Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Easy E on January 26, 2023, 06:17:56 PM
-
So, the new, big trend in wargaming is playing them on Grids. It is not "new" at all as the idea of using a grid goes back centuries. However, grid based wargames are on the rise. You can see it in games like To The Strongest, Age of Penda, Battletech, Aeronautica Imperialis, Deadzone, and more.
There are clear advantages to grids. These include LOS, Movement, Facings, etc. They also remove the constraint of measurement and measurement devices as well. Interactions between units can be completed much cleaner.
Yet, I reflexively dislike grid based games! I am not sure where this aversion comes from but I do not have a taste for them. To me, if I am going to use a grid I might as well use a Hex and Chit game and save a lot of money on miniatures in the first place. The grid detracts from the pageantry and look of the game, and to me that trumps the idea of playing the game in the first place.
Of course, these are just opinions, and everyone has one! Therefore, what are your opinions on the rise of Grid based games in modern tabletop miniature wargaming?
-
I’m a fan of a number of grid based games (For King and Parliament, To the Strongest and Rommel). And we have played with grid options for home brew rules too
The grid does simplify a lot of fussy game play. And removes a lot of ambiguity.
As to the look - there are a number of ways to make the game look more natural. Whilst the core mechanism for the game may be a linear grid, but there is no need for the terrain and units to strictly confirm to the boxes.
Also there is no need for a heavy grid marking out the boxes, light crosses on the corners is sufficient.
Have a look at some of Simon Miller’s photos for his To the Strongest Games - you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between these and any other wargame.
-
Having been dismissive of grid based games as "3D Boardgames" I find I am enjoying Mark Backhouse's grid based Strength and Honour Ancients games .... even though more than half of the units are currently bare metal blu-tacked to MDF!
I have the rules for For King and Parliament and have started collecting units for that too.
Mr. Consistently Inconsistent lol
-
The only grid-based game I've played is Ganesha's Of Armies and Hordes, which I absolutely loved. I keep meaning to play it again, but Kings of War proved an unexpected hit with us and our regular opponents, so I've never actually played it on our 6' x 4' table (bought during the pandemic).
One huge advantage of grid-based games (or at least Of Armies and Hordes) is that basing isn't important at all (you can record casualties by figure removal or on paper or with counters or whatever). So it's very easy to get all the miniatures you have on the table if that's what works best.
I'd second fred's points on the elimination of 'fussiness' and ambiguity - and on the ease with which grids can be disguised. Of Armies and Hordes doesn't require the 'grid' divisions to be equally sized, so it's very easy to create an entirely natural-looking table (from memory, I think the grid has to be numbered, but you can sketch that out on a bit of paper if you don't want discreet numbers on the table itself - that's what we did in our games).
All in all, my impression was that grid-based games give a much less 'artificial' feel to the proceedings - perhaps counterintuitively. It's more "I'll send the scouts to the farm" than "I'll advance these guys 8 inches".
-
I was introduced to war games through Avalon Hill bookshelf games with their hex map boards, so I've never had a problem with grids.
Even though I understand why most tabletop war games shy away from them, I'm a bit surprised they aren't more common.
They certainly make a game run faster and smoother. Particularly with my grand kids.
-
I don't mind grid based games (I only own Simon Miller's two). They are great for remote gaming and the grid corners are all that have to be marked and can be done so discreetly.
As to the look - there are a number of ways to make the game look more natural. Whilst the core mechanism for the game may be a linear grid, but there is no need for the terrain and units to strictly confirm to the boxes.
This is an important point that many miss; there is no need for terrain to strictly follow the grid layout.
-
Grids are a tad gormless, in my 'umble opinion.
I paint little people to look like little people. Then I play with 'em in a toy world, that looks as much like a model railway layout, as is practical...
It's all about the look of the thing, ya' see?
???
-
I am with you, EasyE when it comes to the loss of immersion with a grid on the table. I've seen this terrain system around for years that is built up using hex-tiles. Granted: it looks pretty good, but the whole hex-pattern just puts me off.
It's the reason I immediately went for the advanced rules in Battletech back in the day that forewent the use of their hex maps and played straight on the table (with terrain).
But I also recognize the advantages of having a grid on the table: ease of deployment, measuring and movement. No discussions regarding ranges, etc. There is no doubt a grid makes for easier play, though it does make the whole experience more gamey.
