Tabletop wargaming has long struggled with visual spectacle and mechanical clarity, and few topics highlight that tension more clearly than the use of tokens, markers, and tabletop gaming aids. In todays video, I take a closer look at whether these tools enhance or detract from the immersive experience that draws so many hobbyists into miniature wargaming in the first place.
The discussion originates from a viewer who observed that early photo's of playtesting of our 1812 Retreat from Moscow rules introduced a range of counters and markers onto the tabletop. While entirely functional, it was noted that these elements sometimes “spoil the visual effect of the armies.” That observation opens up a much wider question that that I wanted to discuss today: how much visual clutter is too much?
So today I briefly discuss some of the major categories of wargaming tokens used across historical and skirmish systems. These include casualty and wound tracking markers, activation and turn order counters, status and condition effects such as pinned or suppressed, and tactical resource tokens like command points or ammunition tracking. Each serves a practical function, reducing bookkeeping and helping players manage increasingly complex rule systems without constantly referencing notes or rosters. These markers can enhance gameplay, but with a visual trade-off.
Historical wargaming is built on atmosphere, with painted miniatures, carefully crafted terrain, and cinematic table layouts forming a key part of the hobby experience. When that battlefield becomes crowded with brightly coloured counters and reminders, some of the illusion can be lost. The question is not whether tokens are useful (they clearly are) but whether their implementation can be improved. The video also explores practical solutions for hobbyists who want both clarity and aesthetics. One approach is integrating tokens into the visual language of the table itself. Instead of generic plastic markers, players can use scenic elements such as equipment piles, smoke effects, terrain-integrated counters, or themed objective markers. These subtle changes can preserve immersion while still providing the clarity needed for smooth gameplay.
I come down on the side that enhances game play for either umpire or players. Of course, there is an upper bound on the amount of clutter I am willing to tolerate.
ReplyDeleteI would echo Jonathan's comments in response to your interesting comments, Lee.
DeleteI'm in the "as little clutter as possible"-camp. The whole idea of miniature wargaming is to play ion a visual attractive battlefield, and all sorts of tokens detract from that. Especially ship combat games (whether it's WW2 or modern or scifi spaceships ...) are very prone to that, because the table usually is devoid of scenery, so there's a tendency for players to put all sorts of junk on the table ;-)
ReplyDeleteBut anyway, some degree of tokens and clutter is unavoidable, but in my games, I make a decent effort to let tokens "blend in" and/or make them visually pleasing. E.g. using small scenery items as tokens (wounded figures, rocks, even small animals ...) or dials that are flocked in the same way as the underlying terrain. Good games design also helps here: I think a well designed game minimizes the effort for visual bookkeeping.
If tokens are needed, I have a set of wooden chips in soft colours, all the same size, such that at least the token jungle doesn't become a visual incoherent mess ;-)
A big no-no for me are dice that serve as tokens. That's just ugly!
There was an interesting article in a very early issue of Wargames Illustrated (on Napoleonic generalship 1987 or so) that discussed how to indicate unit morale with groups of casualty figures around and behind the unit in question so that players could 'read' the tabletop battle as actual horse and musket generals were forced to do. A great idea, but there is the added time (and in 2026 expense) necessary to paint up those extras over and above the actual fighting troops. Tokens of some kind are certainly easier and cheaper even if they detract from the overall impression. Still. . .
ReplyDeleteKind Regards,
Stokes
(Michigan, USA)
I remember a similar article in which you could track the statistics of a unit by using variable poses of figures in the unit. E.g. the number walking figures would indicate movement allowance, firing soldiers firepower etc. A neat but somewhat unpractical idea for large units. However, I have used something similar in skirmish games: substitute a figure for a similar one but in a different pose to track wounds.
DeleteI like my tables tidy or with markers that are as intrusive as possible, or even better that are made of things used in the game . I think there is a market opportunity for casualty figures, ammo low , pinned etc items
ReplyDeleteI don't have a view on personal and club games but I think many demonstration games at shows are spoiled by too many tokens and general table clutter - and don't get me started on food and drink on display tables!
ReplyDeleteEntertaining and interesting as ever, Lee. While I have played boardgames for years, when there are models on the table it helps the appearance if the tokens are relevant. You didn't mention the classics: cotton-wool smoke to indicate that muskets have fired a volley, models of casualties (which used to be included in Airfix sets back in the day), figures turned to face the rear (indicating morale failure) or laid on their side. As you suggest, many tokens can be made unobtrusive or visually relevant with some thought. You could have the same discussion about grid areas (which avoid a lot of measuring and attendant arguments) without making the table look like a boardgame. Relevant to players of the "Dominion of" series or "To the Strongest" or "Strength & Honour".
ReplyDeleteA very well thought through vlog post Lee. Personally I try to have the minimum use of tokens possible and if possible to have markers look like they're part of the scene.The use of figures around the unit: casualty figures to record hits works with my preferred rules (Twilight of the Soldier Kings) which only have 2 or 3 'hit' steps per unit. Mounted officers for 'command pips' is a good idea from Polemos Napoleonic rules. Number of figures on a command base - I swing from using this method either to show the quality of the commander or the level of command (army, wing, brigade), depending on the rules.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, my table is liberally sprinkled with small dice when I need something a bit more 'compact'.
Sorry, forgot to sign off, Chris (Nundanket).
DeleteI am in the camp that they are a necessary evil! Our mate Mark at 1866 and all That has made a large batch of custom casualty/morale markers for his games.
ReplyDeleteWe have played TtS and it's derivatives quite a bit and I quite like them but one thing I don't like is the playing cards all over the table!