Hidden Movement/Ambushes and terrain

[Conquistador]

Terrain for Hidden Movement/Ambushes has been on my mind since receiving Victorian Steel.  The way Locals could use wadis/arroyos throughout the world to move to flank/surprise European/American troops but also the fact that many of these terrain features were a local "surprise" terrain event to colonial regulars/askaris isnot usually presented in our (IMO) European biased gaming.  It seems like we want Napoleonic warfare with Henry Martinis versus spears at times.

In my thought process I have had discussions where gamers suggested having the wadis/arroyos reflected as a cutout with insert to "hide" it until detected on the table. 

One suggestion was to use 1" foam with cutouts preexisting in 1' x 1' squares (or some multiple.)  If it was not a "real" wadi/arroyo then the insert was left intact, if the colonial troops came across it (at some variable distance) then the insert was removed and (possibly) the warriors in the terrain might be revealed.  The colonials would not be certain of the actual terrain until contacted visually or scouted.

That seems a lot of work.  And it doesn't allow in tactical games for the rolling hills/plains blind spots that the Zulus, Apaches, Lakota peoples used so effectively when they "hid out in the open."

Please talk about how you use the tabletop terrain to allow for hidden movement and/or ambushes.

[Lowtardog]

Not colonial however chain of command could give you something, they use jump off points where off table units can deploy from ambush if within 9 or so inches if they have a successful activation. You could use terrain features like that as a marker which are negated only if you overrun them or scout them out to force deployment

[Cory]

Unless the arroyos are going to offer further protection later in the game I would not actually model them on the table but rather use the CoC jump off points or some sort of hidden movement tokens for the ambush.

[traveller]

I have been happy using the old "matchbox" system, where you make a simple map of the tabletop divided into squares. Each Square is given a number. You then have an equal number of matchboxes with the same numbers. For each move, both sides movse both on the tabletop and move tokens representing the units between the matchboxes.
When two units end up in the same matchbox, the ambush happens.

[Traveler Man]

I like the idea of using Chain of Command-style jump off points for ambushes. I'll give it a try and see what happens.

[robh]

"Jump Off Points" is how Victorian Steel already deals with ambushes by hidden/devious natives. Can be actual troops or dummy markers, only revealed when they attack or are scouted.
Base suggestion in the rules is D6 ambush markers but this can easily be increased to denote very broken ground.

Question we have discussed is whether they should be static once placed or allowed to move.

[6milPhil]

The way I hide terrain on the table is to remove it.

I set up the whole table, and photograph it from above, this serves as the native map. I remove any pieces to be hidden and photograph those and this is the strangers map. The native player marks his deployment on the map, and typically the strangers player just place his pieces, unless he does have a properly hidden unit or two.

[Pijlie]

The most elegant and flexible system I ever used came from the venerable Sword and the Flame ruleset.

Use little rocks/stones in a matching colour to the tabletop. Number them from 1 to whatever number you use and distribute them across the table. The ambushing player simply writes down the number or numbers of the locations where he places his ambush and reveals the number at the same time as he springs the ambush (or has to due to the vicinity of scouts).

You can even write the numbers at the bottom if you find them visually unattractive.

[Mad Guru]

As Pijlie hints at above, TSATF (The Sword And The Flame) was conceived specifically for the purpose of enabling "Native" forces to use rough terrain to their advantage for hidden deployment and hidden movement, creating opportunities for ambush by both fire and melee, as well as opportunities for "hidden" redeployment.

The "European" player knows at the start of a game that Rough Terrain "Areas" may hide enemy forces, and can't be sure if they do or not until they scout out a specific area -- or are attacked from it by fire or charge.

It's true this doesn't address the question of hidden or unknown terrain features, such as the interconnected nullahs at Maiwand, which the Afghans used like trenches to surround the British, but IMHO that is an issue all eras of miniature wargaming (at least up until the arrival of aircraft and radios) suffer from: players seeing all the terrain on the battlefield in perfect clarity, all the time.  This can sometimes be successfully addressed in scenario-specific ways by the GM, at least if you are fighting a fictional battle where the players won't already know the lay of the land from history.  But returning to the TSATF, I think it does a good job of creating a miniature version of asymmetrical warfare on the tabletop via a simple and elegant method.  All the terrain is visible for both sides to see, but the European player(s) don't know which rocks, scrub-brush, woods, wadis/arroyos/nullahs, rocky hillsides or reverse slopes hide enemy forces... and which do not.