"Gorgeous Alma game - how important is nice terrain?" Topic

We had the privilege of fighting The Alma on Matt's superb display game terrain. The gorgeous realistic layout really helped to make my mental pictures of the battle more vivid. Report with some photos here:
link

How important is the quality of the terrain to your games?

for display purposes a realistic layout is crucial to attract viewers and achieve the the purpose of a display game. we used to do many display games in the past under the name of Doncaster Fanatics

for playing purposes good but flexible terrain is important with the stress on flexible to give a challenging game but have multipurpose elements which can be use in other games in other periods.

While I appreciate nice terrain, it is relatively unimportant for my gaming experience. I will happily march down masking tape roads to fight over and around felt terrain cut-outs.

I love to ply on really nice terrain, but only so long as it doesn't interfere with game play. I still prefer function over form in that regard

To me it's extremely important. The visual aspect of the hobby is key to my enjoyment, which is why I also like nicely painted figures and, if reasonable, correct uniforms/clothing/equipment. Yes, I've had a fantastic time playing some frankly unattractive games but that was because the game flow and the way it plays out was outstanding. The opposite is also true.

That said, it also has to be a playable table. I've seen truly stunning terrain pieces (particularly hills and forests) that presented no means to deploy figures.

Edit: Probably the best blend of beauty and function I ever saw was an Antietam game for "The Cornfield". The corn stalks were based in sections with the same footprint as the infantry stands and would be swapped out as a unit moved through. They could also be replaced with bases if trampled stalks if appropriate.

Good terrain or die!
I appreciate good terrain and try to add appeal to all my games with quality buildings, well based trees and scatter terrain. Currently I'm using Cigar Box mats which make it super easy to look good. When I began and was a college student green felt and masking take was fine. Call me a snob but I likes what I likes. Also, a deal breaker for me is the wrong time period buildings just to have buildings.

You know, this morning I'd have said "great terrain is critical for attracting newbies." This afternoon, I saw some of the buildings and bridges from my first big game for the first time in 40+ years--plywood and fiberboard, quickly cut, hastily nailed and not always even painted. But few tables since have impressed me as deeply as those buildings did in 1969. Terrain is basically addictive: you build up a tolerance and start looking for a stronger dose. I suspect the same thing is true of good-looking miniatures. Let me propose the following:
1. To attract newbies, troops and terrain should be at least as good as what they're already familiar with, though mass effect helps.
2. Flaws should never be visible at a quick glance.
3. Wargame terrain always has to be functional: no game benefits from arguments about who is or is not entitled to cover benefits or suffering movement penalties.
4. If you still notice the terrain an hour into the game, something's wrong with the game.

All of which said, it's a visual hobby. As long as it's still sturdy and portable, time and money spent on making your table look good is never wasted, and it's always good practice, when picking up after a game, to put aside any terrain or troops in need of repair, and the unit and piece of terrain whose appearance could most be improved by a little work. It adds up over time.

Imo beautiful terrain is an absolutely must for wargaming. There is always the moment in a game, I am pausing and taking a look on the table, enjoying the look.
The argument terrain has to be practical and shouldn't interfere with the game, is usually an excuse to not put effort into the terrain. Except for tournament play there is nothing about beautiful terrain, that will not make a game better.

I like terrain that looks good but is functional and very sturdy. I like to mark off rough areas with appropriately colored cloth and put moveable trees or rocks on top so that they can make space for troops as needed. I don't like fiddly pieces that tend to break nor sloping terrain that makes figures fall off. Everything should be functional but matching and in the same style. That's just what I prefer. To each his/her own. Cheers!

In the really small scales, 2 or 6mm, the terrain is everything otherwise you could just play a paper and hex wargame.

Terrain needs to look good and be flexible enough to pick up and put away and used for other scenarios. Dedicated game boards are nice but are hard to store once that game is over.

There is no reason for anyone to have to use masking tape for roads or blue tape for rivers and creeks or flat hills. There are so many terrain products that look good and are flexible enough to be put away and ready for the next game or scenario

Part of the joy of playing miniatures is that it is 3D and can look nice with minimal effort. If you are using flat 2D terrain features, you really would be better off with hex and paper board games.

I am still reeling from the revelation that there was a mosque on the banks of the Alma.

@ enfant perdus, has captured my sentiment perfectly.

"I am still reeling from the revelation that there was a mosque on the banks of the Alma."

The Crimean Tatars were predominantly Muslim. There were about 1,000 mosques in the Crimea at the time.
idmedina.ru/books/islamic/?4166

I go kind of middle of the road on this. I like nice looking terrain but don't go to the extents that some others do.