I thought I'd start this as a new topic rather than add on to the other terrain thread just to keep the discussions seperate.
I have noticed a spilt between those of you who use hexes vs. those who do not for your game boards. Static terrain features on a hex seem a bit more flexible to me in terms of gaming. Each battelfield is going to be decidedly different from the last. Now what I've seen of the non-hex terrain features is really nice and I'm especially pointing to CavDog's latest pics in the Show us yer...Terrain thread. Nice stuff indeed. But why non-hex? How do you get around the felixibility factor? Is it based on the rules system you use? Anyway, IMWTK! (Inquiring Minds Want To Know!)
Tanker
Hex vs Non-Hex Terrain
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
tanker
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:22 am
- Location: Somewhere near the Chesapeake Bay
- Contact:
Hex vs Non-Hex Terrain
"An armored division is like a tuxedo. You don't need one often, but when you do nothing else will suffice." - quote heard at a meeting of the JCoS
-
Pitfall
- E5
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:18 am
- Location: South Bend, IN
- Contact:
In my opinion, the non-hex method offers the MOST flexibility. Usually in my neck of the woods, we lay out a base and drop terrain pieces like hills, woods, and roads right on top of that.
Usually the base is a 4x8 piece of felt or painted syrofoam. We put roads down with strips of felt or masking tape. Irregular pieces of felt cloth represent woods, swamps, or other terrain. We use cut pieces of floack and painted foam for hills.
Plus, we don't have to worry about the hexes shifting in the middle of the battle!
Usually the base is a 4x8 piece of felt or painted syrofoam. We put roads down with strips of felt or masking tape. Irregular pieces of felt cloth represent woods, swamps, or other terrain. We use cut pieces of floack and painted foam for hills.
Plus, we don't have to worry about the hexes shifting in the middle of the battle!
I wish I had something witty to say...
-
Thunder
- E5
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:25 pm
- Location: Chandler
I definitely prefer the non-hex methods of terrain too for my own stuff. If someone else makes it and spends the time setting it up, which can take forever, thats fine though. Pmskaar has some fantastic stuff. The big difference for me is that I prefer a solid platform to game on. I've forund the hexes move around too easily and that bugs me. Even when placed on a cloth to attampt to prevent this. Also, it takes forever to set them up and break it down. Finally, I like the terrain features you can put on a battleboard over the pieced together features on a hex. Oh, one more thing, there are less seams for your tanks to fall into between pieces in a battleboard. I've been using 2' X 4' battleboards and the setup is pretty quick. I use trees with a baked clay bases so you can practically just throw them out and they stand up anywhere for an instant forest. With enough boards, you get plenty of setup patterns, and with different use of buildings, trees, and bushes, it is always fresh in my opinion. The drawback I see with my system is the battleboards I use are excessively heavy. Its because I build them out of plywood. All of my future boards will be only 2' by 2' in size to help out with storage and the individual weight issue.
-
Cav Dog
- E5
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:12 am
Re: Hex vs Non-Hex Terrain
Now what I've seen of the non-hex terrain features is really nice and I'm especially pointing to CavDog's latest pics in the Show us yer...Terrain thread. Nice stuff indeed. But why non-hex? How do you get around the felixibility factor? Is it based on the rules system you use? Anyway, IMWTK! (Inquiring Minds Want To Know!)
Thanks Tanker.
For the most part, I use geo-morphic terrain boards ala Panzer Blitz. They are based on 1'x3' pieces of floral styrofoam. It is lightweight, travels easily and I have had minimum issues with breakage or warping. There is plenty of flexibility, but after a few games you learn the LOS limitations just like PB. It can be a home field advantage though! If you look at some of my pics, you can see the seams between the boards. But it generally looks good and complements the degree of detail GHQ puts into their models. Plus, I just like modeling the terrain, must be a holdover from my model RR days as a kid.
Thanks Tanker.
For the most part, I use geo-morphic terrain boards ala Panzer Blitz. They are based on 1'x3' pieces of floral styrofoam. It is lightweight, travels easily and I have had minimum issues with breakage or warping. There is plenty of flexibility, but after a few games you learn the LOS limitations just like PB. It can be a home field advantage though! If you look at some of my pics, you can see the seams between the boards. But it generally looks good and complements the degree of detail GHQ puts into their models. Plus, I just like modeling the terrain, must be a holdover from my model RR days as a kid.
