"Ideal Size For Large Terrain Tables" Topic

Hey there!

I was curious: what does everyone think is the max size as far as width goes for a dedicated table. Or length for that matter.

I've kept most of my tables at 5' wide, but I'm thinking of popping them out to 6' from now on. Most are 6-12' long, but I have an idea for a 16' table I want to do. I think it will look better at 6' wide, but I could theoretically do it as a 5'.

Ideas?

TCG

twincitiesgamer.blogspot.com

6' x 12' is good for most applications.

With flip-out, or add-on ends, you could easily do 16' long.

depends how good your back is !

Table frontage starts at 8' and goes up to 16' at my place. Larger games get done at friends' places where 24' long was workable. I prefer tables 5' wide, but have set up games for 6'wide. The last 24'long game I co-ran was only 4' wide. It depends on what you are gaming. Some genres and some scales require more table depth than others.

Size does matter in this case. My table is 6 x 10. The 6' wide does add a great deal to the layout.

If you can go with 6 x 12, do it. You will never be sorry with more table space.

I find that the extra depth to 6' is more use than extra width.

I sometimes even play on 6' by 6'.

The 6' isn't physically a problem for me. My only concern is that for some people that is pushing the "reach" length towards the center of the table. I'm a rather shorter bloke myself, only about 5' 7", and 6' is pushing it about as far as I can go without putting considerable weight on the table. My concern is that if I take it to a con, or a store event etc that either someone's going to hurt themselves &/or collapse the table, knock it over, jolt it knocking all the figures down and so forth.

Perhaps I'll try 6' though…

Our group games at a university which has modular tables 2 fee wide and 4.5 fee in length. Our usual set up is 3 deep (6 foot width) and length as needed, typically 20-22 feet.

We generally have 4 to 5 players a side on tables this size.

I can't imagine any benefit in using a table bigger than 6ft by 4ft.

Played on a 8'X16' for 25 years. No problem.
John

"Played on a 8'X16' for 25 years. No problem."

You must have very long arms.

My plan (once I have the dedicated room for it), is to go 8x12 (3, 4x8 panels). THe idea is to have them on 3 individual tables which are smaller than the 4x8 panels. On top of the outside tables, will be mechanism which will allow them to slide away gently, so that a player can get in between them to move the minis, and then slide them back in place. I have always prefered a more squarish table as it allows for better tactics…

With this system, I would plan to build several 4x8 "modules" over time to add variety. This would also allow me to go small (4x8) if necessary, or even extend to 8x16! …

I'm not sure if this will work or if anyone's tried something similar. I'd be interested to hear about it. I do know it would require a fairly large space.

-CH

I had posed the "How deep can the table be?" question to local gamers once. 8 foot seemed too deep. Everyone could reach a 6 ft deep table. My thought was that 7 1/2 would be ideal depth. 2.5 ft by 2.5 ft modules. (7.5 ft. by 5 ft. for regular games. Two such board for massive games…10 ft. by 7.5 ft.) Shorter players might need some help moving figures in the dead center of the table, but it gives a lot of play area.

Currently i use a 4x8 table that i get the plans from Model Railroader magazine. The 40" hieght is perfect & still reach all sides, am thinking of building another for table size of up to 16' long or for an 8x8 game site.

I can't imagine any benefit in using a table bigger than 6ft by 4ft.

Really, really? I'm assuming this is a joke, but just in case.

Room to place reserves or a second line.

Room to have troops the proper distance behind a defensive line such as minefield or river, not forced to foolishly defend right on it.

Room to out-flank. Or punch up the middle if he spreads too widely to compensate.

Room for troops to keep outside artillery ranges (I notice this most with cavalry, who cannot stay in shell range, but can move up quickly when required).

Room for tactics that cannot be done on a small table but are commonplace in real life, such as wearing the enemy out while falling back.

Room to manouevre so that the troops might engage somewhere of their choice, rather than in the small section a 6' by 4' forces on you.

Even room to put down pretty terrain without being obliged to fight for it.

I rebuilt my table so that I could set up very small games on a 6'x4', so that my daughter could easily reach everything, but it expands to 6'x9', and it is still too small for most scenarios that I'd like to run in most scales.

If I ever do get to remodel the attic or if we move, there will have to be a room for at least a 6'x12'table, and I probably will be looking more towards a 6'x20'.

I have a friend who has a 7'x14, and find that there is about a 3" zone in the middle of the table that is hard for me to reach (I'm about 5'-7" tall). I would not consider going narrower than 6 feet.

I'm 5'8" and have always been uncomfortable measuring in the middle of a 6' wide table. I like 5' wide and length the bigger the better.

"Really, really? I'm assuming this is a joke, but just in case."

No, it wasn't a joke.

"Room to … "

All your comments presuppose that your ground scale prohibits having room for these things unless you have a big table.

