"Table size for a modern game?" Topic

Today was an interesting game. The objective was to study a simple prepared defence. Certainly for me developing a good defensive deployment is a challenge. While there are innumerable references to interlocking fires and integration of infantry, including FPF for the machine guns, anti-tank defences and Artillery FDF missions I have found no good documents giving worked examples at say platoon level.
In order to explore this in a practical manner we limited the table to 6ft by just less than 2ft that is 750m by 1800m. On long edge is wooded so the open area was about 500m; about the limit for one platoon to protect adequately. The battle raged (perhaps really an action) for about 2 1/2 hrs playing time before I resigned having severely mauled the Motor rifle company such that having lost it was not capable of any further useful action once they had mopped me up. Great fun was had by both side and we learned much. Clearly attacking in waves /V formation was crucial to the survival of the Russian attackers. Attacking in "classical" Napoleonic line seen in so many WW2 game would have resulted in his annihilation as he got in his own way and would not be able to react quickly to changing circumstances. Similarly my defense in depth worked well but some bits of the deployment were less than optimum
So this is an example that we need to be creative in table sizes, just because you can does not mean you should. Optimizing the table size for the impending scenario is as important as the quality of the scenario. I could have deployed a full company on a bigger table and my opponent a battalion but then the game would have too many elements to move and the essential simplicity of the scenario would be lost and the learning experience degraded.
The depth of the table 1800m was key to allow both sides to get a sensible and typical element of defense in depth a 750m by 750m table would not have worked far too shallow for either party to get a credible defense in depth.

So do you vary the table size according to the scenario?

Don't have the option of table size, so make the scenario fit the table.

Depends on what you are playing – skirmish works well on a small table, but for Grand Tactical you need IMHO a fairly big table (and this extends beyond Modern)

My last 54mm Army Men game was on a 32 feet by 12 feet table. It was just right for that massive, incredibly satisfying, game. We played it out over a Saturday-Sunday. On the first day, we had six players, and I ref'ed. On Sunday, we had two players, and I continued to ref. It was amazingly satisfying. We had a beach landing on one end, with a city on the opposite end. The invaders made it to the edge of the city, blew up the supply train as it exited the mountain on the back-side of the city.

On Saturday, both teams were crying that they could never win with the forces and terrain they had been dealt. They were both correct! On Sunday, both armies were ground into hamburger. The invaders eked out a very slim victory which both sides felt was clearly defined by what was left on the table for forces on each side.

We had hoped to run another battle on the same table setup/size, this year (entire table covered in close-in buildings, lots of Close Combat, infantry men would rule the battle, not the artillery and tanks!), but COVID really kinked that plan into a crushed ball of aluminum foil… Hoping to do it next year. Maybe. The good part is that if I can get the same players together, they will likely remember the rules so I won't be near as busy ref'ing it! Cheers!

Really depends on what level of operations you are playing at?

For Company size actions (stands are squads, single vehicles) the table should have a ground scale of 1x2 Km or there about.

Move up to Battalions and it should be 3-5 Km wide and 5-10 km deep (or as close as you can fit).

Yes. You need to to help drive the scenario realistically unless it is small skirmish raid. Then any small board will do.

Joe

Table size and sometimes table shape should vary and have. Or you can regard table as fixed and pick appropriate scenarios.

Have a 20 x 8 table available in the shed. Currently planning a 20mm 1986 game, looking at 2 x 20 x 6 tables side by side with a 12 x 6 table at the end for the canal crossing/ attack phase,

Tally Ho!

For solo. 4x6 as big as you could want… smaller for skirmish.. depends on scale.. I remember 20mm 1970s games in Mags… played on Gym floor… with sand!

As a teen, (Ma at work!), I moved furniture from a large 'lounge'… and did a whole 1/285 Coastal Invasion, (70s), on cloths on floor. Enjoyed it… but never tried a repeat! lol.

I just vary the size of the playing area and ground scale to suit the size of the action. For remote play, my camera can only sensibly manage 3x4, so I ended up squashing things up quite a lot. I ran Operation Goodwood on an area 50cm x 60cm, with quite a lavish ground scale and brigade sized bases. OTOH I did Arras on a 3x3 at 6" to a mile and battalion sized elements.

On your 2ft x 6ft table, was the attack made from side to side, or from end to end?

And with what scale minis?

750m by 1.8km. The attack was down the length (1.8 km) this as said gave about 500m frontage for the defending platoon (we use a specialist Hexon 2 tile system so only have about 350mm or 750mm as options. 1.8km allows the attacker and defendet to deploy in depth without being too close. As the defender in this situation I was not going to shoot HMG's at 1500m its not the best option "waiting to see the eyes" is too close but you get the idea. Russians about 500m deep and me about 250m deep (just about clear of the artillery danger zone for close in artillery).

For those of you using wider tables than 6 feet, how do you reach the center of the board to move troops?

In my case, we had a chasm between tables which players walked up. The sides were about 5 feet wide each, and chasm was around 2 feet across. We ignored the opening for range and LOS. It was a game, not a simulation. Cheers!

45th one of the ones I remember best was essentially an "S" rune with two tables--possibly each 5' x 9'?--about 3' out of alignment so that no area was out of reach. But it was an odd tactical set-up. Of course, so was the "Market Garden" game I saw at a couple of HMGS-formerly East cons, with a board about 4' wide, but a gigantic "C" shape.

8ft x 4Ft for 10mm games is ample for me .

I would go for the largest table that you can accommodate . The large the table the more options for maneuver of forces .

Long ago (70s), I read of an 'imaginary' Market Garden themed game… with US and Brit relief forces attacking along separate lined up trestle tables… and the Para action on a big end table,

"Don't have the option of table size, so make the scenario fit the table."

That's the most important rule.

Second would be "as big as you can make it".

I was thinking more of reduced table sizes for specific games. Mt table can be 8 ft by 4 ft but sometimes for a quick game or where you want to concentrate on a specific aspect the table size is reduced. The original post was an example a 500m by 1.8m table so that it represented only 1 platoon frontage (approx 500m frontage).

Really depends on what level of operations you are playing at?

For Company size actions (stands are squads, single vehicles) the table should have a ground scale of 1x2 Km or there about.

Move up to Battalions and it should be 3-5 Km wide and 5-10 km deep (or as close as you can fit).

I also thought this sounded about right, but then I was recently looking at operational and tactical maps from WW2 and found there were many instances where units were much more tightly packed together… Stalingrad is one obvious example, but even the fighting on the West front was this way… for example, look how many German and American battalions and regiments were stationed around Hatten and Rittershofen (only 2 km apart) on January 13th during Operation Nordwind:

That's an area roughly 3.5 miles by 2.5 miles and its holding two divisions each of Germans and Americans.

It depends on who is doing what. A platoon in defense ideally covers about a 500m frontage. In WW2 often platoons were spread more thinly than this, however it was admitted this was less than perfect and made the front more vulnerable.

On that basis a company in attack will have a frontage of about 500m as well (to get the Rule of thumb 3 to one advantage). It then becomes an issue of who has the most force multipliers, Tanks, mines, extra artillery ad nauseam.

In addition troops cannot be at there best for 24 hrs a day they need to rest and to re-arm, vehicles in particular but also foot. so the troops needed to maintain an attack or a continuous 24 hrs defense or attack will rise to allow for replacements due to fatigue, losses and ammunition replacement to name but a few.

For 45th Div, Bit of a lean, footstool for short ar**s,

Tally Ho!

Seems reasonable that forces would be more condensed in a built-up area.