Tactics are the opinion of the senior officer present.
-
voltigeur
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
I have 2 sets of Geo-Hex terrain from the early 90's and have moved away from the hex model for the same reasons mentinoned above. To set up a 5x5 table took almost and hour and a half. Also I don't like the table edge not being "dressed" out.
For those that are doing hex terrain I'd look on the geo hex web site the show diagrams for how edge pieces should be cut.
One thing I stumbled on was a guy that did 20"x20" that makes each tile 1 KM square. Still looking at that.
Have to try my hand usuing floral foam. I'm having a major warping in the set I'm trying to build.
For those that are doing hex terrain I'd look on the geo hex web site the show diagrams for how edge pieces should be cut.
One thing I stumbled on was a guy that did 20"x20" that makes each tile 1 KM square. Still looking at that.
Have to try my hand usuing floral foam. I'm having a major warping in the set I'm trying to build.
I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
I think the split in question goes three ways, not two:
1) Those who game on terrain hexes
2) Those who game on terrain boards (of various sizes)
3) Those who game on felt-and-features (or some other cloth-and-features)
Over the past two years I have gamed on Thunder's 2 x 4 terrain boards, on CG Erickson's 1 x 2 terrain boards, and on my own felt-and-features instant set-ups.
I have not gamed on terrain hexes.
Here is what I have observed...
For purely the quality of game-play, I prefer my felt-and-features. It is easier to set up exactly the battlefield you want. Reproduction of historical encounters is quite strait-forward. Line-of-site determination is also very straitforward.
In my case I use layered (stacked) corrogated cardboard that I cut out of the sides any random box that comes into the house. It is a free (recycled) source of unlimited elevations. Tape is cheap, blue for water, plane masking tape for dirt roads, black or gray (duct tape) for paved roads. Lichen for woods.
More recently we've also used sand, poured out in thin lines and flattened down with fingers for dirt roads. I like the visual effect, and clean-up involves nothing more than shaking off the felt after the battle.
More and more I prepare small clustered village pieces and fields. A base with a building and a fence. Or a field with plowed rows and hedges. Gives some more character. In just the past year I have assembled trees by painting nails (of various sizes) brown and gluing them to pennies. I then apply scenic woodlands foliage with a LOT of white glue. Then flock the base. Simple, cheap, and really nice looking. For evergreens I rely on the long-trusted chennile.
I find this approach optimizes for maximum game-play, maximum flexibility, and low cost.
My felt-and-features approach.
On the other side, the terrain boards that Thunder and CGE have produced maximize esthetics. No doubt about it, they are stone-cold gorgeous.
Thunders, at 2 x 4, optimize a bit towards convenience of set-up and gameplay. They are large and sturdy. Very sturdy. He mentioned plywood, but that's not all. His boards are plaster on plywood. Sturdy.
Also pretty clean. That's an interesting approach on his part. Kind of a hybrid between fully modelled terrain and ad-hoc techniques like felt-and-features. With his boards extra features can be added for a particular game. For example, he describes adding trees above. But we've also gone further. For one game we added several dirt roads (using the poured sand approach), and covered some of the paved roads modelled into the boards with blue tape to make rivers. This was possible because his boards are not covered with very dense terrain features. It added some nice variety after we had done a few games on the same boards.
Thunder's boards, with poured-sand and blue-tape rivers added.
CGE's boards optimize more for absolute beauty in modelling. I am sure he spent a pretty penny doing them. He has been trained as an architectural modeller, and he builds terrain boards of the highest quality. The grass, the woodlands, the hillsides, the little villages, the creeks, are just fascinating. Its like playing a game on a piece of art or a scene from some novel. When you care about the quality of your models, there is a whole new level of pleasure involved in pushing them along a road where you can not only see an orchard, but can tell what kinds of trees are in the orchard, and see the weeds growing around them. Having built some 18 or 20 1 x 2 boards, his approach provides a very significant amount of flexibility in set-up. Lots of variety. But it would be very difficult to create a specific historical map unless he created some boards specifically for the purpose.
The esthetics of CG Erickson's boards do honor to well painted GHQ models.
I'd love to try gaming on some of the hex terrain shown on this board. But I feel it would fall between the points of optimization I've described here. I've already experienced gaming on terrain optimized for game-play, and terrain optimized for modelling quality. I expect the hexes would just be a shift in the balance between.
