gaming in a 3' x 4' space and less

[Norm]

I am guessing that many of us are already doing this.

I am setting out in a structured way to streamline play and reduce dependency on multi scales and worse multiple terrain scales, while keeping the game quite small, but still being able to do lots of periods.

Some thoughts on the blog

http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2020/01/pocket-armies-and-4-x-3-project-going.html

[Harry Faversham]

Up till about five years ago we fought every battle on an 8' X 6' table. Then both my old wargame Diunderheads grew that old and decrepit we switched to a 4' X 4' table, and have never looked back.
We can field large forces for the Crusades, in 15mm, so can still have a proper sweeping tonking match. But even better, you can cram a lot more clutter into/onto a smaller table, makeing skirmish games look decent and play really well.
I don't regret our 'downsizing' for a minute.

[SteveBurt]

I have a table that goes up to 8'x6', and I used to use that size quite a bit, but like you recently most of my gaming has been done on 6x4, 4x4 or 3x4 tables. I used 6x6 for the first time in ages recently for a WW2 naval game.
Just takes too long to set up and play on the big table for most evening games.

[fusilierdan]

I think the 3'x4' is a good size. You can get to the action a little quicker saving a turn or so maneuvering and as Faversham says it's easier to get a lot of terrain on the table for skirmish games.

I can't imagine how many buildings I would need for an 8'x6' gangster game. 

[jambo1]

A good read, very interesting My gaming is on 4x4 or 4x3 or even 2x2, happy with it.  

[SteveBurt]

I think the 3'x4' is a good size. You can get to the action a little quicker saving a turn or so maneuvering and as Faversham says it's easier to get a lot of terrain on the table for skirmish games.

I can't imagine how many buildings I would need for an 8'x6' gangster game.

8x6 is for mass battle games or WW1 or WW2 naval where ranges are very long

[Bravo Six]

We game on a Kill Team sized mat on a coffee table (due to space constraints) and we're ok with that.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

I have been using a 2x2 cork pinboard since the early 'nineties - it started off as a DBA/HOTT board.

The static grass has needed replacing occasionally.

Works great with The Walking Dead:All Out War.

[syrinx0]

We have two 8x4 tables with a two foot center board to join them into a 8x10 playing area. We use the big table for large tractics WWI or WWII battles mostly. Occasionally a large ancients or 40K battle. We have built up a lot of terrain over the years (stored under the tables) and it is fun to see it all in use.  Comes in handy when you want to run multiple skirmish games too. 

That said, the big multiplayer battles are less frequent than they used to be and we usually only game on one table space most days. 

[RSDean]

I got my partner to agree to a permanent game table by getting a nice one which doubles as the dining room table with the topper in place. Topper removed, the game well is 5’ by 3’, and that seems to be working well. We’ve even had quite a few games of A Gentleman’s War, using 40mm figures. Previously I was using a pair of folding banquet tables totaling 5’ by 6’, so the 50% reduction has been noticed, even if it’s acceptable...

[tin shed gamer]

I only use a 3×4 and a 3×3. Not simply because of space.
But it occurred to me whilst watching games at my local club .That most games being played deployed 30 cm in from the board edge . So even just a 4×6 had nearly twelve square feet of unused board from the first dice role.
Then if you take into account very few games and gamers play right upto the sides of the board .So effectively other than looking pretty half a 4×6 table isn't actually used for anything other than elbows and coffee cups(so to speak.)
So I reduced both the storage and the effort required by building smaller surfaces.

[A Lot of Gaul]

It makes sense to have a gaming surface appropriate to one's available gaming space, army and figure size.

I play 18mm army-level Ancients battles, always on a 6' x 4' table.

[Arrigo]

I only use a 3×4 and a 3×3. Not simply because of space.
But it occurred to me whilst watching games at my local club .That most games being played deployed 30 cm in from the board edge . So even just a 4×6 had nearly twelve square feet of unused board from the first dice role.
Then if you take into account very few games and gamers play right upto the sides of the board .So effectively other than looking pretty half a 4×6 table isn't actually used for anything other than elbows and coffee cups(so to speak.)
So I reduced both the storage and the effort required by building smaller surfaces.

Interesting point, for me is the opposite, I do not like the end to end deployments. if you fit the table to the battle line you ends with no open flanks and basically just push forward confrontations...

[tin shed gamer]

These days I barely do much more than skirmish games and Pulp style games these don't need a landing stip sized table in the first place.
I think it's fair to say no matter what size of table you opt for the odds of you pushing figures across every square inch is pretty remote.
My choice is of table size is a combination of need and necessity I'd love a 4×6 playing surface . It's just I'm being honest with myself (No likey.It feels way to grown up.)
It'd look pretty but I'd only realistically play they majority of the time within twelve square feet of it.
So I've no real insensitive for building somthing twice the size if it'll not get used.

What is odd though is our instincts for  rectangular and square gaming surfaces. Try playing on around or oval table top and not layout a four sided board.It can be rather unnerving

[syrinx0]

What is odd though is our instincts for  rectangular and square gaming surfaces. Try playing on around or oval table top and not layout a four sided board.It can be rather unnerving

What a circle? Such that any normal sized human could reach the center of the table?  That is definitely crazy talk.