow the town to assist in fighting the Outlaws. The Outlaws on the other hand are destructive, setting buildings on fire, uncovering secret tunnels, stealing from the local citizens, blowing up crates and barrels, etc.
The other events such as weather, storming washes (desert creek beds which are dry except monsoon season when raging rivers can appear within seconds, stemming from local mountains, etc.) the changes from night to morning, etc. are all included by the use of three Event Cards which can be inserted into those special decks. The Events are labeled A, B and C for use with home-made scenarios. In a recent scenario the Lawmen were sneaking through a town occupied by Outlaws. Each time the Outlaws drew an Event card (A, B or C, regardless of order) the line-of-sight distance grew. Starting at 6" and expanding to 12"...then 18" etc. as the sun was coming up. This put a time restriction on the Lawmen, etc.
Using cards decks in this way keeps the game fluid and makes for easy involvement of terrain or weather conditions without it being particularly oppressive or rules-heavy.
-
I really like what I read.
I would say that has to do with the scale we play, the smallest the scale the more that terrain is not usable.
In smaller scales (6 to 15mm) the importance of terrain is lower, maybe some patches of difficult terrain, a couple of blocking line of sight terrain... And that's it.
But in skirmish wargames (28mm) terrain is necessary to create a theater where to play. Every man counts, that's right... So, every cover counts.
You need a table FULL of terrain: buildings, covers, cars... In order to be able to take strategies. Go this way or the other, cover here or there, climb the house or go through the alley...
When I play a game I create a scene. Something that is inmmersive and makes the gaming experience better.
When we see poorly made set up is usually a mixture of lazyness, lack of storage room and economic limits.
I always play skirmish wargames and I love highly populated tables, and as a solo wargamer is even more difficult to make a nice gaming table.
So I turned to papercraft terrain, and for me it was a blast. Cheap, quick to assemble, easy to store...
This are examples of my gaming tables (all made of papercraft) :
(https://i.ibb.co/c11TYsk/IMG-20201128-234506.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/0CVzLSb/IMG-20200303-233214.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/hRmKvrM/IMG-20200821-003802.jpg)
-
In Shoot N' Skedaddle, each side (Outlaws and Lawmen) have a special deck of 36 cards which add variety/chaos to the game. Each side draws two cards per turn (a turn = all characters have activated twice). This is randomly determined by the activation deck. While both decks share about 50% commonality, the rest of the cards are "themed" toward the Lawmen or the Outlaws respectively. In general the town is on the side of law and order, so the Lawmen special cards allow the town to assist in fighting the Outlaws. The Outlaws on the other hand are destructive, setting buildings on fire, uncovering secret tunnels, stealing from the local citizens, blowing up crates and barrels, etc.
The other events such as weather, storming washes (desert creek beds which are dry except monsoon season when raging rivers can appear within seconds, stemming from local mountains, etc.) the changes from night to morning, etc. are all included by the use of three Event Cards which can be inserted into those special decks. The Events are labeled A, B and C for use with home-made scenarios. In a recent scenario the Lawmen were sneaking through a town occupied by Outlaws. Each time the Outlaws drew an Event card (A, B or C, regardless of order) the line-of-sight distance grew. Starting at 6" and expanding to 12"...then 18" etc. as the sun was coming up. This put a time restriction on the Lawmen, etc.
Using cards decks in this way keeps the game fluid and makes for easy involvement of terrain or weather conditions without it being particularly oppressive or rules-heavy.
Elbows, that is a great sounding set of game mechanics making terrain more interactive. And it nicely fits the setting. I love it.
Tereydavi, I only play 28mm 1 figure = 1 person so I can not say one way or another if scale makes a difference. I would have thought the t terrain can be so much more than mere window dressing however would apply no matter the scale. It certainly was more than window dressing now that I think about it with the tiny microarmor models and tables we used to wargame training operations in the US Army back in the 20th Century. I suppose all those wargames are done by soldiers on computers now.
It is challenging to make good tables as a solo player. I got into papercraft terrain from Battle Systems with Core Space. My wife is not a huge fan but I like it. Certainly the papercraft terrain in your photos looks great. I think it can be a great solution to the problems you mention.
-
It’s hard to find a good balance.
To me, the terrain can make for a most memorable battle, not necessarily because everything on the table is either there to hurt or hinder you, but mainly for the visual experience.
I agree that many gamers do not invest enough in their scenery (though to be fair, I am in awe of many of the members of this forum!) and that many systems incorporating a “you place, I place” type approach, encourage a pinball type game that is not so great to play on and looks visually….disjointed.
