Ideal width/height for a wargames table, some advice please

[Johnny Boy]

Afternoon all, My life's ambition to have a dedicated Wargames room is shortly to be realised and I'm going to build a table that can be extended. 8'x6' was the standard of my gaming friends and unless it was one of the big games that as a club we took out for demo games. Now, as I've got older and possibly rounder the height required for a six foot table so the centre can be reached plays bloody hell with the old back. For a while I had a spare room elsewhere that could accommodate an 8'x5' over the double bed which meant it was quite high and took the strain off the back but on occasions didnt seem wide enough. Mainly 28mm skirmish to 100 or so figures per side is the bulk of the games played which should be fine but it appears gaming mats tend to be in multiples of 3' and 4' and I really don't have time to build terrain anymore. So what I was wondering is how you all get on out there with your tables, backs etc. Any advice will be greatly appreciated Many thanks in advance JB

[FifteensAway]

For height, a comfortable sitting height, I believe in the 28" - 32" is what many folding tables are set up for, some have adjustable heights, so I'd use that as a guide.  If you want a bit higher table for more storage below, then use bar stools (but they aren't as stable which might be an important consideration).  For width, no more than 5' wide - regardless of size figures used - to accommodate comfortable reaching distance.  A 4' wide table is also workable, just get the games started faster with the figures closer, and minimize back strain, a highly important consideration for all.  Length should fit the available space - and you can put one end right up against a wall to gain a bit more length, but only if the table is not too wide.

Best of luck with your setup, the ideal of us all (who don't already have it) is to have a dedicated gaming place.

[Deedles]

When we have the temporary table up they are  6x 2 , and we use multiples of them , they are 2’6””  high which is fine for sitting around.

For my permanent set up that is 8x4 which is on casters and it’s made for standing around is 3’ from floor to table top

[Silent Invader]

I’m a fan of a standing height table. I use a 6’ pool table with a table topper. There’s plenty of bench seating all around though moving figures will require standing up (but if sitting down, it’s difficult to play a 6’ width without having the arms of an orangutan).

[fred]

I’d also echo the 5’ width - not all of us are that tall. And when we play on a 6’ deep table, there’s never anything happening in the back 6 inches.

I’d go for as much length as you can fit in - having some extra space for army lists, dice, drinks etc is always useful - if you don’t need all the space for a particular game.

As to mats - most of the companies will make them to a size you ask for, and there isn’t much of a premium for this (pricing seems to be based on area). If you go with hills under the cloth mat, then I’d get an extra 6” or so of width on the mat to take into account the extra cloth needed to cover the hills, and still cover to the edges.

[fastolfrus]

if your table is about 5' wide but the mats are only 4' wide I don't see any problem in having a 6" boundary down each edge as a place to stand clutter - rules, dice, tape measure, drinks - or as a place to remove casualties to, or as a sort of "clearing station"/"waiting room" for reserves & reinforcements.

[Charlie_]

I'm very interested to hear peoples thoughts on the widths of tables.

I always see 'big battle' sort of games on 6ft wide tables, but have always thought it must be so difficult to reach the centre without knocking models and terrain over!!!

I personally am only used to 4ft wide tables (8x4).

Sometime this year I'll be converting a garage into a permanent games room, and I'll have to decide whether to set up the table for a 4ft or wider playing surface.

I'm also very keen to have an extra space of 6 inches on either side to put dice, cups of coffee, etc - when I see pics where the models are literally milimeters from the great drop to the floor I get nervous! So adding that to a 6ft table would make it 7ft wide! That would usrely be unuseable!

Of course 5ft wide might be an excellent compromise. A bit tricky though as I use 2ft square terrain tiles - I'd have to make some additional 1x2ft tiles, but perhaps that'll work out well?


But another thing to think about is whether the full 6ft wide table is actually necessary for troop movements... Assuming we're talking about some sort of 'big battle' game....
In these setups, how far in to the table to people deploy their armies?
Do they start say 2ft apart, with 2ft of deployment area each?
Or 4ft apart, with 1ft of deployment area each?
Perhaps in scenarios where one side starts deployed 1ft or 2ft in to the table, and the other side arrives on the opposite edge on turn 1, they can still be up to 4ft apart when the action starts.
Is a large deployment area really needed? What if they start just 6 inches in? That could put them 3ft apart at start of the game on a 4ft table...
Though a large deployment area might look fantastic in photos, is it really required when nothing happens behind the initial position of the front line of troops? Perhaps you have 2 or more lines of units, reserves etc, and it makes more sense.

I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on these issues, and think it's relevant to the original poster's questions.

