"On the nature of Terrain" Topic

I packed away my terrain (Hexon II) away in about 200 L of storage boxes and pondered on terrain. There seems no universal "best" terrain. There have been lots of systems that seem to have come and gone which itself implies there is no one perfect solution. Some solutions I have seen advertised but never actually seen in the flesh.
Back when I was a kid and Featherstone was in ascendance in some ways. Terrain (talking more hills and linear features than buildings which seem more constant) the options seemed to be.
Stepped hills made of foam rubber.
Stepped hills from anything including books covered in cloth.
Hills made by plastercine covered blocks.
I tried all of these but none lasted.
Along came His second book which included a stepped version of stackable hexagons.
About the same time isolated hills made of anything from styrafoam to wood covered in plaster seemed to take hold. I had some of these.

Probably much later, certainly in the UK came terrain boards, typically about 2ft square with features built in and arraigned such that some swaping about was possible. At the same time isolated hills from styrafoam flocked which were not really steps but too steep sided to allow figures to stand on.
Now timescales to me become hazy for me but hexagon terrain of various sorts came in. Add any I have missed.
Geo-hex, I recall was based on small Circa 1" hexes but sold generally in groups.
Terrain maker 4" hexagons.
I seem to recall some brands did large Hexagon tiles 1ft acoss?. I saw them in pictures but not sure I ever saw them at a show.
Then came stuff like Hexon II an integrated 4"(ish) hex system.
Workshop dabbled in a system making a 4 piece configurable hill but that soon seemed to die a death.
There was our own fold flat card terrain system but it never gained much traction.
Small (1ft") terrain tiles generally seemed to come and go in this sort of timescale.
Finally a plethora of terrain tiles often 3D printable some square (seem mostly for D&D type games) and some hexagon for more mainstream miniature wargames. None of which I have seen much evidence of widespread use but feel free to correct me.

Of all of these systems, none of which has achieved anything like universal popularity, there seems only Hexon II and Geo-Hex to be in production now.

Why have none of the systems dominated, what is it about terrain that has kept the approaches so fractured?

Note I have not addressed terrain mats, I personally never saw how these fitted in to a system involving hills. For essentially flat boards like aerial games or sea games they are a standalone product. Of course I may have missed a system and feel free to correct me.

A small correction: geo hex are one foot, not one inch. The cut various profiles of hill across the hex.
As to why none have become widespread, I think Geo-Hex (maybe hexon?) is the only one to come finished, and so was prohibitively expensive (in the range of $200 USD in the early 90s when $5 USD bought a 15mm unit) the others had a lot of DIY and were massively time consuming plus depended on the skills of the purchaser. Self designed modular systems would have had the same issue.
Phil

I'd consider the diversity of wargamers. We don't agree on periods, scales, levels of representation or rules. Why should we agree on terrain? This is especially true since all the terrain systems work better with some scales and rules concepts than others. I use Geo-Hex with my 28mm forces, but they're a poor fit in several ways for my 6mm forces, who get by on Terrain Maker. And at 2mm I'm well into scratch-built territory. Those 2' terrain boards are pretty limiting on a 2x2 table, and there's a certain awkwardness on a 3x3.

My reading is that the successful ones are flexible, but in a community where for most periods the Great Wargaming Survey records the most popular rules as "house of other" no one should expect a single terrain system to dominate.

Geo-hex was based on a 12" hexagon, not 1"!!

I'll tell you what does surprise me: we've never agreed on smallish hexagons. Those Geo-Hex bits are basically pieces for building hills and ridges, and Kallistra and Terrain Maker are big enough for some flexiblity. But below them, everything else in the terrain is dictated by the size of the hex. So we have 3/4" 1" 1 1/4" 1 1/2" 2" and 2.2" hexes, and good luck finding hills, cities, bridges, woods, roads and rivers to match. Half as many options would have served us twice as well. I suppose eventually 3D printing will solve the problem, but from my point of view decades too late.

Oh, I know this topic. It took me decades to finally come up with something I liked. These are 2 1/2" flat to flat MDF and plexiglass laser-cut hexes. I use them for various games but mostly the Commands & Colors family of games.

I'd consider the diversity of wargamers. We don't agree on periods, scales, levels of representation or rules. Why should we agree on terrain?

Exactly.

There are two basic camps, for terrain: 1) practical for figures (i.e., stepped hills); 2) diorama-like visual appearance. The two can be bridged, but often are not.

I am firmly in the figure-compatible camp. I forego visual realism for terrain my figures can stand up on. I also prefer very rugged, durable terrain pieces that need no repairs/touch-up work for 20+ years.

Others prefer static grass, etc. It looks great, but it is not terribly durable.

Each gamer chooses their preferences, but we often cross over the borders as the mood strikes us. LOL! Cheers!

I'm still using 2 inch thick foam for my hills. It was good enough for Larry Brom, it's good enough for me.

Hex based system generate a unnatural terrain layout and are really not fexiable. They also take up alot of room in storage (as does all Terrain) I don't get to game very offen. I like a more natural looking layout with Great terain, even if I uses only once a year.

So who made the !" approx. hex stuff sold in blocks of several Hexes. Could it be Battletech as that seems to have small hex terrain for it?

Wackmole9 _ I can see that the one a year situation would make investing in lots of expensive terrain a bit pointless. You could make a whole new set every year no trouble. No so easy twice a week.

But that is probably why there is such a disparity, not just what looks good to you but how often you play. In addition how much storage space is available also counts.

Years ago one of the guys built a huge hill. We kept it for years but in the end threw it. Nobody wanted such a large piece, however well done it was just not very adaptable to different scenarios and took up huge amounts of vital storage space.

Geo-Hex was horribly expensive for it's time back then, but imho, probably the best ever made for standard terrain. You didn't have to deal with "wedding cake level hills"….

Many years ago when I played army games, I was going to get the Hexon or Geo-Hex system. Then we got the Heroscape game for the family. Loved the game, but setting up the hex tiles was a bear. Dropped my interest in all hex systems. My life is too short.

I went with 1" thick cut blue foam, edges sloped, painted, flocked, then soaked with matte. Stacked for stepped hills. Versatile and looks good. Easy to store.

Since becoming a skirmish player over a decade ago, trees and buildings have become more important than hills.

That may be a more personal than relaistic approach, you are entiteled to what you like to collect.

I had a great chat with a guy who was a trainer for the army. Said his bigest problem was getting recruites to see cover less than 6". So small undulatuions of about 12" or more will be critical even at small ranges.
Very few places are really flat and have significant features for any 1:1 game using small soft skins and AFV's.

Not sure what a skirmish game is. Some folk call our games Skirmish games but at 1:1 at Company level that seems bigger than I would call a Skirmish game, if only because predominately the infantry are in Fireteams not individually based and assessed.

UshCha, this is a good topic, and there has been excellent discussion here!

Your last sentence above is informative – terrain needs depend a lot on the scale of the game being presented….are players fighting over a hedgerow or two, or fighting in "bocage country"?

Generally (IMO), terrain effects need to scale upwards and downwards, for games involving larger units – where area terrain (say that "bocage") supplants those individual hedgerow lines needed for that smaller, skirmish-level action.

I have separate terrain kits for different command levels of gaming – 3mm uses area-based terrain, whereas skirmish uses high-fidelity individual pieces and for specific location.

Terrain can/should scale with the command-level being played – so figure scale used, formation level modeled and the unit basing all influence the terrain needed – game projects become more 'compartmentalized' to work as an integrated system – with rules > miniatures > terrain.

I havee two sets of terrain, the 1/144 and 1/172.

some types are common, some not.

Buildings being the designer I am devoted to Fold flat buildings so basicaly I have the same set of buildings in 1/144 and 1/72. However 1/144 buildings need bases to keep their relationship to each other in a vilage, even a small movement can ruin a game. 1/172 being so much bigger its not an issue.

Water (in my case just lengths of blue plastic, are multi scale, small rivers in 1/144 are streams in 1/72.

Now roads are not common, 1/172 ones are about 75mm or pretty much a single lane whereas even a 2 lane roads are only 50mm at 1/144 so I keep them separate. Plus 1/144 stuff has more width variations.

Hedges again 1/72 fold flat (I Have close on 90 ft so storage is a key issue). 1/144 they are now all articulated 3D printed for a fast set up and reduces the bit count, you can bend the hedhe round the cornar so its faster to lay. I had thought about it for 1/72 but it would be a long job to print and or assemble a hybrid systen and agin storage spece for me would be prohibative.

Trees, again a heious storage issue. Many years ago I did do crusiform trees. I have seen some recent versions to go with pre-printed flats, great but not available quite in the size and scale I need. So 1/172 trees are flat bits of card shaped in 2D and painted like the thwe of the forrest. Bit crude but to me practicality trumps art anyday. Plus you can forget troops you hide so great fog of war at no rules cost.

1/144 I sort of do modular trees. Flats, 3D printed of course, that use a separate base so minimal storage spece. In addition as the 1/144 stuff is base on Hexon II i can have separte standad hill slope bases so trees on the side of a hill are possible.

Woods are sort of madular particularly at 1/144 Angel hair cut into shapes. You can plonk lots together to form any shape and it drapes over Hexon II.

Sone sort of modular approach to me is vital in terrain.

A photo of some of the 1/144 stuff mentioned. Alaways room for a
gratuitous picture ;-).

link

Excellent terrain suggestion – printed, fold-assemble buildings done for those wanted, but different game scales.

Your pics look sharp, and in a nice, bright game room there too!