In the past I have toyed with the idea of having a laser projector over the table, which would project the grid of choice on top of the regular terrain on the table. It could easily be switched from squares to hexes and any other type of grid, and could probably also project things like deployment zones etc.
Problem is cost, obviously, the fact that the grids need to be programmed in and also that the projector needs to be positioned just right every time (which is a non-issue when you have a table that is never moved, obviously).
I never pursued this; it's quite gimmicky and off the wall of course, but this discussion made me think of it again. I wonder if someone, somewhere has come up with a similar idea, and maybe built and marketed it...
-
I'll throw my two -pennyworth into the debate.
I gamed for 40 years without using grids, and indeed my former dislike of board games might have put me in the "anti-grid" camp. However after finding Simon Miller's TTS ancients rules and FK&P ECW rules, I have come to quite like them. I accept that the rules themselves aren't to everybody's taste but the grid system does speed things up a lot making bigger battles possible in an evening, plus it removes the opportunity for very gamey debates about angles and ranges that sometimes bedevil some sets of rules.....and players! I would also say that TTS saved my gaming group during COVID. We were able to play using Zoom as it was very easy to see what was going on and manoeuvre units accordingly with no rancorous debate.
That said I also game without grids. My little gaming group regularly play Sharp Practice, What a Tanker, Dux, Battlegroup WW2 and a host of other games without a gridded mat. Such rulesets are relatively relaxed when it comes to unit orientation, and have a relatively low figure/unit count. Indeed only last night we played a very pleasant Sharp Practice game set during the 1st Maori War.
So, in essence I guess my view is that grids " have their place" . I don't think they spoil the spectacle, as they can be made very unobtrusive, and terrain doesn't have to follow the grids. I use my gridded mat for most games as the markings don't stand out too much.
Whilst I respect Harry's view and normally find myself agreeing with him I don't think grids are "gormless"!
-
I've played dungeoncrawl boardgames, and movement is *always* on a grid, to reflect the square tile design of dungeons.
Even in this natural extension of a grid, I *HATE* grids. Diagonal movement is a kludge, and LOS rules are all over the place. You pretty much have to unlearn once movement or combat concept in one game before you play another, not that gridded games are the only ones that have this problem.
For boardgames, I prefer hexes, since hexes at least *look* like they can accommodate diagonal movement and blast radii. Yes, I do know that hexes are essentially square spaces moved over 1/2 a square.
Song of Gold and Darkness' "stick" movement also works. Munchkins can't use a length of string so their miniature weaves around and runs circles around their opponent's mini's.
I'm perpetually fiddling with a combat system where you use the card you played for range, movement, etc. Easier than finding that measuring tape your opponent misplaced... :P
-
I've played dungeoncrawl boardgames, and movement is *always* on a grid, to reflect the square tile design of dungeons.
Even in this natural extension of a grid, I *HATE* grids. Diagonal movement is a kludge, and LOS rules are all over the place. You pretty much have to unlearn once movement or combat concept in one game before you play another, not that gridded games are the only ones that have this problem.
Yes, I think grids are worse in a dungeon crawler than in a massed-battle game. They impose all kinds of artificialities that the better 'open-field' grid games avoid. I do think the Of Armies and Hordes non-geometric 'grid' is really good - essentially just dividing the table into 'areas' rather than 'squares'. So the implicit order is 'move down from the hills and into the farmland' rather than 'move two squares forward'.
Song of Gold and Darkness' "stick" movement also works. Munchkins can't use a length of string so their miniature weaves around and runs circles around their opponent's mini's.
Yes, it's very elegant - and it interacts superbly with the activation system and the 'ambush' rule for lots of risk/reward decision-making.
-
I have no problems with the aesthetics of grids. My grids for TTS and FK&P are pretty hard to see and are more of a stationary ruler than a set of shackles:
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5406c773e4b087d8052ef58b/dc966a1f-21d0-4533-8bd3-abc4d1641a72/DSCN4113.JPG?format=1500w)
I'd also prefer to use a grid than play a game where I have to worry about where my troops are positioned in terms of millimetres and exact degrees in relation to other units, friendly or enemy. Played too much competitive WRG as a young man so now only really play games like IABSM, CDS and Q13, where a more situational approach is taken!
-
Grids are a tad gormless, in my 'umble opinion.
I paint little people to look like little people. Then I play with 'em in a toy world, that looks as much like a model railway layout, as is practical...
It's all about the look of the thing, ya' see?
???