I have played Gettysburg on a 4ft by 4ft table
I have played Solferino on a 3ft by 3ft table
I can fit Marston Moor on 4ft by 3ft
and how about Leipzig on a 4ft by 4ft ( link )?

A big table is not essential for good wargaming.

With the rules and ground scales that I use, I have room for all the things you say you need room for on a 6ft by 4ft – or less.

Great poll idea, TCG.

I'm 6'1" with long arms. When I was getting ready for my first convention game back in 1991, I spent a lot of time with tables at work during my breaks, trying to figure out an optimum width.

I came up with 5 feet. You could use 6 feet if your miniatures are not delicate and you don't mind someone reaching out with one and giving it a little toss for its final position or edging it along with the end of a ruler. But for anyone who is a modeler as well as a wargamer (I respectfully and specifically exclude a colleague here to whom I have jokingly applied the sobriquet "gorilla gamer" a couple of times ), such treatment of miniatures would be horrifying.

Height of the table has some bearing too. My 5 foot width has to do with standard convention/restaurant type tables which are about 30" high, I guess?
--
Tim

and how about Leipzig on a 4ft by 4ft ( link )?

That is not Leipzig. Not even close.

It may be a game with the real Leipzig as an inspiration, but since it does not use the actual troops nor the actual terrain is no more than that.

Nor is manouevre possible on such a table. Players are compelled to fight where they are.

With the rules and ground scales that I use, I have room for all the things you say you need room for on a 6ft by 4ft – or less.

You left out the essential information in your first post about scales, figure and ground. Not everyone wants to use 6mm thanks. Nor does everyone wants to fight battles with compressed ground scales. Nor does everyone want to fight a long way up the command chain.

If the rifle range of a WWI rifle is 6", then the width of a company must be pretty small. 2" wide perhaps. A 2" line of dispersed 6mm figures looks silly -- it removes the greatest benefit of the small scale, which is to have a decent number of figures on the table. So even in 6mm, I would want rifle ranges to be 12" or so. Which makes MGs cover pretty much the whole of a 6' by 4' table, let alone artillery. So manoeuvre is dead.

Even with 6mm and small ground scales (6" for rifles) I have found that games after 1920 benefit from room to manouevre, given the extreme range of artillery and speed of vehicles.

I found some of the comments here kind of interesting, so I went downstairs and did some measuring, figuring that some real numbers might be helpful.

When I designed my own table, it was with the expectation that games would include at least 1 inch thick foam terrain, and often areas two or more inches thick. So I made the table a little shorter than average at 28" in height. I also considered that I was a little shorter than average, and that my buddy's 7 foot table was a little tough to manage in the center. His table was 32 inches high and I could reach to about 40-41 inches without a problem. Beyond that was a struggle.

I just measured my reach with various table-top heights and found that up to about 35" in height, I can manage 40 inches reach without having to throw, push, or abuse the miniatures. With a table above 35 inches, I start to lose reach, as I am pivoting or bending at the hip to make the 40 in reach. I can still reach 36 inches at a table height of 46.5". Without bending over the table at the hip, my reach is reduced to about 24 inches.

Again, I'm about 5'-7" and given my numbers above, I would expect that most gamers as short as 5'-5" in height would be able to reach 36 inches at a 30' tall table. Some of us have problems with backs, or as in my case, "belly-bucking" terrain, so the potential for physical issues or limitations of the gamers in one's group should probably be considered when deciding table size. Additionally, the scales and scope of games should be considered.

If gaming with kids, maybe an expandable table should be considered (if greater width is sometimes desired), with narrower widths catering to their reach being a baseline. At age 9, my daughter could manage a 4 foot wide table, but not quite a 5 foot table. She was about 53-54 inches tall at the time that I built it.

Hope this might be of some help.

[I can't imagine any benefit in using a table bigger than 6ft by 4ft.]

Well if you want to play DBM or R in 25mm, the standard recommended table size is 9 x 5 (table tennis table size I think).

it all just depends on base size and desired ground scale. The 'bridge too far' scenarios I have seen all benefited from a long, skinny table.

Depends how big your room is surely?

"That is not Leipzig. Not even close.
It may be a game with the real Leipzig as an inspiration, but since it does not use the actual troops nor the actual terrain is no more than that."

I quote from the site:
"The aim is not to reproduce an exact model of the area, but more of a practical representation of the main features roads, rivers, bridges, villages and of course, Leipzig itself. In fact the final result will be even more simple than the map would show, as several small villages were deemed to be unnecessary"

No an exact model, no, but then is any wargame ever an "exact model"?

As for the "actual troops", the OOBs are not listed in the article so neither you nor I can comment on whether they are correct or not.

"Nor is manouevre possible on such a table. Players are compelled to fight where they are."

Looks like plenty of room for manoeuvre to me:
picture

"Not everyone wants to use 6mm thanks."

Agreed. Most of my armies are 15mm.