I'm considering the idea of games when both armies enter the table when 'activated' or whatever.... the armies might be 'deployed' in full view of each other off-table, and coming on to the table represents them moving forward and coming into bow shot....

[ithoriel]

At clubs I've attended I've been used to playing on 6'x4' / 1800mmx1220mm tables with two pushed together to form a 12' x 4' for some multiplayer games.


These days I can put 1220mm x 600mm sheets of MDF to create an 1800mm x 1220mm top to my dining table and since I tend to game solo and at home these days have no current need for anything bigger.


There again my games are using 2mm to 15mm scale figures these days, apart from the odd skirmish game, so that probably helps.


If I played on for any length of time on 5' wide tables back in the days BCE (Before the Covid Era) my back gave me gip for days after.


Best of luck with whatever you settle on.

[gweirda]

If some sort of custom-built flexible/modular system could be on the menu, consider ditching feet as the increment and go with multiples of 10" instead?

I found that using a set of tiles (easily cut from 1" blue/pink foam = light but sturdy enough*) that are 20"x30" and 20"x40" (and one odd 30x30) lets me build 40, 50, 60, or 70-inch wide tables of whatever shape the type of game (anything from small skirmish to aircombat) and/or scenario dictates.  The 10"-increments seem to give me the flexibility to accommodate reach/deployment requirements more comfortably.

Set atop folding tables (that can be boosted with bed risers if needed for height adjustment: sitting or standing) and covered with a cloth/gaming mat (I'm cheap and use flannel sheets...), the system ticks most of the boxes in the "My table should be/do..." list.


*using the foam provides the option to pin terrain features

[jon_1066]

Depth is an overlooked element to wargames I find.  If you look at WW2 battalion actions quite often they covered more depth than width due to narrow frontages given to an attacking battalion. 

I don't think you want a meeting engagement on a 6 ft deep table (unless you are playing something like Black Powder where a unit can easily move 3 ft in a turn) but for an attack and defend scenario it is good as it does give you reserves, an ability to perform a fighting withdrawal or a defence in depth.  It's probably more important from Napoleonics onwards where just forming a battle line and fighting it out starts to reduce. 

[fred]

A big table can give a big game - ie one that uses the space.

But sometimes you just end up using the middle 2’ and doing a lot of reaching!

Yes you can create some extra space by having small deployment zones - but ultimately if you are playing meeting engagement style games with each side deploying on their table edge, then depth isn’t go to be that important. It probably comes more into play with scenarios that use the depth as part of the game.

Generally more is good - as it’s easy to use part of the table, but much harder to use more space than the table covers! But as I said above I find 6’ too deep for me - but my tall gaming buddies are quite happy with 6’ deep tables.

[FierceKitty]

8 x 4 has always suited me very well; started with 6 x 4, but a bit more length is always good, as the actress said to the bishop. I use 10mm for land games, so find 4' deep enough; get to grips faster, without giving too much of an advantage to artillery-heavy armies.
To add a quirky local measure, I think about 6" above knee level is the right height for me. I've played much higher, but we all found it tiring (and I'm a tall man).

[ChrisBBB]

I vote 6'x4'. At that size you can play sitting down and still reach the middle reasonably easily. No more than 5' deep at most. Extra space for paraphernalia and reserves and casualties is handy but better at the ends, so 8'x4' works well, as FierceKitty rightly mewses.

If that doesn't give you enough depth for your games (and as jon_1066 says, for post-linear warfare from the 1790s on you really want some depth) you can change your ground scale to make the table 'bigger'.

[Johnny Boy]

Filling the room lengthwise with the table flush with the wall one end a table of 16' is possible(Unlikely it will be called for)and I think I'll go with a width of five feet which seems the generally agreed maximum without the old back playing up too much. And I must say Many thanks to you one and all for your input and advice.

[Elbows]

I'd also take into consideration whether or not you have side-tables or places to set your books/rules/miniatures/dice/tape measure/snacks, etc.

I know a lot of people who have a nice 6x4...and that's it.  So if we put a 6x4 game on...we end up stacking all of our stuff on box lids on the floor, etc.

I currently have an 8x5 made out of three folding tables  We tend to play 4x4, 6x4 or 6x5...so we always have the extra table space for additional stuff, particularly in games where your units aren't all starting on the table, etc.

Height-wise, I do prefer a standing table (bonus is, of course, you get vastly more storage space under the table - which can even be used for the above mentioned "junk").  Mine is not standing height due to the angled ceiling in my garage, so it's at the normal height of the folding tables (I have considered tossing them on concrete blocks for a game or two though...).

I enjoy playing on up to around an 8x6...but I'm 6'2" and have long spindy arms that can reach most things.