Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Continually brainstorming for a generic war game system to use with my friends in our role-playing games big battle scenes. So far (as some may know) I have a combat resolution core mechanic, and recently settled on metric for the distance definition system. Now before I start coming up with movement and rangefinding core mechanics, I need to decide on a very important thing: WHAT SIZE AND SHAPE BOARD AM I GOING TO PLAY ON!? Big decision! Pun intended! This will help decide on little things like how much of a change of distance between two units do I want per turn, how many turns can I expect/force the game to have before bullets start flying. That kinda minor stuff. While a rule set could include a section on how to modify the game for different boards, I feel it important to have a 'standard' game board design to build the game on y'know? Right now in the brain storm I'm thinking about the classic large squares and rectangles of various sizes. And batting around ideas on circular boards as well.

So I'd like to hear your thoughts on boards! Not necessarily terrain on those boards but feel free to interject them as footnotes. I'd like to hear about how close you like to start to your opponent, how many turns you think is appropriate to move across the board, how far across the board a unit ought be able to shoot, or game relavant details in general. I'd also like to hear about the more abstract bits like when you visualize a 'combat zone' being displayed on a scanner or map, how do you imagine its defined? How would you define it on a particular board type? And also what type of gaming tables you have used in your games. Feel free to stream of conscience on the subject. I usually find a way to use all the info.

Thanks for your input and proceed to be awesome!

It is highly dependent on the type of system you are designing, but scale is a very important consideration, both in terms of battle size and model size.

How big are "big battle scenes", for example. Are you talking something like a few squads or fire teams (~one platoon) maybe with light vehicle support, scenes with multiple platoons, company sized battles with artillery and air support, etc.?

It really depends on how many models you will need to fit on the table.

For 28mm, 3x3 is usually fine for small skirmish games, but 4x4 gives more room. 6x4 is really necessary when you start fielding platoons. At smaller model scales you can put more troops on a smaller table. It is possible to draw broad generalities like this because if movement is too constrained at a given scale, the game can feel wrong. If 28mm humanoid models can only move a total of 2 inches every turn, but are otherwise doing a lot of other things in a game turn, it can feel like the models are too slow for the amount of time a game turn covers, even from a very abstract perspective..

In terms of gameplay, the amount of movement required before "contact" is, in my opinion, dependent on how important movement and positioning is to strategy. If it is very important, you probably want there to be more space between enemy models to allow more time to jockey for position. If it is not as important, you probably want to avoid dragging down the process with monotonous, pointless gameplay.

You want your game to have the right "feel" as in capturing the interest of the participants all the way through. If you have a system where the first 4 turns are taken up by very obvious movement, perhaps you need to give the models less room. On the other hand, if those 4 turns of movement are tense and exciting because those moves involve a great deal of critical thinking, risk, etc. then that much time spent moving is probably fine because it is capturing the interest of the participants.

What you don't want is a situation in which one player is, say, dug in right from initial set up, and the opposing player needs to go through the motions of game turns while his opponent has nothing to do. If I might as well get a soda while my opponent does his thing, you might as well eliminate or streamline those steps.

Here is a good example:

I am running a Wild West Fantasy skirmish game. The players play cooperatively against GM'd bad guys in narrative scenarios.

In one scenario the PCs were riding into a rough and tumble frontier town popular with ne'er-do-wells in order to locate and detain a wanted criminal. All they had to go on was a drawing from a wanted poster, so the way the scenario was set up was that the target was in a saloon in the center of the table along with a bunch of other models. The PCs did not know which model was their guy. They had to make their way to the saloon without arousing suspicion or they would risk tipping off their target.

Okay, so what that means is that the first half of the scenario was just the PCs moving their models around. Nobody had guns out, nobody was considered an enemy, etc. That might be very boring, especially since the PCs had to act nonchalantly and it would take at least several turns of walking to cover the distance from deployment to the saloon. What made that potentially boring movement interesting was that I was keeping track of how the PCs decided to move. Were they all in one group, were they walking directly to the front door, how close were they to NPC models, etc. etc. And there was a system in place, based on a random die roll every turn, to see if they tipped off their target. So there was some risk involved.

The point is that as long as the game is interesting, it does not matter what you are doing in the game. If the scenario had involved the PCs in a gunfight outside of the saloon, I wouldn't have them deploy so far away that it would take three turns of boring movement to get within shooting range; I would arrange deployment so they would start the game where their models would probably end up after several turns of boring movement.

(I was hoping for more replies first but whatever.)

@weeble1000
I think I mis-communicated the question. To rephrase it: If I were to say "Pick a board size and shape that you would want to play on for comfort, usability, and so on" which one would you pick. I know my ideas of how many turns I want before engagement and I know my opinions on model counts and sizes and so on, but I'd like to know other gamers opinions. It may seem back wards but I want to build this from the board up to the concepts and rules, not the concepts and rules down to the board. You have full well written out the background concerns that influence me to ask the question but you haven't answered it, see what I'm saying? Thanks anyway man. Nobody seems to have a particular opinion one way or the other anyway so I'll just have to pick one and go from there. Oh well. Peace!

First. One day and you're already walking away. Have some patience.

Second. As you point out your first post was pretty scattered. Make a clear ask and put the details and context separately below.

Third. I recommend 4x6 for mass battle It's big enough to have some fights, small enough that it will fit into most rooms. 4x8 is nice, but it's BIG.

Fourth. Have you looked at the generic or stats-included mass battle games out there before making your own. No harm in making your own, but there are some good choices already that either include all the profiles you'd need or give you the mechanism to stat your own units.
For Fantasy, No Quarter (free online), Kings of War (also free from mantic) or Armies of Arcana (for sale, but it is generic) are possibilities.

