[Don Glewwe]

Take some cushion foam (the soft kind you can find in sheets at craft/sewing stores like  https://www.joann.com/airtex-2in-x-24in-high-density-foam-sheet/2180289.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organicshopping ), rip around a couple board feet of it into semi-small bits (~1-2″ max), add around a quarter-cup or so (like making dough: it’s all about the feel) of household latex paint that matches your table’s pallet (a quart mixed up will last quite a while and will be useful across all of your terrain/basing projects), mush it all up a bit, dump it into a blender (that you won’t use for anything else, so from a thrift store?), and give it a good pulsing until the bits are the size you’d like.  Spread out the mess on some wax paper and let it dry.

Pulsing cubes/boxes of the foam until they’re a bit ‘wonky’, then pressing them onto toothpicks and stood up (in insulation foam?) to dry can make good-enough trees that are half-to-one-inch diameter – different shades of paint and/or a quick sprinkle of fine turf (before they dry) can serve to make a decent variety.  The ‘leftover’ little scrap niblets that are created can be spread out/dried/used as with the foliage process noted.

 

Caveat: It’s been years since I did this in bulk in a shop, so my memory is undoubtedly playing tricks on the accuracy of what I’ve described, but the gist is solid…I think ; )

[Don Glewwe]

… using 15mm models on 6mm terrain!

The terrain is 2mm = ground scale.  The buildings are just representative foam mock-ups and not there as a particular structure, but the sizes of the fields represent the actual terrain and so any conflict comes from the minis themselves and not from putting them in the wrong scale terrain.

…15mm models…on appropriate terrain…

If the battlefield were to be modeled to accommodate 15mm minis then it would be the terrain that was wrong, i.e.: fields and structures that were 7.5x too large and, so, representative of something other than a ‘real’ piece of land that doesn’t jibe with the tabletop distances (movement and weapon ranges) used to model the fight.  The 50-meter tank will be moving around a 100-meter wide farmhouse to take up a position along a 1000-meter wall = a visual incongruity that -as I mentioned- jars the sensibilities of off-the-street non-gamers that I find it difficult to explain.  ymmv

To emphasize: It’s all up to personal taste/preference, but making a choice should, imo, be done with the knowledge (as best can be obtained) of what is gained and lost in that decision.  …or not – the amount of effort/concern put into the thing is as much a matter of taste/preference as the result itself!

[Don Glewwe]

…it gets even worse if you consider that a typical 15mm tank model is about 50 metres long!

Yup! Here’s a shot of some 2mm mockups and 6mm side by side:

…and here are two 15mm models (the most that can fit) in the same battle situation:

Putting five 15mm models out is -at best- inhibitive, and sometimes -as in the case of wanting to position the platoon in the small field at the top of the photo (a not-unreasonable tactical desire)- impossible.

…it’s a consequence of the large difference between ground scale and model scale.

I agree – but I see no reason to exacerbate the difficulty by choosing minis that are so large as to directly inhibit/prohibit what players can do on the tabletop.

dunno…My gaming history involves a lot of friends/family-who-aren’t-gamers-being-roped-into-playing, and presenting them with situations like the above (“Why can’t I put my tanks into that field? …because the models don’t fit?) would see the end of their participation – and I’d have to agree with them.

There’s no magic bullet/solution, but I think choices can be made to minimize the effects of the difficulties model size creates (-that pesky reality getting in the way of our fun! 🙂 ) .

…change the 1:1 model scale for infantry to more like 1 base is a section/squad.

Or -if using 15-20mm figs- keep the ‘section’ as a unit (fine, imo, at this Company level game?) and simply use a single figure to represent it.  It substitutes the “This one guy is really six guys” problem for the “These guys take up 10 (20?) times too much space on the table so you can’t put them where you’d like to” problem, but I’d say the former is the lesser of two evils.

 

It’s all personal preference, of course.  A game’s objective is to have fun (right?), so if the way it’s being done satisfies that goal then it’s all good.

 

Time to join the discussion group Don! This is just the kind of input I need.

