Rank-n-Flank Games...What Terrain?

[Mr. White]

In the coming months, I'm looking at diving into Oathmark and would like a few pointers and tips on the types of terrain that make a good game for this style of play.

With a lifetime of skirmish gaming, I feel like I have a good handle on what's good there, but that doesn't mean that same philosophy translates to blocks of models. Features with elevation is great for skirmish...useless in army games (I think). Also, what about stuff like rivers? Do they serve any purpose besides cutting off sections of the battlefield? Seems little use. Should I just focus on buildings and woods?

What's good here?

[Hobgoblin]

Rivers can be very useful for giving character to a battlefield. I was reading through the scenarios in the Oathmark book last night, and I reckon the one with the river and the bridge looks pretty good. That scenario has three points at which the river can be crossed: the bridge and two fords, with the bridge not slowing movement. Some rivers might be fordable all along their length, but would count as rough going. You could rule that all troops defending river banks against those trying to cross gain the combat bonus for higher ground.

And that brings us on to your point about elevation. Hills and other areas of higher ground are very useful, because (in Oathmark) they give those fighting from a lower elevation +1 to the target number. And that becomes +2 if there are fortifications on top. So a hillock with a palisade or wall around the top becomes a very handy spot to defend.

Ruins can provide cover and defensible areas, and rough ground generally makes a big difference in slowing troops.

I'd say it's really just small 'details' of scatter terrain that don't have much use in a rank'n'flank game.

[Historiker]

I am in a similar situation: A whole cupboard full of Medieval City Ruins... which are pretty useless for this type of game.

To remedy this I got myself a nice green valley game mat, rummaged in my boxes to find some flat-paperboard terrain (bogs and such) and will probably get something like this for hills:

https://www.fantasywelt.de/Battlefield-in-a-Box-Large-Hill

The flatter the hill the better 

[Ultravanillasmurf]

Ruins are fine as long as they can be occupied by unit sized forces (so five inches by four inches space with the ruins round the edges).

Same with areas of forest (plus great for rendering cavalry and artillery vulnerable).

Hills again need to be large enough for units to occupy.

Rivers block movement, bridges allow movement.

I have a couple of Renedra Stone/Thatched Outbuildings that are going to provide cover and obstacles.

[Mr. White]

my concern with rivers is...how interesting of a terrain piece are they if they block movement? seems units would spend several tuns simply marching over to the bridge. if they're far from the bridge, they could be out of the action for awhile.

I guess that's where shallow river rules come in?

[fastolfrus]

my concern with rivers is...how interesting of a terrain piece are they if they block movement? seems units would spend several tuns simply marching over to the bridge. if they're far from the bridge, they could be out of the action for awhile.

I guess that's where shallow river rules come in?

I don't play Oathmark, but play quite a few other games, some of which feature rivers.
You need to consider that rivers don't always go side to side on the table, they can also go end to end.

If they are side to side then they usually feature heavily in the scenario.
As for spending time marching over to the bridge, the defenders usually deploy to defend the bridge and the attackers usually deploy to attack it.
Fords can be marked at the start, or unmarked but known to one of the players, or unknown to either but found by a scouting unit on the riverbank (dice roll).
Another option with a river is the last stand of a valiant (hugely outnumbered) rearguard trying to hold the bridgehead whilst the main army retreats (and generally whilst engineers try to demolish the bridge)

If the river goes end to end, the table is often not equally divided, often it's 1/3rd or even just 1/4 of the table at one side of the river, and depending on scenario the two forces may need to decide (before deployment) which troops are on which portion of the table. The river (and crossings) then funnel the flanking forces.

[fastolfrus]

I am in a similar situation: A whole cupboard full of Medieval City Ruins... which are pretty useless for this type of game.

City ruins are much the same as broken ground or forest, so not completely useless.
They will stop some units from moving, especially mounted units, but they will also block line of sight and stop units from shooting.
If the buildings have a large footprint and can accommodate units then so much the better.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

Good point.

As with any terrain,  it has to work. More than one crossing, an easy one, a bridge,
and more difficult ones (a ford or a distant bridge).

[Easy E]

Unlike skirmish games, Rank-N-Flank games benefit from area terrain.  These block large units from easily moving around and force you to deploy in such a way to avoid or use the terrain.   

There is less need for scatter terrain and individual cover pieces. 

Therefore, good terrain is...

Rivers
Ponds
Marshes/swamps
Hills
Forests
Buildings
Walls
Hedgerows
Fields

Edit: Rivers are best used as a flank piece that limits access to a chunk of the board.  This is how they were used historically. 

As for crossing, that is why they recommend a bridge and two fords to avoid the crossing issue you highlight.