"What is the point of terrain tiles?" Topic

I really do not see the point of terrin tiles.
It just seems to me that they only lead to the same terrain, game after game.
I much prefer the felt or whatever on the table top (mine is automotive carpeting) with various hills, woods, streams and buildings placed as the GM wishes.

It just seems to me that the storage space required to have varied enough terrain would be too much.

I would also have major problems lining up the right match for the roads and streams that enter and leave the edges.

I use plain ones. One side painted for arid / desert, the other is flocked green. My tabletop is painted for sea. Everthing else comes under the catagory of 'aplique'. I luv 'em.

You can see what I mean here – probably best through the scenario label.

olicanalad.blogspot.com

James

Different strokes for differnt folks.

Terrain boards allow for complex modeling techniques to be used in a configurable fashion. Most common are roads and rivers that are dug into the map instead of laying on top of it. You can also model hills that look a little more realistic then blobs on cloth. In fact, the die hards can realistically model real world contours. Course, the realistic contours of say Waterloo isn't very reusable. But in this case the terrain boards sacrafice their reusabitliy for storage or portability (easier to store 12 2'x2' boards then one 6'x 8').

Also note, that not all terrain boards have to be completed. They can include roads and rivers but leave the trees and buildings to be added later. Sort of a best of both worlds approach.

The matching of tiles is generally handled by having the roads or rivers always enter and exit in the same relative position on the side. For example, either on the 1/2 or on the 1/4. They can wiggle all they want in the middle of the board but end up on the same location on the side. Mix in a turn or a T intersection for fun.

Felt terrain ends up the similar maps most of the time; a very basic road network with a river running throught it. It doesn't take a lot of tiles to come up with a large combination of these types of maps.

Because good ones look sexy and make the punters aspire to having something similar.
But your right, for most of us it requires too much time space and money. All of which I am sadly short of.

I've considered it many times John. Mainly because I can have that sunken road, wadi, trench, etc. But the space
issue stops me every time. Besides I hate felt!

John:

With terrain tiles you can tailor your tabletop to a specific battlefield and do very nice specific effects-sunken roads, rivers below grade, complicated grade elevations, etc.-and doing it with tiles rather one one fixed tabletop makes the whole thing portable. This way you can get very dramatic and beautiful games like you see at conventions and in the Brit magazines. If I were going to do a convention demo game I might want to use terrain tiles for visual effect.

As you note, however, what you lose is some degree of flexibility. With my old terrain mat (a 6 x 9 foot piece of indoor/outdoor carpet), I can model almost anything (true depressions can't be modeled accurately, at least not easily) by using various portable items like rubber roads and rivers, templates for woods and fields, and portable hills.

Dennis

Being ever modest they are nice looking, versatile and easy to store:

link

They also allow for sunken features such as rivers to actually be sunken and not raised as noted.

For my money, the main factors are storage space and portability. My wife already comments on the amount of space my hobby stuff consumes and terrain tiles take up a lot of space. That space is also a lot when transporting them, either to a con or across town. Another factor I've noticed with all sorts of terrain tiles is that they are generally fairly susceptible to damage, so they may look great the first time you take them out, but after a while start to accumulate dings and divots that detract from their look and require a lot of maintenance.

Personally, I'd rather spend the time making terrain items that will enhance the look of my robust and portable felt-mat terrain. About the only terrain feature that I really notice the effect is wadi's and other similar negative elevations that troops actually moved in. The flat river doesn't bother me since in most cases they are barriers to troops and no one is actually in the riverbed much.

My two cents

I've tried several approaches (including hex and square tiles, sculpted and plain) and am back to a mat and plop-down terrain. Not quite as visually appealing but easier to transport and store, more flexible, and cheaper. That said, terrain tiles can be truly amazing to behold so more power to the modelers!

I don't like tiles because not matter how nice the modeling, you now have a grid running through it.

Unless you cover the grid with flock, lichen, fences etc. and then they can really "disappear."

