cheesy terrain?

[spike]

All well and good, however many of those who most "want" terrain often don't have the option to have horses.

And many of those with horses do not get viable terrain troops. Mongols would never appear if there was more terrain

Tim

I brought this up twice during playtests. Unfortunatly there was no "weight of opinion" then to change the deployment rules, and nothing has changed since.

see

viewtopic.php?t=4042&highlight=terrain
viewtopic.php?t=3308&highlight=terrain

the usual comments -Its a game, were not here to reinact history etc etc etc.
so take note

1. It is impossible to please all the people all the time - the game would be duller if there were no LH armies because there is too much terrain
2. if you play quickly, there is usualy enough time in 3 hrs to shove them all off the back of the table- you only have to go 38" for your Roman's to kick him off the back edge- and you go first so thats 8" taken care of on turn 1
3. Even Dave R will get fed up of running away at some point - probably by 2012 (before Newcastle win any silverware at any rate )


Spike

[madaxeman]

All well and good, however many of those who most "want" terrain often don't have the option to have horses.

And many of those with horses do not get viable terrain troops. Mongols would never appear if there was more terrain

I agree it's a good thing Mongols etc are viable, absolutely yes. I think the army, the shooting and cohesion rules and the terrain rules makevthem and their ilk* a very decent bet to use.

But I'm now looking at foot armies on the basis of "can they cover at least 5 foot of table with troops who are armoured, superior or who shoot?". If the answer is no I don't really consider them as i feel they will struggle badly against Mongols etc. Which for me means there are more foot armies who "lose" than mounted armies who "win" out of the current balance - again as I see it.

(* "ilk"! do you see what I did there? )

[philqw78]

My sister once carved her name on an ilk. Or was it an elk, possibly a moose.

[david53]

All well and good, however many of those who most "want" terrain often don't have the option to have horses.

Whichever way you cut it, there seem to be more game mechanics to help you end up with minimal terrain than there are to help you get a heap of terrain. That in itself might be a very legitimate design objective, but with 800ap armies I fear it risks restricting army choice - i know that a percieved need to be able to fight on a near- bare table against lots of LH shooting is a major driver affecting my choices.

Will all due respect it still seems as if you want it all your way.
You want terrian and then you want loads of cavalry as well along with your Armoured Infantry.
If you were to take 12 cases of Cav or Light Horse you get +1 take an IC you end up will plus +3 whats the problum. There are many foot heavy armies including the one you had at Britcon with the ability to field 12 bases. I can't see the problum arguing over not being able to get that extra +1 you pays your money and takes your army choice just cause you don't like one type why try to limit them. I myself think medium foot are overrated in FOG but its in the rules and i can't see an amended version coming out soon.

[philqw78]

3 of the top 5 in the early period at Britcon were foot armies. 2 of the top 5 in the later period were foot armies. So there does not seem to be a problem there. Of these foot armies 2 were unprotected, 1 protected and 2 armoured.

In the later period 2 of the mounted were shooty, one shock. Early period both shock.

I believe Tim that you are just trying to slant the rules to your favourite armies and style of play, or at least the style of play you became used to from previous rules.

Looking at the above there is only one troop type that misses out. HF. And they don't like terrain. Unless someone does put a river down that they can rest their flank on. Said river would be useless if it then had a piece of rough going dropped on it.

But then you can say anything with statistics, or as I like to call them, FACTS.





above facts were gained by using educated guesses as to army composition.

[jlopez]

3 of the top 5 in the early period at Britcon were foot armies. 2 of the top 5 in the later period were foot armies. So there does not seem to be a problem there. Of these foot armies 2 were unprotected, 1 protected and 2 armoured.

In the later period 2 of the mounted were shooty, one shock. Early period both shock.

I believe Tim that you are just trying to slant the rules to your favourite armies and style of play, or at least the style of play you became used to from previous rules.

