For those of you fortunate enough to have been in the wargaming hobby for a long time, there probably won't be too much in this article that you don't already do. But, if you are like I was just a few years ago, there may be a thing or two of interest herein.

When you get an idea of terrain building, you need to make a decision at the very start as to what type of method you are going to use; either "fixed" or "flexible" terrain. That is, if you are going to make fixed shapes, geomorphic or not, or rather, are you going to utilize a bottom cloth or board with movable terrain features on top of it. Following this first hurdle, you will also need to decide on the scale that you are most interested in gaming in - it's pretty funny looking at 25mm figures on 15mm-sized terrain!

Perhaps to support your decision either way, I will list the advantages and disadvantages of fixed terrain, and will follow that with a look at flexible terrain.

Fixed terrain is, in most cases these days, formed on some type of Styrofoam board, with the terrain features either sculpted into or added onto the surface. If you are interested in refighting a particular historical battle, or wish to refight the same game many times, fixed boards will allow this without the error repositioning will add when employing flexible terrain. If you happen to make your boards non-historical, but geomorphic (you can turn them any way and they still fit) you can avoid the static nature of most fixed boards, but at the sacrifice perfect accuracy. You'll get more varied usage, but will still retain some constants.

Certainly another advantage with fixed terrain is that of set-up time. When all that you have to do is place them on the table, deploy your troops and you are ready to play, it definitely is quicker. It also assists in game planning prior to the game itself since you know exactly how the terrain is situated, and will give you no surprises in your deployment and maneuvering.

The drawbacks of fixed terrain are definitely there though. First of all, there is the time involved in the construction of them. You have to plan very carefully, and measure accurately to avoid problems with fitting your boards together so that the terrain matches up along the edges. Another drawback is cost. You have to purchase a large amount of materials to build a decent sized battlefield. This can run you quite a bit of money, especially if you are building them all by yourself Adding to these others are questions of storage space, damage to the boards and repair to them, and staleness of using the same battlefield over and over again.

Flexible terrain differs from fixed in that instead of attaching your rivers, buildings, roads, etc. to a piece of foam board, plywood, or other had material, you lay down a bare surface and place your hills, forests, swamps, etc. over top of it. (A variant for hills is to place Styrofoam or bricks or what-have-you down FIRST, and then place a blanket or other cloth over top of them.)

The biggest advantage with flexible terrain is that you can rearrange your terrain even at the last minute before a battle, or during it if it's covered in the rules. You can also use the same terrain for multiple scales of figures just by replacing the man-made structures with the corresponding scale ones. Storage is also much less of a problem: simply fold up the cloth, and put the rest of the terrain in a box.

One final advantage is the cost; it's only as expensive as the amount of terrain you want to have on it. I guess this leads to people who spend lots of money on their terrain using more than those who don't. I don't know, has anyone noticed this phenomenon?

One disadvantage to flexible terrain is that it rarely looks as good as fixed terrain, and our hobby being a visual one, that means quite a bit. And getting your terrain to be the same from game to game, it can be quite a challenge. If you like to refight Gettysburg, but don't want to change the game at all when you and your buddy switch sides it can be difficult to recreate that exact same battlefield (the extra inch that Pickett has to cross can mean quite a lot!). Finally, there is the problem of wear and tear. Your buildings, trees, etc. take less of a pounding when they are attached to something else (metal bases and magnet trays can help though).

Of course, there IS an alternative. You can combine the two into one! Lay down a plain surface, or one with limited terrain features (roads, streams, and other flat, linear types) and place fixed terrain pieces on top of it. This can mean hills with trees attached, towns of specific dimensions laid out, and fences made with limited added details to make them LOOK like the fixed terrain boards, but give you the lower cost, reduced storage problem, and flexibility of that separate pieces of terrain provide.

My final thought on this is this: Do what you want, but make it look as good as you can with the time, skill, and resources that you have available to you.