Portable/Foldable City board (WIP)

[ForestZ]

I've never done a gaming board this complicated before, but I've been wanting to do one since I got into this hobby last year. Poppabear made almost the exact enclosure I was planning on, but with several improvements that I aim to steal. And Pake made an awesome city board that I also intend to use heavily as inspiration. For this shot I'm going for a symmetrical board with a canal and a raised train track across the center. Here's my current plan:



It's based on 3 layers of 1/2" insulation foam, so those are the standard increments on the board (the train track is 1 foam board high in this example, although I might drop that to 1/4" foamboard depending on if I want the track to default to an obstacle/cover.)

Most scenarios seem to fit on this, although a few end up with zones clipping the canal or a flag in the water, but I'm not overly concerned. The lower area in each corner is there mainly for visual interest, but it also doubles as an easy deployment zone marker and dice rolling tray.

I just started construction on the box today and this will likely be a slowly updated project. Any suggestions for improvement in the overall layout of the playfield, or ideas for design elements are appreciated.

[Jhokalups]

What CAD program did you use for that mock up? Also, awesome and impressive, I will be following this.

[ForestZ]

Thanks, Jhokalups. I used Google SketchUp. I'm pretty sure you can still download it for free.

[PG_Pake]

With your sources of inspiration, you can't go wrong!
I'll be following this closely!

[Poppabear40]

Looks awesome good! I love seeing the folding boards!

[ForestZ]

So I've been pondering the asymmetrical options. I like the way this looks better although I'm not sure if it would play better than the other version...



Thoughts, opinions?

[Ogrob]

To be honest, I prefer the first one. No matter how you go about it on the second, one player will have a water feature in theire deployment zone.

Maybe have the canal straight, so that it forms an X with the railroad track. Looking forward to see what you come up with anyway.

[Lachlan the Mad]

To be honest, I prefer the first one. No matter how you go about it on the second, one player will have a water feature in theire deployment zone.

Maybe have the canal straight, so that it forms an X with the railroad track. Looking forward to see what you come up with anyway.

Agreed, I prefer the symmetrical river.

[ForestZ]

Hmm...fair enough. I would have agreed with you all up until recently, where a thread on the subject popped up and I found myself agreeing with the asymmetrical crowd.

However, even on a board with symmetrical static elements, other terrain placed can still provide the choices promoted in that thread, while still giving the option for symmetrical play. I'm liking the design on the newly created half of the board a little better, but I'm not sure how it would look mirrored. I may keep the river section symmetrical like in the original but vary some of the other terrain elements. I'll have to experiment more.

The frame itself is mostly constructed, I just need to sand and paint it before attaching the hardware, although I may have made some fatal mistakes in that front. It remains to be seen if I can overcome them.

[PeregrineP]

The only concern I would express is that boards with rivers flowing through the middle with a single bridge seems(and this comes from only limited personal experience) like the board would favor ranged armies over melee ones heavily. I could see stuff like that being really interesting if you were reenacting a particular fluff battle that's a little more real to life in terms of conditions favoring a force in a battle but for wargaming it seems like it would be more fun if it were otherwise.

I could just see myself sticking an AS Centurion at the choke point and shooting the opposing force to bits. Thoughts?

[ForestZ]

That's certainly a valid concern. However, what's shown in the sketchup is only the static elements of the board. In both designs I tried to leave additional points to place stand alone bridges to provide alternate routs to cross the canal, and provide entrance/exit points to the canal itself (you could play it as shallow water to make it less onerous to traverse). So in response to the gunline chockepoints, you'd have potentially 3 bridges to cross, and troops could potentially use the canal itself as cover to move up without getting blown to bits (granted, slowly unless they had pathfinder.

I'd like to find a way to make the design allow bridges across some of the lowered section too, if I can figure out a way that makes it look good/interesting. Maybe some temporary battlefield bridges that the armies have constructed and dropped in place to make crossing them easier...

[ForestZ]

All that said, I may investigate just building in another bridge on each side as a permanent feature.

[PG_Dalthoraz]

Looks great so far, love the design

[PeregrineP]

All that said, I may investigate just building in another bridge on each side as a permanent feature.

The water features look so cool/good. It's a shame that the game side can get in the way of board aesthetics.

