It’s a question that comes up more often than you’d think: how much terrain do you really need on a wargaming table? Whether you're setting up a battlefield for a historical engagement, a club night skirmish, or a full-scale demo game, the amount of terrain you use can have a big impact on both gameplay and visual appeal. In my latest video, I respond to a great viewer question about the recommendations in Neil Thomas’s rulebooks, where he suggests games with 8 units per side and 3–6 terrain features depending on the scenario. That sparked a wider discussion about what the “right amount” of terrain really is, and how personal style, game system, and figure scale all play a role in answering that.
Personally, I’m a firm believer in the idea that more is more, especially when you’re working in smaller scales like 6mm or 2mm. In these games, terrain is crucial not only for gameplay mechanics like cover and movement, but also for bringing the battlefield to life. That said, not every piece needs to serve a rules function. Sometimes terrain can just be set dressing, adding immersion and narrative without complicating the game.
I also take a look at the so-called “1/3 rule”—the idea that one-third of the table should be covered in terrain. While it’s a popular guideline, I’m not convinced it’s always right, especially in historical contexts where battlefields can vary wildly. Instead, I encourage gamers to think in terms of visual density and scenario needs.
And of course, I want to hear from you—what’s your approach to terrain? How do you strike the right balance for your games? As always, pop over to the channel, watch the video and leave your thoughts in the comments.
Interesting post Lee. As usual the answer as you sum up is "it depends", and quite right. You mention many times but don't explicitly say it, the period at play is important. This correlates with lethal range. Until the advent of rifled artillery and long range small arms a more open battlefield would be possibly more likely.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that a plain or open country is itself terrain. Plus, as you say, there must be a balance as the primary function of the tabletop is to facilitate the game. Good post.
Lee, I appreciate that you have summarized some of the highlights of your video into text here. For me, it is easier to reply to the written word than the spoken word.
ReplyDeleteAs Richard points out, the answer, for me, is "it depends." Even when reconstructing historical battles, I lean toward the "less is more" camp. Too much terrain makes a game almost unplayable. I value seeing player tactics and decision-making at the fore and more important than a pretty table. Well, in most cases, anyway. I know that I am likely in a minority.