"Nor does everyone wants to fight battles with compressed ground scales."

Not sure what you mean by compressed ground scales. I chose the ground scale to fit the battle I want to fight. They are not compressed in any way.

"Nor does everyone want to fight a long way up the command chain."

I'd rather be a general than a captain, wouldn't you?

"If the rifle range of a WWI rifle is 6","

Who said anything about a rifle range of 6"? Not me.

"So even in 6mm, I would want rifle ranges to be 12" or so. Which makes MGs cover pretty much the whole of a 6' by 4' table, let alone artillery. So manoeuvre is dead."

Manoeuvre was indeed pretty much dead on the Western Front. That is why friends of mine tend to play WWI either at a corps level or (at the other extreme) as a skirmish game. Not my period, so I can't speak from personal experience. It completely depends on what scale of game you want.

"Even with 6mm and small ground scales (6" for rifles)"

I wouldn't call 6" range for rifles a small ground scale. In my Napoleonic rules, muskets have a range of 20mm and artillery 160mm. Salamanca fits on an area 48" by 30". That's a scale area of 5 MILES by 3 miles! Loads of room for manoeuvre.

Spot on, Cerdic, the ideal table size is directly linked to the space you have available. I can fit at most a 6x4 table in my gaming space, and many people cannot manage even that. Therefore, the ideal table size for me is 6x4.

Another consideration is the rules you use and the scale of figures you use. Most UK rules sets assume a 6x4 table, because it is accepted that the space available to UK players is less than that available to players in, for example, the US. US rules sets often assume a minimum table depth of 6' the table being commensurately wider too. This arises because it seems that the majority of US players have more space available to them. This thread certainly supports that view.

I would also add to the consideration, the time available to play a game in. If you have an 18x6 table to play on but only two hours in which to game, what is the point of having a table that size? You will hardly use the whole table in that time, assuming you wish to play a game that reaches a conclusion in one session.

Clearly this is a subject in which personal preference and personal prejudice will decide the issue and there is no objectively correct answer.

Personally, I think a 6x4 table is the perfect size, because that is what I have available to me and I must be satisfied with my lot. Of course, if I could squeeze in an 8x4 table or an 8x6 table, I would be more than happy. Given the constraints on my time, the scale of figures I generally use (6mm and 15mm) and the rules I use, I cannot see me ever needing a table larger than 8x6.

It is certainly possible to play a really good, exciting game on a 6x4 table, as anyone who has read my blog will have seen, so I must assume that 6x4 is the perfect size!

"Depends how big your room is surely?"

Absolutely. Most houses in the UK do not have space for tables any bigger than 6ft by 4ft.

The aim is not to reproduce an exact model of the area, but more of a practical representation of the main features

Each to his own, but I consider this an impractical way to represent a real battle. I don't actually like doing refights of famous battles, but if you are going to do it, do it properly.

Omitting terrain because it gets in the way is ridiculous. It means a problem the actual general faced is absent. So the situation the tabletob general faces is different. Hence it is no longer the same battle at all.

I'd rather be a general than a captain, wouldn't you?

No. I'd much rather game at a lower level, with very rare exceptions.

If I had room a 5x12, 6 wide is to wide for my arms, I can reach 6feet, but I would probebly tip over both figs and terrain.

12 long would make it possible to have bigger 28mm battles.

"Each to his own, but I consider this an impractical way to represent a real battle."

OK, so what is a "practical" way then?

"I don't actually like doing refights of famous battles, but if you are going to do it, do it properly."

Quite agree, although it depends what you mean by "properly".

"Omitting terrain because it gets in the way is ridiculous. It means a problem the actual general faced is absent. So the situation the tabletop general faces is different. Hence it is no longer the same battle at all."

Who said anything about omitting terrain?

Given the comments, what would people think of a compromise of say…five and a half feet width? Maybe the six inches (from six feet) would make a diff with fellow shorter folk. At 5' 7", I don't have TOO much of a problem with 6', though I don't really have a bad back or anything that might otherwise factor in.

I'm just trying to figure out a way to add a few inches here or there. :P

TCG

twincitiesgamer.blogspot.com

My table is huge, "U" shape table, 16' x 12' x 7 ….there is about 2' of dead space in the table. The reason my table is so huge is because I have about 8 huge castles, that take up alot of space. I also like building dramatic scenes, that I dont fight in, I just use up the dead space to make the table really come alive. I have about 8 spots on the table to do battles in. I can even have multiple battles going on at the same time. I can pretty much make any battle I want. I have a few friends complain about the dead space, not being about to use that area, but I always place some kind of impassible terrain in that area…
Cheers,
tom

I use a ping pong [9x5] in my living room. It separates into two halves and folds up to be about 2 inches thick against the wall of my office: link
and: link

I find that big enough for most games – I mostly use 28s. I would like a 10x6 though…

Will run part one of this poll tomorrow.