12/02/2020 at 18:56 #131519
Round battlefields and heavily rounded corners.
Has there been any discussions about this anywhere? I’ve only seen it once, a Twilight demo game at Salute. The loss of surface area seems significant but how often do we really use the corners of our gaming areas? What are your thoughts or experience on this?
Tired is enough.12/02/2020 at 19:21 #131520CerdicParticipant
Heresy! Next you’ll be suggesting inviting select knights to come and sit at your table…12/02/2020 at 19:29 #131521Darkest Star GamesParticipant
I have played on round tables out of necessity, but other than 1 time in particular the battlefield was still rectilinear. The 1 time it was round was a Starship Troopers game where we were basically stuck in the middle with the hordes coming from all around, so not a good representation of what could be or could not be done on such a shape.
Now, I have played on hexagonal shaped battlefields, and they worked quite well.
"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."12/02/2020 at 20:43 #13153312/02/2020 at 21:27 #131537
<p style=”font-size: 16px !important; line-height: 20px !important;”>Funny, I’ve been considering this very idea recently: a round board on a lazy susan below, would it make strategy planning too hard if you had no “side” to work from?
I think if there’s enough terrain for reference there shouldn’t be too much problem with orientation. I wonder if the lack of corners efect flanking at all?
Tired is enough.12/02/2020 at 21:29 #131538RhodericParticipant
Dream Pod 9, or someone associated with them, made a nice desert-themed round table for convention Heavy Gear Blitz demo games at one point. I can’t find pictures of it now, but IIRC it wasn’t very big as it was only intended for quick games with a few figures in crowded convention venues.
Generally I think round tables would be no worse than rectangular ones for skirmish games, vehicle/mech combat games and spaceship games, as long as you don’t mind the sub-optimal use of space it entails. For massed combat games, there are obvious downsides.12/02/2020 at 21:31 #131539SteelonsandParticipant
Interesting – I came across this video on YouTube a while back when considering ideas for DIY Dungeon terrain / boards – this chap takes the Lazy Susan idea and runs with it !12/02/2020 at 22:17 #131542RhodericParticipant
I found a photo of the Heavy Gear Blitz one I was talking about, and another one they did for Jovian Wars. They seem to be about 2-3 feet in diameter. For some reason I seemed to recall the Heavy Gear one being a bit more interesting-looking, with vegetation and an oasis. But no matter, it’s still a nice terrain build.13/02/2020 at 06:53 #131550MartinRParticipant
My pal Nick is a fan of round game boards. He uses them for his Bush Horizon games.
Tbh, I’m not sure what the real advantage is over a normal orthogonal board.
"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke13/02/2020 at 09:13 #131553RuarighParticipant
I recall the Urban War people making a round board for their participation games. The main advantage I can see in it is if you have an odd number of players: it makes it easier to space everyone round the table. With three players on an orthogonal board, someone always winds up sandwiched in the middle. On a circular board, everyone can start equidistant from each other and from the centre.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/13/02/2020 at 10:35 #131574PatriceParticipant
I never really thought about it… I use large rectangular boards these days, the shape wouldn’t fit.
We sometimes used round or oval tables in large multi-player games to represent some isolated region where some of the characters had adventures and negociations between them far from the larger boards/country but the reason was just the shape of the table.
http://www.anargader.net/13/02/2020 at 11:34 #131576SteelonsandParticipant
Lots of good looking boards there – the Jovian Wars one puts the thought in my mind that a circle might suit Starship gaming – could be the planet you are fighting above – sort of ‘nuke ’em from Orbit’ …..
I wonder if having a circular playing surface would make things friendlier / more collegiate and less adversarial ?
Less staring each other down from opposite ends and more rubbing elbows as you all have fun together ? 😄13/02/2020 at 11:55 #131577deephorseParticipant
Make trying to kill each other less adversarial? Never!
But on a more serious note, I can see the use of circular boards in a scenario where the defender is occupying a central position, and the attackers can/are coming from all sides. Rorkes Drift, The Alamo and half a hundred others come to mind. But I’m not going to invest in a table with limited uses when a rectangular one will suit all occasions.
Wargamers - successfully driving the fun out of wargaming since 178013/02/2020 at 15:22 #131586
Well the advantage I saw in particular was that it didn’t allow for “edge-of-the-earth” tactics which are pretty “gamey,” except, as mentioned, in games where flanking and battlefield definition is a big deal. Ancients, Napoleonics, etc. may not take to this as well, but siege games, and science fiction or skirmish might take well to it.13/02/2020 at 15:56 #13158814/02/2020 at 09:56 #131626
Yeah, I agree that games with large formations and battlelines are probably better on rectangular tables. The round ones above looks strangely attractive.
Tired is enough.14/02/2020 at 14:52 #13165114/02/2020 at 16:30 #131662Devon StartParticipant
i dont think it would make much of a difference to the game. someone already said you dont really use the corners much anyway, sometimes but not always.
the round seems also to really funnel in the action to a central point.
i dont see this working well for a huge pitched battle, a “proper” wargame.. but for RPG lite and skirmish style games i see this working really well.
i also feel that round looks more natural than square, like i prefer a diorama with a round or irregular shaped base than i do a straight one. so the round b games above sort of have that feel, especially the one with the cliffs(heavy gear?)14/02/2020 at 18:09 #131669
For a brief moment, Cigar Box Battles made circular game mats but they seem to have vanished. Given that I’m moving to a house with a circular dining table, I’m most interested in the possibility right now. I also liked the Heavy Gear circular terrain, and have a soft spot for stylish “edge cuts” on such tabletops, like you sliced it right out of the earth. It’s got a neat aesthetic.
My main focus is to finish some ongoing projects, after the move – 6mm skirmish and 3mm sci fi – both of which I think might take very well to this setup.16/02/2020 at 08:56 #131736Brian HandleyParticipant
I have never seen this as an advantage. I have not played on a round table, but we have considered playing corner to corner on an 8ft by 6ft so a simuilar effect minimal enty and exit area but a “wider board ” in the middle”. It has always been rejected as not offering any advantage and in effect being worse. However our own rules (Maneouvre Group) allows faster play and larger momement distances than standard rules so outflanking and defence in depth are more critical which means the reduced width off the center is a definite negative.
With more standard rules where movement is more restricted I could see the access advantages would be usefull.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.