Wargames terrain is a subject that gets scant attention from wargames writers in general, even though the terrain of the battlefield is one of the most important factors in deciding what the opposing commanders will do. As an elementary example of this, who would try to employ Wellington's Peninsular army against the generally more numerous French if they didn't have ridges atop high features to 'hide behind'?
Most of the writing that is done on the subject of terrain in the wargame is concerned with the material that is used to depict 'high ground' and special features that could have an effect on the battle such as woods and houses. In this article I want to look more closely at the actual table that is used-generally taken to be 'flat ground' on which a game of snooker or pool would be more appropriate than a battle.
The very first thing that we must remember about our table layouts is that they are nothing more or less than a map of the area over which the battle is being fought. Although we depict some (though not all) of the peaks of the highest ground in the area, we certainly do not, except in special cases, depict the real nature of the terrain. In effect, we take a map, place some pieces of material over the 'hilltops' to show where they are, and then treat every other part of the map as if it were dead level.
Of course, on the 'map' that our tables really are, we do not have the contour Iines that would indicate to us on a real map when we (or our troops) were moving uphill or downhill. While there is no need to start drawing contour lines all over the wargames table it would prove beneficial to the realism of our games if we were to depict the line of the lowest ground in the area.
It is normally assumed by wargamers that the table itself represents the lowest ground on the battlefield. This is rarely true however, and is especially noticeable when one is re-fighting a historical battle.
For example, the ridge on which the French army stood at Waterloo was more than 120 meters higher than the lowest ground on the battlefield. With a ground scale of, say, 1mm:1 meter, therefore, we should have our French troops on a 'ridge' that is nearly five inches higher than the table. However, Waterloo was a fairly level battlefield compared with some, and if we were to re-fight Bussaco, where the heights on which the Allied army stood were no less than 1000 feet above the valley between them and the French, their 'ridge' would need to be one meter high (39 inches) on the table with a ground scale of 1mm:1 meter (and still as much as a foot high if we used a ground scale of 1mm:3 meters for a 'grand tactical' game).
Of course, three-foot high hills do not appear on wargames tables. All that we normally do is indicate the position of the tops of the high ground rather than its actual height above 'table level'. This means, however, that the table surface does not represent the lowest ground in the area, and that some of the ground in the area actually lies below the level represented by the table's surface. This can be seen in Figure 1, where the ridge at Busacco is depicted by the customary, somewhat lower than realistic terrain feature.
The real low-point between the main feature and the lesser one on which the French began their operation lies some distance from the bottom of the lowest part of our wargames terrain feature-indeed 'under the table' as it were. Of course we can hardly play the game under the table, however we equally cannot play it realistically on the table if we arbitarily reduce the actual height of the ground. What is needed for a true picture of our battlefields, is a means of showing on the table where the lowest ground is.
To do this we can fall back on the fact that our table layouts are just maps of the battle area and employ a simple version of a technique that is used by map makers. (The method that I have used in Code Napoleon is described.)
All we need to know is where the lowest ground lies or the battlefield, as going in any direction away from that low ground towards a terrain feature will be 'uphill' (even if on a flat table surface). I have adopted a simple formula which determines the lowest point between two features on the table, and then by joining those point, with either chalk or thread have shown the line on lowest ground. The lowest point between two feature is the point half-way between their table-levels on a line between their highest points as shown in Figure 2. Also shown is the technique used to represent the fact that higher ground will generally extend more toward lower ground than vice-versa. What is done when two features are of different table-heights, is that the lowest ground point between them is taken to be 200 yard closer to the lower feature for each level of difference ii their heights on the table. To avoid the situation of lowest ground point failing under a terrain feature (a might happen if they were close to one another and on, was several levels higher than the other) I use the rule that the maximum proximity of a lower ground point to any feature will be at its table level's edge. By this rule we obtain 'cliffs' on the battlefield if the terrain features are very high or very close together as is the case in real life.
Using the above procedures the lowest ground points between adjacent features on the table are determined. Features are considered adjacent to one another only if the line between their highest points does not pass over, or between other features or between other features and the edge of the table.
The purpose of this ruling, as is illustrated by Figure 3, is to take account of the fact that, under the conditions I have stated, the line between two features would actually be crossing the 'lower slopes' of other features (even when those slopes are represented as flat table areas).
The table area itself is, of course, merely part of a much larger land mass and we cannot forget this when laying out our terrain. Low ground on the battlefield, consequently, will not just lie between features but will also extend to the edges of the table. The way in which we determine the points on the table edges at which the lowest ground points lie is, basically, the same procedure as we use to locate the lowest points between features on the table.
Here, however, we have to change the formula slightly. i.e., the lowest point on the edge of the table will be equidistant from the highest points of adjacent features to that edge of the table. We allow for height differences between terrain features in the same way as normally, by having the lowpoint on the table's edge 200 yds nearer the lower feature for each level of height difference. This is illustrated in Figure 4, where it can be seen that the same ruling is applied in respect to defining 'adjacent' features as is used normally.
Having located the various low points on our tables, the next step is to apply map-makers' procedure and join these up to show what is, in effect, the 'lowest contour line' on the battlefield we are depicting. When joining the low ground points relevant to a feature we do so with lines parallel to the edge of the lowest terrain level of that feature at table level. This cannot be followed totally, however, since joining low ground points to the table's edges doesn't permit it. The process is shown in Figure 5.
The process of joining the low ground points leaves us with areas on the table that ae enclosed by low ground lines but do not contain a terrain feature (shown shaded). This ground is that which would be regarded as 'flat' in military terms-meaning that, although it is not truly flat (what natural ground ever is?) it is level enough not to restrict the movement of troops in any significant way.
What is significant about Figure 5 is how much of the table surface has been converted from flat ground to ground that slopes in one direction or another. By simply imagining his command figure anywhere on the table the reader can see at a glance how the ground around him would lie and how his command figure's view would be affected.
Naturally, the greater the number of terrain features that there are on the table the more our battlefields will be depicted as rising and falling ground. This is illustrated in Figure 6 where the reader will see the tactical importance of the higher ground in the center of the game table-an importance that would not be so apparent, or even exist, were the table surface were taken to be 'flat'.
System Effect
This system does not only have an effect on the movement of troops (who would, almost no matter where they were going to and from, be moving either up or downhill). It also has an effect on visibility, greatly restricting what the player's command figure can 'see'. Since it is a normal requirement of wargames rules that players can only issue orders regarding things that they can see on the table at 'commander level', the reader may judge for himself how much less his commanders would have within their sight on a table laid out as in Figure 6 than with current systems.
In Figure 7 I have shown, for example, the line on which a commander at position '0' would be looking if he were looking towards troops at position 'T', and the reader will need no telling that those troops would not be visible (even though both command figure and troops are on the table surface).
Using the lowest ground line concept we are able to use far more straightforward visibility rules, and a very simple and quick means of determining visibility on the game table. This is a vital aspect of the authenticity of our games, but is properly the subject of a later article.
Large Illustrations: (slow 161K)
Related
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. IV #3
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1982 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com