"Would gaming benefit from N-Scale modular concept" Topic

N-Scale modelers create modular layouts that when clamped together create a larger layout

ntrak.org

Has anyone tried modeling sections of battlefields that could then be brought together at a convention or game night?

Or is gaming fluid enough – just having terrain, a table and some cloth gives us any historical battlefield we want?

There are a variety of terrain schemes including modular terrain pieces. If you search TMP, you will find threads that discuss various ways that people have done that. I am sure other members will reply to your inquiry here, also. Personally, I have never spent the time or treasure to create that type of terrain. I use the felt cloth, with roads, rivers and buildings put on the cloth method.

Not with me it wouldn't.

An assortment of two foot square pieces of blue board with flat geomorphic features (roads, water courses, etc.). Hills, BUA, and foliage were separate.
Later discarded for the cloth. A storage issue.

Been doing modular terrain for years. Nothing new.

What MajorB said.

Also, I use N scale modular terrain boards for MechWarrior gaming.

Secret Weapon Miniatures has some very nice interlocking plastic tiles. I own their "Rolling Hills" set.

Modular boards have been around for at least 40 years.

So, yes.

I think we are missing the point here. While certainly modular boards have been around for years, but this is a twist on the concept. Create a series of standards that would allow gamers from across the country to build a board, bring it to a convention and combine modular boards from across the country into a single setup. That's what the n-track concept is all about.

A standard size, say 2'x4' is selected. Roads and rivers enter and exit at predefined points and you can do anything you like within those parameters. Think Squad Leader boards and you would be heading down the right road.

"Standard boards."
Sure, right after we standardize figure scale.

I like to have many free standing terrain pieces and arrange them as I see fit based on the scenario, etc.

I think it could, especially for long patrol missions, or attacks in depth, e.g. armored car recon sorties, and/or for the "A Bridge too Far" scenario.

Some issues will be standardizing table lengths/widths, so that they can be easily transported by many/most people.

Obviously, there are also the whole roads and streams/rivers placement, and size issues to deal with too.

If well done, the modular boards could also branch off to the sides, so they don't have to be completely linear in placement, e.g. perhaps 2 or even 3 x paths to choose for a recon mission, or attack – one straight up the middle, and one to either side of that, on separate boards/tables, as desired. That would break up the monotony of just straight, linear routes of advance/movement.

Also, unlike in the railroad hobby community, you want a bit more width for gaming, in order to permit flanking maneuvers, unless of course you have some people that can make two modular boards for back to back placement, in order to permit a wider scope of maneuver at non-choke-points.

4' x 8' would be great, for standard plywood sizes, but I'm not sure people without full-sized pickup trucks would be able to transport them. Perhaps a 3' width would be better, but then there's the issue of rip-sawing the plywood to size.

Instead of building uniform supports for them, to the same height, perhaps placing them on folding tables would be the way to go. Those seem to range from 2.5' x 6' to 2.5' x 8', so I think 3' x 6' or 3' x 8' long modular board would work well, if there is some way to secure them to the folding tables.

3' x 6' sections would be easier to transport/carry.

While certainly modular boards have been around for years, but this is a twist on the concept. Create a series of standards that would allow gamers from across the country to build a board,

Yes, so, again, MechWarrior games on N scale modular board.

Sure, right after we standardize figure scale.

ntrak.org

It's one of those voluntary standards that doesn't work. Like the Internet.

From many photos I've seen, N-Trak certainly does work.

Welcome to the world of (non GW/FoW) miniature wargaming--so widely dispersed on rules, scales, basing and pretty much everything else that it's hard even to get enough of us on the same sheet of music for a game.

Most of us can see the advantages of more commonality--but only if it means everyone else adapting to our standards, not if we're the ones who have to settle for a second of third preference.

I think both 1/100th and 1/76th (1/72nd) scale gamers could use the same boards, and there are a lot of people that game in those scales.

25mm and 28mm would work together as well.