Done! …but I do like to give TWW a ‘piece of the action’ (where people can recognize my name/avatar and so avoid my posts!).

[Don Glewwe]

Any FoW gamer will find their basing will work well.

Took a quick glance and saw a (rough?) ground scale of 1:1000.  Wouldn’t that make a team/half-section occupy ~30×50-meters of ground?  -seems a bit too large of a footprint? …dunno

[Don Glewwe]

I have a bit of a mix on mine…

That’s the sort of assortment my brothers and I would use to play a game in the way-back-then: Just dump the basket of  toys onto the floor, divvy it up, and cry havoc! ; )

[Don Glewwe]

“Noice.”  Very.

“…trees, thousands of ’em.”   – yup.  One of those things/projects that look massive on the bench and then shrink to “oh my god I need more…” on the table.

[Don Glewwe]

Today’s not-at-all-necessary-why-did-I-spend-the-last-four-hours-doing-it project:

Markers to denote a knocked-out tank platoon.  Could’ve just done a bit of fluff or put some sort of marker on the figure (1/300), but since the ground scale is 1:1000 I didn’t think it a good WYSIWYG representation of the space it would take up (and LOS it would block) so took some styrene strip stock and whipped up a Company’s worth of Shermans…

…and here’s the first Platoon in (in)action on the table:

[Don Glewwe]

For a half-dozen years or so my interest keeps circling back to something involving ‘Task Force Butler’ following Operation Dragoon in August ’44.  The ad hoc battlegroup was involved in combat (as an ‘official’ unit) for only two weeks, iirc, but saw action that could (I think) generate both interesting scenarios as well as some sort of campaign set over the course of those two weeks.

[Don Glewwe]

…get rid of the ability to avoid a lagging unit…Attacking piecemeal due to lack of communications and some units getting lost or to the start line positions too early/late is a common situation…

Good point.  Perhaps (to make it not so nasty) give a chance(roll) for the player to find out that B Company isn’t ready yet (-based on Troop Rating, similar to deployment?) so that the attack can be delayed until they’re set?

[Don Glewwe]

“Bases should be unobtrusive.”

This.  They should keep the fig(s) upright and not get in the way of the game (because of their size more than any visual distraction…but that can be annoying as well).

[Don Glewwe]

Okay, here’s an off-the-cuff, one-cup-of-coffee idea for determining the (campaign) time used to get a (foot) Infantry Battalion (3 Companies +Supports) deployed into position for an attack across a half-mile frontage from a single-road march:

Deployment: Each Company (in road order) and equivalent support unit rolls 2d6 x5 = number of minutes used to get into position.  Results may never be less than a previous roll, but instead default to the previous roll.  This would allow the player the option to begin without a lagging unit if desired.

Any possible artillery support (beyond incorporated mortars or such) requires its own roll, but multiplies the result by 10 to determine the number of minutes required — # dice rolled = 1d6 +1d6 for every command level above Battalion.  As with the individual Companies, the player then has the option to proceed without the artillery support if the resulting time is judged excessive.

Planning: Roll 1d6 x10 = number of minutes used to plan the attack.  The player may continue to roll one die at a time until the desired number of minutes has accumulated, but the number rolled on each die must always be used/added to the total (i.e.: player cannot add just ‘some of’ a number rolled on a die).

The Rub (‘cuz there’s always a catch…): Every 10 minute increment less than 100 used to plan the attack will generate a turn (counted from the beginning of the game) in which the attacking force suffers from a ‘poor deployment’ restriction.  During those turns, any unit deploying onto the table must first roll (1d6) greater than or equal to its troop rating (3, 4, or 5) to successfully deploy – a failure means that they cannot deploy that turn, and the order chit/point used in the attempt is lost.  This would give a force with a higher rating a better chance to pull off a hasty attack?

 

Obviously, the greater result of the two steps (deployment and planning) will determine the minimum time (plans aren’t worth much if the troops aren’t in position…and vice versa).

I’m going to pour another cup of coffee…

[Don Glewwe]

…unless planned in advance…fire support…would need to be called in by Forward observers and unit commanders on the hoof.

