"Terrain Matters More Than Figures?" Topic

I've been working on more scatter terrain for our WW2 games lately and I'm finding I enjoy it at least as much as painting figures.

It's also made me question something: are we overvaluing figures in the hobby?

We tend to pour time into painting figures and units but games are often fought over fairly sparse or generic terrain: especially tournament games. Yet it's the terrain that really defines the battlefield—cover, movement, line of sight, objectives—arguably the game itself.

A table with great terrain and average figures can look and play superbly. The reverse… maybe less so.

So:
Is terrain actually the more important element?
Do we underinvest in it?
Can good terrain compensate for average figures but not vice versa?
And does this change with scale? (6mm vs 28mm, etc.)

I'm curious where others land on this.

And finally, if you had to choose—beautiful army on a bare table, or average troops on a convincing battlefield—what wins for you?

url=https://postimg.cc/grxSgKCr]

‌

A lot of people under investigation in terrain, myself included. That said, I have fond memories of games with masking tape roads and blocks of woods for hills. Figures and terrain or not in competition with each other. To me, good rules and good company trump both figures and terrain.

If by making the terrain more involved to make a game more interesting I think your right. Now terrain can be quite eye catching like ypur example, I still do old school but do have plenty of terrain features ( fences, buildings, trees, walls) to use as I want.

Damn autocorrect. Under invest -- not under investigation.

And finally, if you had to choose—beautiful army on a bare table, or average troops on a convincing battlefield—what wins for you?

Second choice for me, please.

I think you can have extremely mediocre figures (like mine) as long as the bases are decent. The bases are what makes them.

Time spent on terrain is rarely wasted and certainly adds to the immersion of the thing however. It is always a compromise between representing the critical terrain features and how much stuff you want to be getting out of boxes and putting away later though.

Your terrain looks really good!

Investing more? Depends on the game. I've been playing Test of Honor recently and decided to go with 1 leader and 3-5 followers. Changing the storyline to more of a 70's ronin and ninja TV show. I have more terrain than I'll ever need on the table. What I had to do is to buy female figures without weapons to populate the village, factory or fields.

Yes

Terrain is an important element for me. I strive to make the most eye appealiing game table I can along with well painted figures. However there is no right or wrong here. Its whatever makes you happy or what you can afford….

We tend to pour time into painting figures and units but games are often fought over fairly sparse or generic terrain

Don't know who this "we" is.

link

I started playing hex and counter games – chits on maps. Terrain has to be functional first. How the battlefield affects manuever and engagement is at least as important as the stats given the forces on the board.

A good looking topo map is also a joy to play on. But not what TMP is for.

Terrain can be evocative. Good looking terrain can also help bridge the gap between abstractions in rules and the milieu of the game on the board. In psychology, they call things that provide heuristics toward function "affordances".

I would say it depends on the type of game. With smaller skirmish based games, I would say yes you are right.

However the larger the armies, the less focus is on the terrain.

I think nice terrain (same with bases) makes the game that much more enjoyable.

Painted figures making or breaking the game…no. I have played with some seriously badly painted miniatures and guess what, they performed spectacularly.

Good question. I too would prefer average troops on a convincing battlefield.

As for relative importance, I'm going to hedge and say to a degree it's a matter of how bad, and while my first thought was that it was a matter of scale, I think it's actually a matter of how much board is covered in troops. Mostly smaller figures mean more terrain visible, but not always. Think some FIW skirmish with a dozen or so figures a side. A good-looking board would require good-looking woods, not shading and detailing on the rangers and Indians.

But for a miniature wargame to be first-rate, rules, scenario, troops and terrain can't any of them be distractingly bad, just as you can't have a good movie without good photography, suitable actors, coherent plot and credible dialogue. They don't all need to be excellent, but none can be so bad you immediately notice.

Maybe sideways to this, a friend once advised me to make minimal investment in terrain for a new scale/period until I was satisfied I'd be playing a lot of games. The cost could be substantial, and you didn't need it to test rules.

My rules for terrain are:

clearly defined for game effects (template for Woods, Built Up Area)

functional for game purposes (must not interfere with placement of troops)

looks good/realistic

At least on year in 4 I focus on terrain before troops. Repair/replacement of trees and buildiongs

I prefer average troops on a nicely terrained board. An the scatter pieces add a lot.

The three feet or the table top distance standard you hear quite often certainly agrees with the premise. OK figures and basing look pretty much the same as exquisite at that distance whereas outstanding terrain as opposed to mediocre or poor absolutely lifts the entire game.

I used to let others handle the trees but now the ball is in my court. The learning curve to good land scaping is equally, if not more so, steep. Now I stare at tree trunks and brick walls to get the colors right. I guess I'm in the both things are equally important camp.

