"wargame tables" Topic

Is it important to get the table scenery as good as possible?

1) yes important
2) basic will do
3) only in the Grand style

It's important to have good scenery, but too much makes a game less playable. So, 1.

It must be appropriate to the style and resolution of the game: nothing wrong with a map-style 'abstract' battlefield if that suits the illusions best (or a garden with 54mm Little Wars battalions) …

'Tatty because I can't be bothered' is never appropriate, and felt pieces* are usually a disgrace, even in competitions …

But it is silly to assume that a landscaped 'model railway' type layout is intrinsically better than a 'step hills and sandtex' style … If it is thought out, done nicely and appropriate for the game it will work perfectly.

If it is careless and inappropriate, it won't. Even if the components are OK in themselves.

Wargames are about illusions. If the terrain effort fractures the illusion it detracts from the game.

Phil
* I do mean, by that, carefully made fields and similar appropriate components which happen to be of that material: I mean cheap tatty competition ware …

Functonal is a primary requirement. No good having woods that can't fit troops.

1.

Yes, but good is a balance between utility and representational accuracy.

1, but I play a lot of scales/settings/levels so a lot of my scenery is quite generic. Baggage camps etc are army specific but my hills in 15mm ancients serve as islands in VSF naval. My rough broken ground pieces get trees added to become woods etc. Roads & rivers are fine, but what is a river in 15mm is a stream in 28mm and an estuary in 6mm WWII. Buildings obviously are more setting fixed.

Functonal is a primary requirement. No good having woods that can't fit troops.

Seconded. I'm playing a game, not building a diorama.

2
I am more interested in spending my very limited hobby budget on figures and models rather then terrain.
I have no problem gaming on flat 2D board if that's what there is. Of course a nice table is better, but it still is just a game.

Yes, so '1'… but the level of detail should be just below the figures. There is some variation based on the game played as well. The key words are 'good' and 'possible'… lots of factors here…

1, But also there is eye candy scenery and functional scenery. For instance you could map out woods with a piece of felt, addng trees doesn't add to game but adds to the spectical

2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

scm1 your a funny guy

Nicely painted minis need attractive scenery to get the full visual effect

Unless your fight is in North Africa, scenery is good.

1. But it has to be correct for the scale of the game. Too many minor watercourses and contour changes where the scale is much smaller does not work. Terrain should look like terrain regardless of the scale. I have never seen oval or round hills with stair step changes in elevation. I use USGS or other type maps for all my research on terrain. I understand how a slight change of elevation can mask a regiment advancing across generally open ground.
VR
James Mattes

The first consideration is playability. Terrain should make it clear where the edge of the wood is or the crest of the hill. Lovely terrain won't compensate for long arguments over whether so-and-so is under cover.

2

One.

For me, "1". Almost as important if not as important as the minis.

1 for me. It is not that hard to have a nice looking set up and it adds to the game.

I suspect I set up a table that rates as a 2 – it certainly isn't miniature railway standard.

But I think it has its own charm, so I'm happy.

interesting comments..I seen a acw set up & it was way better than average but then they had it set up. for a few days battle (demo game). But I have seen club battles set up as impressive just took 3/4hr from table setting to playing

1

1.

I will no longer put on a game that has poor quality or looking terrain. I avoid playing games with poor quality terrain.

Wargames to me is about storytelling. Poor quality terrian spoils that story for me.

1.

Very importante!

2

although define "basic" !!