…a hasty attack…could result…a lot more…[or] the bare minimum of support given..

Good points – thank you for the ideas.

[Don Glewwe]

Thanks much for the info!  -should be enough dried paint to allow me to come up with something workable. ; )

[Don Glewwe]

“Hope that has contributed some meaninglessness to the more-than-the-usually-meaningless rumination.”

Indeed in has! Thank you very much…that looks to have been a few gallons of drying paint. ; )

[Don Glewwe]

“The battalion mortars might be available in minutes if sitting ready in “overwatch”.  Otherwise it will be much longer easily an hour or more.  WW2 radios were pretty bad. wire remained important but a road march probably hasn’t laid any.”

That makes sense.  Any guesses as to how long the Battalion (Companies + organic support) would take to shake out of a road march, put together some sort of plan, and begin an attack?

[Don Glewwe]

I never glue trees or building to terrain boards….you can reposition them or swap out pieces to gain a great deal of more variety…also easier to store…

I agree wholeheartedly with this.  Using the rigid insulation foam for tiles* allows me to pin my terrain (rather than base it, which eliminates ‘extra’ footprint) which gives, as Logain mentioned, great flexibility for layout.  Storage is a box with a sheet of foam into which the items are pinned -if a deep box, multiple layers can be stacked as per Mr.Average‘s spacers.

 

*I use the boards under cloth, but the principal applies equally well to ‘finished’ boards(?)

[Don Glewwe]

“…equivalent foam…on this page?”

I believe it would be the pink stuff – that’s what I use, anyway.   “Precise cuts” -if DIY- are a matter of having a good worksurface/straightedge/blade.  All of those can be fulfilled with a tablesaw, but lacking that it can be managed with care by hand.

edit: This looks to be what you’re looking for? https://www.homedepot.com/p/Project-Panels-Formular-1-in-x-2-ft-x-2-ft-Rigid-Foam-Board-Insulation-Sheathing-PP1/203553730 …so the cutting problem would be solved…dunno how ‘precise’ they are, but…?

 

“…why do they say those tiles are suitable for 15mm and 20mm?”

If you can find an answer to that -and why similar statements regarding figure size/scale are thick on the ground in advertising/discussion of rules- you will have unlocked the mystery of life!  ; )

[Don Glewwe]

My opinion (which -if past performance holds true to form- will end the conversation) is that the key facet of the issue is that the relationship between the figure size and the distances (both movement and weapon range) should ‘look right’, i.e.: Make visual sense to the player(s).  Numbers-wise, this means that figure and ground scale should be as close to the same as possible.

The reason = The purpose of the miniatures (both figures and their usually-matched-scale terrain) on the table* is to provide players with information on the units and their place in the battlefield by means of physical modeling/representation.  “That guy/group/thing is a whatsit, and it’s around that far from the thingamajig.”  The less mental/mathematical gymnastics players are forced to do in order to translate that information into meaningful gaming data that can aid/influence the decisions they have to make, the better.

While this applies most effectively to games where one figure = one unit, its value in large, block-formation games is just as great – having lots of 3 or 6mm figures to represent a unit of hundreds of men does a better job in communicating what it is than a stand with 4 or 6 28mm figures.

 

* related to the goal of modeling the action in a game – as a lifelong (and former professional) model builder there are few ahead of me in the line to crouch down to look closely at a gorgeous model…but…gaming has a different focus/goal, and I tend to lean into that when I’m building something for the tabletop.

[Don Glewwe]

“…scattering of dirt and foliage bits…”

As a final step in making a table it really makes an impact – and easy to clean up/dump into a baggie for the next time!

[Don Glewwe]

Done.  I realize it’s not that great, but it feels good to get it off of the ‘to do’ list.

[Don Glewwe]

“Winter battles are always striking visually.”

