"What are your thoughts on area movement?" Topic

I realize that this post could be on just about any board but since Cold War and WW2 are my main areas I thought I would start here. I know some people are pretty much ruler based movement and combat and there is even the hex based crowd. However, I have been tinkering with a system based on area movement. It has really come into being as my son would like to have some friends over this summer who might like to try some of 'dad's games'. I have wanted to keep the idea simple (no rulers and measuring to worry about, just right to the action)and while I have no problems introducing a hex based game for ease of use I am drawn towards the idea of area movement. Perhaps I want to relieve those days of playing Storm Over Arnhem but I have really started to think something could be done with this that would be fun for all ages. I really don't recall many rules that are area movement centered…perhaps Crossfire may come close. Why isn't it a more commonly explored theme? What are your thoughts?

Storm Over Arnhem or Stalingrad---I like those area movement games. Also some of the Columbia point to point games.

Why not commonly explored in mini games? One reason might be that you have to set up some way to distinguish between areas. I once marked up a ground cloth into areas for a WW2 Kursk game. Even did up some rules. I'll have to dig into the archives to see if I can find them.

I think area moves then to be more board game mechanics than table top miniatures games. I think the idea is a good one to use, but you would have to have your areas marked out well on the table. On benefit I see right off the start is that you would remove the issue of a unit being half in and half out of a given terrain.

Matthew

For newcomers space to space is easy to teach and understand. Plus you don't have to worry about "flanks" and so on. I have often thought of doing something like his as well.

Nothing wrong with it and I've played games using it however to me area movement is just too limiting. Yes it does simplify movement and speeds up gameplay but it also limits your tactical choices by locking you into attacking or defending specifically predefined areas. It also tends to force a group attack defend mechanic that further abstracts combat.

It's a tradeoff and ends up being all about the feel you want for your games.

Deadzone from Mantic does this for sci-fi skirmish, it us a free download if you want to check it out.

Peter Pig's Poor Bloody Infantry also uses area movement and combat.

Seems to me area movement requires a standing agreement among all players understanding that variable outcomes are expected. Being more free form you don't want players debating the 'legality' of every move or shot. Thinking criteria for area movement would need a mechanism for line of site/spotting that interrupts movement. For example an infantry stand can move across open ground until line of site with an enemy team, that team is obliged to stop there. Then a dice roll(?) to determine if they see the enemy team and vice versa. Teams would be obliged to stop when transitioning from one terrain type into another, e.g., field to woods, crossing a fence, road, RR tracks etc. Interesting idea, great way to introduce young gamers. They could recreate the experience independently with plastic army men, action figures etc. too.

How big are the areas you want to use? Are the areas of a standard size and shape? Like, say 3 onch hexagons?

Memoir '44 is a hex based game, requires no rulers, that promotes a fairly tactical feel in WWII era combat. M44 can easily be played with painted miniatures if you have a suitable hex-ruled playing mat and terrain.

WehrWulf…that is my thinking… give the kids a 'hook' if you will.

I am also wondering if area movement becomes more acceptable at a certain scale of game. If you are playing something operational where you just fire into the next area is it a better solution than at skirmish level? Just some thoughts. But I think it could be interesting and make it easier to represent units that are being supported…. the infantry moves with the tank unit… and having target priority rules.

Zippy,

I have done Memoir 44 in 54mm before on hex terrain. I still have it…unfortunately my son can't reach the middle of the board very well!

Plus you don't have to worry about "flanks" and so on.

You can actually incorporate it more easily than you might expect. Area movement can also force linear units to deploy more realistically.

This is linear warfare, but the Eagles of the Empire system uses area movement with very detailed terrain analysis: link
Detailed explanation of mapping (very good) link

Napoleon's Triumph (https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/18098/napoleons-triumph) and Bowen Simmons' other games have very interesting area movement systems and produce game situations that really look like battlefield maps of the period.

Essentially it becomes a board game at that point.
I think if you take a bit of time to arrange the table well, you could have natural "spaces" (terrain features and the gaps between them) that work really well.

It might also feel more natural. "I move the third squad up to the house".

The biggest challenge is how to handle wide open spaces.

Weasel, I thought about wide open spaces being broken up with things like a ditch intersecting it here or the area of some rocks at a couple of bushes…. but yes, it is a bit harder than other features.

I think it suitable for large-sized battles with a high troop density. Square Bashing uses it for WWI and the interwar period.

Yeah, you could scatter some small "token" terrain to indicate where open spaces are broken up.

Might try something like this

'Fireball Forward' uses a 12" movement radius for infantry.
Napoleon's Triumph is a challenging game. Greatly enjoyed playing it.