But I'm up for trying! Give me a call, and I'll be right over!
1) Those who game on terrain hexes
2) Those who game on terrain boards (of various sizes)
3) Those who game on felt-and-features (or some other cloth-and-features)
Over the past two years I have gamed on Thunder's 2 x 4 terrain boards, on CG Erickson's 1 x 2 terrain boards, and on my own felt-and-features instant set-ups.
I have not gamed on terrain hexes.
Here is what I have observed...
For purely the quality of game-play, I prefer my felt-and-features. It is easier to set up exactly the battlefield you want. Reproduction of historical encounters is quite strait-forward. Line-of-site determination is also very straitforward.
In my case I use layered (stacked) corrogated cardboard that I cut out of the sides any random box that comes into the house. It is a free (recycled) source of unlimited elevations. Tape is cheap, blue for water, plane masking tape for dirt roads, black or gray (duct tape) for paved roads. Lichen for woods.
More recently we've also used sand, poured out in thin lines and flattened down with fingers for dirt roads. I like the visual effect, and clean-up involves nothing more than shaking off the felt after the battle.
More and more I prepare small clustered village pieces and fields. A base with a building and a fence. Or a field with plowed rows and hedges. Gives some more character. In just the past year I have assembled trees by painting nails (of various sizes) brown and gluing them to pennies. I then apply scenic woodlands foliage with a LOT of white glue. Then flock the base. Simple, cheap, and really nice looking. For evergreens I rely on the long-trusted chennile.
I find this approach optimizes for maximum game-play, maximum flexibility, and low cost.
My felt-and-features approach.
On the other side, the terrain boards that Thunder and CGE have produced maximize esthetics. No doubt about it, they are stone-cold gorgeous.
Thunders, at 2 x 4, optimize a bit towards convenience of set-up and gameplay. They are large and sturdy. Very sturdy. He mentioned plywood, but that's not all. His boards are plaster on plywood. Sturdy.
Also pretty clean. That's an interesting approach on his part. Kind of a hybrid between fully modelled terrain and ad-hoc techniques like felt-and-features. With his boards extra features can be added for a particular game. For example, he describes adding trees above. But we've also gone further. For one game we added several dirt roads (using the poured sand approach), and covered some of the paved roads modelled into the boards with blue tape to make rivers. This was possible because his boards are not covered with very dense terrain features. It added some nice variety after we had done a few games on the same boards.
Thunder's boards, with poured-sand and blue-tape rivers added.
CGE's boards optimize more for absolute beauty in modelling. I am sure he spent a pretty penny doing them. He has been trained as an architectural modeller, and he builds terrain boards of the highest quality. The grass, the woodlands, the hillsides, the little villages, the creeks, are just fascinating. Its like playing a game on a piece of art or a scene from some novel. When you care about the quality of your models, there is a whole new level of pleasure involved in pushing them along a road where you can not only see an orchard, but can tell what kinds of trees are in the orchard, and see the weeds growing around them. Having built some 18 or 20 1 x 2 boards, his approach provides a very significant amount of flexibility in set-up. Lots of variety. But it would be very difficult to create a specific historical map unless he created some boards specifically for the purpose.
The esthetics of CG Erickson's boards do honor to well painted GHQ models.
I'd love to try gaming on some of the hex terrain shown on this board. But I feel it would fall between the points of optimization I've described here. I've already experienced gaming on terrain optimized for game-play, and terrain optimized for modelling quality. I expect the hexes would just be a shift in the balance between.
But I'm up for trying! Give me a call, and I'll be right over!
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
tanker
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:22 am
- Location: Somewhere near the Chesapeake Bay
- Contact:
Wow, thanks for the responses so far. MK1 thanks for the pics and the nice descriptions of the different styles of building non-hex terrain. So far though only the non-hex folks have weighed in here. I'm still hoping Tom Stockton will come wade into the discussion about his hex work.
