"Table Design Philosophy?" Topic

Hi All!

A recent comment on my blog got me thinking about the ideas behind the tables I set up for games. I put together a little blog post covering a few basic principles I follow. I also included some links to specific manufacturers I like and whose products often find their way into my games.

Post Here: link

I would love to hear some discussion here. What makes a good table? A great one? When you set a table up for a game at the club, what do you consider? Are there any features that always draw your eye to a convention table?

-The Rover

After eight years in the UK I got spoiled by nice looking tables. I agree with your comments on consistency. I try to have consistent tress, rivers, roads, etc. I was on track with the Terrain Guy for everything, but then he stopped production. So now I've switched to suppliers I believe will be around for a while -- Woodland Scenics for trees, Battlefront for roads and rivers, and I've gone with large terrain cloths under which I can put hills, so I don't have a variety of hills.

I believe a mixture of cheap terrain or poorly made handmade terrain detracts from the visual, and, after all, we generally play miniatures vice wargames for the visualization.

Having said that, if you don't have the money, a problem I had when I was young, you have to make due, which makes sense. And it still comes down to the game and the friends you play with. Even a poorly made table, visually, can still be fun.

My philosophy landed on – build it myself. This allows that consistency you speak of. And build it for play – that means 'wedding' cake hills over contoured hills. (But I do take the time to soften the edges of the layers with a belt sander since I use 1/2" plywood.)

I go a bit above and beyond by using eight colors of paint on my terrain, starting with dark brown through to tan before switching to a darker green through to a green so light it looks yellow in the paint can (and it is a gallon can of cheapest interior latex paint I can find at the big box). I use this on all of my terrain pieces so they all blend together. I will be making some 'just brown range' but probably do all eight colors on the lowest edge – unless I make an all brown base canvas cloth (artist's canvas because of the size I use, nearing 20' in length). Probably will do one 'desert' brown cloth.

On top of the base canvas go the plywood hills (sand glued down before painting, by the way, to give 'teeth' for dry brushing the final coats) and 'flavor pieces' to adjust the flora to something more appropriate for a given locale – jungle, north america forest or desert, etc.

As I've oft argued, terrain is the key to a battle. The last game I ran with my terrain, I had the distinct pleasure of watching a player march confidently up one side of a hill only to find there was no way down on the other side because it was too precipitate – he didn't bother to 'scout' the terrain either with his troops or as a player.

I've had the opportunity to visit a variety of battlefields across several wars and what strikes me is they are never flat, anything but. The most telling litem was from Antietam. I remember reading about one element of the battle being horrendous but other troops not far away were oblivious. This struck me as very strange – until I visited the site itself and found a massive, and steep, hill in between the two point. Fog of war, indeed.

So, to simplify, my philosophy is terrain makes the battle. Either a leader uses it well toward victory or poorly and loses. For those who doubt my veracity, I ask you to read up on the battle field prowess of Duke of Wellington.

The one element of my approach that is a bit lacking is I have to go with river courses on top of the canvas. I counteract this by having so much terrain I can create a valley for the water course to run through. Not perfect, but reasonable.

I am building my own roads and plan to build the rest of my rivers – though I have some wonderful pieces from the resurgent Scenic Effects.

A table prepared for a wargame should represent an appropriate tract of countryside that fits the time period and historical location of the battle to be fought. If it is a recreation of an actual battle, then the terrain should mirror what we know of the historic battlefield at the appropriate ground scale.

Any terrain features that have tactical significance should be represented on the table. Other "non-tactical" details can be added to "pretty it up" at the players' discretion.

IMHO, that's all there is to it.

Good question, RovingHobbyist. Thanks for the link.

I find the best tables are ones that balance the terrain so that LOS and movement are restricted, but not overly so. It is difficult to get this balance, but leads to a fun game when achieved since the table looks good, but the general has to think, and sometimes just make a choice between difficult situations, so a brain-tease as well.

To consider what I like, it occurred to me what I don't prefer. The urge is to place that big piece or set of terrain on the table because it looks so cool and I spent so much to not play with it. So, there it sits, dominating the table and restricting LOS and movement, but not in a positive way. So, I extend the playing area and place these off to the side so they are on the table to be enjoyed, but not really a factor in the game.

Terrain always draws my eye to tables at shows, so something more than a green piece of felt with blue felt rivers and brown felt hills. ; >). Fortunately, most participation and demo tables have very nice mats and terrain.

Nice little blog post, and wow….. "verisimilitude" used in a sentence even! :)

I have been working on my tables for the past few years as I have had pretty unimpressive tables (green matt with the odd tree or hill) for a long time; nice matts, roads and rivers are something that draws you to a table and something I am now trying to expand in my quite limited terrain collection

@Rover

Good essay and nice pictures

Three things I hadn't thought about, but you are right
- consistency
- hidden items (livestock etc.)
- height variation

Generally what makes things pop is a single outstanding item – Church for instance

I would perhaps add to your essay that play-ability ought to come first. If it takes a couple of hours to set up or pack up there will be some frustration. If the models can't move through forests or fall off hills you will also be upset. Storage issues should be thought through in the design philosophy. If you have large terrain tiles and a small apartment that will give issues. If your amazing terrain pieces don't fit into a storage box or are too delicate to be transported that will also drive you crazy

John

Really interesting responses! Thank you for sharing.

@EarlyMorningWriter – In a perfect world, I would go the "make it myself" route too. I'm impressed with anyone who does, and the boards usually look fantastic.