Both are important, but I agree that a good-looking tabletop can lift the visual impact and enjoyment of a toy soldier game. That said, I prefer terrain pieces that can be used across as many different periods as possible, since they take up so much storage space and are expensive. And I am NOT fond of assembling or painting terrain or buildings or vehicles. I find this aspect of the hobby a tiresome chore; whenever possible, I look for pre-painted stuff that requires minimal effort from me (e.g., Miniature Building Authority).

And THAT said, I did spend the better part of a year painting up several dozen pieces to make an Alamo compound. (And it takes up three big tubs to store!) And I've only used it a couple of times in the whole.

The table has more impact than the figures for me, regardless of the setting and scale.

There's a lot of terrain-fans here!

At the annual Train & Hobby Show, where we stage a demo wargame, I look at the many intricate "rail layouts" with awe but at the same time they are cumbersome & requiring storage beyond my capabilities. So in wargaming, terrain has practical constraints

storage
cost
setup time
versatility

This is the probably the real reason terrain is underdone.
So—how do you balance ambition with practicality when it comes to terrain?

BTW the photo above is one of our twice-yearly Show games. The games that happen in the garage look a lot different:
theminiaturespage.com

‌"TMP link

And finally, if you had to choose—beautiful army on a bare table, or average troops on a convincing battlefield—what wins for you?

I've been choosing the latter this entire century. Most of my miniatures have solidly "meh" paint jobs, but in large bodies maneuvering through busy scenery on nicely flocked bases, most people never notice. My games draw the compliments and attention of passersby, and I know it's not the paint job on the miniatures.

I've noticed that most gamers will even choose a bad game on a great-looking field over great figures. The appearance of the terrain matters.

That said, I am firmly with the others here who say the terrain has to be functional. It can be a constant irritation playing on fields where the figures topple down the slopes, the miniatures trip and tumble over ground cover, stands of figures perch precariously atop roofs trees, etc. I get around this by marking the terrain types in 2D on the ground cloth (fields, forest floors, town areas, etc.), then treat the 3D objects as decorations to be moved out of the way when the troops come through. This approach would break down in skirmish gaming (where each building/tree/fence/rock is "real" and must stay put right in the way of that thing you wanted to do), but I only play larger battles where terrain is mostly defined by area or linear effect. Terrain should only interfere with the gaming experience in ways that are defined through the rules system.

I also agree that ease of storage, transport, setup, and teardown dominate miniature gaming terrain design. We could make gaming environments that look like model railroading displays if we wanted, but they wouldn't be very useful, nor remain in use very long. Most miniatures gamers attempt terrain boards at some point in a long gaming career, and the majority give them up as impractical.

Back in the late 1970s and 1980s when I played a lot of tournament games, the ability to view terrain and determine the edges appearance of terrain was secondary. You had to determine when a unit was on a slope or crest; or in rough or wooded ground was essential. So I often was terrain on the board that was simple pieces of felt.
Painted troops gave you pleasure and you might be in the running for a Best Painted Army Award.

Old school, I try

Lovely, 14Bore.

+1 Yellow Admiral

I definitely think that good terrain has more impact than great looking figures. Gorgeous terrain sticks out from further away and sets a mood. Ideally, though, you want both. One of my endeavors now that I am retired into focusing terrain creation and am in the study phase looking at what others do before I experiment.

That said, I feel the most important aspect of any game is the comrades playing with you. My fondest memories are of games with barely painted figures on barely there terrain because the people I played with were such a joy to be with.

When the look of terrain is not important to me, I'll play the battle or period quite happily with a hex and counter wargame. When I want to do something with miniatures, it's because I like the visual aspect it creates and for that reason it's important that the terrain looks good and convincing, otherwise, why bother?

Two recent games – a city fight in Konigsberg with mostly scratch built buildings on a homemade mat. A rural fight in the Far East in Malaya.

I do say the Game Masters at conventions do a fantastic work on their terrain, that often wish I was playing their game but of course my schedule is already set so can't.

I'm a heretic according to the rest of this thread. Functional terrain that explains what a terrain feature is, painted or presented as finished on a dark green, sand coloured or blue piece of material is sufficient. A house is a house whether its a DaPol piece, a MDF or a resin from a different century. Trees can mix types even if they never grew in the supposed fictional environment. A hill is a hill and can be as steep or gently sloped as decided for the game. As a kid, I played on chalk coloured chipboard and never had a bad game.
I play a game, I love the terrain others can produce but I don't have the skills, time or space so mine is purely functional and basic.

Terrain first and foremost must be playable! That means the area it covers for game effects is clearly defined, I can see at a glance what sort of terrain it is, and it does not interfere with figure placement and movement.

Those must haves accomplished, I love good looking terrain pieces.

I play plenty of games with colored ovals of felt to indicate terrain features, functional but boring. I have also built small, scenario specific game boards with fully detailed terrain in model railroad quality. It takes a lot of work, but if very immersive to play on.

These days I use felt to indicate the area of a feature and then place detailed terrain elements on top. That way I can move an item if needed while avoiding Burnham Wood marching across the table.

Beautiful terrain sets the stage for a game the figures and vehicles complete it.