"Folds in the ground" Topic

Games have hills. Games have gullies. What are some ways to represent folds in the ground that offer no combat advantage other than not being able to be seen?

1. Los/visibility blocking when inside the feature unless along its edge.
2. Should blocking be universal (from all directions to the feature) or certain directions only (hidden to the front but can be in enfailade)
3. Representation on the field? Other than the ubiquitous and uninspired piece of felt or rubber, how to make them nice
4. Drawbacks, gaminess – how could the over competitive make then a bore?

Use contours cut out of foam core or heavy card under the felt sheet. Enough to show there's a fold there, but not the same height as your hill contours.

Another alternative is simply to rate various areas of the tabletop according to their 'foldiness' and adjust spotting distances accordingly and/or have some sort of dice roll to find cover, better chances in more foldy ground.

Not being seen is about the most important combat advantage their is. I generally represent major "known" features by low hills with no combat or movement effect.

Generally, however, I see the small scale ground features as the main reason why you can still miss on a close range shot that seems unmissable.

From what I have read, some officers use those features better than others; it might make some sense to represent that as a modifier, depending on the scale if the game.

I lay down "ridge lines" with a small line of flock, scatter or gravel. The line blocks LOS but has no other effect on play.

We use a sand table and check LOS with a laser pen. No problem representing folds and other small features that block LOS.

Even with modern topographical maps, it's very difficult to remove the uncertainty of terrain (based upon my personal experience in the infantry). However, terrain is all too finite on the wargame table due to the physical limitations of playing with toy soldiers on flat tables.

This is why I like rules that use variable movement rates (i.e., movement rates set by a roll of the dice). I use this with my homegrown set of WWI rules to reflect all the little nuances of trench warfare terrain without having to precisely account for each table-top shellhole or strand of barbwire. This is also why I like rules with opposing die rolls for combat or saving throws.

Can't recall if it's in Force on Force, but some game offers a form of protection for infantry if they simply are not moving this turn. They assume the infantry are spending their tiem finding the best cover available.

Some games give a cover bonus to units that don't move. It is assumed that the unit would seek the swells or small folds in the terrain you just can't model. It would be pretty much impossible to model the tiny swell in the approach to the heights at Fredericksburg where the Union troops tried to be as small as possible behind what looks like a gentle bump in the terrain.

We use felt/cloth strips of lighter and darker color to represent dips, blind spots, marshy areas, rough terrain that wouldn't be recognizable until in it, sort of like the ten foot dip in front of the Bloody Angle at Antietam.

Either each strip trait is identified or sometimes we don't mark them until they are entered, rolling for the actual characteristics of the land.

It has made for some interesting games, such as cavalry siddling up to an enemy battleline out of sight and ranged fire, only to burst out close to contact--neither side knowing the dip was there until the area was scouted…

Bill .

Ditto flicking wargamer. Dare I mention FOW? For infantry, if they don't move and are in the "open" they a deemed concealed and better if they do not fire. Works well.

Most games naturally limit the "real" range of weapons by a significant degree, if one were to consider scale. To me, that represents such factors as "folds" limiting LOS on the battlefield. Another choice would be to extend the range of units on heights (which many games do), to represent their ability to now see over the lower, less significant rolls of the field before them.

I will often almost cover the table with differening height "hills" to represent this. So some "hills" will just be slightly raised areas of ground. It works okay.

The hill/small rise is one thing. What has been kicking around in the back of my mind is simulating ditches/gullies/ravines.

As noted, the sunken road at Antietam, and other roads in other battles, had major impacts.

Currently being in southwest Colorado which has an arid climate, I see a lot of seemingly flat expanses of ground the have unexpected breaks. These can range from a couple of feet deep and wide to 10-15 feet wide and similarly deep with near vertical sides.

A fair number of these are in expanses of sagebrush (which is usually a couple of feet high).

Some of these would make natural trenches. Many of them would disrupt formations or halt/significantly impede movement while troops climbed down into the back out of them (as I recall Picket's Charge suffered from this).

I particularly think of this in discussions of armor racing around on battlefields. Some of these gulleys could easily swallow half of an M1 and are hard to see until you are on top of them. Without preliminary reconnaissance it could disrupt/stop an attack.

Even with reconnaissance they could function to channel movement.