|
|
Post by hardlec on Jan 26, 2017 17:31:18 GMT
I have seen games with beautiful terrain covering almost all of the table, especially urban scenarios. Love it.
I have seen terrain for certain fantasy games which is little more than top views printed on neoprene where I can't tell a trench from a shed because it's all flat. Don't love it.
The biggest table I can use is 6x4 feet. When I can figure out how to fit one in my car, I'd like to build a 6x6 foot table.
For me, purely subjectively, I think about a half-dozen trees and a half-dozen buildings is a good amount of terrain, with some red weed and maybe a road as incidentals.
A river, big enough for a gunboat and some barges and maybe a bridge (about 8 inches wide) would be a dominant terrain feature.
An individual tree in 15mm scale should be about 6 inches tall, with a range of 4-8 inches but 12 inch trees are possible, just uncommon. There are lots of ways to make trees that look good and travel well, but the easiest is to look for them in after christmas sales.
Paper buildings have been my favorite option for over a decade. Many can be adjusted to scale by using PC paint or GIMP. Another sourse is to check out after christmas sales. doors should be about 7/8 of an inch tall.
The problem is not making terrain: it is dressing the table.
Any successes are invited. Perhaps more useful are failures. We don't all need to fall in the same hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Jan 26, 2017 23:23:15 GMT
Terrain can have a huge impact on any game.
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Jan 27, 2017 18:29:14 GMT
A good method I have seen people use is to fill a quarter of the table with terrain, and then distribute it around the entire board. Seems to fill the board up nicely, but not too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jan 27, 2017 18:55:58 GMT
Another method that I have seen is to divide the tabletop into 1 foot squares. Then decide on terrain density - the fraction that contain terrain features (very dense=3/4 moderate density=1/2 average density=1/4 sparse=1/8) One player places terrain applying some logic. Other player gets to "appeal=" by relocate/substitute two features. Player that did NOT place the terrain gets to select his starting edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Jan 27, 2017 20:34:11 GMT
I like it when the terrain is realistic in the sense that it's not just random bits of woods and hills and buildings. If there's a town then roads ought to lead to it and planted fields ought to be close by with woods farther out, etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jan 30, 2017 16:10:09 GMT
Mr Washburn:
You observation is "spot on."
The phrase "applying some logic" implies that the terrain will follow some rational pattern. The "Raid on Marysville" and the "Ashport' AARs show very nice build-up of logical terrain.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Jan 31, 2017 22:48:19 GMT
I have an issue with "random terrain."
I played a game of Flames of War with a special guest, a champion Warhamster player.
In an urban terrain setting, he saw the streets as charge lanes, and the open spaces as marshalling points. I said nothing as he voluntarily channelized his armor and exposed his infantry in what I would call kill sacs. He chuckled about my lack of meat shields.... When I opened fire, my opponent taught me some lessons about my parents and my orientation.he channelized his armor in line ahead right into my anti-tank guns. He bypassed my infantry giving me flank shots to my infantry's ATWs. The lesson of my parent's history was repeated when I took out his 88's, still limbered to their towing vehicles, with my mortars. Indirect fire does not require line of sight.
To me, terrain has a "big picture" component as well as the value of each piece. Most fantasy players never attempt any maneuver except to create a clot of melee in the center of the table, and very few fantasy players have any concept of defence in depth. (And please guys, stop insulting my Mother when you bypass my infantry only to get a HEAT suppository :-)
I have had to learn a new set of tactics to play Warhamster and War Machine, but not so much for terrain; (Never interrupt your opponent while he is making an error.)
The idea of dividing up a table and giving players a quarter of the table to dress is sound, but, as Scott has recommended, terrain should be a cohesive thing.
In AQMF tactical concerns:
Martians can be anywhere, but they can't be EVERYwhere. Having forces spread throughout the length and breadth or your area of interests makes it possible to isolate and destroy tripods.
Martians will find the humans need to balance being spread out for defence and being concentrated for effective firepower. Using terrain is usually a Martian's weakness. Don't fall into that trap
Aesthetically:
Random terrain is tacky. Give a grade school pupil a sheet of paper and some crayons, then ask that student to color the top view of a farm or a town, and they whill have a coherrent, if creative view. Roads will not end in ponds, streams will not just end, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Feb 1, 2017 17:16:37 GMT
Agreeing with all of the above, especially Scott. Of note, when I want to get a gunboat or such into a game, I'll often have one edge of the table representing a river or body of water. Using the ratio Ships guns, you can simulate numerous craft from the period and still have a majority of the table to land battle on. If you must use a 'centered' river, keep it small, say 4" to 6" width. Rivers for AQ need be deep and swift to have a proper effect on Martian attacks - meaning you don't need a broad river to be a major obstacle to them.
And yes, I hate random terrain in all the various games, be they fantasy, historical, or 'fiction'. With the remote exception to Chaos Wastes in GW, there is no excuse for a poorly laid out game based on dice.
|
|
|
|
Post by morbius on Mar 1, 2017 9:31:40 GMT
I am not a fan of random tables either. Heck, the game is semi-historical, so the terrain, if not based on a real period map, should at least make real sense.
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by Quendil on Mar 1, 2017 10:15:58 GMT
I love to have terrain on the table and like the terrain to works with each other so it has a point. My biggest issue is storing the stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Mar 1, 2017 13:07:37 GMT
Amen, Brother Quendil! The terrain is invariably bulky and fragile so storage is a class A pain. And it seems that the nicer it is, the harder to store. I wonder if, with some forethought and planning, collapsible structures could be converted from Scott's paper terrain line to store flat. Trees made in the form of X-shaped assemblies might help. They would look OK for game use, but be better for storage.Disregard previous sentence. It looks like the TerraTiles from RAINN Studios is doing this  |
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 2, 2017 14:59:32 GMT
Nice, thank you for the posting. I've had some success with Fat Dragon Games paper trees. Those shown above are superior!
As an aside, if Scott would make them, I'm sure they'd go well with his outstanding collection of all periods buildings, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Mar 4, 2017 14:59:21 GMT
Terra tiles is on my wish list.
Fat Dragon paper terrain features are robust and light. It is well worth the investment.
Terrain storage is always an issue. I have several large plastic tubs full of various terrain bits.
And still, I want more.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 5, 2017 10:33:24 GMT
And there's the rub.
|
|
