"How important is terrain?" Topic

"We spend time painting our figures and time working on a playable rule set but the third ingredient to a successful war-game is the terrain. After all, surely the whole spectacle should look good….yes?

A bright green cloth with out of scale buildings and trees, are all too common. Time working on the terrain must be worthwhile…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Agreed. Terrain is not only important for the tactical implications for the game but also for the look of it. Whereas I am relatively content about the figures and buildings I paint, I am still working on the actual 'landscape'. Anther 'push' will be coming soon. In the meantime I can only look a tables such as those produced by the Perry twins and drool.

I use 10/6mm buildings on my table for 15mm games. To use the correct scale buildings would end up with too big of a footprint,

Tally Ho!

Agreed .

I think terrain has come on leaps and bounds in recent years . The difficulty and I have a rail modelling background is to make the scenery pretty as well as durable. So whilst not quite up to rail modelling standards due to the durability compromises its not far off as evidenced in some of the pictures.

And its getting better :)

It's always a challenge. Looks, durability and practicality. A beautifully crafted hill looks nice, but if the figures keep sliding and tumbling off it, it's not practical for your game. But yes, great looking terrain can really enhance a game.

We can claim proper OOB, tactics, even rules (!!) and costumes, but if the terrain is off, your game of the battle of XXX will be fantasy. I fully realized this by playing computer games where they do the terrain well, and where… you have true fog of war+ going on real battlefields, a lesson of humility not to judge too harshly the historical generals.

yet doing it right is a challenge and nearly impossible short of having a near diorama for each. Catching the important parts, that would influence the fight is not easy.

Weird question – it's not the problem of "terrain" but whether that terrain is beautifully modeled. Yes, of course.

The trouble with terrain is that it has to be capable of being rearranged into completely different battlefields that you will only use once.

Well terrain has to be Pretty, Flexible, Durable, Storable, and finally playable. You can also say the same about figures.You have to balance these 5 categories.

If you try for Model RR level of accuracy, it becomes a static display and unplayable. Do a basic piece and its ugly.

When I'am planning a terrain piece, my first question is always storage and/or shipping. Second is it playable to game with. I next look at is it a Flexible piece or a one off (historical Location).

Finally its up to skill and Knowledge to make it Durable and Pretty.

Good points. My gaming group has a number of members who would play on a absolutely flat table, with no trees, roads,
hills or watercourses if they could.
The only thing that reigns them in is our frequent use of historical scenarios.

I agree with Wackmole9.

I would much rather play with figures painted to a very average standard on great looking terrain than vice versa. Most of my creative efforts go into terrain now, much more than in years past. With wargaming mats and fur mats it's not that difficult to put out a nice looking board. And with a little practice, making your own buildings, fences, fields etc. is fun and rewarding.

Wackmole has it.

Wackmole + 2

Amicalement
Armand

Having good looking terrain is essential. The importance of the terrain increases as the scale gets smaller. At 6mm or below the terrain really makes a visual impact.

I think playability and functionality comes first.

Either third, or a part of one and two is "evocative". The terrain should give the players the feel of the situation. Part of that is functionality and another big part is visual appeal.

Visual appeal is not necessarily equivalent or proportional to visually realistic detail. Primitive terrain well executed is better than complex terrain of mediocre execution.

Also, the terrain, like the figures, should melt into the scenario as the game goes along.

It does not have to be impossible of flexible use, it takes time to set up. If sort of fixed, then is widely faster afterwards to re-use (cf. Bruce Weigl tables).
Terrain and Fog of war, it makes the thing much closer to the problems of the time. I recently went to Nôrdlingen and…well the result is "what a mess" of lines of sights, hills, rises etc.

And then I saw the Russbach? -Wagram hey;) and trees, not just bushes, the slight rises (the famous heights) behind (100-300m behind it) when standing on the French near approach side you hardly can see the guys on the rises.

So, does anyone know if they could shoot guns (did) from down? as I saw it, hardly. A better position than I thought of. Nearly a flatish version of Noesy's reverse slope.
and las, not at all what I did when playing it. Now I have to re do it!!! seems.

Some folks are drawn to the extremes: diorama-like tables with paint details on their figures which can only be discovered/seen when the miniature is held inches from their orbit. Others, play with a flat table, pieces of paper with "Hill", and, "Mountain – Impassable", scribbled on them, their miniatures are bare, without any paint, or they are spray-painted one color, different from their opponent's army… It takes all kinds to make up this hobby.

I paint my mini's to GEtGW (Good Enough to Game With, at arm's length); my terrain is about the same quality. I focus on playing games. Re-enacting history, attempting to recreate the exact same result of a historical battle, is not my kettle of fish. I will play a historical battle, but I am all about achieving the best result I can, with my army. I don't care who won/lost, in history. All I care about is playing to the best of my tactical ability.

I have around 20 years left to live. I want to achieve as many games as I can, in the time I have left. I am more about gaming, than anything else.

On the scale of extremes (highest quality miniatures painting/highest visual quality for tabletop terrain, and the other end where mini's are spray painted red/blue, at best, and terrain is scribbled paper 'obstacles'), I am in the middle.

Pick your point on the scale of detail, and enjoy it. Anyone who criticizes me, and my games, can take their opinion with them, when they leave, never to return to my games. I will play their's, perhaps, but only so long as they are polite, and respectful. Mean people suck, and I don't have time for that. YMMV. Cheers!

no extremes. What I said is that if you intend to redo properly battle x or Y then proper terrain is most likely very important.
I am a long-time ago a former boardgame player drawn to miniatures by Macfarlane Wi pictures and flexibility for battles. having a good looking table is important. But nonhistorical battles do not need a lot to be ok.

In case of terrain phobia, you can always play desert or naval warfare;)

Terrain is important but only because I enjoy making it. :)