If the terrain is well thought out, and joined up, more often than not, it will immediately dictate much of the dilemmas facing the players, with obstacles that are difficult or impossible to cross, differing levels of cover etc. Be mindful though, that too much and the game can be hampered and not as free flowing as we may like, finding a balance is important. If you are enacting a real endgame to, where terrain WAS the dilemma, then obviously it needs to be forefront of the game.
In the case of more fantasy oriented games, with say woods that want to stomp on or devour you, or scenic pieces that are a portal key, magically hexed etc, then yes, very specific rules are obviously going to come to play, but if set up on pinball tables, then all the effort is for nowt if it’s just going to be avoided because the each of the few pieces on the table is likely to be nasty! To me, such games would need far more scenery than is often seen, such that the vast majority on the table is innocuous and that a patch of woods say that is designated…nasty…is not so discernible from the other woods on the table……this will add to to fear factor and surprise, as the players will need to probably use the woods for cover but not always be aware of the hidden danger and certainly not aware of which patch of woods to avoid.
-
I completely agree that balance is important, whether the terrain actually attacks you or not. This is the reason this topic exists. How do we get it right?
Haphazard “I go you go terrain placement as window dressing” can be so underwhelming.
It interesting to see how this topic has taken off on the Miniatures Page forum…
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=551573
… although my use of “terrain as a third player” has gotten some folks wanting to call the metaphor police for being misleading.
-
In RPG, skirmish and small battle games, it’s surely the norm (or perhaps should be) for one to play with or play against the terrain/weather alongside playing with any allied force and playing against any enemy force. In that simplistic sense your metaphor works that the terrain/weather is a player. The terrain/weather are played according to their rules - zombie horde games, space hulk-type games, etc, and a shed load of homebrew solo rules, manage the enemy force in much the same way, albeit with more surprise and movement ;).
-
Oh I quite agree Silent Invader. I have to admit that it did not cross my mind that folks would take issue with the specifics of the metaphor but I really should have expected it after seeing how my “host” and “guest” player concepts confused some folks.
-
I think the value and importance of terrain also highlights the age-old division in wargamers across most games.
There are the "chess" players. You tend to find these players migrating toward tournament/competitive games. They end up doing math and calculating the meta of the game, and want to be in control of every aspect and the joy there is from a perfect tactical victory. To these players terrain is again, simply a nuisance, particularly if random effects occur. It's all a mathematical penalty which can alter their carefully laid plans, etc.
Then there are the story/chaos players who are more interested in the story a game can tell, and sort of embrace the madness of random events, etc. Generally these types are less concerned with winning and more likely to embrace house rules, and anything that increases the "craziness" or story of the game, etc. I think these types of players are more prone to investing in terrain, creating terrain rules and embracing the chance that comes with it all.
Neither of these two play styles is correct, but conflict or angst can come up when the two types of players end up playing a game together - either on purpose, or by accident. Having vastly different expectations and enjoying a game in vastly different ways can lead to uncomfortable games at the local store, etc.
-
Hear, hear Elbows. I quite agree. Well said.
-
It is of course each to his/her own but I do love a table with quality terrain (even to the detriment of gameplay itself lol ).
And yes, I do think of terrain as the ‘third player’ as it does have an impact on gameplay unless of course the table has no terrain (space fighter and naval games).
Would the rules themselves be considered the ‘fourth player’?
-
Oh I quite agree Silent Invader. I have to admit that it did not cross my mind that folks would take issue with the specifics of the metaphor but I really should have expected it after seeing how my “host” and “guest” player concepts confused some folks.
You have been to TMP before?
I think Elbow’s contrast between chess style games and chaos style games is interesting.
I think I would fit somewhere between - I do like a good looking table, and one where the terrain looks realistic. Wargames hills are really quite odd things, and don’t function like real world hills. I think some of the strangeness of terrain comes about because of the mis-match between figure scale and ground scale, this is especially so in 1:1 representations with large scale figures. We tend to play with small scale figures, and 1 base = 1 unit, so the foot print of the base can get fairly close to the ground scale - but things like roads and hedges become a bit abstract then, which doesn’t look good.
Terrain does have to be playable - for woods and villages we always have a template that is the boundary of the terrain, but allow the trees or houses to be moved around to position the figures - and this is typically with multi-based figures so the area of a base is fairly large. We will also tend to put a few random decorative trees etc on the table that have no in-game effect but just break up the flat areas.
For our fantasy mass battle rules we have come up with some terrain generation tables, mainly to make a bit easier on the host of the game who is always setting up the table - some weeks I’m quite happy to invent a table - other weeks where its all been a bit busy, I’m quite happy to let the dice help me setup the table. We did create the terrain tables to favour a more open space towards the middle of the table, and the principle that if two armies are clashing (and I do mean armies, not skirmishes) then they are likely to have chosen somewhere they can deploy.
