PDA

View Full Version : What types of terrain do you like in your games?



Avian
30-11-2009, 12:52
For those who've read the other thread I have active currently, I'm fiddling around with a terrain generating system. To make it as good as possible, I'd like to hear what types of terrain people like to use in their games. Check any number of boxes above as appropriate. Thank you. :)

Select any option you'd like to use on regular or a semi-regular basis, say at least once per five battles or thereabouts.

Assume that you would be able to get hold of the terrain feature if you wanted it, so availability should not affect your decision.

Scythe
30-11-2009, 13:30
Pretty much a standard selection here I guess. Hills and woods are in every fantasy battle I play. Most of them also got a building or two (a tower, or a cottage or farm) and some linear obstacles (walls, hedges).

I like water features in my games (swamps, rivers, lakes), as they can drastically change the flow (no pun intended) of the game, creating a whole set of different challenges, but we don't really use them often enough so I did not vote for them on the poll. Large buildings also fall in this category.

Aurellis
30-11-2009, 13:33
I like to utilise a wide variety of terrain in my games but I narrowed it down to hills, ruins and swamps. I love ruins most because they give the battlefield a war-torn look and to me are more suitable than random buildings. Hills seem to be pretty essential too for simulating battlefield landscapes.

Keller
30-11-2009, 16:06
All of it! Not all in the same game, maybe, but I love variety. Use all kinds of terrain from the collection to make each game unique and interesting.

Desert Rain
30-11-2009, 18:21
All of it! Not all in the same game, maybe, but I love variety. Use all kinds of terrain from the collection to make each game unique and interesting.
+1
Variety is the key. Also, I'm a pretty big fan of boards with lots of terrain on them, like for example ~9 pieces on a regular 6'x4' table.

Laurela
30-11-2009, 19:34
Depends on the game, but generally hills, woods, a lone building, little fences/shrubs.

willowdark
30-11-2009, 19:42
I've been working in buildings and fences into my games lately. I think they really provide a dimension to the board that other feature don't.

I also voted for Scenic features since they really help me to immerse myself visually in the gaming environment. My games against LM regularly include the Ziggurat piece we have. I think it's great.

O&G'sRule
30-11-2009, 19:43
I rarely use one but I love a river. not as impassable just restrictive with a bridge or shallow area somewhere along it to get across easily. It gives a nice tactical problem, though not if you're playing dwarfs. I like a building too, especially useful for night goblins

willowdark
30-11-2009, 19:45
That's what I like about fences. they have a way of cutting a wide swathe across the board without completely killing movement. You can get across them, it just has to be worth it to do so.

warhawk95
30-11-2009, 19:52
woods and it has everything to do with the fact that i play WE. i prefer having the scenery represt something, at my battes we setup a town with a road, small ponds, plenty of houses fences. or a forest with an abondend brettonia/empire woodsmen shack and an ancient fountain with tons of woods. or an old ruin castle with some woods and hills. having random woods and hills is always cool too but battles made to reprsent something like a village or an enchanted grove are much better than just a random forest.

O&G'sRule
30-11-2009, 20:00
That's what I like about fences. they have a way of cutting a wide swathe across the board without completely killing movement. You can get across them, it just has to be worth it to do so.
The problem with fences is that ranked up units always get stuck half way over so the fence gets in the way, also (in my experience) they constantly fall over, get knocked and cunningly repositioned so that they work to one players advantage, whereas a river is flat, and easy to keep in place

Avian
30-11-2009, 21:22
I'm quite surprised that so many people like buildings. I thought people generally disliked the rules for them.

metal midget
30-11-2009, 21:40
i personaly like woods simple yet effective (plus we don't have many other features at my club) i generally dislike the hill as it cn give a huge advantage to an oppposing player.

Malorian
30-11-2009, 22:02
I like pretty much everything except for impassible terrain.

TMATK
30-11-2009, 22:02
I voted for everything except buildings. Hate them. Mainly due to mostly playing dwarfs I suppose. Once a unit of thunderers gets in one, it's pretty much impossible to get them out, in my experience anyway.

wilsongrahams
30-11-2009, 22:05
I love buildings, but tend to use them as impassable terrain rather than allowing units to enter them - they are usually small cottages etc and you could say the doors are locked. An impassable, blocking LOS piece of terrain is great for tactical maneouvering.

