Grids in Wargaming

[Easy E]

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?
 

[fred]

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.

[ithoriel]

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 

[Hobgoblin]

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".

[Dentatus]

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. 

[Codsticker]

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.

[Harry Faversham]

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?

 

[Daeothar]

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...

[SJWi]

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"!
     

[ced1106]

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...

[Hobgoblin]

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.

[Vis Bellica]

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:



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!

[ithoriel]

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. 

[black hat miniatures]

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:

[blacksoilbill]

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.