"Terrain - How much do you like on the table?" Topic

I was planning on running a game of AE:WW2 soon, and I was getting the table ready, but then I was thinking it might be too little terrain for my style of game. I personally love the look of a packed table!

How much terrain do you like to see on the gaming table?

I understand that some games need wide open spaces for large troop movements or its historically accurate. Or some games work well with lots and lots of terrain for smaller skirmish games.

But how much terrain do you like to see on a table overall?

1 to 10 – one being NONE, while a 10 is "I cannot get my hands in there, but it looks fantastic" style.

I generally like to have about 1 or 2 pieces of terrain per square foot, be it trees, buildings, ruined tanks, crates, etc. It really takes away from 'long range shooty' games, but it makes for great shooting choke holds, so my Club feels that it does not unbalance a game.

So I guess I am a 9.

Depends on the period.

Generally speaking ancient battles were fought on wide open plains. Gradually fighting moved into closer terrain over time until you get to the 20th century with FIBUA. Gross over simplification, but you get the idea. The later the period, the denser the terrain should (generally) be.

depends on the scenario, but when we play AE:WWII I would say 8 to 9.

Sometimes 12 if Cmdrkiley gets a little crazy :)

You kinda answered your own question. It depends upon the game or period.

That being said, for a game like Warhammer Fantasy I don't like as much terrain, say a 3 or 4. To put it other ways 1 piece per every 4 sq. ft. or about 6 pieces on a 4 x 6 table.

For something like WEG's Star Wars Miniatures Battles, lots of terrain makes for a much more entertaining battle. Say a 7 or 8. For this I'd say one piece for every 1 to 2 square foot is probably accurate.

8 or 9

In games like Warhammer Fantasy I like 5-7 pieces, like the GW tournament tables. Makes the game interesting and tactical and feel like it's about maneuver.

In general my answer is, I like how terrain looks, so I like as much as we can have without spoiling the game.

Depends on the period.

And the game! In Crossfire (WWII), the terrain "features" take the place of rulers for measurement, so a pretty packed table is important. Whatever this is: picture would be my answer.
--
Tim

9 or 10. I play ultra modern/near future skirmish games so any open spaces quickly become a killing ground.

8

Lots of nice looking terrain can make a good wargame a feast for the eyes as well as fun to play. I don't care for so much terrain that I can't get my hands in to move my troops, but too little terrain is worse.

7-8

Terrain enhances the game but is generally not the game itself.

For instance, I will use templates to define woods edges (not that aesthetic but is a good gaming approach) .

If the terrain gets in the way of the game, it must go.

mjc

I've definitely erred on the side of excess sometimes… I'm probably the worst when it comes to Necromunda, where I'm always trying to stress the vertical.
Also, in fantasy games I want a lot of gnarly/knobby trees… but I don't have quite enough for it to be a problem… yet…

As others have said it depends on the period or the theater. Obviously for ancients less is better than too much, but for sci-fi or moderns, or at least fairly-recents, lots of terrain is good.

For fleet actions on the high seas, terrain is not always so good. For an iron clads dust up in the mississippi, it is the make and break of the scenario at times.

The more the better, even if its just grassy rolling hills (think Scotland!).

How ever much there is, I want it to look good. The amount should reflect the period and the level of the action.

I'll also say…it depends. I've been involved with a number of ACW wilderness campaign games where there was 3ish square feet of clear terrain on an 8x4 plywood table. I love crowded tables. You doing Kursk? Not so much. French Foreign Legion in the sand? Well, maybe a few high dunes.

Terrain enhances the game but is generally not the game itself.

I like to make terrain as nice as I can, but Amen to the above, mjc, amen.

From my web site, in which I discuss terrain in wargames for potential newcomers to the hobby:

… By all means, a lot of effort can be put into 
making realistic scenery, but it is NOT necessary…..  
Regardless of how "realistic" the scenery looks, 
you will find the battlefield takes on a life of 
its own as you play.  A hill becomes an objective for 
you to capture, to avoid being decimated by the enemy 
artillery emplaced there.  You become focused on 
the hill; later, you will remember more the pitched 
miniature battle fought rather than how "nice" the 
hill looked!

I wrote this for a pamphlet for a IPMS hobby show (the pamphlet was entitled After the Models Are Built, What do you Do with Them? Play With Them, Of Course!) at which I was presenting wargaming in 1999 and it's just as true now as it was then when I wrote it.

I play modern, so for me, there is no such thing as too much terrain. The terrain is everything, because otherwise you might as well play a boardgame. I like boardgames too, but when the miniatures come out the terrain must be as good. While you can have too many miniatures on a table, you can never have too much terrain.