For a feast, check out the “Fangs of the Wolf” campaign: https://thewargamersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4954

[Don Glewwe]

…what should I do with all the other windows? I don’t want the players to be able to shoot from every direction so I don’t know if I should still carve the other windows or painting dark in those windows

If the objective is to not allow troops in the building to fire then there shouldn’t be any windows – needs will must, as they say.  If there isn’t a floor for them to stand on then just painting them on would work game-wise, but -visually- would look odd for a blown-out building to have intact glass?  The work you’ve done on the ruined side looks very good, and not matching it with the other walls would, I think, detract from it.

[Don Glewwe]

The goal to “minimise footprint and maximise storage” seems to be hindered by the use of spaces/holes for the paint?  All of the white area shown in the photo of the mockup is wasted space.  Better, as Mike suggested, to allow the paint “tubs/pots right next to each other so they take up less space than racks with dividers”?

Also, the round format -while using the least amount of area- may create corners of ‘dead space’ on a workbench that would be filled by a rectangular rack?  dunno…

[Don Glewwe]

70″ x 80″, with 18″ x 80″ side-tables behind each long side for the ‘crud’.

[Don Glewwe]

“…it feels daft to have a random pattern on them…”

Rationalization = The pattern is used not to hide the vehicle but to mask its identity, and since the special material used to absorb and/or alter the waves of the detection devices cannot be covered in a pigment, a two (or three?) tone pattern on vehicles naturally results from their application.

 

Luckily, the natural color of the special material (whether Obscurium or Noseeum or Hidium or …?) just happens to be the same color as the one you have on your shelf! ; )

[Don Glewwe]

Getting the figure scale as close to the ground scale (for skirmish/1:1 ratios) is really helpful for gameplay by communicating to players a better picture of the action that is being modeled on the tabletop – especially for the ’empty battlefield’ of WW2, as well as allowing a better physical interaction between figures/terrain and the game’s distances (movement/firing).

[Don Glewwe]

I use old genestealers (I think that’s their name?) for my ‘bugs’ – they’re suitably creepy looking and give off a proper ‘terror vibe’ in a cramped space…

 

[Don Glewwe]

“The added bonus it that the roof is hinged…”

Ahh…this may be an idea worth stealing/exploring.  Where to set the roof/upper floor of a model when accessing the interior during play is a bit of an issue –  dunno…worth a look, anyway.

[Don Glewwe]

So what is your opinion?

Layout/table setup: Seems a decent idea.  Depends, I think, on how easy it is to vary the lengths of the ‘chains’ – if fiddling with pins to make the joins is required I’m not sure the gain in flexibility is worth the trouble? …dunno

Visual: The individual stock pieces look too “wall-y” to me – perhaps a healthy layer of irregular flocking would help?  The articulated, faceted nature of the pieces also contributes to the un-natural feel – though, tbh, it does work with the overall tiled theme of the tabletop.

This topic probably only applies to 1/144 scale. At 1/300 you could use pipe cleaners so you have the ultimate flexible hedge. At 1/72 and above the amount of hedge required falls dramatically as the area you represent drops dramaticaly or real terrain is no longer reflected for various reasons.

Confused a bit – Is this to do with ground scale or figure scale?  Seems like the latter which strikes me as odd for the era gamed, but then I’m well across the odd-line, so… ; )

[Don Glewwe]

Single-source info I found/used:

A Battalion (of four Batteries) could be assigned to an infantry Division.

A Battery had two Platoons, each with four Sections of an M16 and a Bofors (?)

http://www.militaryresearch.org/44-27%2022Apr44.pdf

 

As a Divisional asset I figured their distribution was pretty much “whatever the General wanted”?  For my planned Battle of the Bulge campaign I decided that farming the Batteries out to each static-defense infantry Battalion and, further down the line, one Section to each Company made enough sense to me to game it that way…dunno.

[Don Glewwe]

Do 10mm terrain eat up too much space…

…prefer it to be in line with the ground scale.

 

This is the key point, imo, for skirmish games – and I would lump miniatures into the mix as well, because a figure’s base that takes up an inordinate amount of real estate on the table hurts the game as much (if not more than) an overly large house, wall, whatever.

