To Hill or Not to Hill

I want to say that of course I know it’s a matter of choice, but I’d like to know what people are thinking.

I’m finally getting my table ready to game on after 5 years of painting in various periods. I’ve always wanted to build terrain and things, but never seemed like it was time well spent when I could be painting. Well, I’ve enough painted now that I can spend some time on scenery and not feel like I’m missing something.

I’ve been creating the scenery for Kolin and Lobositz, which is pretty easy. I started to look at Hochkirch and the terrain necessary. Now I’m a little confused by what others are doing. The terrain seems to really help define this battle. I have found two sites with beautiful battle reports
http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2009/02/hochkirch-re-fight-part-1.html#uds-search-results
http://phoenixhorseandmusket.blogspot.com/

They both have two small hills, and that’s it. Seems like the games are good ones though.

The scenario I am going to use has a map like this

and Kronoskaf.com has maps like these.
http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Image:Situation_5am_at_Hochkirch.jpg
http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Image:Battle_of_Hochkirch.jpg

There is definitely room for some more hills in these battles, or are they not necessary?.

I’m wondering if most gamers go this minimalist route or do most gamers favor lots of hills? I suppose it’s only necessary to have hills on the table if they were significant in the battle.

What are your thoughts? Where do you stand?

Get Notified of New Content

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply