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.

I'm building a furniture grade table with fold outs. Would YOU rather play on a 16x4 table or 8x8 for a big battle? Keep in mind that a 16x4 would allow my friends and I to play 2 games simultaneously. Also that I have started accumulating Scalextric Slotcars so 8x8 may be better. 8x4 will be the base and it will fold out on piano hinges.

A 16x4, definitely. Mostly because I am not very tall and find reaching to the middle of a large table can be perilous for models.

16x4 too.
I'm not short, but a square table had more issues (especially with TLOS involved)

16x4 would be easier. 12x4 more agreeable to the boss (wife) when not deployed too. As it would be 4x6 in that case.

When I was a youth, I played on a 10 x 10 board and it was great, but hard to reach the middle. I find 8X8 to be better for this.

The issue with 16 x 4 is you really do not give yourself any additional room to maneuver than a 6x4 since the distance to the center from the long edges is still the same. You will just have a lot of wasted space and a right, center, and left deployment/general individual battle.

8X8 gives both armies additional room for maneuver before you hit the engagement range. However, that means more time simply moving and less time fighting.

Therefore, your mileage may vary. I prefer some maneuver room before the big push. To me a 8x6 would be the "best" gaming table.

I'd agree with easy that 16x4 is too shallow to allow for real maneuvering. But 8x8 is probably too deep for real usage.

8x6 is a common table size for bigger game since it gives more room to maneuver in all directions without being too hard to move units around if they're in the middle. 10x5 may be another compromise.

Well, the basic design is a box on casters. The top can be 4x8 or 4x6. Then there can be piano hinges on either the long sides or the short sides, with the table "top" folding out to become the "bottom". If you just fold out one leaf, a 4x8 could become 6x8 and a 4x6 to a 6x6.

Gotta agree that player accessibility is the biggest factor. If you're having something built - modularity would be even better.

My current set up which is commonly two folding tables (giving me precisely 6'x5' with an optional extra table for 8'x5' (third table can be added on the end to expand the whole thing) is superb. 5' is reachable for pretty much everyone I know. A little wider and better than 4' which is a little shallow.

8x8 for big battles. As said above, starting 4 or less from an opponent leaves little room for maneuver. Guess it depends on what scale your miniatures are though.

6x6 is my ideal size.

Does it have to be square/rectangular? If the require dimensions must adhere to increments of 4x4 because that's the size of the tables you have, why not set up 2 lengths of 8x4 so they overlap in the middle.
Like this:

[__][__]
-----[__][__]

So you get to have an overall 12' length, but no part of the table is more than 4' from the edge for easy access

-

I'm 6' and I don't think I could reach out to the middle of an 8' table...

Is there any possibility that you could go to 6' width?

I think 4' isn't wide enough for a proper apoc game but 8' is a little to wide to be playing in the centre. 6' is a good sweetspot, 6'x12' would be long enough for two games as well but the fold out components may get a little tricky.