[GZG] [SG2] Terrain layout

When you're setting up a SG game--say a pickup game on a 4x6
table-- what's your rule of thumb for setting up terrain?
How much hard cover, soft cover, and items that block LOS (hills, woods)?

I try fro something that creates lanes and compartmentalizes the board. A few
buildings or other terrain feature for an objective too.

Not too much cover or people play hide and seek, not too little or everybody
dies.

Part of the reason I try to have a scenario or two in my pocket. (you can
always use the terrain from an historical battle, i.e. Gettysburg, Quatre Bra,
etc.)

[quoted original message omitted]

> Not too much cover or people play hide and seek, not too

<sheep mode> You say that as if "everybody dies" is a bad
thing?</sheep mode> :-)

How much elevation do yoyu typically have on the table?

If there are any hills, 2-3 level 1 and 1-2 level 2.  Given the scale of
the
game, I would probably use a single ridge with 1-2 higher spots (most
tables will be less than a Grid square).

I try to layout terrain to discourage long range sniping (time waster).
Figure that the longest LOS should be range 2-3 for the heaviest
Infantry weapon system in play.

[quoted original message omitted]

I prefer a DBA/DBM format for layout, having a couple of main pieces of
terrain, then allowing each side to alternately place a few smaller terrain
items from a general pool. This requires more tactical skill on the part of
players, as you might place a hill with a good line of sight, only to have it
blocked with woods as your opponent places his terrain piece. Players then
have fewer gripes about how "bad" the terrain layout was as they have placed
the terrain themselves.

In meeting engagements, both sides place terrain equally, in
assault/defense scenarios, the defender gets more pieces, but the
attacker places last.

This helps simulate the effect of commander not always being able to choose
the exact terrain he will fight over, but able to take advantage of tactical
positions he "sees" on the battlefield (i.e. "we're going to make a stand on
Hill 641 because it has clear lines of fire" but not knowing that a gully or
rough terrain on the backside provides an attacker with significant cover
nearly to the top.)

--Binhan

[quoted original message omitted]

> When you're setting up a SG game--say a pickup game on a 4x6

You've played on tables that I've set up so you have some idea of the density
I prefer. Given the game scale vs. figure scale differences, I tend toward
more terrain than less. I don't want "long range rifle duel"
to become the battle - dice, dice, and more dice.  I prefer enough
terrain so that the players are forced to maneuver. On the other hand, as was
pointed out, you don't want SO much terrain that fights only happen in range
band 1 or by close assault. That may be fine, however, if you're doing an
urban setting...

Also, a mix of terrain is good - it provides tactical challenge for the
players. I often include buildings, forest, hills, rivers. Partly that is
because that's the terrain I have ready to go - I'm going to do roads
eventually, and working on ways to do good looking agricultural land.

Desert terrain is a bit more of a challenge - you tend to get much
longer sight lines, so need careful scenario design or everyone dies really
fast.

I don't think Desert terrain has to be flat with extensive sight lines -
in fact you get almost as much variety of features as you do in Temperate
region.

Instead of rivers or creeks, you have dry riverbeds or gullys, instead of
hills you have sand dunes. You are also more likely to have rock outcroppings
(rough terrain) and cliffs in a desert environment. Sand dunes can top 50 feet
in height, and can turn a board into a labyrinth
with twisting passages and dead-ends.

Then you can have temporary effects like sand-storms, dust clouds or
dust-devils which can obscure vision.

--Binhan

[quoted original message omitted]