"How high are your mountains?" Topic

There are all kinds of reasons for determining how high an elevation should be on your wargaming table. No matter what the reason it appears to me the height of these elevations frequently corresponds to the size of the figure used with the elevation.

mjc

In general (excluding your exceptional or out sized terrain), are your elevations:

1. Less than the height of an infantry figure

2. Equal to the height of an infantry figure

3. Greater but not double the size of an infantry figure

4. 2x to 3x the size of an infantry figure

5. more than three times the size of an infantry figure.

4 and 5

My preferences have changed and changed again over the years. Initially a 'contour' was intended to represent 20 feet of elevation. The hills were constructed of 1/2" plywood that was flat on top and could be stacked. I used these indiscriminately with 15mm and 25mm figures.

Then I went through the ceiling tile phase -- these were thicker but could be 'fashioned' to take off the square edges -- still pretty flat on top and could be stacked. I also used these indiscriminately with 15mm and 25mm figures.

Now I have been making 'hills' out of 2" blue styrofoam. These elevations are always carved down from 2". There are no flat surfaces on the top of these. No need for 'crest' or 'ridge' rules because the spine of the elevation is physically there. Originally these were made for my 15mm stuff.

Then I got to thinking, why should I make different elevations for my 25mm figs? Bigger hills mean bigger spills for figures perched on those precarious slopes. Nope, I think I'll use these same hills for 25/28mm figs and abstract the actual height to fit the rules/games we might play.

So for 15mm figs, my mountains are higher than the figure but seldom more than twice the height of a 15mm figures. For 25/28mm figs, the height of my mountains is less than the height of my figures.

36D

Definitely 4 or 5. But I use a cloth with stuff under it for hills.

Mountains? At the ground scales I play I can represent medium hills. Anything really "tall" is very abstract. Mountains are "off board" only.

i use the same hills for 28mm and 6mm so 1 and 4,5 depending on the scale. actual mountains i use only for 6mm they stand 4-5 inches tall.

I've been thinking a lot about this. Since switching over to a system of styrofoam hills with game mats on top, it has opened up lots of opportunities to try different things easy and cheaply. It also got me thinking about how much actual contours vary in real terrain.

So I am starting to try different thickness of hills on the same table. I have a whole bunch of cut out and nicely contoured hills sanded smooth (but still with flat tops I can stack). Now I am thinking about going the route of thicker AND thinner foam. I found a bunch of 1/4" thick foam I want to try using as well to make some very subtle undulations in the ground. These will be sanded with a long slope and smooth so that when under the mat they will be a subtle variation in terrain. I also want to try some 2" thick ones as well to make more severe changes.

In experimenting with this I also discovered a way of doing changes in terrain other than just simple hills and elevations…take the same concept, and use it for raised roads, elevated fields etc.

I have done this for roads and it worked well. By using a felt road placed on top of the mat and lining it with trees it made for a nice road effect for places like Holland and such. Also, if you use foam squares for fields it raises them up so that around the fields, you end up with a nice ditch effect (especially if you place hedges around the field perimeter and leave space between the field and the hedgeline).

Also, by using thin foam, you might be able to get those subtle dips and folds in otherwise flat terrain that is so hard to get on a game table, but so good at concealing infantry on a real battlefield.

If you reverse the concept, cover the table in 1" foam and cut down into it where you want rivers, lay your mat down and plunk your pre-made flat rivers in the depression…add scatter rock and bushes along the banks and easy instant realistic rivers (as well as ditches etc.).

My plan is to create a whole bunch of 2'x2' foam tiles to lay under the table. Wherever I need a river or depression, I cut a special one out that fits into the tile system. Then I can add hills and stuff on top of that to create much more variety in changes in elevation, all by just cutting out foam. Since it is all covered by a mat, the work is super fast and easy. It all breaks down for storage nicely as well.

So far, I have only experimented with a little of this. It took the release of those GW game mats that follow shaped contours so nicely for me to realize it could be done.

I say go for it and share your results. I'd be interested to see how it worked for you to get some further ideas.

I generally use 1 inch contours but depending on the scale. I use Military US Geo Survey maps for most of my layouts. For example to represent Big round top in 15mm I used 8 contour elevations or 8 inches. for the Star Wars gaming in 28mm I am using about 2 feet for the mountains and the Echo base, so that is a one inch figure to 24 inches.
VR
James Mattes

My hills are made of 1" thick polystyrene, so the contours are 1" thick….

I made some Major General style outline mountains which are considerably taller.

Mountains never appear on board, hills get up to 4" high

I think my tallest one is about 7 or 8" tall.

I have everything from 1 to 5 in that scale… and I don't have a great deal of terrain!

Where I have contours, they are in 1/2", 1", and 2" layers tregardless of the figure scale. I also have free-standing terrain pieces that provise anything from 3/8" rises to 15" rises. I generally go for a rolling terrain effect with actual line of site, as opposed to standard contour increments.

Amateurs. This is how is should be done:

1 through 5, depending on genre and scenario. For "Assault on Hoth", I also have trenches and depressions. :-)