Skirmish Game Design - An Ongoing, Open Discussion - 12-18-25 Is solo wargaming still a viable endeavor?

[Wasteland]

I bought about twenty years ago four wooden boards from the local hardware store. Then I glued artificial grass on top of it. Each board has the following dimensions: 23.5´´ & 51.5´´. Because of the fact that I have only four wooden blocks I NEVER had the opportunity to use all four boards at the same time so the usual MO would be to use just two. Only a couple of months ago I turned the backside of the two unused pair of boards into desert boards. Maybe I should get another four wooden blocks and have a weird setup with a harsh change of climate where the grass board meets the desert board.

A skirmish game where each side has maybe around five models (regular Freebooter´s Fate setup) would work on one of my single boards. Although when you intend to use several large terrain pieces (such as large untraversable steep hills) in a skirmish game you are forced to widen the playing area or else all the models tend to run into bottlenecks.

 

[Galtarr]

In terms of 2x2 Vs 3x3 or some interim I would say it depends on how much movement the game has, as well as whether the focus is on ranged combat Vs Melee.

So Necromunda(N21) I like 3x3 as characters can easily take 3 move actions (or eqv..), that's 12-18 inches per turn. (sprint, tactics cards stimms jump packs etc..) plus even if they only move 6-12" the game is largely range based so you still need some middle ground for shooting. Back in Underhive days with the ZM boards 2x3 was fine. Because the movement was more limited and the corridors meant closer engagements.

In Warcry you can't move more than 2 actions, so 8-10" max. Plus it's CC based so 3*3 would be huge.the actual board of 22x30 seems a sweet spot.

I personally think they made a mistake adding so many extra move bonuses in Newmunda. So working the other way I'd say 2x3 or 24x30 is an ideal size and reduce the movement to suit.

 

[spafe]

I feel 3x3 is good, smaller and any high movement factions can't use that movement, bigger and slower gangs are left out in the cold.

Malifaux is another small skirmish game, also goes with 3x3. Our 2d necromunda boards (and 3d actually) are on 3x3 as well and seem to have a nice mix of positioning and getting into the action

Personally I really struggle with the smaller boards 40k has pushed towards, because there is no movement element to the game these days

 

[Galtarr]

I feel 3x3 is good, smaller and any high movement factions can't use that movement, bigger and slower gangs are left out in the cold.

Malifaux is another small skirmish game, also goes with 3x3. Our 2d necromunda boards (and 3d actually) are on 3x3 as well and seem to have a nice mix of positioning and getting into the action

Personally I really struggle with the smaller boards 40k has pushed towards, because there is no movement element to the game these days

One other advantage of 3x3 thinking about it is that it's a bit of a standard for people who either make or use terrain mats. Whilst I know you can get other sizes e.g. 4x4 6x3. If looking at smaller mats for skirmish 3x3 is pretty standard.

The few mats I do have are all 3x3.

 

[Mad Robot]

Great answers!

Seems like it boils down to the intent of the game designer; they have to go with whatever feels right to them within the context of their game. Playtesting sure helps there as well. Personally, I like the idea of a bit of maneuver.

 

[Punktaku]

Maneuvering but not slogging it across the board to get into position then having the game end.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

I'm hearing from the replies that smaller boards are in at the moment. Not 4x4.

Do you think that this might be a trend of people wanting more convenience in their games? Like, games that require minimal set up or less management?

 

[spafe]

hey have to go with whatever feels right to them within the context of their game.

Maneuvering but not slogging it across the board

Actually these two things are bang on. I think for a ranged game, a bit more space is better, but when comparing to say, malifaux which is primarily combat (with ranged weapons being... maybe 12"), and the maneuvering is much more of a finese thing, the 3x3 seem perfect, even with 'minimal terrain'*. A game like necormunda, works well on 3x3 with a lot of terrain, or on a 4x4 with a little less terrain, as the ranges of weapons gets much longer. So tied with board size, the density of terrain and the engagement type (ranged v melee/short range).


*minimal being...not necromunda levels of terrain

 

[Mad Robot]

I'm hearing from the replies that smaller boards are in at the moment. Not 4x4.

Do you think that this might be a trend of people wanting more convenience in their games? Like, games that require minimal set up or less management?

In my limited experience, I think the popularity of Killteam & Warcry have made people see the virtues of a smaller board. That being said there ae still plenty of folks who want the experience of a larger board.

That also goes for the "minimal" idea. As a relative novice when it comes to gaming, I want something that is easy to pick up and understand straight away. And, again just my opinion, I do not like the idea of all the extras that games seem to have these days. Lots of extra token and cards are a huge turn off to me, too much to keep track of. But there are probably lots of others who like the crunchy factor those things add.