Ok, a little background here from me. I haven't played in a long time and am only just getting back into the sport. When I played regulary it was using the Yaquinto 1:1 rules for the Panzer, 88 and Armor games. We used to play on a game table made up of three to four 2x4 sheets of plywood with 2" hex paper glued on and shellaced. Remember the bundles of newsprint hex paper you could get? Green on one side, sand on the other? That's what we used. The guy who owned the boards also made up elevated terrain hexes of plywood the same thickness (I think it was 1/4") as the boards to make hills. Then he'd toss some HO lichen out for scrub hexes and an occasional tree for woods hexes, and paint up the rough, road, river, etc. hexes and lay them out. So I got used to playing with hex rules for sighting and movement etc. I only ever played one game without hexes, again using Yaquinto's rules, but this time with inches for distance rather than counting hexes. In the hex games we used a straight edge or a taut piece of string to determine LoS and in the inch rules games we used these cool little upside down periscopes placed behind the firing unit.
So that's what I've been used to all these years and so I looked into GHQ's Terrain Maker kits. I have several bags right now of various thicknesses waiting to get made into gaming pieces (hence all my other questions in other threads about scenery etc.).
I guess at this point I need to ask you non-hex folks what kinds of rules you're using? Do you play 1:1? 1:platoon or squad? Or larger? How do you determine hits at odd angles and up or down slopes? Do your rules determine the type of terrain you prefer or vice versa?
Thanks for putting up with all the questions. The answers have been great.
Tanker
Ok, a little background here from me. I haven't played in a long time and am only just getting back into the sport. When I played regulary it was using the Yaquinto 1:1 rules for the Panzer, 88 and Armor games. We used to play on a game table made up of three to four 2x4 sheets of plywood with 2" hex paper glued on and shellaced. Remember the bundles of newsprint hex paper you could get? Green on one side, sand on the other? That's what we used. The guy who owned the boards also made up elevated terrain hexes of plywood the same thickness (I think it was 1/4") as the boards to make hills. Then he'd toss some HO lichen out for scrub hexes and an occasional tree for woods hexes, and paint up the rough, road, river, etc. hexes and lay them out. So I got used to playing with hex rules for sighting and movement etc. I only ever played one game without hexes, again using Yaquinto's rules, but this time with inches for distance rather than counting hexes. In the hex games we used a straight edge or a taut piece of string to determine LoS and in the inch rules games we used these cool little upside down periscopes placed behind the firing unit.
So that's what I've been used to all these years and so I looked into GHQ's Terrain Maker kits. I have several bags right now of various thicknesses waiting to get made into gaming pieces (hence all my other questions in other threads about scenery etc.).
I guess at this point I need to ask you non-hex folks what kinds of rules you're using? Do you play 1:1? 1:platoon or squad? Or larger? How do you determine hits at odd angles and up or down slopes? Do your rules determine the type of terrain you prefer or vice versa?
Thanks for putting up with all the questions. The answers have been great.
Tanker
"An armored division is like a tuxedo. You don't need one often, but when you do nothing else will suffice." - quote heard at a meeting of the JCoS
-
Mickel
- E5
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:00 pm
- Location: Adelaide, Australia
I don't have, but have played on a Terrainmaker hexed table. It was 6' x 8'. Rather than having every individual hex separate, they were joined into blocks. He's made a small flood plain with a long low bridge over it, an airfield, some reasonable sized rises, arable land etc. Some pieces were even simply a two piece section with a straight road followed by a bend. So you could say is the space in between pure hex and terrain boards. It didn't take that long to put up and it was pretty flexible.
There were plans to make a ending section to square them up, but I don't know if it ever happened.
I've also set up a table done by a guy who modelled it on some river the Germans crossed in 1940. Took an age to set up although it did look pretty. It seemed to have a 1:285th ground scale, so I didn't think it make it particularly practical to play on with the sorts of forces that people use here.
I use a cloth base and terrain features. My pics in the show us yer stuff thread are generally close ups on the features, but since taking those I've acquired a decent looking (although too dark) base cloth, so the next lot might shown the terrain better.
Mike
There were plans to make a ending section to square them up, but I don't know if it ever happened.
I've also set up a table done by a guy who modelled it on some river the Germans crossed in 1940. Took an age to set up although it did look pretty. It seemed to have a 1:285th ground scale, so I didn't think it make it particularly practical to play on with the sorts of forces that people use here.
I use a cloth base and terrain features. My pics in the show us yer stuff thread are generally close ups on the features, but since taking those I've acquired a decent looking (although too dark) base cloth, so the next lot might shown the terrain better.
Mike
-
tstockton
- E5
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:55 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Greetings, gentlemen!