@MajorB – I appreciate the simple maxim of starting with any terrain of tactical significance, then adding "chrome." Of course, tactical significance could be a slippery category. I wonder if it changes based on the scale of the game?

@Condotta – Great point about showpiece terrain. I fell victim to it in the game featured in many of the post's pictures. Not only did it block movement and sight, but it attracted me like a magnet. I felt some irrational need to claim it, much to my tactical disadvantage…

@jwebster – I totally agree with playability and would add it if I wrote the post again. That's a concept I've come to value more over the past few years. Also, your comment about storage is spot-on. It makes me think that seeing some storage solutions people on TMP have come up with would be interesting. For all the beautiful tables that impress us, there's surely a good deal of storage wizardry that would make me just as jealous.

I agree with everything you said, and you don't have to spend a fortune to make a table look nice. The clump foliage advice is spot on. Even on a felt table, taking a handful and tossing it all over the table makes a difference. It won't win awards, but it's a start.
Here's a blog post I did several years ago on how to divide up that big green mat into something that looks better.
link

@tshryock – Genius! Thanks for sharing. Cheap and easy. I am also intrigued by the idea of using them to add "roll" to the table.

@MajorB – I appreciate the simple maxim of starting with any terrain of tactical significance, then adding "chrome." Of course, tactical significance could be a slippery category. I wonder if it changes based on the scale of the game?

Of course it does!

Great thread and if I me so bold I'll add my thoughts…

1. Consistency is the route to go…

- make sure all your building work with each other – not just sizing but also colour schemes
- the walls should all follow the same colour schemes – local stone – if you are going grey make them all grey, if brown make them all brown
- trees – I am always stunned by how few trees people use. Unless you are in the desert trees should be common. There are some great value products on ebay
- layouts should look real, buildings will have roads, paths etc nearby not just stuck in the open
- scratchbuild stuff can always be incorporated if painted in the same colour schemes
- never put unpainted terrain on the table. Painting terrain is far easier (and cheaper) than painting minis. DRybrushing is your friend.

@Eric – Great point about keeping wall colors consistent. Admittedly, I haven't done so with all my terrain. I will keep this in mind in the future, though … and maybe you just inspired a mass-wall-repaint project.

@Eric -- great points about the color scheme. In a way, it's like painting or interior design -- you want to use colors that work well together because it pulls everything together into a coherent whole.
For those who have to quickly set up and tear down, I suggest using a vinyl floor tile to base a scene on, whether it's a small bit of woods or a village. I used a couple to create a "forest" for my 15mm and 1/72 troops. the trees are attached and all the ground cover and openings are set and ready to go. All I have to do is pull the forest off the shelf and plop it on the table. Much quicker than using individual tree stands and you can model the forest floor this way too. Put a couple together and you have a deep wood (bug spray not included).
I think RovingHobbyist mentioned on his blog, but it's worth repeating: Blend the buildings into the scenery by putting foliage along the base. Another way to handle this is to paint a thin stripe of white glue along the base where it meets the table and sprinkle ground foam along it. This will look like grass/weeds along the foundation and help "attach" the building to the table.

@tshryock – Can you share some photos of your vinyl floor tile bases?

I don't think I did a tutorial, but the latest post does have both floor tile forests on the table.

link

Photo #2 is an overview – the two squares near the bottom left are them. Obviously you could cut them into irregular shapes if you don't like the square. I kept them square so I could match them together or could create other tiles to adjoin them.

Photos #6-8 -- the tiles are just behind the attacking Indians, so you can get a feel for the forest floor treatment.

You can't really tell from the photos, but I left open areas near the center of each so I could deploy a unit inside the forest as necessary.
Actually, just found photo #4 from the prior post has more of a top-down view (just scroll past the British soldiers and their washes) to the fourth photo of the terrain set up.

a few years ago i added 2 boxes of O scale telephone poles to my 28mm WW2 tables. it's od how something so easily forgotten can make a somewhat boring table come to life.

@tshyrock – Thanks for sharing! Great looking table, by the way. I'll have to look for some of those tiles next time I'm at Home Depot.

@Crucible Orc – Well said! My wife still gives me a hard time about my multi-month odyssey to find satisfactory telephone poles…

Make your own telephone poles…not brilliant but does the job…

link

Nice!

my tables / terrain need to be portable and stored away when not in use. I have a bunch of plastic tubes that i use so some consideration for tables is how much can fit in a tub and how many tubs can i carry / transport.

i agree with a lot above, so won't rehash it again, but the biggest issue is playability.

i bought a lot of terrain from AoW, so it's all consistent and looks good. the forrest bases look nice, but have limited playability bc the trees don't come off easily. a better system is to use a base with trees that sit on top and can be moved around to make room for troops. This looks slightly less cool but is much better for playing games.

one thing that i do that does add a lot to tables is flush it out with details that don't matter. for example: when i put out a medieval village (all 4ground models)i put down villagers, live stock, carts, etc… that add to the overall look but don't mean anything to the scenario. if they get in the way i just move them.

i haven't worked it out yet, but i'm sure there is some formula, that will tell us when we have enough terrain to start looking good. i have found that there is a level of density; get enough stuff on the table (that look like they go together) and things start to look real good. too few and it looks too bare. and of couse, too much it might look real good but have less playability.

Stewart, if you happen to find that formula, I would love to see it. I too have faith that it must exist somewhere…

Thanks for the reply! I totally agree with your observations. The little things that don't really matter really do!