I guess it is in part how we see our games. I'm very much of the opinion that "It's a game not a diorama!" I have no problem with labels on units, dice, rulers and other "clutter" on the table and if the game involves counters I want them visible from space not so well camouflaged they merge into the table and become pointless.
I've always seen RPG's as a different beast to tabletop miniatures games and have always used gridded movement for those.
It would be a dull old world if we were all the same.
-
I am a proponent of grids and play the Portable Wargame quite a lot. it has the big advantage that people can't argue about angles, which is something that really put me off ancients wargaming from DBM onwards. It is also when it is a flank attack.
Unlike Harry I believe if you are playing with Toy Soldiers you should have Toy Soldier terrain, like my Salute 2021 game:
(http://www.blackhat.co.uk/uploads/grids/sal3.jpg)
(http://www.blackhat.co.uk/uploads/grids/sal4.jpg)
(http://www.blackhat.co.uk/uploads/grids/sal5.jpg)
-
I like them: they speed big battle games along nicely, they take out the need for checking minutiae, and they don't have to look at all conspicuous.
-
I don’t have that much experience, but I’m dying to try out Of Armies and Hordes - Hobgoblin’s points are indeed pretty convincing. And years ago I did play Demonworld (hex-based) and while the grids never looked as good as our Warhammer/Fantasy Warriors tables, the eliminated 99.9% (actually 100%) of all the hassle about that quarter inch you lacked or maybe not for ranges, angles, unit footprint etc.
That was quite a positive effect!
-
I guess to me, the grid is trying to solve a problem that I have rarely encountered.
However, the idea of "remote" play makes a ton of sense. I also like the idea of "areas" of the board. This is common in RPGs that aren't D&D.
-
Grids are visually unappealing.
They create strange effects in terms of frontage depth being different in different directions, even hex grids have that. So they distort the ground.
Small grids allow greater differentiation in terms of movement but become more fiddly, larger grids/areas means less movement differences. Do light and heavy infantry and cavalry all move the same, how are they differentiated?
What about obstacles and features? Do they occupy the grid square or form the boundary? Still lots of potential for issues. Ditto with line of sight. It is still not cut and dried often.
Ultimately miniatures are about visual appeal and having a grid detracts from that for me so I wouldn't get a rule set that uses them.
Edit. Oops forgot about Blood Bowl - but that is a board game in my mind
-
I like some games which use grids etc but the danger is whether such a game tends to be better without min's at all. Done badly, or at IMO the wrong scale to figures to what the units are, all the visualization magic of models on the table is lost and for me it is better to be playing the game as a true board game.
Rommel is a classic example of that for me. I like the game but it generally works better as a straight board game due to the scale of units/terrain. Models distract from what the game is about. A few figs or 1 building breaks not helps my visualization of the game and what it represents. it's better as with counters/markers and a map for my view.
But games like to the strongest and Bloody Barrons v2 for example are the opposite. The grid takes away the fiddlyness/lack of precision for measuring in figure gaming and allows players to just get on with the game. To be honest BloodBowl would be another great example of a figure game which works better with a grid than if you tried to do it without one.
-
I hear all these objections against grids (and share them to a degree), but would like to turn the question a little around: why is no one of us bothered about the often pretty strange and unrealistic base sizes then?
Why do we assume it’s perfectly acceptable to arbitrarily give a unit a frontage and depth that is more the result of gameability? And why don’t we feel that way with grids?
Maybe we need to forget the old „chessboard on the tabletop“ grids and rather think about it in the way as A Song of Armies and Hordes does: irregular grids deliminating areas?
-
Unlike Harry I believe if you are playing with Toy Soldiers you should have Toy Soldier terrain, like my Salute 2021 game:
(http://www.blackhat.co.uk/uploads/grids/sal3.jpg)
(http://www.blackhat.co.uk/uploads/grids/sal4.jpg)
(http://www.blackhat.co.uk/uploads/grids/sal5.jpg)
To be fair that set up looks Brill!!!
:-*
-
…but would like to turn the question a little around: why is no one of us bothered about the often pretty strange and unrealistic base sizes then?
Why do we assume it’s perfectly acceptable to arbitrarily give a unit a frontage and depth that is more the result of gameability? And why don’t we feel that way with grids?
This a very good question. And I see this a lot in Napoleonics with 28mm figures - there seems to be a desire to have 2 or 3 ranks of figures in depth, but only 10 or 12 figures wide. This gives a completely non-representative unit foot print. For some reason the frontage is based off the figure to men ratio, but the depth is much too deep to give a look.
