Wednesday, March 31, 2021

RULES OF THE GAME: BUILDINGS AS BLOCKING TERRAIN

French Napoleonic battalion columns moving through lanes between buildings.
 
Greetings fellow shut-ins (soon-to-be-emerging)!  In this post, dear readers, we meander into a new subject area: "Rules of the Game." Although I've got complete rules sets in the content pages of this blog, in these posts I'll offer some single-subject items for your consideration: things that either are embedded in my rules somewhere or that I just happen to have used in my games, which should present novel approaches to conventional subjects.  In this post, I present another way to handle the often vexed issue of towns/buildings on the game table. Here it is, in summary:  
 
Instead of allowing units to occupy buildings, treat them as "null" terrain.  In other words, the footprint of each building is a forbidden terrain zone, like water features (ponds, lakes) in most rules: you cannot occupy or move through them.  Additionally, buildings also block line of sight and fire. In short, units fight and move between buildings, not in them.
 
BUILDINGS GROUPED TO CREATE AN IN-TOWN FIGHT
Buildings arranged with internal spaces and lanes: The Prussians are about to advance through the lanes after several turns of close quarters fighting in the town. The French are setting up on the far side of the town having just been repulsed.  The placement of the buildings in the middle of the table also made this key terrain. This arrangement allowed for doing the actual back and forth town fighting as opposed abstracting it by bouncing off of units in buildings. 
 
The key to using buildings in either of the ways mentioned in this post is how you spot them.  Different arrangements can produce different effects. In terms of grouping buildings to replicate a town,  you will need to think about how your units are based and the kinds of spaces needed to allow units to operate (or how you would like the spaces to limit how they would operate). In short, you need to ensure that your units can actually fit between the buildings. For towns, I generally want buildings with individually small footprints that collectively can create an overall layout.  It doesn't necessarily take many buildings or a large area to get a good effect. The above example is a set of buildings that were placed in the middle of the table in order to replicate in-town fighting, with the secondary effect of creating different lanes with different entry/exit points for getting in and out of the town.  The pictures are taken from the Somewhere in Saxony , 1813 Game Report--where  you can go if you want to get a more detailed description of the game flow. As usual, in this post you may clix pix for BIG PIX.
The French advance into the town first.
The Prussians line advancing to contest the town.
Hard to see, but this was a close-range firefight between a French Line and a Prussian Reserve infantry battalion in the town. Eventually, the French would get the worse of this and pull back.
View of the firefight from the Prussian side (seen just to the left of the building).
Both sides had supports behind the town and fed units in to the town fighting--which  replicates how how town fighting was actually managed.
 
BUILDINGS PLACED SINGLY TO SHAPE THE BATTLEFIELD
In this example, taken from the Battle of Dybbol, buildings are spotted singly down the line to replicate the influence of small towns that defined the Danish front line.  

They also defined the battlefield into "lanes" of action. Here you see a Prussian command straddling two lanes as it approaches the Danish line, which has solidified and incorporated the buildings as anchor points. 

Ultimately, the Prussians had to overcome the units at these anchor points in order to break through the Danish line and gain freedom of maneuver.  Alternately, the Danes prioritized maintaining these key points in order to maintain the integrity of their defense. In other words, despite the buildings being "null" they still produced the same effect as if they had been conventionally occupied (without any of the fuss of special building fighting rules). 
 
So, dear reader, I offer this approach for your consideration. I invite you keep an open mind and give it a try. It is a dead-simple thing to implement and can deliver a new dimension to game play. 
Excelsior!

14 comments:

  1. Interesting stuff Ed...
    Unless playing a skirmish game I have always treated buildings in a fairly abstract way...
    They represent a built up area rather than a single structure...
    That structure depending on its size can be occupied by either a small ,medium or large unit...
    It works for me... but as always I am open to new ideas.

    All the best. Aly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Aly,
      I used the term "building" in reference to the model on the table (perhaps not too precisely). They are an abstraction that could represent something more complex, as you suggest. I do play the more conventional form of building/built up area rules as well. This is a departure from that (obviously) that I also use. Agree on the scale: this would generally be for battalion-level and up games rather than skirmish.

      Delete
  2. There is a lot to be said for this approach, especially for larger towns and bigger battles (vs semi-skirmish types). It would certainly make life with my solid wooden houses easier!


    I can imagine the reaction in a Waterloo refight though if the British are told they can't actually garrison Haye Sainte and Hugomont but then these are not towns and there can always be exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ross,
      There are games where I've mixed more conventional building occupation rules and these, so it's not necessarily an either:or. And there could be nuances to the rules like giving a unit that is flush against a building model some sort of benefit (aside from the protection from fire and attack via that flank).

      Delete
  3. Agree with you. I do a similar approach in my games.

    BTW Ed your games at Club game night are always a beautiful sight to behold and are fun and challenging to play in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thankee, Mark: I look forward to seeing the spectacle of your big battalion games at club game nights again in the near future!

      Delete
  4. For me it depends on the scale. In man to man skirmish games buildings are often null like you describe, unless they are an objective in the game. In larger games where a base represents many men, like my ACW, buildings are more like rough terrain. It all depends. 😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think "it depends" might be a good way to characterize it. Unless we're dealing with some sort of tournament style game, how one handles something like this can be adjusted to fit the aims of the scenario. Good point!

      Delete
  5. I recognize some of these games! Nice to know how much thought you put into building placement. I don't think I've even given it the proper amount.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soon we'll be able to get some pix of new games!

      Delete
  6. Interesting and thought provoking post,I am tending towards buildings being in a slightly smaller scale, except in skirmish gaming so I can see me applying your points, well when I get a game!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Iain,
      The good news is that it requires no additional bits or modifications, so it's easy to give it a go if curious.

      Delete
  7. It really depends on the scale of the game. But even in large-scale battles, I allow units to occupy buildings. I simply consider a BUA area as one would consider an area of wood: simply delineate the area (with a template, or a piece of string, or scenery elements such as walls, or simple the gridcell when playing on a grid ...) and shuffle the buildings around to make place for units as you would do with trees and woods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Phil: I also follow more conventional occupation models. This is just an alternate. One thing I didn't mention is that this model doesn't mean that there isn't some form of occupation or action in the building template, but that it isn't to the level that would be visible on the game table (just another form of abstraction).

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...