As mentioned Poor Bloody Infantry uses it: I like the idea and would like to explore/play it further.

PBI is in squares – 8 x 8, and you are allowed one diagional move per measure. This eliminates most of the variation caused by hypotenuses – the difference is 13 vs 11 along the longest diagonal, which won't be sighted on due to LoS being blocked.

The squares eliminate a lot of the fine measuring and 50/50 – you can't argue about ranges, or troop density: you can't be a mm short, or not quite close enough. You also know what terrain things are in. It also allows a different approach to other things. For instance in PBI a leader rolls for how many Action Points he has. Movement isn't in distance you can move, then modified for terrain – instead you pay per square, the cost depending on the square the unit moves OUT of – its a lot easier to get men in the open to move, than men in cover!

Crossfire also uses a form of area terrain. A unit can Pivot in any direction, then move as far as lit likes STRAIGHT AHEAD until it ENTERS terrain. It can leave one piece and enter a second, but never move THROUGH. LoS is the same.

This means you can regulate Movement and LoS simply by varying the sizes of terrain pieces: so a dense wood may be many 3-4" templates laid together, while light woods may have them as 8-9 inches

Areas let players concentrate on the game rather than the fractions of a move.

Area movement?
Play a boardgame.

It can also work well for jungle-fighting games, where the unit might be reporting to higher HQ (aka the player) that it just entered square B2, but is actually now in square D6.

It is a form of grid (like hex or square) and grids bring substantial organisational benefits to the table.

The downside that I would see is how you actually represent areas on the tabletop in a way that remains attractive. It is much easier on a paper map and also I imagine that drawing area boundaries in a scenario is something that is done, redone and redone as play testing fine tunes how best to lay down the areas, so I don't see it as conducive to a successful throw down game in the same way that square and hexes can be.

If you look at the area grid on your Storm over Arnhem, the areas very precisely represent zones that are very well thought out. When I have tried to make paper map zoned maps, I always struggle with a few areas that don't quite fit in – or that create that awkward 'easy jump' to a distant area that just doesn't feel right.

Terrain areas can easily be defined by eye without necessarily even marking the table, but large open spaces are harder to do. A sort of inverse way of having areas would be to use a point to point system and that would be easier to lay down on the tables, especially as little scenic items, such as bushed or rocks could be used to define a 'point'.

I don't hold with the 'you may as well play a boardgame' argument. There is a big cross-over potential between figures and boardgames.

To be honest, if you are trying to give the kids some fun, I would just go straight to squares or hexes, because you will quickly get something that works and in truth if you are struggling with the magnitude of making area movement work now and in the successful crafting of those zones, it is difficult to see at the moment how that can translate to a fun game for the kids. As a personal longer term project to get something good going for yourself and the kids (and the rest of us) for a scenario that you know will really work well, I think the idea is most commendable.

Good luck, I hope your son has a memorable summer of gaming.

Irregular area movement is very hard to set up on the table top. The large grid square approach used by Square Bashing, Lost Battles, To the Last Gaiter Button etc is very effective though. Makes you think about different things.

Winston – you are already playing a boardgame – just the grid is unusual.

Strongly recommend memoir 44 for your games. Hex board, separate terrain tiles, all figures included. Add on packs add more complexity if needed. My boy (and his friends) love it. Best thing is games are quite short and you move on to the next one. It's easy to play several scenarios in an evening, and then swap sides and play them again. Check the days of wonder site.

Creative guy,
My experience of my own kids is that at a young age they are better with very clear data based rules so to be honest a hex or square based sytem I think would be easy for them to grasp. My own kids struggled with DBA as the rulkes on movement are less defined.

I admit for a "serious" player hexes are a vile edifice ;-) as they fail to allow for sensible use of liniear features as they appear in the real world. I do however swallow my pride and use them for hill which are less defined anyway.

Im not sure even the crossfire type rules are that easy for kids to grasp as they would natually want to move in a strange curves. A hex based system lets them imagine where they are walking, gives them a limit but lets them imagine how they would get there. If you let it it can be like squad leader where you can still chose to be behind a house or infront of a hedge within the target hex.

Actually, I've found that Crossfire works gret with people who have no exposure to wargames already :)

It's the guys who've been playing for years who run into trouble wrapping their heads around it.

At least in my humble experience :)

Kids will adopt to most anything, I find, because they have no preconceived idea about how it's "supposed" to work.

With Crossfire specifically, the bigger challenge is getting people into the mindset of taking risks and when to do so.

I've played with a few people who completely shut down at the idea that almost any movement will get you shot at.

My son would be okay with Crossfire until he played his usually gambit of charging straight ahead with every last resource.