Actually these two things are bang on. I think for a ranged game, a bit more space is better, but when comparing to say, malifaux which is primarily combat (with ranged weapons being... maybe 12"), and the maneuvering is much more of a finese thing, the 3x3 seem perfect, even with 'minimal terrain'*. A game like necormunda, works well on 3x3 with a lot of terrain, or on a 4x4 with a little less terrain, as the ranges of weapons gets much longer. So tied with board size, the density of terrain and the engagement type (ranged v melee/short range).


*minimal being...not necromunda levels of terrain

This is interesting and I do agree with the topic of terrain density. The first thing I noticed when we went from playing on a 3x3 to a 22x30 is that there is no room for larger pieces of terrain. A big building could work if it's in the middle and that is the focus of the mission but there is little to no room for the pieces that help to sell the environment. We set up for the first battle and I was like "oh...so I can't use any of the buildings I spent a month building, painting, and weathering..."

 

[Punktaku]

On larger tables the bigger scenery kinda knocks the playable space back down because their footprint does take up so much space. My oldest just gave me a massive bit of styrofoam packaging that will dominate any skirmish table. It’ll have to be in the middle or everyone would just avoid the corner/edge where it sits. So while a table could be larger, the playable space is comparable to a smaller table with less scenery. Does that make sense?

 

[spafe]

Does that make sense?

nope, because you sah, need to put some ladders up the sides of that foam, walkways and gantrys around it, pipes coming out of it, and several platforms at various points, so that the overall floor space on the table that models can stand and access, goes up!

 

[Mad Robot]

That's what I'm talking about! A scenario where you are crawling all over a massive ruin is a cool idea. Certainly adds some variety. Maybe the key to smaller boards is verticality

 

[MedMos]

I've been planning a massive piece of terrain, meant to occupy the middle of a standard 4x4 necromunda table. Ladders and gantries galore running around the outside, the idea is it would actually remove the middle of the table as a playable surface and force the game around the sides. I definitely think the key is verticality! Or even passages, a little like ZM boards. It does put ranged weapons at a bit of a disadvantage...

 

[Biggle_Bear]

nope, because you sah, need to put some ladders up the sides of that foam, walkways and gantrys around it, pipes coming out of it, and several platforms at various points, so that the overall floor space on the table that models can stand and access, goes up!

And then make the ground lava, and then that big piece of styrofoam is absolutely necessary.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

It might just be where I am in life right now, but...

I am more drawn towards fast games with fast set ups. Like when I made a battle report for @drdrybrush 's community campaign. I knew I wanted not just to provide a battle report but also to develop a story. But I was well aware that I only had a 3 hour time slot for 3 games, plus photos, before the little one would come home and tear up anything that was left standing out.

But for a tribemeet, it would have felt underwhelming if we played on half sized boards.

So it is probably situational as well as personal choice. Which just makes it more complicated.

 

[Ben_S]

So it is probably situational as well as personal choice. Which just makes it more complicated.

Good point. And there's probably a difference between:
1. Playing in your own house. Space may be limited, but you have all your stuff to hand.
2. Taking your stuff elsewhere, e.g. a friend's house. Transport is a potential issue.
3. Playing at a store/club. Lots of space (potentially) but maybe limited in what's available.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

That's what I'm talking about! A scenario where you are crawling all over a massive ruin is a cool idea. Certainly adds some variety. Maybe the key to smaller boards is verticality

That's a cool concept for a product range. Where one may buy larger 'anchor' buildings and smaller clip on buildings that are suspended off the ground. There are may be issues in its stability. But it would really suit close range games.

I imagine something like the city in waterworld

 

[Punktaku]

nope, because you sah, need to put some ladders up the sides of that foam, walkways and gantrys around it, pipes coming out of it, and several platforms at various points, so that the overall floor space on the table that models can stand and access, goes up!

Oh, it will have all those things. But it still will have a footprint of 11x12 for the purpose of blocking LoS. So the base table would be 3x3 but with one block missing. Upwards space not included, the one block will be filled and impassible.

 

[Wasteland]

That's what I'm talking about! A scenario where you are crawling all over a massive ruin is a cool idea. Certainly adds some variety. Maybe the key to smaller boards is verticality

I have been commenting about this a lot in the last months but the 40K crowd much rather want to lurk at ground level with their minis. Maybe fear of heights is a thing in wargaming?

I am preparing now to build either an overland highway or overland hovertrain terrain piece which will span across my desert board. As columns I have chosen Pringles boxes. Bought four of them today which makes eight in total so far. Sad thing is that I have to eat the contents too. LOL!

 

[Mad Robot]

I have been commenting about this a lot in the last months but the 40K crowd much rather want to lurk at ground level with their minis. Maybe fear of heights is a thing in wargaming?

I am preparing now to build either an overland highway or overland hovertrain terrain piece which will span across my desert board. As columns I have chosen Pringles boxes. Bought four of them today which makes eight in total so far. Sad thing is that I have to eat the contents too. LOL!

been there...