Yes, of course, Thresher--once you get them to agree on board dimensions--width, depth and in this case thickness--road and river widths, suitable flocking and whether the hills are "natural" or "wedding cake." We'll start the discussions right after we agree on a common basing system.

Do you even know any miniature wargamers?

Okay, let's do it, just because the naysayers believe it can't be done…….

1. Board depth standardized at 3' in width (for most boards, though if desired/needed, you can use 4' too – see below for back to back 3' widths, for a maximum 6' table width, since this provides the greatest flexibility for all, without any significant downsides that I can see currently);
2. board length options – 4' or 6' as desired (up to 8' if you really need it, for people wanting to use 4' x 8' plywood too, so they don't have to cut it down to size), since they can easily be assembled in series, and 3 x 4' long sections = 2 x 6' long ones;
3. boards may be placed back to back, if desired, for a 6' width, where people want/need added width for tactical maneuvering, larger towns, etc., etc.;
4. realistically shaped hills (no wedding cake, stepped layers permitted)
5. some method of securing the above sheets to 2.5' x 6', or 2.5' x 8' folding tables (do we need provisions for attaching to large, 3' x 8' folding tables, or are those pretty rare") – perhaps wooden blocks underneath to secure them in place when bumped, or more low-tech options like duct-taping them in place(?);
6. more to come on road and river placements, widths,
etc., after I've had time to ponder some this weekend, unless someone else wants to propose those.

This standardized proposal will be for 15mm and 20mm scale troops/vehicles (1/100th – 1/72nd, and everything in between), since many people use these scales.

Might be nice if we can even squeeze in 1/144th scale too, which I'm rather fond of, of late.

Thoughts?

Standards for modular terrain boards
The thought is to begin a discussion to create a set of standards that would allow a gamer to build one or more miniature boards, bring them to a convention and link it with other boards to form the terrain for big games or tournament boards.
There are several factors that need to be taken into consideration; size of the board, entry/exit points for roads, entry exit points for streams/rivers and how the boards are framed to ensure the primary surface is the same level across all the boards.
Board size – While 3' sounds like a good width, 2' widths are easier to move and you can purchase precut ½"x2'x4' panels at most lumberyards or home builder centers . These are easy to transport, and provides a good base for framing. This gives maximum flexibility for board configurations. For example if creating a 4'x6' board you can place 3 boards side by side or place 2 boards side by side and the third board across the end. Measurements must be precise, a board not exactly 2'x4' will mess up the configuration possibilities. The reality of this is a single 4'x8' sheet of plywood will only yield two perfect 2'x4' boards because of the saw kerfs. The compromise would be boards that measure say 23 ¾"x 47 ¾".
Road Entry/Exit locations – easiest is usually the best. Roads enter/exit every 6" on the 2' side and at 1' intervals on the 4' side. That gives you 12 potential entry/exit points. All some or none could be used on any given board. Decisions on road width really can be left up to the builder. Obviously, boards built for 15mm boards, and smaller, will need smaller widths than for 28mm. But there is no point in trying to regulate it. Roads in real life vary in widths in odd places all the time. If using a different size board then roads exit/enter through the three equidistance points along the edge
Stream/River, Entry/Exit locations. – These are always tougher. Either use the same entry/exit points as the roads and be willing to except some odd situations or pick the spaces in between the roads at 9" and 18" in from either end of the 4' edge and 9" in from either end of the 2' edge. If using a different size board then stream exit enter points should be have two entry/exit points along each board edge at equidistant intervals.
Scenery – Beyond the specific entry/exit points for roads and streams the builder is free to do whatever they like on their board.
For building a board frame the bottom with 2"x2"s (with one center brace) and put the ½" plywood over that. I would not use MDF as its heavy and somewhat fragile for something that is going to be moved around a lot. On top of the plywood glue either 2" thick blue or pink foam so that rivers and some other features can be cut in below the surface.
Really, that's all it would take.

Thoughs?

Writing a standard is nothing. Getting people to adopt it is the thing. Spend some time trying to get lots of disparate people to agree on something, then get back to us on how that goes.

Not for me.