I'd be happy to share my expert opinion with you... if I had any. Oh, I gots lots of opinions... but so few of them are expert!
When it comes to Terrain Maker -- I absolutely love the stuff! But -- I am a modeler, not a gamer. I know from just setting up hexes to take photos of them -- they don't seem to want to stay in place very well. Following tips I've learned here, I now paint the sides of my hexes in the same tan color I use for my "basic ground" (instead of the dark green shown in GHQ's instructions*); this seems to make the gaps between hexes less noticable.
I've read that some folks set their hexes up on a cloth -- or even a roll of felt -- which seems to reduce the "sliding" that the individual hexes seem to be so prone to. I've recently had another idea -- what if one were to join two or three hexes with masking tape on the bottom, then flip them "right side up" and place them on the board. Would this help? And if so, it would seem that "taped" hexes could be laid out in some sort of an interlocking pattern... maybe this would help to reduce the "gaps" and "sliding".
I model hexes because I like the way they look. (I also thoroughly enjoy the ability to work on a 4" piece of terrain at leisure at my workbench -- and the fact I can work on a hex for a little bit, then set it down to let paint or glue dry and pick up another one...) But I can easily see the ease of set-up, the flexibility of layout, and the speed of set-up and tear-down that the "felt cloth" folks experience. I see terrain boards as "somewhere in the middle" between the hexes and the "felt cloth" layouts -- and I've seen some absolutely marvelous terrain boards here on the GHQ Forum!
I guess my years as a model railroader and diorama builder have really influenced my choice of Terrain Maker -- I prefer "realistic" scenery. But again -- I'm not a gamer, I'm a modeler.
My two cents worth... well, maybe a little more than two cents, since I DO tend to get long-winded!
Regards,
Tom Stockton
* My guess is the good folks at GHQ have been at one point -- or maybe still are -- model railroaders. It is quite common in the model railroading community to paint the edges of a layout in a dark green color. Indeed, it helps to give a layout a "finished" look. But given the slight irregularities of the Terrain Maker hexes, I think tan is a better choice, for reasons listed above...
I'd be happy to share my expert opinion with you... if I had any. Oh, I gots lots of opinions... but so few of them are expert!
When it comes to Terrain Maker -- I absolutely love the stuff! But -- I am a modeler, not a gamer. I know from just setting up hexes to take photos of them -- they don't seem to want to stay in place very well. Following tips I've learned here, I now paint the sides of my hexes in the same tan color I use for my "basic ground" (instead of the dark green shown in GHQ's instructions*); this seems to make the gaps between hexes less noticable.
I've read that some folks set their hexes up on a cloth -- or even a roll of felt -- which seems to reduce the "sliding" that the individual hexes seem to be so prone to. I've recently had another idea -- what if one were to join two or three hexes with masking tape on the bottom, then flip them "right side up" and place them on the board. Would this help? And if so, it would seem that "taped" hexes could be laid out in some sort of an interlocking pattern... maybe this would help to reduce the "gaps" and "sliding".
I model hexes because I like the way they look. (I also thoroughly enjoy the ability to work on a 4" piece of terrain at leisure at my workbench -- and the fact I can work on a hex for a little bit, then set it down to let paint or glue dry and pick up another one...) But I can easily see the ease of set-up, the flexibility of layout, and the speed of set-up and tear-down that the "felt cloth" folks experience. I see terrain boards as "somewhere in the middle" between the hexes and the "felt cloth" layouts -- and I've seen some absolutely marvelous terrain boards here on the GHQ Forum!
I guess my years as a model railroader and diorama builder have really influenced my choice of Terrain Maker -- I prefer "realistic" scenery. But again -- I'm not a gamer, I'm a modeler.
My two cents worth... well, maybe a little more than two cents, since I DO tend to get long-winded!
Regards,
Tom Stockton
* My guess is the good folks at GHQ have been at one point -- or maybe still are -- model railroaders. It is quite common in the model railroading community to paint the edges of a layout in a dark green color. Indeed, it helps to give a layout a "finished" look. But given the slight irregularities of the Terrain Maker hexes, I think tan is a better choice, for reasons listed above...
"Well, I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones. You sure you got today's codes?"
-- Major T. J. "King" Kong in "Dr. Strangelove"
-- Major T. J. "King" Kong in "Dr. Strangelove"
-
tstockton
- E5
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:55 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Oh, by the way...