[Therat]

You could just leave it the way it is currently and maybe model some half floating barrels / crates etc that would create a "path" through the water ..sorta like stepping stones. Place these in the water on either side of the bridge closer to the board edge.

That way you could leave the design and still offer another way to cross the water.

For that matter you could even build wooden walkways that aren't built onto the board, but could be placed as terrain as needed or wanted.

[ForestZ]

I love the flotsam idea, Therat! I'll definitely keep that in mind when it comes time to make accessory terrain for this!

I'm working on one last modification to my plans to make it more symmetrical but still a bit different. I'll post another image up tomorrow. On the build front the boxes are almost done being primed. I'll get a picture of them up whet they're painted and assembled so as not to spam with incremental WIPs.

[Pixl]

I allways feel a bit skeptical when it comes to water that's permanent on a board, even though it looks great. This plan does how ever look awesome I must say.

[ForestZ]

I hear you, Pixl. I'm a bit leery about putting permanent water on the board too. I tend to shy away from it on our typical setups at my LGS. But I figure it's just one board and it provides for some interesting choices/options and it looks cool. And honestly, looking cool is half the reason for making something like this, because I'm tired of playing on flat black sand boards with some hand me down 40k terrain. I want something inspiring, to myself, the other players, and any bystanders who may be interested in the game.

So, after listening to all of your feedback and evaluating my own wants for the board, I've come up with this final design. The end implementation may be slightly different depending on logistics, but this is what I'll be working from. Not perfectly symmetrical, but close enough to provide similar options on all board locations while still allowing for some decision making in which side you choose.

[Darguth]

I think that final design is much better. I don't think it needs to be perfectly symmetrical, but that design is close enough to keep things fair.

I'd also be dubious of permanent water effects, especially since they are significantly more detrimental to WM armies than to Hordes. As you said, though, it just offers you another board option to shake things up, which I'm all for.

Looking forward to following your progress

[Episkopos]

Trollbloods and especially Thornfall Alliance are hurt by a city board.

[ForestZ]

Trollbloods and especially Thornfall Alliance are hurt by a city board.

How? I can't possibly see what the aesthetic value of the board would have to do with how a faction plays. If you're talking about specific terrain types that you think those factions rely on, I'm sure I can create analogous features for any given terrain on this board, and even if I couldn't, any faction that "relies" on terrain is bound to be screwed at some point since they rarely have control over it.

[fire4effekt]

It's the dig in rule i believe he's refering to. You can't dig into man made surfaces and rock. Simple to solve, make an exception.

[PeregrineP]

I really like the latest iteration of the board you posted. Looks great!

[ForestZ]

It's the dig in rule i believe he's refering to. You can't dig into man made surfaces and rock. Simple to solve, make an exception.

Ah..I hadn't noticed that clause on the Digmies. Yeah, I'm sure exceptions could be made. That's one of those rules that I wonder how much "weight" the clause was given in costing the unit, if any...was it just a fluff thing, or was it really intended that sometimes units with that rule just get screwed? I do have a buddy that runs Digmies relatively regularly, so I'm sure I"ll have to make an exception...then again, I can't knock his beasts into the water and extinguish them so it might be a fair tradeoff for having water on the board.

[PG_Killdrath]

There is also the possibility that trolls might be affected due to, typically, urban boards have denser terrain, and since trolls are almost exclusively medium based or larger, they have a hard time maneuvering their units around. THAT part can be mitigated by simple not packing the table tight full of buildings.

[andoutcomethewolves]

We came across the medium base issue too. tight twisty alleys suddenly become no go areas for trolls as the can't get through them. however a single medium base model with tough can basically block an entire board area with a few good tough rolls if positioned correctly.
We've had situations where a 2x2pt solos have held up 16pt worth of enemy troops in the alleys... equally we've had situations where the objective has crossed into the alleys and the trolls have been forced to go for the caster kill as they couldn't dig out through small base troops hiding in the objective zone.
There are advantages and disadvantages to all factions on all types of board if you play enough games these things do even themselves out.

[Marth]

What you can do is keep some areas on the board natural, like parks. Or allow the dygmies to become canalmies instead.

[Darguth]

What you can do is keep some areas on the board natural, like parks. Or allow the dygmies to become canalmies instead.

