"Wargame Scenery - How Good?" Topic
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Return to the Wargame Scenery - How Good? Poll
Areas of InterestGeneral
|advocate||14 May 2018 12:35 a.m. PST|
By "As good as possible" I take it this means "As realistic as possible". That doesn't always produce a board that's very playable. And it doesn't always take into account issues of scale in larger games – that house may represent a village, for example.
So I like a decent looking table, but it mustn't get in the way of the game.
|robert piepenbrink ||14 May 2018 2:39 a.m. PST|
I'm not sure I have any idea what "good" is in this context.
Scenery is there first for informational purposes. I need to be able to look at a board and know that THAT is a village and THAT is a dense woods--knowing where each begins and ends. Once you've accomplished that, it should look as much like a natural landscape as possible, but if aesthetics are more important than information, build a diorama.
|Vigilant||14 May 2018 2:42 a.m. PST|
I'm with advocate and Robert. A balance between look and playability is what I go for.
|FusilierDan ||14 May 2018 3:29 a.m. PST|
|Frederick ||14 May 2018 3:44 a.m. PST|
Looking good is great – but like all above, needs to be playable
|zoneofcontrol ||14 May 2018 4:07 a.m. PST|
I guess I'm just the odd duck. (Gee, no revelation there.) I am a very visual person. I can look at a map or diagram and see a 3-D image of features, obstacles, lines of approach, fire lanes, etc.. I like to then make a decent representation of that on the table. Opposite of the above responses, I don't want the rules or scenario to be too "gamey" to be played on the battlefield it was actually fought on.
|advocate||14 May 2018 6:12 a.m. PST|
I understand where you are coming from, zoneofcontrol, but unless the groundscale matches the figure scale, then there have to be compromises in what is shown in the scenery.
|Cyrus the Great||14 May 2018 6:21 a.m. PST|
The nicest scenery possible that doesn't interfere with playability. It also depends on whether it's a game hosted at my house or a pick-up at the local game store.
| etotheipi ||14 May 2018 7:10 a.m. PST|
I always get frustrated at work when people put in writing that a requirement is to "Do X to the maximum extent possible."
Also, my keys were in the last place I looked for them.
|USAFpilot||14 May 2018 11:52 a.m. PST|
Nicer is always better, however I think terrain should be realistically proportioned to the games ground scale. Just need to ask yourself one question: am I building a model diorama or playing a war game?
| Sgt Slag ||18 May 2018 8:06 p.m. PST|
USAFpilot: agree, completely. I take my entire approach one step further, though…
Am I playing a game, or a simulation? Honestly, I always try to play games, only. Simulations are too detailed, too complex, and far too tedious, for my personal tastes. I want action, and I want progressive results -- Sitzkrieg games bore me.
I'm an army painter: get them on the table before I die, so I can actually enjoy playing with them! Same thing with terrain: making it is fun, but it needs to be re-usable, versatile, and modular. That means it is less than realistic, but I can re-use it, re-deploy it into different configurations, in different game scenarios, without creating custom pieces, every time, for every game… Cheers!