Mk I, your "felt and features" terrain look pretty darned playable to me! Elevations are readily visible, and the flexibilty it offers must be outstanding!
My only complaint -- it looks a little more like you are playing on a map, rather than in terrain. But I can counter my own complaint easily -- you are not setting up for a photo shoot -- you are gaming. And for that, your method appears to work very well!
Even more importantly -- if you are happy with it, then it's "all good" for you!
Regards,
Tom
Mk I, your "felt and features" terrain look pretty darned playable to me! Elevations are readily visible, and the flexibilty it offers must be outstanding!
My only complaint -- it looks a little more like you are playing on a map, rather than in terrain. But I can counter my own complaint easily -- you are not setting up for a photo shoot -- you are gaming. And for that, your method appears to work very well!
Even more importantly -- if you are happy with it, then it's "all good" for you!
Regards,
Tom
"Well, I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones. You sure you got today's codes?"
-- Major T. J. "King" Kong in "Dr. Strangelove"
-- Major T. J. "King" Kong in "Dr. Strangelove"
-
saxophone
- E5
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:06 am
- Contact:
I haven't tried this yet, but it seems one way to keep the hexes from skating around is to build a frame. I'm planning on building such a frame using 1x2s. My plan is to make it use bolts and wingnuts to hold it together so you can set it up and break it down easily. It should also be adjustable to accomodate varying lengths and widths. You could then tape the frame to the table and insert your hexes inside the frame.
I've also created half-hexes like the ones that GeoHex used to make. These help to square off your board edge. However, with Terrain Maker, that's a lot of half hexes, so I probably won't pursue that route much further.
--Greg
I've also created half-hexes like the ones that GeoHex used to make. These help to square off your board edge. However, with Terrain Maker, that's a lot of half hexes, so I probably won't pursue that route much further.
--Greg
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Yo Sax! Sounds like lots of good ideas. Let me know if you need some gamers to come give it all a test! Sure would like to get some tanks on a table with you some time!saxophone played us this tune:
I haven't tried this yet, but ... My plan is to make it .... It should also be adjustable .... You could then tape the frame to the table and insert your hexes inside the frame.
I've also created half-hexes like the ones that GeoHex used to make. These help to square off your board edge. However, with Terrain Maker ... I probably won't pursue that route much further.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Yeah, it really is tough to beat for playability. I presume the elevations are 5 meters (or 15 feet), so they provide full cover for the tallest tank, but if you run the tank up to actually make contact with the edge it is assumed to be up the rise a bit, and so hull-down. There is very little terrain-lawyering with this approach (no, he can't see me/yes, he can see you). You just play ... most everything that is terrain-related is clear and does not need questioning or clarification.tstockton offered these views:
Mk I, your "felt and features" terrain look pretty darned playable to me! Elevations are readily visible, and the flexibilty it offers must be outstanding!
We often also put felt cut-outs under the trees to mark the edges of woods. Or sometimes I just use clear tape to mark the edges of woods. Then you can move the trees around as needed to work with the tanks. Mobius also suggests similar approaches on his Panzer-War website.
The flexibility is very high with this approach. A few of the hills are many levels pre-glued together. But several others are just a bunch of layers stacked-up for the occasion. And the cardboard is painted green on one side, and sand (or tan) on the other. So I have desert and temperate elevations with the same stuff. As I've mentioned in other threads, I use the cut-outs as platforms for my tanks when I'm spray-painting, so they get colored for free as a by-product. But you can often see the "shadows" of tank hulls depending on the angle of the light.
Oh, and it's cheap. Cheap is good, too.
I played one game with a fellow who just used white string to mark elevations. Talk about looking like a map! I hadn't had nearly as much experience at reading topo maps as he had (he was Amored Cav in Fulda in the late 70s), so I was really put-upon to see where the ground was lower rather than higher.My only complaint -- it looks a little more like you are playing on a map, rather than in terrain. But I can counter my own complaint easily -- you are not setting up for a photo shoot -- you are gaming. And for that, your method appears to work very well!
Then again I've also gamed with guys who just use felt cut-outs to represent elevations, with no actual elevation involved. That left me feeling... well ... a bit flat.
Over the years I tried lots of ideas for hills. Cut-out foam, even pre-formed concrete (whoa, man, heavy!) The cut foam seems to be the widest used approach, but I really don't like the idea of a bunch of mesa's on my board. Most elevations I've ever seen are mostly slope, rather than mostly plateau.