I think it'd be perfectly fine to just say the board itself has terrain rules other than elevation and shallow/deep water (whichever you choose) for the canal. Then you could have actual modular terrain pieces which they may or may not be able to dig into, depending on their type.

[havre]

I was all yours when you presented your first plan. Second and third plan are both good ones. When it comes to actual playability, a table as epic as this warrant some own rules. I'm facing a comparable dilemma and am thinking that the various terrain rules on the table itself only applies if both sides agree. If not it is considered open ground. ... Or something to that effect.

[ForestZ]

Thanks, havre. I've been following your work on your board over on TG for a while now. Looking forward to seeing how yours turns out! And you're probably right about the rules. Unfortunately, the guys from my LGS have been frustratingly silent on commenting on this, so I have no idea how they're even going to receive it when it's done. I can only hope I can pull it off to look so awesome they have no choice but to try it out. We'll see about that, hehe.

I know I said I wouldn't post photos until the painting and assembly are done, but I feel stupid talking about the progress I'm making instead of showing it, so here's an update. Paint is drying on the bottom of the boards. Will probably be a few days before I have time to flip 'em over and paint the rim on the top, though.

[Ogrob]

The final plan looks great, and I certainly wish you continue posting in progress shots.

Regarding Dygmies: Tunneling doesn't have the clause that Dig In does. There is no limitation of what terrain they can use Tunneling in.

[empireofdirt]

This design looks great! I look forward to seeing more pictures of your progress, and I hope you don't mind if I blatantly rip you off one day to make my own table. Imitation = flattery and all...

[Marth]

Also, if you're worried about man-made v. dig in - just tell the players that it'll be man-made mostly, so they can choose for themselves whether they really want trenchers. After all, city-fighting is different, and it only becomes unfair if you don't tell in advance.

[Grifter13]

I really like the final board layout, I think I may build a table based off of your design, if you don't mind. How wide were you planing on making the rail bed?

[sergeigen]

Hey ForestZ!, this is Sergio, one of the dudes that from drives up from TJ to play at your FLGS. I'm not exactly a regular but I like to think I'm part of the event crowd at least, and yes, I know what black boards and hand me down 40k terrain you are talking about LOL!.
As a fellow terrain maker and enthusiast I'll give a huge fist pump and encourage you on to keep working on your project!, I'm building a scenario board of my own that I wanna take to KingdomCon next year and have run into a lot of the same dilemas you are dealing with.

I started out making a ruined factory complex board that could somehow be modified to play as many scenarios as possible, but as I kept working on designs that were both good looking and modular enough to accomodate for scenarios it started to become apparent to me that is easier to go for either or, but very hard to do both well.
So I said "screw it" and just went for a scenario board with it's own rules so I can go crazy with static elements and details and stuff like that.

So here are my words of wisdom to you (whatever that's worth lol) "don't try to do every kind of scenario or game on your board, pick 2 or 3 that you really like and fit you board, and build the elements of the board around those".

And as for the variations you posted here, I think I like the second one better. I play Kraye's theme force lol, so yeah, I'm on the asymmetrical side!

P.D. I was looking a lot at Team Fortress 2 maps as inspiration for some really cool asymmetrical design that is fair yet visually interesting.

[ForestZ]

Grifter13: I haven't really figured that out yet. I think it's 5 or 6 inches in the plans. I have parts for a scratch built engine laying around that I'll probably to to make it accommodate.

Sergio: thanks for the words of advice! I wasn't even trying to shoehorn scenarios onto it, but happily several of them work. I figure with boards like this, if you get a couple of scenarios to work on them, that's good enough.

This isnt my best construction job, but given how little time I get to work on it, I want to get to the fun stuff!

[sergeigen]

Hey man...I'm not sure I remember what you look like, but either you're super short or that board you're building is freakin' HUGE!

[Grifter13]

Hey utilizing cheap child labour should speed your project along. A word of advice tho, keep an eye on them as they are prone to taking long naps on their breaks. I find red bull and high sugar snacks solve this problem but quality does often decline as a result.

[roastduck]

Looks like a union job...

[omnivision6]

looks like a union job...

looooooooollllll!!!!!!!!!!!!