Well, its been two days now and were the only ones here bro, I think its dead Jim, haha In my defense the OP intro paragraph was vague, somewhat intentionally, and the second paragraph posed the questions adequately enough to initiate conversation. It as you said did "make a clear ask..." oh Freudian slips, how we love you.

But now that were on the same frequency, 4x8 eh? Now you say thats nice but I would've thought it too long to the width. I saw some guys at the flgs once take two 4x6's and side by side play a game on a 6x8. Would that be cool or annoying? And I have browsed the other more popular rule sets but haven't tried your posted three, will go look 'em up. It is worth mentioning that I am looking for/creating something that can go between fantasy and sci-fi rather easily, so we'll see what happens.

Uggg have patience as others have pinted out already. It may take time here on Dakka to get any serioues amount of answwers regardless of your question.

Back on topic : I prefer one size on my gaming table, regardless of system. And that is the game tabel size I use for 40k/fantasy, that size works wonders I think. And seldom feels to big/small unless you play like Apoc games very often.

I still don't really understand the point of the question.

The board size I feel comfortable playing on is a board size that works well for the game, in which case see my earlier post.

If you are talking about purely physical concerns without any concern about the game, a 3x3 board is easy to make, easy to store, and fits on most tables and coffee tables.

3x3 is a "coffee table" game board.

You could do a 3x4 as a sort of mini 6x4 in the sense that you have two short table edges and two long table edges. I inadvertently made a folding portable table like that when I built a transport box for my giant Blood Bowl stadium. It is a handy size for skirmish gaming and fits easily on top of a dining room table or even a small folding table.

4x4 is bigger than most standard table widths in the US, meaning that you have to have a special board. Even broken into two 4x2 sections or folded in half, a 4x4 table requires a large storage space.

6x4 is a fine playing surface, but it is bulky and awkward. Thinner, lighter materials at that size then to sag or warp, and heavy materials are, well, heavy. A purpose built, dedicated waraming table that lives in a particular space is great as a 6x4 or even bigger. With a 6x4, even if you are playing a 3x3 or a 4x4 table game, you have plenty of extra room on the table for cards, tokens, extra models, drinks, etc.

A 2"+ edge around a board is a good thing to have. It allows a little extra space for the clutter that is inevitably attracted to a gaming table.

But, whatever board size you are comfortable with, it might be a terrible size for the game. Are you really just concerned about building a gaming table? In that case, the minimum size you need to play the game is important to know.

Quick answer: 4x6 or 4x4.

Is it a game of mass combat, with blocks of troops movin around - and in 28mm? Then 4x6 or even larger. If you're doing the same but in, say, 3mm scale, you can go smaller.

A skirmish game with a decent amount of vehicles/infantry, individually based? 4x6 or 4x4.

A tiny skirmish game, with nothing more than 5-10 models to a side? 4x4 down to 2x2.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
. It as you said did "make a clear ask..." oh Freudian slips, how we love you.

But now that were on the same frequency, 4x8 eh? Now you say thats nice but I would've thought it too long to the width. I saw some guys at the flgs once take two 4x6's and side by side play a game on a 6x8. Would that be cool or annoying? And I have browsed the other more popular rule sets but haven't tried your posted three, will go look 'em up.

Not sure what's Freudian about that statement. "Making an ask" is a pretty common phrase I've heard in community organizing circles. Regardless....

Writing rules that require a big table like a 4x8 is a BAD idea for any game. Make a game that plays well on the sizes of tables that can easily fit in a persons house. Unless of course these rules are only going to be played in a place where you have big tables. Folks who love a game will inevitably try it on larger tables, but if a large table is a requirement it will limit the number of potential players/buyers.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
It is worth mentioning that I am looking for/creating something that can go between fantasy and sci-fi rather easily, so we'll see what happens.

Bad idea. Every month it seems someone tries to write a ruleset that will encompass varied scopes and genres and they always fail, because different genres of games play differently. There are some exceptions. A modern ruleset might be convertable to sci-fi or a sci-fi to post apoc or two rulesets might share some base mechanics, but these are the exceptions. One of the most important features of a good ruleset is that it is focused.
Pick a...
1) Genre (Sci, Fantasy, specific historical era, etc)
2) Scope (Mass Battle, Platoon Skirmish, Squad v squad or warband skirmish, etc)
3) Level of complexity. (Fast play, moderately complex, hightly detailed, etc)
4) Scale (28mm, 15mm, 6mm, etc.) Sometimes there is some crossover within a scale or two, but scale is a very important consideration.
...and write a set of rules that best serves a game within those parameters!

I play in a club that plays almost exclusively generic and independent rulesets. There are so many great rulesets out there and they all serve different kinds of games so we've found that it's silly to try and find one ruleset that covers a wide range of genres.

Best of luck with the game whether you adopt existing rules or write your own.

I think 6x4 is a comfotable size and most acessable however i like playing on 8x6 boards, i find it more enjoyable and gives 'more realism' imho. I like the fact theat when using 40k or other scifi games it really helps distinguish between short and long range, makes maoving a lot more key, when fighting IG or Tau amkes it more that the long range support is exactly that.

Also for historical settings i like the extra room for manouvering and to make the board seem a lot more real with the terrain.

Many have asked what the number of units would be and what not, scale of battle/scale of model. So lets re-pose the question with some fill in info.

Lets say you get on average 3-5 Infantry/cavalry units roughly between 3 and 10 men/women apiece nothing over 15 and then for support you have up to a 'max' of five vehicles/chariots/helos. No non-hovering type aircraft. lets go with 28mm scale dudes as most minis of any type will 'fit' that base scale.

So then, with that in mind, what size table would be your choice, and what shape if different?

Then, if you have thoughts about movement distance on that scale board or ranges of weapons, feel free.