This seems to be a frequent problem in linear warfare games.
At a different level it can be seen in skirmish games where tanks or other vehicles are involved and the in game ground scale is suddenly totally distorted by the size of the vehicle.
-
At a different level it can be seen in skirmish games where tanks or other vehicles are involved and the in game ground scale is suddenly totally distorted by the size of the vehicle.
This is one reason i dislike 'big skirmish' games in 28mm - bolt action and chain of command being the obvious 'elephants in the room'. 28mm looks nice but distorts ground scale so much in such games to make any excuse for them to be based on reality just not work for me. When pistols are able to shoot the length of a tank and tanks can only shoot across a street the visual aspect of the game breaks for me or a unit of 10 guys can't fit into a house.
Such games in 15mm at least start to allow a little more of the feel of the period to be reaslistic. It's just my opinion but some people care deeply about say the uniform of a model but then care nothing for the actual tactical esthetics. I'm more the other way around.
-
I love grid games, I own To The Strongest & play a lot of Bloodbowl, recently picked up Undaunted, which I would like to 'miniaturise'. I also play a lot of Fistful of Lead & Lion Rampant...
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the 'boardgamey' look of a grid on a tabletop - while it may be unappealing to some - is often a very accessible concept for people that are new to tabletop wargaming. To be sure, most punters love the look of all these highly detailed tables with diorama like details, but I would wager that the average non-gamer is still fairly intimidated by a bunch of people with measuring sticks, tape measures, dice & templates.
But I do think that a grid on the table translates clearly to people that it is a game. People can see that things move from here to here.
I often speak to people - adults & students - about this hobby and they are honestly bamboozled by what we do. They just don't get it.
When I listened to that 'We have ways' WW2 podcast on wargaming the other day, one of the hosts seemed just as confused about the simple task of *moving* the figures on the table. The Fat Lardies bloke did a great job of trying to explain the concept of wargaming, but even the simple notion of how things move on the tabletop got lost in the chatter about jump off points, action points & activations. I guess it is hard to translate that information in the rambling discourse of a podcast.
Gridded games work on that visual level without having to hard sell an explanation. People can instantly see that things move from here to here.
I am a high school teacher so I am very used to being reductive in an attempt to simplify things for young people.
Grid games are a good mechanism for designers to reach out to the younger set and 'non' gamers.
-
This a very good question. And I see this a lot in Napoleonics with 28mm figures - there seems to be a desire to have 2 or 3 ranks of figures in depth, but only 10 or 12 figures wide. This gives a completely non-representative unit foot print. For some reason the frontage is based off the figure to men ratio, but the depth is much too deep to give a look.
This seems to be a frequent problem in linear warfare games.
At a different level it can be seen in skirmish games where tanks or other vehicles are involved and the in game ground scale is suddenly totally distorted by the size of the vehicle.
Yes!!!!! Totally true.
And I can say, the same things can be said for Bronze Age and Ancient warfare. In many cases it’s not really known, but in others, people just love geometry too much and also blocks… with skirmish systems and weapon ranges there are so many really, really silly things that I’ve given up… it’s only now that some Indie systems acknowledge that rifles may shoot over the whole table if this is meant to represent a 1:1 ground scale!
-
A gridded game we played last night.
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/327579327_1743469626082463_8944894927561796605_n.jpg?stp=c80.0.480.480a_dst-jpg_s851x315&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=da31f3&_nc_ohc=cth5JVLyKEcAX-7pLcW&tn=AYkspiMeQ65d5ati&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=00_AfB-_wAEFTFwym_QJgouyIJ7mfAHJrJ8tZlGfshkR431RQ&oe=63D8BA38)
;)(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/326943135_542974544459593_7360355242397775612_n.jpg?stp=c127.0.387.387a_dst-jpg_s851x315&_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=da31f3&_nc_ohc=59y6IQPbiGUAX9WsgmO&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=00_AfDPjaOJbppWhW64rlS7iISU4n8o7qMPtJuQw9_HQCC_FQ&oe=63D95F0D)
-
Crafty, you make some excellent points and I would encourage everyone to listen to the most recent "We Have Ways of Making You Talk" podcast where the Historian James Holland and Al ( The Pub Landlord) Murray talk to Nick Skinner from Two Fat Lardies. Nick does quite a good job of explaining the hobby to two WW2 obsessives but who have never played a game. He also goes through the history of wargaming which is quite thought provoking .Whilst you don't necessarily agree with everything he says as all roads lead to the TFL's gaming system it is a good listen.
