Help support TMP

"Wargame Scenery - How Good?" Topic

11 Posts

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 Interest


132 hits since 13 May 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

advocate14 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 Supporting Member of TMP14 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.

Vigilant14 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 Supporting Member of TMP14 May 2018 3:29 a.m. PST


Frederick Supporting Member of TMP14 May 2018 3:44 a.m. PST

Looking good is great – but like all above, needs to be playable

zoneofcontrol Inactive Member14 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.

advocate14 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 Great14 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.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP14 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.

USAFpilot14 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?

Personal logo Sgt Slag Supporting Member of TMP18 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!

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.