"Movement & terrain in skirmish games" Topic

Once upon a time moving though rough terrain in a skirmish game was simply a case of "movement is halved". Now various rules have other interesting ways of dealing with terrain – for example in FiveCore rough terrain doesnt affect the movement rate, but a figure may not enter and exit the same terrain in the the one move. Or in Fireball forward a squad may only cross a certain number of pieces of terrain in the one move.

Do you have a favourite or preferred way of dealing with movement through terrain?

I find halving movement in difficult terrain is perfectly adequate.

QILS allows variable penalty on movement and ranged combat for different types of terrain as well as blocking. This allows you to make the terrain and its implications as complex or simple as will suit your scenario objective.

I'm obviously partial to the FiveCore solution. It did take inspiration from Crossfire though :)

Lately, I've been experimenting with paying a small cost to be in "terrain mode" for the rest of the turn.

So say you move 5" per turn, you pay 1" and now for the rest of the turn, you can climb over stuff or move through rubble.

If you don't pay the cost, you must move in open ground.

I think Crossfire has inspired a lot of designers :) .

Weasel, I like your new idea, very neat. In a game I'm working on, distances are in "lengths" and a normal figure moves 2 lengths in its move. The figure can move freely through any terrain in the first length of its move, but if it enters terrain in the second length it must stop.

i haven't been able to find QILS anywhere – is that the correct spelling?

QILS at Wargame Vault.

Thanks, and I see its free! I'll check it out

Greg – yeah, thats nice and simple.

Ensures you can move without crawling 2" per turn in the woods, but has a marked impact as well.

I played a sci-fi game recently that explicitly didn't have any movement penalties for rough terrain -- the rationale being that squads maneuvering under fire would derive as much benefit from rough terrain as penalty, and that the typical battlefield in that game is sort of assumed to be composed of mostly rough terrain.

In some of my 1 men = 1 figure games, I don't use movement penalties at all. Terrain is there to provide cover, but not to slow down movement.

Does a single man in combat really moves slower through woods than through open field? You might even argue that open fields slow movement down at this level, because less opportunities are provided to move making use of the ground.

Movement penalties, at the scale of skirmish games, do not make much sense to me, except as a rule mechanic to determine the flow of the game. We like to put terrain pieces on the table for visuals, then most of us expect they have some effect on movement and combat. In many cases, this is just artificial. Useful for the game, but not so much when you would look at the real action. So anything goes, really.

Does a single man in combat really moves slower through woods than through open field?

Based on observation of and practical experience in combat, yes.

You might even argue that open fields slow movement down at this level, because less opportunities are provided to move making use of the ground.

There's a difference between the maximum speed you are capable of moving under certain conditions, and the speed at which you choose to move.

I used to be dragged along quail hunting in Illinois when I was younger. Quail hide in underbrush and you have to go in and get 'em out. Spent a lot of time walking around big farms in places people don't usually go.

Try going through dense underbrush at the same pace as walking down a path. Try walking through a muddy plowed cornfield and compare it to a grassy hay field. The mud was so thick on our boots, I could barely move them by the time we got to the other side. There are many conditions that cause you to slow down your movement, bu the average person doesn't encounter them very often.

I must admit I've always wondered if movement penalties for skirmish games are realistic or not. The reason I have them is mainly for gaming purposes – they add an extra layer of tactical consideration, and it "feels right".

But I mainly play fantasy and swashbuckling skirmish, where, as Phil said, "anything goes" – more so than historical/modern skirmishing, anyway.

Halving movement is good enough for me. Why over think it?

Rather than half movement, double cost.

Otherwise you get weirdness about starting over half your move from the terrain feature.

There's a difference between the maximum speed you are capable of moving under certain conditions, and the speed at which you choose to move.

Unless the speed at which you choose to move triggers some sort of modifiers within the wargaming rules, both are the same as far as wargaming is concerned.

I've always considered movement distances in wargaming as "average movement speed under combat, taking into account a whole set of factors not otherwise modeled in the rules".

As such, I don't see the need for movement modifiers in 1fig-1man games, except for unusual circumstances as dictated by the scenario. But simply to distinguish between open/wood/hill/field? Not really.

Unless the speed at which you choose to move triggers some sort of modifiers within the wargaming rules, both are the same as far as wargaming is concerned.