This approach gives me flexibility, light-weight, and lots of slope. Oh, and it's cheap. Did I mention that? Cheap is good, too.
I was particularly happy with it over the past couple of years, when I could also play on the terrain boards I've shown above. The best of both worlds for me! Got to play on beautiful terrain, AND got to play on lots of variety of terrain, so we never managed to over-play CG's or Thunder's boards.Even more importantly -- if you are happy with it, then it's "all good" for you!
Then Thunder went and moved away to Arizona!
Now others get to play on his terrain, and I get to sit by the phone waiting for CG to call me. 'Tis a lonesome vigil. 
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
pmskaar
- E5
- Posts: 2172
- Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:45 am
Hex vs. non hex terrain
I just got back from a 2 week trip and noticed this post on the forum so I wanted to add my thoughts.
I use the GHQ Terrain Maker because it works for me. I am a modeler but also a gamer as well. What I like about the terrain maker is that it is totally geomorphic so I can vary the roads, hills, woods and streams almost infinitely. Another advantage is that with the hexes at 4 inches I can do rapid range estimations and use the tape measure if its close.
I like the look of the terrain all set up as well. For those that have not seen my terrain, Thunder was very kind to take lots of pictures for the last game in August and you can see it by accessing his web site. There are lots of pictures of the layout for our game.
The disadvantages have been noted such as the time to set up. I admit it does take me about 1 1/2 to 2 hours to set up a game but I don't mind as the visual effect is well worth it. The breakdown time is about 30 minutes including putting away the vehicles, markers, and buildings but that doesn't seem bad to me. With felt cloth underneath the hexes I have not noticed any shifting and I haven't lost any tanks in the cracks.
Everyone has their favorite rules, miniature manufacturers and terrain setups for gaming and I find that the Terrain Maker hex terrain works well for my needs.
Pete - Binpicker, Out!
I use the GHQ Terrain Maker because it works for me. I am a modeler but also a gamer as well. What I like about the terrain maker is that it is totally geomorphic so I can vary the roads, hills, woods and streams almost infinitely. Another advantage is that with the hexes at 4 inches I can do rapid range estimations and use the tape measure if its close.
I like the look of the terrain all set up as well. For those that have not seen my terrain, Thunder was very kind to take lots of pictures for the last game in August and you can see it by accessing his web site. There are lots of pictures of the layout for our game.
The disadvantages have been noted such as the time to set up. I admit it does take me about 1 1/2 to 2 hours to set up a game but I don't mind as the visual effect is well worth it. The breakdown time is about 30 minutes including putting away the vehicles, markers, and buildings but that doesn't seem bad to me. With felt cloth underneath the hexes I have not noticed any shifting and I haven't lost any tanks in the cracks.
Everyone has their favorite rules, miniature manufacturers and terrain setups for gaming and I find that the Terrain Maker hex terrain works well for my needs.
Pete - Binpicker, Out!
-
tstockton
- E5
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:55 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Pete,
First off, welcome back!
Did you see my note about possibly "taping" two or three hexes together during set-up? What I was thinking was... what if you "flipped" two or three hexes over, taped them together with masking tape, then turned them right-side-up and placed them on the felt cloth -- would that help hold things together? Or, when finished and breaking things down -- would removing the tape from the bottom of the hexes damage the bottom of the styrofoam, thus (potentially) rendering them unfit for further use?
BTW, I've gone to Thunder's website -- microarmor.com -- and checked out the pictures... Outstanding!!!
Regards,
Tom
First off, welcome back!
Did you see my note about possibly "taping" two or three hexes together during set-up? What I was thinking was... what if you "flipped" two or three hexes over, taped them together with masking tape, then turned them right-side-up and placed them on the felt cloth -- would that help hold things together? Or, when finished and breaking things down -- would removing the tape from the bottom of the hexes damage the bottom of the styrofoam, thus (potentially) rendering them unfit for further use?
BTW, I've gone to Thunder's website -- microarmor.com -- and checked out the pictures... Outstanding!!!
Regards,
Tom
"Well, I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones. You sure you got today's codes?"
-- Major T. J. "King" Kong in "Dr. Strangelove"
-- Major T. J. "King" Kong in "Dr. Strangelove"