Looking at the above there is only one troop type that misses out. HF. And they don't like terrain. Unless someone does put a river down that they can rest their flank on. Said river would be useless if it then had a piece of rough going dropped on it.
But then you can say anything with statistics, or as I like to call them, FACTS.

I was using one of the two top five infantry armies in the late period and with 60 longbowmen and 16 billmen it was designed to comfortably deploy across the width of the table to face off shooty cav/LH armies. My toughest challenge was an Ottoman with 20 BGs of light troops which I only just shot to pieces in the available time and only because it had two allied generals which meant the Ottoman generals couldn't rally enough BGs per turn to make a difference.

I'm with Tim on this one. Mounted armies have a definite advantage within limited time frames as when things go pear-shaped they can relatively easily play for a draw. As a result, we will probably start using a blitz system in Spain where necesarry to restore the balance without extending playing time.

Julian

[philqw78]

I'm with Tim on this one. Mounted armies have a definite advantage within limited time frames as when things go pear-shaped

This is about terrain. Not speed of game, which terrain will slow

they can relatively easily play for a draw. As a result, we will probably start using a blitz system in Spain where necesarry to restore the balance without extending playing time.
Julian

Anybody can play for a draw. With more terrain you will get more draws. MF sits in terrain. Mounted sits outside. At least the road and river thing forces a game.

[philqw78]

I think a lot of the problems HF have could be solved by increasing their movement speed to 4 MU. Why do MF move faster? The would have a much greater chance of finishing their games. Mounted would not have such a great advantage over them. Bowfire would though be reduced. Solved by increasing effective bow and mounted bow range to 5MU. This would also give Bw/Bw* lancers a chance to shoot the enemy before they had to charge. Probably increase Kn and Cat move to 5 MU as well.
But whatever is done many many other things will be affected.

[madaxeman]

Yet again, I'm not against mounted armies per se. I used to use Lithuanians in DBM !!

What I'm concerned about is the possible emergence of stereotyped terrain - like the edition of DBM where one side always chose a waterway to narrow the board by 18" - which in turn may then lead to restricted army choice.

The only saving grace here is that LH shooty outfits are so tedious to play with that people increasingly can't be bothered to use them.

[madaxeman]

I'm with Tim on this one. Mounted armies have a definite advantage within limited time frames as when things go pear-shaped

This is about terrain. Not speed of game, which terrain will slow

they can relatively easily play for a draw. As a result, we will probably start using a blitz system in Spain where necesarry to restore the balance without extending playing time.
Julian

Anybody can play for a draw. With more terrain you will get more draws. MF sits in terrain. Mounted sits outside. At least the road and river thing forces a game.

V good point. Foot need lots of turns to push mounted off table. Too much terrain slows them down, but with no terrain its impossible to fill the table at 800AP so you still need some to narrow it a bit. Getting the right balance however is very difficult to do, and almost impossible if the mounted army has initiative.

But if you do win initiative and pick terrain, the enemy move first, making it even harder to finish the game ....

[fredrik]

Again, as long as you're playing the same scenario over and over again (ie, setup a straight fight and kill as many enemies as possible in a limited timeframe) it doesn't matter how you tweak the rules, you will always eventually end up with a limited set of "viable" armies. Increase the movement allowance of HF to 4" and MF become pointless, as an example.

In my opinion, the best way to shake things up is to change the scenario. Most other tournament games have a mechanism whereby you roll for your scenario at the start of the game, why not a similar thing in FOG? For example, take and hold objectives would be a way to make HF viable again - rationalize it as the army needing take a hill to construct a new camp closer to a water source. Or, one side needs to break through the blocking enemy army to exit as many units as possible on the opposite long edge, a great scenario for a mounted attacker against a foot defender. Different types of scenarios benefit different troop types, the one scenario in the rules just happen to benefit mounted troops as the rules are written.

It's all up to the organizers if they want to do something different. For example, at our club we're planning a theme tournament with preset terrain and prechosen armies for each table, with the players taking turns to play each table. It's an extreme example but illustrates that you can shake things up without needing a revision of the rules.

