Space to play?

[OrangeKNight]

Hey guys, this question just kinda popped into head at work and having never been very familiar with Mechaton I don't really have anything to compare to, but how big would the average "board" be for a game?

I'm thinking about the possibility of making a modular board out of Lego.

Mike

[Mantisking]

I believe Joshua said the optimal board is a circle 36" across.

Is it sad that I saw a tabletop with those exact dimensions a couple of weeks ago in Loews and my first thought was it'd be the perfect MFZ game surface?

[OrangeKNight]

A Circle? That seems a bit odd....but it seems like a decent size, maybe a BIT small, but like I said, I'm not familiar with the game at all! xD

Mike

[Galaxy613]

I heard 4x the Direct Fire range. And if DF is 12" You should have a table at least 48" across. But it's really up to you anyways.

[schoon]

I was thinking about a modular board made of these.

However, at 128mm (5 in) square, it would take about 50 to make a game table.

Yes, I know you could cut that down quite a bit with 32L or 48L Baseplates, but linking those together wouldn't be as seamless.

Thoughts?

[OrangeKNight]

Actually 32x32 baseplates might be better, they come out to almost exactly 10", so 16 to make a 40"x40" or 25 for a 50"x50".

Then it's the 100$ question, Studs or Tiles........Tiles would make it easier to stand Frames..........but Studs would look better!

Mike

[Soren]

Try bricks turned sideways - 2x4 or 2x8 will be pretty sturdy. And potentially cheaper, if you pick the right color. Certainly cheaper than tiles.

I'm currently a lot more fascinated by the idea of elevation than total ground coverage - more interesting to design. I guess, were I bored out of my skull, I could sit down and build a 36-40" circle that would work, but by the end of it my fingers would hurt and I would want to kill people. Easier to buy a cheap piece of wood, cut 50-60 2x2 brick holes in it for mounting terrain, and play on that. You could even put it on a lazy-susan mount.

[MittenNinja]

Try bricks turned sideways - 2x4 or 2x8 will be pretty sturdy. And potentially cheaper, if you pick the right color. Certainly cheaper than tiles.

I am totally doing this. I'm pretty sure the Lego store in Colorado mills has a bunch of tan 2x4s and 1x4s on their wall too. Time to make some desert and badlands!

[Axhead]

In Mechaton there was distance unit defined, and some comments have confirmed that will be the case here. Direct range is recommended to be 8 units, since that is the max distance you move on a green d8.

I use technic rods that are 9 studs [edit: wrong they are 6, I measured when I got home] long as my base unit of measure and it works out well on my dining room table. Since I connect them with technic connectors each unit becomes about 7 studs long (and for the love of all the Ijad hold holy do NOT type that phrase into google images at work). Depending on the size of the table you are playing on, you adjust your unit size to keep it playable.

The size of the mechs vs the table top distances dont realy work out in terms of scale, but are great in terms of game play. I think of it as the lego representing a 3d commanders display that abstracts things in a simplified form to enhance command decision response times.

I think that the reason why a round table would work well is because there are no corners to fortify, but I'm just guessing.

[goldenmeanie]

I think that the round table suggestion has to do with three (or more) factions being able to meet in the middle with relatively equal backfields.

[The Trilobite]

I'm currently a lot more fascinated by the idea of elevation than total ground coverage - more interesting to design. I guess, were I bored out of my skull, I could sit down and build a 36-40" circle that would work, but by the end of it my fingers would hurt and I would want to kill people. Easier to buy a cheap piece of wood, cut 50-60 2x2 brick holes in it for mounting terrain, and play on that. You could even put it on a lazy-susan mount.

I totally agree with you about elevation, and its one of the aspects I'm looking forward to playing with in MFZ. Also, lazy susan idea=best idea.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I think that the round table suggestion has to do with three (or more) factions being able to meet in the middle with relatively equal backfields.

Getting between your opponents is never a good idea. You don't ever want to be the most convenient target. Long tables often make that happen to one player. Round or square ones at least disincline a player to get stuck in between, even if it happens sometimes anyway.

[exhominem]

I think that the round table suggestion has to do with three (or more) factions being able to meet in the middle with relatively equal backfields.

Getting between your opponents is never a good idea. You don't ever want to be the most convenient target. Long tables often make that happen to one player. Round or square ones at least disincline a player to get stuck in between, even if it happens sometimes anyway.

Not necessarily, I played my first session last week on a rectangular table and I took the middle on Defense. My friend and I talked about whether or not that was a smart move, and my logic for it was that no matter what, it made the other two's stations more easily accessible to me, as I didn't have to cross another player's territory to get to them.

[afny]

I think that the round table suggestion has to do with three (or more) factions being able to meet in the middle with relatively equal backfields.

Getting between your opponents is never a good idea. You don't ever want to be the most convenient target. Long tables often make that happen to one player. Round or square ones at least disincline a player to get stuck in between, even if it happens sometimes anyway.

Not necessarily, I played my first session last week on a rectangular table and I took the middle on Defense. My friend and I talked about whether or not that was a smart move, and my logic for it was that no matter what, it made the other two's stations more easily accessible to me, as I didn't have to cross another player's territory to get to them.

But did you win?

[exhominem]

But did you win?

...I don't see how that's relevant.

[randolph]

But did you win?

...I don't see how that's relevant.

Because whether it's easier to capture the enemy stations or not doesn't matter if the tradeoffs you made to achieve that didn't net positive for you.

Not having to go through enemy territory to capture stations on the far side means the enemy doesn't have to go through each others' territory to reach yours, either. Plus it means a two-front war.

[schoon]

I'm going with a 40 inch diameter circle (1/8 inch styrene disc already acquired from a local plastic vendor), to which I will affix 4x4 plates as attachment points for my modular 16x16 terrain tiles.

It's going to be epic (and look smashing for demos)!

[randolph]

I'm going with a 40 inch diameter circle (1/8 inch styrene disc already acquired from a local plastic vendor), to which I will affix 4x4 plates as attachment points for my modular 16x16 terrain tiles.

It's going to be epic (and look smashing for demos)!

So 320 plates diameter, approximately 274 FT in 7p and 20 range units across.

Pics when you get it all set up please!