"How Much Is Too Much Terrain?" Topic

Today I watched Big Lee's video blog Miniature Adventures in which the topic is "how much is too much terrain?"

YouTube link

This is a really good conversation about terrain and various competing concepts and is well worth the 12 minutes it takes to watch the entire You Tube video.

I have taken Big Lee's video as a starting point for my own discussion of terrain and how I set the movie stage for my own games.
link

The picture above depicts a Peninsula War Napoleonic table top layout that I currently have on my home table. Click the link to my blog and read the rest of the story and view the many pictures of terrain on my blog post.

Good advice, well presented.

Easy answer for me which I learned from FlyXwire.

Too much terrain is anything that cannot fit into one blue IKEA bag along with all the other game components for transport to the game. Set up is within 15 minutes (preferably less than 10) from the vehicle to game getting underway. Never walk to the car twice to bring in something more.

Set a good looking yet challenging game, travel light, be efficient and don't waste your players or your own time.

Thanks to Fitz for the mention, and to Der Alte Fritz for his article linked above – which is too much for my preference to read, but I love all the included pictures -

^^^^

That sort of sums it up for me too – a desire for instant visual feedback vs. the time to achieve it.

Here at our local scene, we're making a big push to reach out to prospects at public venues (Fitz has been pivotal with this). Mindful that this has always been a visual hobby, we want to use attractive games to express an "energy" that's been invested into a presentation, as being something that can offer a prospective participant some worthy expectations for attending – but there's a possible downside to this strategy, if there's too much game encumbrance needed to render a game for an event……

(a cardboard box(es) of assorted terrain to be disgorged onto a tabletop is not a system that prevents such encumbrance – one needs a plan, and a system for efficient deployment)

The last thing needed on a game day is to have to struggle in assembling a terrain board, then to execute the game, and then take more time to disassemble it and pack it all away again.

How much is too much terrain? – when it begins to discourage good presentations.

Depends very much on the game. Currently building up to a decent set for "Guards of Traitor's Toll". 48 figures and only a 3' by 3' table – but it's a cityscape.

The only problem with too much terrain if it impedes playability. Thats always something to consider. Other than that the nicer the table looks the better I like it.

I would say that it depends on what you are gaming, there was a reason commanders always looked for " good ground". If the field is open, it's open, if it's a village or Rocky hills that impede movement, then so be it. I'll game what is in front of me regardless of the terrain.

Always a pleasure to listen Der Alte on any aspect of wargaming, and a good link. I think the answer is "it depends."

I cannot find a comment I read in recent years to the effect that a skirmish game requires a higher terrain density than a larger battle, but I agree with it. And "modern" battles should generally be more terrain-dense than, say, hoplite or horse & musket. And, as noted, an "away" game at a friend's house requires a faster set up and take down than a game I host at home, or a demo game.

I'll confess I'm a little suspicious of terrain which has no tactical effect. A nice idea, but did all the players listen when I explained it? And does everyone clearly understand which terrain isn't there for game purposes?

Where I'm on firmer ground:
1) Wargame terrain must be sturdy and portable, and have clearly understood boundaries for tactical effect.
2) All wargame terrain should correspond to the rules. It should fit nicely in the square or hex if the game is gridded. If units have a uniform frontage, terrain should reflect that, and it should be possible to place the defenders in, say, a built-up area.
3) Good-looking terrain takes up no more table space, and need not be harder to store and transport than ugly terrain.
4) Period-specific terrain is no harder to transport, but think twice about it for home storage. My rule is to go slightly old: Patton's tanks rolled past buildings standing for the Hundred Years War, but you can't use steel and glass with your knights. A building or two with anti-Hitler graffiti sets the tone nicely, but that's a building you can no longer use for the Napoleonic Wars. Buy and build such things sparingly.

Good rule Fitzovitch. More helpful if I had the remotest idea how big an Ikea bag is. For a friendly local game, I generally use an old canvas Chaplain's Field Service Bag maybe 12"x20"x15".

I understand this concept, all too well. I made up a 2.75D wooden fort, based on one of the most iconic, well known, AD&D modules ever published. I used 3mm thick chipboard, cladding the pieces with printed wall sections. These wall sections were then slotted into foam floor mats which had a 1/4" deep grid pattern. There were many, many rooms and a couple of large open areas for the players to explore. I modeled it in 25mm size/scale. The 54mm Cave Men figures in the foreground are 9-foot tall Hill Giants, to give you some perspective.

I carted this setup to a convention, running it only once. It took me three hours to slot every wall section properly… It was t-e-d-i-o-u-s. I would like to run it again, at one more convention (Gary-Con), but I doubt that I will. It is spectacular, visually, to see the entire fort in proper scale, and only a handful of people have ever built the complete fort model, that I know of (it is a major undertaking to build a 6-foot by 7-foot model setup…).

After that experience, it became much easier to reign in my ambitious ideas on terrain. I realized that it was impossible to build out such complicated terrain setups at most conventions, without pre-building it in sections. That, too, comes with its own set of challenges. I haven't run it since that one time. Lessons learned. Cheers!

If you constantly have to move scenary in order to move figures,you probably have too much.

It's a fine balance – for grand tactical games, there is definately a too much terrain thing where movement is so impeded the game grinds to a halt – there is a reason cavalry officers were picked to make sure they could recognize good ground when they saw it

Now, for skirmish games, another thing entirely – when the bad guys are putting rounds down range there is no such thing as too much cover

Like a lot of whats been said

For me it is finding that balance of being representative of the terrain that was being fought over and key landmarks – making sure that terrain isnt stopping the flow of the game.

Balance, as many above have mentioned directly or indirectly, is the key issue. A convention game has a difference balance than an ongoing or recurring game that you can leave set up for a long time.

Naval games have just the right amount of terrain for a convention game!

I'm sorry, Sgt Slag. I hope at least you got a good game out of it. One doesn't, always.

Idea not mentioned here, but worth considering for away games: painting roads and rivers--and maybe even woods, hills and towns--on the game cloth. This keep the rivers and roads from moving, as sectional linear terrain is prone to do, and keeps them from being elevated above the fields--especially annoying in the smaller scales. But having the outline of the hills, woods and buildings already on the cloth greatly speeds up table set-up. (Not my idea, by the way: I saw it done in tournament play to good effect. And naturally you don't do it on your good ground cloths.) I do a sort of compromise, since a lot of away games are on a card table: I keep 3'x3' squares of green felt, sprayed to tone down the bright green a bit, with common road/river combinations painted on. Crossroads, road bisecting table with perpendicular river in middle of table, and road bisecting table with river near one edge see a lot of use. Locations of game-specific features can be marked on with tailor's chalk.

Naval games have just the right amount of terrain for a convention game!

Salamis is my fave naval battle!

Read the post, not going to watch the video.

Completely concur with the idea that terrain should have a purpose in the wargame. I can't really connect with the idea that you would put something on the table that wasn't driven by a need from the scenario.

I completely get the level of detail … so city streets where traffic markings and crosswalks don't affect the game or putting flowers (paint dots or glued down confetti) or not on different sections of natural terrain.

For me, the logistics seem to work the other way from the home/away game perspective. While you want to take a good looking game with you, less elaborate terrain tends to pack up in a box tighter and faster than stuff with more pointy bits.

Robert piepenbrink here is the IKEA bag link

I don't like the idea of painting rivers, woods, roads etc on a board. I want to make it as 3D as I can. Playing on a painted board like that is too close to board games. I have nothing against board games. I have a good size collection of them but miniature gaming should be like the figures, 3D. Those battle specific game mats that Cigar Box makes are flat and uninteresting to me.

If you are putting on a convention game by yourself or you hate all the time it takes to assemble the game then do smaller less complicated games. A well done small game can look really good if you put forth the effort ahead of time.

I look for battles that won't require a ton of terrain, but has enough to look interesting and is a reasonably sized battle. Here is a pic of one of my games I am considering doing at a convention. It is historical and doesn't require making hills or anything else. Most of the terrain is off the shelf or I painted years ago. The Battle of Bound Brook (April 13, 1777).

link

I ran another AWI game a few years back, Hubberton. About two brigades per side. Easy to setup and tear down but still had plenty of interesting terrain.

If neither side can do anything because they're afraid of the terrain, it's time to redesign the scenario. 🤷
You don't want to have both sides unwilling to engage.
Move on to a week later in "the campaign" when the Good Guys (or the Bad Guys!) can say "Ahah! I've got you now!"

robert piepenbrink said,

I'm sorry, Sgt Slag. I hope at least you got a good game out of it. One doesn't, always.

I, and the player participants, had a grand time playing the game. I actually ran around three practice sessions prior to the convention. It was actually quite special to bring what was typically played as a "theater of the mind" experience. It was a chance to return D&D to its origins, for it was birthed from tabletop miniature wargames. I was able to turn it back to where it came from, to show a group of D&D'ers how much fun it can be to game with terrain, and fully painted miniatures. We all enjoyed it rather well! Cheers!

Mats can be made to look more 3D by gluing some terrain directly onto them, like what is done on prepared terrain modules.

This is one of the techniques that promotes quicker game setups w/o sacrificing wanted elements or accents, and does reserve the application of lay-on (or lay-under w/mats) terrain pieces to the essential stuff –

If preparing a board already with a road net, they're essentially flat, especially when considering scale perspective (and sometimes recessed from years/centuries of use).

Elevations can look seamless too – with essential heights being under-laid (pics from a public-venue game – w/less than 15 mins. prep needed before game time).

Points about laid-on features becoming difficult to game-manage, or that might move around on the board, can be helped with player maps.

Always a pleasure to see your work, FlyXwire.

Thank you, Fitzovitch. Your game bag is about 28% more volume than mine, which is surprisingly close, actually.

OC, I stand by my paintbrush. As FlyXwire notes, roads--and certainly rivers and streams--should be at or below the level of my felt, not resting above it unless I'm on my way to Arnhem. Too expensive and inflexible to be a universal answer, of course: I keep multiple vinyl rivers. But just from a game standpoint, I think painting is the better-looking choice.

As Robert relates, we're always working out of our own kit bags of useable (hopefully reusable terrain $tuff).

What interests me with terrain, is how I can integrate it best to work with a scenario, the setup/tear-down requirements, the rules…..AND players (all things ya'll have mentioned in this thread).

The pursuit then, might be to see how much these features can be combined into a "system of presentation".

I won't spam the thread here much more ;) – but the bocage terrain pictured below has an example of a subdued movement grid on it (in areas), with these areas integrating with my WWII rules – there's also a unit capacity expressed, artillery beaten zones enabled, and a terrain type defined – all operating under-the-hood, so players can just get their game on (of making combat decisions – instead of fussing over what's on the board).

The end result – they're much better players because of it.

I must say though, there's some terrific examples of great game tables to be seen in this hobby. These of course shouldn't be a turn-off to any new, prospective gamer (honey attracts), but what when new gamers join in to play on such 'dioramas'?

It's not so much a feature of US game conventions, but in GB there's gorgeous tables set up that aren't actually to be played with (that's as far from presenting a "gaming system" as I can think of, but we can enjoy the looksie – just don't touch).

I don't like the idea of painting rivers, woods, roads etc on a board.

I've taken to laying down a water sheet and having gaps in the land where water features go. In 3D terms, rivers rarely sit on top of the surrounding group.