To borrow from Real Estate: It’s ground scale, ground scale, ground scale.  The further away from it with the minis/terrain, the more harm done to gameplay by prohibiting troops from occupying much of the tablespace simply because something else (be it another fig or a piece of terrain) is getting in the way, or by creating unrepresentative distances (either for movement or weapon range) because the table is set up to ‘look right’ with the too-large figures.

[Don Glewwe]

…a nice, neat, clean and well organized studio space…

Best get some of those troops set up to ward off the mess-imps that heard that claim and are working to spread chaos to the space! ; )

[Don Glewwe]

I’m a model builder.  For 60 years I’ve been rearranging bits of stuff so that it looks like something else.  Some of that rearranged stuff has ended up on a table (or floor, or yard, or…?) and used to act like something else.  Broadly speaking: The figures and terrain used in gaming model the things, while the game itself models the actions.

So, for myself, the play is chiefly an extension/expression of the foundational desire to model stuff.  On that basis, the background/history/storytelling aspect that Henry mentions is an essential part of the process since it answers the “What is being modeled?” question.

[Don Glewwe]

This week I’m continuing to chip away at putting landing gear on my 1/300 WW1 aircraft collection.  (The stock white metal stuff was deemed unusable and so left off at the time of construction over the past decade.)

[Don Glewwe]

I lean towards matching the figure scale to the ground scale as best I can – that way the tabletop is as much WYSIWYG, making the ‘translation’ players have to do from what the models are to what they represent as little/nonexistent as possible.

 

Although Crossfire has no specific ground scale I use 6mm to get what I feel is the correct ‘look’ for the battlefield/tabletop -YMMV.

[Don Glewwe]

From the linked AAR:

…2LT Morrisson falls back, leaving a burnt out tank and a number of dead and wounded on the battlefield.

“What do I do about my men, Sir? I..I mean, my casualties.” the LT asked forlornly.
“Never mind them for now.  We’ll worry about that once we clear this Hamlet.” 

 

While the campaign doesn’t track platoon casualties (the Americans being able to feed in a fresh unit for each game) I included an effect of sorts when I also found hard going on the first map (taking three attempts/platoons to break through).  Casualty figures were placed/left on the table during the game and when the new troops came upon them in following games they gained a point of shock.  It wasn’t game-changing, but I felt it added a bit to have the Sgts/Lts have to take a moment(activation) to steady the men, creating some cost/counter to having what is effectively an infinite supply of platoons – especially in certain ‘popular’ fields/hedgerows where the bodies piled up and I thought an impact on the green troops of the 175th was appropriate.

[Don Glewwe]

Along the lines of “too granular”… ; )

Will some sort of dodge/defense modifier be applied?  If so, perhaps the table should be arranged so as to reduce hits to the torso/head when applied?

Another ‘perhaps’: Roll first for the severity of the hit and ignore the location if ’tis but a scratch?

[Don Glewwe]

…good board game, what are your impressions of it?

I can’t really speak from experience as I only tried it once as intended (solo, ~10 yrs ago?) and didn’t manage to get through the day before having to put it away – it takes up a lot of space!

The altitude system -while clever- is a tad clumsy in requiring one to look it up on a table (one for each of five(?) range bands) since the markers for each flight/aircraft counter only indicate a relative status within each band unique to the aircraft type (instead of number of feet).  I can’t think of a better way, but…

Overall, it is a ‘bookish’ game with lots of tracking and tallying – not off-target as to the intent, imo, but one should go into it with the purpose of ‘watching to see what happens’ as the goal (sort of like ‘Target for Tonight’).  It can be fun, I think, but does require a lot of time/space.

[Don Glewwe]

Thanks for taking the time/effort to construct and post these AARs.  Trying (and most often failing…) to shoot/write up things like this myself makes me appreciate all the more the great amount of work that goes into doing it.

[Don Glewwe]

Is the stand to be used to pose a ground attack aircraft?   If so, consider a tripod that -while having three times as many contact points with the table- will have a total footprint that is smaller than a single base and (more importantly) present a greater selection of table locations that can be used since a single, large-ish flat space is not required.

[Author]

Posts