I never liked the look of drop on riversm trenches or roads on a felt mat. I've been a GeoHex hoarder for many years.

Tiles can also be combined with additional drop on terrain further increasing their visual appeal.

It all depends on how important the visual aspect of the game is to you

It all depends on how important the visual aspect of the game is to you

I would disagree. The importance of the visual aspect is independent of these 2 choices. There can be modular (terrain features placed on a surface) setups that have higher production values than a tile table and certainly vice versa.

I prefer modular layouts (grids in tiles bug me, see above), but that is not the end-all criteria. A great table is a great table regardless of approach.

Neither choice indicates a greater emphasis on visuals, simply different visual preferences.

The idea is to have a couple hundred terrain squares all interchangeable and you get unlimited combinations, but difficult to model specific battlefields unless you make so specific squares.

you love to stir things up, donŽt you John? Next youŽll start with: who needs dice anyway?

:o))

I have been trying to figure out how to make some ever-so-gently flowing ground that I put under my felt table covering to make the ground seem more real and not have my individually-based figs looking to weird when they are standing on a slope. (You know, like if a person really tried to stand sideways on a slope he would just fall over.)

I like terrain tiles for small skirmish games that take up just a little space. My Urban tiles work for 1920's to the present day with a few alterations in scenery pieces (Car types, phone booths etc.) I guess I just like the 'diorama' feel that they give. When trees and buildings are placed (or not) on 'open' terrain, the variations are pretty much up there with felt. Storage can be troublesome so all of them are designed to be flat. The building, trees, hills etc. Take up most of the storage room anyway.

I like my Kallistra hex tiles, but I wrote/use rules which make use of the grid.

Otherwise, I haven't got space to store the more standard terrain tiles, but they do look very nice.

I really do not see the point of terrin tiles.

Translation: Joh thinks you are all a bunch of poo heads if you don't do it his way (my way, too BTW).

Seriously, I think one of the avantages of tiles is that you can actually have depressions. YOu can with just a carpet or grass mat on a table, but it takes some effort.

I'm looking at making terrain "features" similar to my large hills that while not hills, take up large areas on my table and have depressions and things in them, plus lots more flock and bits and bobs to make it look better than a monotone (or even spray painted highlighted) grass mat.

Although I have a fairly large room available for my games, I really don't have the space for lots of terrain tiles storage.
--
Tim

Pijlie,

"you love to stir things up, donŽt you John? Next youŽll start with: who needs dice anyway?"

I once turned up to play a game where the no one remembered to bring any dice at all – we decided each roll with paper, scissors, stone – lose 1, win 2, win twice 4, win thrice 6. Slower than a die but worked OK.

When looks are worth more than flexibility. Terrain tiles *can* be really gorgeous. Personally, I'm not willing to make the time to produce that extra level as you can get really good looking terrain with more flexibility without doing the tiles. Sometimes I dream about doing tiles though.

You can achieve a high quality look of realism with terrain tiles (see Paul Darnell as an example, or the fellow who used the Teddy Bear fur for the 1930s Russia vs Japan game in the UK) that you can't quite achieve with mats or felt etc.

The negatives are portability of the tiles if you want to use them at a convention; damage control – unless you use wood as a base, they are likely to get all nicked up eventually; and weight – the things are heavy to transport.

I have used them and like the look, but now I have switched over to mats from The Terrain Guy and then placing terrain modules on top of the mat. The modules might be things like woods, roads, streams, towns, fields, etc. This can be very effective from a visual point of view and it is easier to store and is more flexible.

For me the increase in look for sunken roads and rivers is more than taken away by the join lines and the artificial way rivers and roads flow. All those fake 90° turns in rivers really irk me.

Bespoke terrain on big boards, provided the joins don't show, is the best. Small terrain tiles don't give that effect for me.

This can be important. I have seen people put a lot of effort into building up a tile system on the basis that they think people will admire it, when IMO a good cloth over hill shapes would have been better for less work.

