@@onpatrolpodcast we work damn hard on our sets because this is absolutely critical to our campaign which moves between micro and macro ratios ruclips.net/video/1IMyGV7_7qk/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Gotta disagree. The sight/look of terrain is not critical. The critical piece is: Does the terrain fit the purpose of the game and force the player to make decisions (like a good game rule). Would Inlike realistic looking terrain yes. But as discussed, the flashy terrain is almost just a recruiting tool to get people to play.
I completely agree with its purpose. At a minimum it has to fit the purpose of the game (friction point, key terrain, etc). Some people really blow this up by adding too much terrain or making it to clunky, which can torpedo the game. I think one of the main differences from chit/board game based wargames to tabletop wargaming is the use of aesthetics. A sunken road in the topography can serve a purpose, but can also add to the visual beauty of Antietam on the tabletop. I agree it's a sliding scale, but I like that bit of battlefield or period debris that really makes the table pop. It's either helping to tell the story outside of the purpose of the game or helping to immerse the player in the period. I think tabletop historical wargaming with miniatures allows for the convergence of my big 3: history, tactics and the miniature visualization/immersion in the period. I think if I wasn't striving for that on some type of level I would have never left board and chit based games. I think most tabletop wargamers would concur with your bottom line though. It is probably the first place that effort is not really required. We'd all like for it to be realistic, but it's not a hard line. I guess the counter to my own way of thinking is, "well if you like pretty scenery and paint schemes, go do modeling and dioramas." As always, I appreciate you input. Good points for thought. -FK
I always say there are three things ya need for the perfect wargame
a good painted army
a good opponent
and a good set of terrain
I agree. A good ruleset isn't bad either, but sometimes not necessary to make a great game. FK
Terrain is critical and agree with what you say 100 percent
Exactly! Huge aspect of TableTop wargaming. -FK
@@onpatrolpodcast we work damn hard on our sets because this is absolutely critical to our campaign which moves between micro and macro ratios ruclips.net/video/1IMyGV7_7qk/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Gotta disagree. The sight/look of terrain is not critical. The critical piece is: Does the terrain fit the purpose of the game and force the player to make decisions (like a good game rule).
Would Inlike realistic looking terrain yes. But as discussed, the flashy terrain is almost just a recruiting tool to get people to play.
I completely agree with its purpose. At a minimum it has to fit the purpose of the game (friction point, key terrain, etc).
Some people really blow this up by adding too much terrain or making it to clunky, which can torpedo the game.
I think one of the main differences from chit/board game based wargames to tabletop wargaming is the use of aesthetics. A sunken road in the topography can serve a purpose, but can also add to the visual beauty of Antietam on the tabletop.
I agree it's a sliding scale, but I like that bit of battlefield or period debris that really makes the table pop. It's either helping to tell the story outside of the purpose of the game or helping to immerse the player in the period.
I think tabletop historical wargaming with miniatures allows for the convergence of my big 3: history, tactics and the miniature visualization/immersion in the period. I think if I wasn't striving for that on some type of level I would have never left board and chit based games.
I think most tabletop wargamers would concur with your bottom line though. It is probably the first place that effort is not really required. We'd all like for it to be realistic, but it's not a hard line. I guess the counter to my own way of thinking is, "well if you like pretty scenery and paint schemes, go do modeling and dioramas." As always, I appreciate you input. Good points for thought. -FK