"Terrain placement" Topic

When my sons and I play a WFB 8th game, we tend to use the terrain generation and placement system as outlined in rulebook. I noticed recently that for the most part, though not always, terrain seems to be placed on the edges, out of the way.
I thought it might be interesting to try a more random set-up. We typically play on a 4x6. The thought is to divide the table into 1'x1' squares and use a D6 and a D4 to place the feature. Some features could be placed on top of one another (like a wood and a hill), others could not. As for the linear features (like a fence), we could use the directional war machine dice after placement to determine how it is placed in the assigned area. A large feature (like a river) would get two set up squares to give direction, then would flow of either end in the most logical way.
Has anyone ever tried anything like this? How did it work out?

We used to do that with 40K. It worked okay. We later went to a system where we would set up an interesting looking battlefield and then dice for which side we started on. It made for much better games because the city, or whatever it was, didn't look so hodgpodge.

For fantasy we rarely did that as it did end up looking pretty random. We actually started looking at maps of medieval and eventually ancient and more modern battles and recreated the battle field, within the limitations of our terrain collection, on the table top.

That also gave more interesting games.

"Red Actions" has a campaign system with a deck of maps that you assign somewhat randomly. You could adapt that and just draw from the deck…

In our group, the person is in charge of the particular scenario brings and sets up the terrain. That person also writes orders for each side, determines objectives, etc.

I always want to set up nice-looking terrain, with interesting cliffs and steep Geo-Hex hills, etc. But I worry that one side (attacker, maybe) will be more hindered than the other. So I try to make it look good, but it ends up being much gentler than I'd like to try.

andy

For pre-modern battles, armies would try and 'arrange' to fight where they could actually deploy, and when they located the enemy army, attack from a direction where they could actually deploy to attack if they could, so a clear area of terrain between armies is quite plausible assuming they both want to be able to deploy and maneuver.

That assumes both armies want to maneuver or, if they're defensive/missile heavy armies (Agincourt?) will want a clear field of fire and deploy accordingly.

"Red Actions" has a campaign system with a deck of maps that you assign somewhat randomly. You could adapt that and just draw from the deck…

As does Tinker Fox/Battlefinder: link And, it's free! (Well, Red Actions is free as well …)

Red Actions (and everything else, with even more maps) is linked off of here: link

The WFB system of alternating placement of terrain is part of the pre-game tactics. I think of it as representing the two generals maneuvering to bring the armies to meet; each side will try for terrain that favors their side but ultimately everything isn't in their control.

Your players obviously realize this, that is why they place terrain to the side. Probably all of you have "go get him" armies. Try taking an army build that is more of a "come get me" army, a gun line or heavy magic army say, and put terrain in the middle to break up the other side's approach.

The problem we have is it takes a long time to generate and place the terrain. This is why the WFB rulebook offers some alternate methods, such as what some others discuss above.

In the past I've had an issue with the "interesting terrain" approach. If the placer of the terrain strives to be fair there's no issue, but . . . I've seen players bring a "come get me" army and then lay out the table in a way that advantages them, then disingenuously argue that "interesting makes a much better game" or somesuch.

The randomizing system is fast and works but can produce a skewed battlefield. This may be OK, or not.

The group I'm playing with now has just elected that the host will pre-generate the terrain and lay it out on the table, then the players can either choose to accept as-is, or to alternate placement of what's on the table. Ask me again in a couple months what the feedback is.