For historical games (particularly 20th century ones) being able to access maps and aerial photos really helps with setting up more realistic terrain - and this does break a lot of the typical gaming conventions of table setup - which just shows they are conventions rather than based on reality.
-
It is of course each to his/her own but I do love a table with quality terrain (even to the detriment of gameplay itself lol ).
And yes, I do think of terrain as the ‘third player’ as it does have an impact on gameplay unless of course the table has no terrain (space fighter and naval games).
Would the rules themselves be considered the ‘fourth player’?
Even space and naval game boards can have interactive terrain with game mechanic effects if the players wish. Asteroids. Shallows. Currents. Nebula. That is just off the top of my head.
The rules as a fourth player? Hmm. I had not thought of that. They are certainly important but are they as often overlooked as terrain is? My metaphor was trying to highlight the often overlooked importance of terrain. What exactly did you have in mind?
Fred, I am new to posting on TMP but have lurked there for quite awhile. I find it a difficult forum to navigate and I have not really come to understand the folks there as I do here on LAF.
Using aerial photos and maps to capture realistic terrain is a good point.
-
I always prefer to reference terrain as the third army, more so than the third player. It's the "other" thing that needs to be purchased, assembled, and painted and slapped on the table with the other two armies. :D
-
The rules as a fourth player? Hmm. I had not thought of that. They are certainly important but are they as often overlooked as terrain is? My metaphor was trying to highlight the often overlooked importance of terrain. What exactly did you have in mind?
Only saying that the rules to me quite often aren’t as important as the terrain. As long as the rules play fine then they are secondary to the terrain. When we play we’re quite happy to make stuff up on the fly with regard to terrain effects but it’s not a deal/game breaker.
-
Very interesting answers and thoughts. :)
Many rules can be imagined for interaction with the terrain, very simple ones can give some life to it depending on the scenario and context. Example that I often use:
— When a game begins (narratively in the early morning) white cotton bits are placed on all streams and valley bottoms. This represents the morning fog and blocks the views. At the beginning of each game turn a meteo die is rolled; when a sun appears, fog is removed.
—When troops or adventurers pass near NPC villagers or townspeople (near a farm or village) a smiley die is rolled. The icon which appears on the die tells how the NPCs will behave towards these visitors (friendly, or hostile, neutral, etc.)
conflict or angst can come up when the two types of players end up playing a game together - either on purpose, or by accident. Having vastly different expectations and enjoying a game in vastly different ways can lead to uncomfortable games
Certainly. I avoid this as hell. We've understood this with my gaming friends long ago, and most of the time we play different games (with different gaming minds) on neighbouring but different tables and everyone is very happy to meet and chat and to have looks at the development of the game(s) on the other table(s) ...and even more happy not to be mixed in a same game. :D
-
For the most points I agree with Elbow. Especially with the observation that players more interested in tournament /competitive games don't like terrain.
Years ago there was an interessting article about terrain in games, I think it was in the WSS. The headline was something like "There must be a street on the table". The author made clear that a table has to tell something like a story. There must be a reason why fighting a battle at this spot, therefore you need something like a road, a bridge, a pass or other terrain feature making it reasonable to fight. For my games I try to stick to this rule. But this can also lead to open flat piece of desert.
Most player place there terrain without a thought. Who would fight a pitched battle with a large wood between the two battle lines? Something I see very often on a 6" x 4" table.
So I wouldn't say terrain is the third player, but it is essential to have a proper game.
-
Enjoying this discussion. I often play solo, so can be somewhat flexible with terrain and try and set up something that would be somewhat realistic. Though I confess my terrain collection is pretty poor so far. I imagine time period and region has a big effect on what terrain is used. For instance, I'm currently working on some Feudal Japanese stuff and the terrain there is heavily mountainous and wooded, meaning many battles were fought in valleys and over rivers and low hills as the only areas you could reasonably form up an army. Whereas if I'm playing a battle in the Crusades, wide open plains were a common choice by both sides with a cavalry emphasis. My general approach has been to set up terrain on the sides with maybe a little in the middle or providing a squeeze point or two. This seems realistic for many periods where they'd look a way to maximise their frontage while making use of terrain for closing up the flanks, so would try and secure a flank against a river or dense wood, but keep the front reasonably open. As you move into more modern conflicts though terrain does become much more essential.
What are people's preferred means of deploying terrain? A simple one player sets up and the other player chooses which side they take (to keep it fair) or random tables for it? I'm thinking about how to improve my own terrain setup to be a bit less predictable, but still maintain some aspect of realisim, so considering going down the route of dividing the table up and using some sort of "random" placement (though likely slightly skewed to avoid weird setups like forests in the middle).
