. If the undulations in question were just enough for the odd squadron of lancers to lurk in and pounce from, I’d say you don’t need to put that on the table; it should be one of those minor tactical factors that are represented by the spread of your possible dice results, assuming you’re not using a ruleset that is totally mechanical and predictable. British line rolls snake eyes for its volley? Those cuirassiers surprised them because of coming out of a dip and through the powder smoke. Chevauxleger break British square on a 6:1 opposed roll? Some of them found a gully that led right up to the vulnerable corner of the square. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of terrain fidelity, and really dislike the terrain tokenism of those unimaginative wargame tables with one hill, one wood, one village … just suggesting that things need to be kept in proportion, and maybe your problem isn’t as big as you think. Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/
Yes, I get all of that, Chris. But if you take it the other way, and the infantry get in that volley, what happened to the dead ground? It disappeared? But the maps say it was there! I’m planning the battle of QB, not a generic game that may or may not have set typographical features.
On Martin’s advice, I’m going to experiment with placing some lengths of dowel (Regiment-sized) under the battle mats: something I’ve never done before. I think it fair to think experienced cavalry commanders would try to sniff out such features.
The other issue is standing crops on this battlefield which also provided cover.
Normally, some hideous movement penalty applies to moving through obstacles . For this game, I propose to limit the movement penalty as it is counter-intuitive to budget for such cover but make it so difficult to move through that it becomes useless.