In fact look at the December White Dwarf - page 6 - my perfect battlefield (maybe adjust the trees a little.)

Kahadras
30-11-2009, 22:07
I like interesting stuff. Most players seem happy to whack down a couple of hills, a couple of woods and maybe a ruin or two. I prefer stuff like fields, villages, roads and rivers. Anything to give the battlefield a different 'feel' to it. Far to many people seem happy with a hill a wood and a vast expanse of open ground in the center. It's just a bit dull IMHO.

Kahadras

Malorian
30-11-2009, 22:40
I voted for everything except buildings. Hate them. Mainly due to mostly playing dwarfs I suppose. Once a unit of thunderers gets in one, it's pretty much impossible to get them out, in my experience anyway.

Thunderers? Even with shields they still aren't even as good as regular dwarf warriors... god help you if you face hammerers in a building ;)

I think you need to start sending in better troops to flush them out ;)

Weemo
30-11-2009, 22:47
my favourites are woods and buildings, they allow for the most tactical gameplay instead of, hey my 5 billion warmachines and shooters are on this 24 inch hill, you have 2 woods to hid behind..

With a wood you can play around it through it (skirmishers) use it for cover and flank protection, and this is made more fun by skirmishers and wood elf stuff moving thorugh it without penalty.

Buildings are interesting and i wish they were used more, a unit of thunderers in a building is death on a stick, whats that 20 360 degree line of site 24 inch range s4 shots, erm what? You can hide a wizard in them, fight over them as obkectives, for me they add real flavour and variety to the game.

TMATK
30-11-2009, 22:57
Thunderers? Even with shields they still aren't even as good as regular dwarf warriors... god help you if you face hammerers in a building ;)

I think you need to start sending in better troops to flush them out ;)

I don't care if hammerers go in a building, they don't have guns pointed out the windows!!

I play OnG, buildings take away all the static CR and dwarfs have good LD. I storm, get bounced out win or lose, then get blasted with dwarf handguns next turn. Not too much fun lol.

artisturn
01-12-2009, 04:47
Voted for Woods,Buildings and Swamp or lake.

I play VC and the shooting phase can be pretty brutal so I try to place terrain that will lesson the impact of that phase,places I can hide in or behind.
I always bring a little graveyard and just use the woods rule for it after making sure it was cool with everybody,it is like a rabbits foot for me and it adds to the fluff Vampires looting the cemetery for new troops.

Water features just look great on the table.

starlight
01-12-2009, 04:56
1) All
2) More
3) Both. :D

ChaosVC
01-12-2009, 08:51
I love forest, hills, buildings and all sorts of terrian as long as it makes the gaming table looks wonderful.

Rez
01-12-2009, 09:27
Im not a fan of buildings, rivers or things like the temple of skulls. Building rules are too fiddly, rivers can separate the battlefield too much and the temple of skulls is just a balls piece of terrain to try and implement in a fantasy game. The rest are fine, most of my battlefields use a combination of hills, woods, craggy/difficult terrain and fences/walls.

Goofycabal
01-12-2009, 09:51
Every game I play I try to set up the board in a thematic manner. A small cluster of Imperial buildings with maybe a hedge and a few copses of trees; a merchant's road through the wilderness with trees and rocks alongside; a graveyard in a clearing in the forest.

Therefore, pretty much every piece of terrain comes into play for me. Of course, not all in the same game, but it's never as boring as simply rocks, trees and hills.

If there were some decent rules for destroying buildings, rather than simply occupying them, I'd be all the more happier :P

Avian
01-12-2009, 10:05
Thank you for your responses, it seems I managed to get the features pretty much in descending order of popularity. :D

I have thrown together the first mockup of the terrain selection cards (added to other thread), based on the responses here. I did not add rivers (too big) or special scenic features (not defined enough), and the rest were used as follows (out of a total of 72 pieces):

Hill / wood: 16 each
Ruins / buildings: 9 each
Scrub / swamps: 6 each
Walls / crags: 5 each

I'm surprised more than 20% didn't like hills, of all things. I thought that was pretty much a staple. Is this because these people have armies with no shooting and don't want to give advantages to their opponents?

Lordsaradain
01-12-2009, 12:01
Hills, woods, ruins, fences and crags usually.