As for grids I actually have some friends who hated "big battle" figure games for some of the reasons set out already, but as a boardgamer has adopted TTS and is now a regular player.
I'm going to an event at Stevenage Museum next Saturday where a local club is putting on a historical demo. It will be fascinating to see what the public make of our wonderful but sometimes bizarre hobby!
-
> I do think the Of Armies and Hordes non-geometric 'grid' is really good - essentially just dividing the table into 'areas' rather than 'squares'. So the implicit order is 'move down from the hills and into the farmland' rather than 'move two squares forward'.
Good point! fwiw, With boardgames, these tend to be "dudes on a map" games, although areas are more often geopolitical, rather than terrain based. Risk is a classic example. But terrain would be good, since you could "build in" the terrain costs into the map. For example, field terrain, which is easier to cross, would be larger areas, but, since they're harder to defend, might have more adjacent areas. I guess you'd want to go further with a 3D game table, so the "area" size and shape of a hill would be more intuitive for the terrain. Of course, this would "interfere" with the modularity of a game table.
Speaking of modularity, I have the Terra Tile hexes, available at Ravenkeep.net , and use them for solo play. While I don't formally use a grid, the lines on the board make it easier to measure movement, or I use the vertices and edges as "snap to grid" when moving figures, to speed up play! You can also see how I'll use an entire hill hex to indicate blocking LOS.
(https://forum.reapermini.com/uploads/monthly_2022_06/DSC04903.thumb.JPG.215d7cc82d37900aadd7c93713263c16.JPG)
-
Grids are visually unappealing.
They create strange effects in terms of frontage depth being different in different directions, even hex grids have that. So they distort the ground.
Small grids allow greater differentiation in terms of movement but become more fiddly, larger grids/areas means less movement differences. Do light and heavy infantry and cavalry all move the same, how are they differentiated?
What about obstacles and features? Do they occupy the grid square or form the boundary? Still lots of potential for issues. Ditto with line of sight. It is still not cut and dried often.
Ultimately miniatures are about visual appeal and having a grid detracts from that for me so I wouldn't get a rule set that uses them.
Edit. Oops forgot about Blood Bowl - but that is a board game in my mind
I would echo this. I was disappointed that Battle Systems pushed the use of grids in Core Space First Born following their more ambivalent take on grids in the original Core Space.
Basically, I dislike the aesthetics of grids, square or hex. It is one of the things I dislike about Dwarven Forge terrain.
-
Gridded games certainly don’t need to have poor aesthetics. The terrain does not need to fill squares or hexes. Most times when I play a set of rules that uses a grid it looks no different to any other tabletop gamer
-
The most common grid based game I have played would be PBI. Grids discreetly marked on a cloth by dots or small crosses on the corners of each square.
I spent over a decade running a school club, there were a lot of arguments over ranges/movement with non-grid based games plus the perennial question of "is he in cover from here?". Try umpiring for a dozen teenage boys for an hour, and you might find grids more appealing.
I introduced them to PBI and within a few weeks nearly everyone had taken it up. Arguments largely vanished. No measuring needed, just count the squares. If there is any terrain in the square you are in cover, if not you are in the open. The only potential for arguments now is over things like cocked dice. We also adopted a policy of being fairly figure agnostic so long as they were based and recognisable, so although I used 15mm metals, some of the players went for 10mm from Pendraken, others used Airfix plastics. Likewise support vehicles were in a mix of scales (in one case a player with Airfix plastic infantry picked up a couple of Pendraken anti-tank guns as support). Not all figure bases were square, some figures were just based on pieces of cardboard box that had been cut into vaguely geometric shapes with a pair of kitchen scissors. But the games were enjoyable and far less fractious.
So there are pros and cons
-
That’s the thing, I’m not playing with a bunch of competitive teenagers so the definition given by a grid is not required.
-
That’s the thing, I’m not playing with a bunch of competitive teenagers so the definition given by a grid is not required.
lol
I’d take that a bit further and say, I’m not playing with anyone competitive :D
-
Gridded games certainly don’t need to have poor aesthetics. The terrain does not need to fill squares or hexes. Most times when I play a set of rules that uses a grid it looks no different to any other tabletop gamer
This is very true.