After lugging a 10' x 6' table's worth of plywood and masonite terrain tiles from my car to the Stillwell room at Fall In, the answer is clearly "to provide me with a work out that combines weights and aerobics".

Looked nice, though.

Puff.

I like rolling terrain with depressions in addition to the hills. Besides, making terrain is the bestest part of the hobby.

I made a set of four 2*4 tiles. They had roads and rivers in it. Then I made hills and forests to go over top.

I eventually made rock out croppings and some cliffs. I used a premade bridge. Nice versatile table, but year it is stored in my mom's basement or a friend's garage so I haven't used it in years it seems…

Still I'm making another tile table, a true tile one with 1*1 tiles with trenches and craters cut in so you get that below ground effect. I'll still have scatter terrain on top and I plan to make a connector so I'll have 14 ft of terrain or more. At least that is the plan for the new year.

My life doesn't exactly go as planned though.

Pictures of my terrain should be in some of the battle reports on my website.

nurgle.muschamp.ca

Kallistra is the way to go. Not only is it a complete system (including hills, trenches etc), but it will last you a lifetime, even when handled rough (accidently dropped on a stone floor or even from the stairs several meters down).

As for the grid: I use it to my advantage (rules) and I find it much less of an issue than the lines created by larger tiles: the way the Kallistra tiles are designed smoothens the grid (nearly) out.

Rudi

Done well, terrain tiles can really add to the battlefield, both visually and practially.

Done well, cloth over hills style terrain can really add to the battlefield, both visually and practially.

Both methods can be and often are done badly.

The problem with wargaming presentation is that they'll let ANYONE set up a game at a convention. With standards like those, you're bound to end up with good and bad.

I wouldn't have it any other way. Every tabletop battlefield I've seen has been a gift, in the sense that it told me what to do, or what not to do.

With Geo-Hex, I felt I was shaping the layout, rather than just plonking down stuff on a flat surface. But it has its own artifacts.

I see the appeal of modular tiles that fit together to form shaped landscapes. But I also don't get the flat terrain tiles.

andy

I think if Geo-Hex was still in business, we all might feel a bit different about table terrain methods and the final product of our efforts.

>>>>> The problem with wargaming presentation is that they'll let ANYONE set up a game at a convention. With standards like those, you're bound to end up with good and bad <<<<<<

I think they should let anyone setup games at conventions, There is something heartening about seeing people just playing for the sheer fun and doing it the type of tables that many of us have at home (the show is not just about being a show piece, or a place for the wargaming elite, or show circuit people, it is also representative of the attendees in general… the paying public).

In a recent show I went to, there was a WWII game with a green sheet, some basic hills and trees and some airfix type tanks – the whole point of the demo (WWII tank Vs tank) was to show new people that you can come into the hobby and start off with a relatively cheap but fun setup. Throughout the day dads and lads were continually gathered around that table, with the lads clearly having a lot of fun – so it looks to have been a success.

Surely a balance between the practical and the fanciful makes for a better show.

One of the things I enjoy about shows is seeing how people have been innovative in getting a good visiual effect. A few years ago, I saw a game table constructed from large hexes (like home made geo-hex) and they had used dyed towelling in different shades to cover it ….. it looked superb.

"What is the point of terrain tiles?"

They make ranging easier.

Nice thread. I see some basic layout themes:

1 Fixed board, whether Plywood or Foam modeled, but large.
2. Felt or other fabric cover with hills either under or on top, other terrain added on top.
3. Terrain Tiles, small cut boards or geo hex with moveable other terrain piece set on top.

On the small terrain boards, I played on a board composed of well cut pieces of 3/4" plywood with all pieces being 6x12 inches or 6x6 inch pieces, so it went together like a jigsaw puzzle. The pieces were so small that the eye was somewhat fooled that there wasn't a grid, or rather the larger pieces tended to break the visual eye following grid lines.

I do both battle matt and permanent fixed boards, luckily I have good storage space in my garage, a feature not everyone has, which also dictates what each person has for his board use.

Anyway, some thoughts tossed in.