So you don't allow player to choose to not move their entire allowed distance?

And even when they do, you should still consider terrain as an obstruction. In QILS (where speed does affect combat, though not through modifiers), a two-die figure could move 4" and attack with 2 dice, 6" and attack with 1 die, or 8" an attack with no dice in open terrain. A nearby two-die figure moving uphill (for a -1) through thicket (another -1) would be able to move 2" and attack with 2 dice, 4" and attack with 1 die, or 6" and attack with no dice. So the figure in the clear terrain has greater mobility than the one trying to go uphill through thicket. How does that not make sense?

As such, I don't see the need for movement modifiers in 1fig-1man games, except for unusual circumstances as dictated by the scenario.

I agree that terrain modifiers should be set by the scenario. That's why QILS does not have "standard" terrain modifiers. It has a terrain modifier system, and based on the scenario, you assign values to them. A rosebush is not a rosebush is not a rosebush.

But simply to distinguish between open/wood/hill/field? Not really.

I have some thicket and a small, but steep hill on my property. You are welcome to come by and race me while I am on the lawn. I'm a disabled veteran with limited mobility and can't run anymore. But I won't need to.

Actual combat is full of examples where gaining advantageous terrain increases your mobility.

Maximum rates are given in most games based on a trot speed rather than a full pace run. A full speed run would fatigue the soldier and make him less able to see enemy troops.

Skirmish actions when both sides know that there are enemy troops in the area should have very slow movement actions. Overwatch movement is very 'measured' with a lot of focus on looking for the enemy. In these cases movement even if over open ground or streets is going to be conducted as if you are crossing difficult terrain.

So you don't allow player to choose to not move their entire allowed distance?

Of course the player can choose. I am only saying that the maximum movement in wargaming should take into account the fact that you're moving in a combat situation. The maximum move in a wargame should not be the equivalent of a 100m sprint.
In a skirmish game, combat conditions determine maximum movement, not the actual terrain – at least not at the 1fig=1man scale. In my view, combat conditions are much more influential on your maximum movement than whether you move in the open or whether you're moving through a wood. Since combat conditions should already be factored in the maximum movement distance, I do not see the need for further terrain modifiers.

Things are different when you enlarge scale, since then coordination issues between large bodies of troops come into account, for which terrain does matter.

I have some thicket and a small, but steep hill on my property. You are welcome to come by and race me while I am on the lawn.

You should add "when under fire and you don't know where the enemy is". I might even move faster through cover because of lesser risk than you would through open terrain.

But I do agree that it does depend on how you model the rules, various modifiers that model the influence of movement on fire (both giving and receiving) and what you understand under "maximum movement".
I fully support the notion that terrain pieces in a skirmish wargame should dictate movement in terms of where troops can find cover – or that you can balance movement distances and fire accuracy, as in your example for QILS. But again, that's something different from different speeds at which troops move through the terrain.

I am not convinced that terrain modifiers for skirmish games reflect something "real". I admit they work well within a game, because it forces the player to think how to navigate various pieces of terrain. But that doesn't mean they are a valid model of reality.

You should add "when under fire and you don't know where the enemy is". I might even move faster through cover because of lesser risk than you would through open terrain.

Absolutely. But, again your are mixing deliberate decision and the laws of physics (for lack of a better short term).

Actually, my hill is mostly thorns and vines underbrush (with a few trees), so it would do a lot of slowing and very little in terms of obstruction of fire.

Another reason you should let constraints drive decisions is your progress could have the entirely different effect movement decisions. In an urban environment, you could feel a lot safer running building to building for cover in an open paved street than in a street filled with garbage that slowed you/presented tripping hazards. In fact, you plan for terrain like that in mission rehearsals.

I admit they work well within a game, because it forces the player to think how to navigate various pieces of terrain. But that doesn't mean they are a valid model of reality.

I agree that speed over ground for terrain is not everything you consider when you move. But it is a constraint to your considerations. No matter how safe you feel, you could run faster in the open terrain than you could up hill through the thicket.

I think, especially for a skirmish game, it should be up to the player to decide what risks to take and when to take them.

For me this is no different than changing the odds of ranged combat because of certain types of intervening terrain. Again, you are constraining the capabilities of the units based on terrain.