-
One obvious choice is to re-fight historical battles. Either with historical forces or simply morph them into your fantasy/futuristic games.
eg this is the battle of Teugen Hausen
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50008526842_817a349cc8_z.jpg)
The Austrians are attacking northwards to seize the village at the top of the picture. The French enter from the road top right and must hold them off. If the Austrians seize the village they cut off Davouts III corps from the rest of the French army. The main advantage the Austrians have is in artillery but there is a bloody great wooded ridge with a single road through it hampering their advance as the artillery can't pass through the wood so must use the road.
That is a historical battle with a large wood between the combatants. In fact the wood is what makes the battle interesting as it restricts the Austrian fire power thus presenting a tactical problem to the Austrian player - how to take advantage of their early superior numbers and artillery without getting chopped up piecemeal passing along the road.
There is no reason though you couldn't recreate this with dwarves as Austrians and goblins as French. So the dwarves have lots of cannons and the like but can't get them through the wood except by the road. The goblins are much lighter equipped but have the advantage when fighting in the wood.
-
But you have your road!
Nice table
-
Only saying that the rules to me quite often aren’t as important as the terrain. As long as the rules play fine then they are secondary to the terrain. When we play we’re quite happy to make stuff up on the fly with regard to terrain effects but it’s not a deal/game breaker.
Great point. Same here.
-
Certainly. I avoid this as hell. We've understood this with my gaming friends long ago, and most of the time we play different games (with different gaming minds) on neighbouring but different tables and everyone is very happy to meet and chat and to have looks at the development of the game(s) on the other table(s) ...and even more happy not to be mixed in a same game. :D
Absolutely. My friends know that I'll gladly set up a table for them to game on - particularly games I don't like or enjoy. I still like my friends even if we have different tastes in games. I'm more than happy to hang out, referee, and simply observe if they want to play a game I don't invest in, or don't enjoy, etc.
RE: MCCTV
I prefer tables to deployed as some form of story when possible. If that story is...a huge cluttered city-scape, that's fine. I enjoy having "sections" or "challenges" on the table. Aesthetically I like things on the board edges simply because it makes the table feel like it's part of a larger setting. If we have a story in mind to drive the terrain - even better.
One of my favourite tables I set up when I was trying to enjoy 40K was a story my buddy and I came up with simply because of the models we had just painted. He had painted a couple knights he wanted to ally with his Chaos force and I had just built several siege-based vehicles and guns. We decided on a stronghold of a Knight Household under siege by my army. We liked the idea of storming a medieval castle, etc...so we added the acid ocean and build up a crazy Knight Household.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K4rZpDVZwBA/XMYFctGY_YI/AAAAAAAAE7E/vL8DFA_sHvYjh4WRd80exWSGmzE8vdyhwCLcBGAs/s1600/ArmigerHousehold.png)
So if a story can drive it...definitely let the story drive it. If there's one thing I try to avoid it's symmetrical tables. I'd rather adjust forces or deployment areas than build some kind of mirror'ed table where each player has the same stuff. That can be left for tournaments!
-
one thing I try to avoid it's symmetrical tables.
I heartily agree. Battles are NOT symmetrical. The art of war
is being able to look at a Battlefield & sum up the bits to be
used & those to be avoided. Frederick the Great claimed
the ability to do just that (Triumph of the Eye,
though he showed off & said it in French) :D
-
I heartily agree. Battles are NOT symmetrical. The art of war
is being able to look at a Battlefield & sum up the bits to be
used & those to be avoided. Frederick the Great claimed
the ability to do just that (Triumph of the Eye,
though he showed off & said it in French) :D
Apart from when they are - eg see Tuegen Hausen above. That is pretty much symmetrical: two valleys separated by a wooded ridge.
The whole issue of terrain being a problem to place comes from competitive play. If both players are more interested in playing out the story of a battle then perhaps they should simply agree how the field is to be represented or better yet one player come up with the scenario and allow the other to choose which army to command.
If the terrain is for competitive play then the best option would be a published scenario or a third party set up the table. Alternatively in a WH40K type of game allow the defender to set up the terrain but have a disadvantage in troops to reflect the value of the ground they have chosen to fight on.
-
As a game designer, terrain is incredibly hard to design for! Everyone has different terrain available.
However, if you think of a game as generating fun, and fun comes from Choice; you need to have some sort of terrain placement (and deployment) rules in order to add more choice into the "pre-game".
-
Only saying that the rules to me quite often aren’t as important as the terrain. As long as the rules play fine then they are secondary to the terrain. When we play we’re quite happy to make stuff up on the fly with regard to terrain effects but it’s not a deal/game breaker.
+1
-
Great terrain and well painted minis are a necessity, IMHO. They are what bring new players into the hobby and keep the fun times going. It's how I got into it - seeing a great-looking game, I knew that I had to do that!
Here are a couple from my old Zombietown Massacre game. Enjoy.
-
Great looking table!