And finally a note about terrain: there really needs to be a change in mindset in the ancients community regarding the modeling of terrain. Personally, I find it quite heartbreaking spending half a year painstakingly researching and painting an army only to play it on a table littered with colored felt and cardboard. I played a high-profile international event this summer where my opponent actually put down a plain cardboard circle and wrote the terrain type on it with a marker! For shame!

[lawrenceg]

3 of the top 5 in the early period at Britcon were foot armies. 2 of the top 5 in the later period were foot armies. So there does not seem to be a problem there. Of these foot armies 2 were unprotected, 1 protected and 2 armoured.

In the later period 2 of the mounted were shooty, one shock. Early period both shock.
.

In the early period, one top foot army was superior shooters, one was superior shooters plus armoured MF and the other Tim's army designed on the "can they cover at least 5 foot of table with troops who are armoured, superior or who shoot?" principle.

In the late period one was largely shooters designed to take out shooty cavalry as Julian has described. Not sure about the Norse Irish.

Thus it does appear that Tim's design principle is a very useful one for foot.

[philqw78]

Increase the movement allowance of HF to 4" and MF become pointless, as an example.

But MF can fight in Rough Going. Also, was there really such a thing as MF/HF divide?

In my opinion, the best way to shake things up is to change the scenario. Most other tournament games have a mechanism whereby you roll for your scenario at the start of the game, why not a similar thing in FOG? For example, take and hold objectives would be a way to make HF viable again - rationalize it as the army needing take a hill to construct a new camp closer to a water source. Or, one side needs to break through the blocking enemy army to exit as many units as possible on the opposite long edge, a great scenario for a mounted attacker against a foot defender. Different types of scenarios benefit different troop types, the one scenario in the rules just happen to benefit mounted troops as the rules are written.

The problem here is getting a game where both armies, probably anachronistic, have an equal chance of winning. The rules would have to be written with scenarios specifically in mind.

And finally a note about terrain: there really needs to be a change in mindset in the ancients community regarding the modeling of terrain. Personally, I find it quite heartbreaking spending half a year painstakingly researching and painting an army only to play it on a table littered with colored felt and cardboard. I played a high-profile international event this summer where my opponent actually put down a plain cardboard circle and wrote the terrain type on it with a marker! For shame!

This is a problem in Ancients. But people tend to be functional. Figures don't fall off bits of cloth. Possibly a carry over from DBM where every mm was much more important.

[philqw78]

Not sure about the Norse Irish.

Norse Irish is mainly unprotected MF. Does not fit Tims criteria.

[madaxeman]

Aaah - but I'd probably field them with all 24 superiors, and a big armoured hairy viking ally

[fredrik]

Well, it can also be fielded as 23+ battlegroups - including the superior guys. Not the easiest army to take down.

[fredrik]

In my opinion, the best way to shake things up is to change the scenario. Most other tournament games have a mechanism whereby you roll for your scenario at the start of the game, why not a similar thing in FOG? For example, take and hold objectives would be a way to make HF viable again - rationalize it as the army needing take a hill to construct a new camp closer to a water source. Or, one side needs to break through the blocking enemy army to exit as many units as possible on the opposite long edge, a great scenario for a mounted attacker against a foot defender. Different types of scenarios benefit different troop types, the one scenario in the rules just happen to benefit mounted troops as the rules are written.

The problem here is getting a game where both armies, probably anachronistic, have an equal chance of winning. The rules would have to be written with scenarios specifically in mind.

I don't think it's realistic to find a balance where all armies always have an equal chance of winning, and I don't think that necessarily should be the objective of the design either. I have no problem with mounted being superior to foot in the standard "kill 'em all"-type scenario, if the foot was superior to mounted in for example a "take and hold"-type scenario. It's all about variation to keep the game interesting, in my opinion.

What I'm looking to avoid is rather that players all converge on a handful of armies only. When we're all playing proxied Ottomans or DomRom on our garbage felt and cardboard tables, if you will.

[philqw78]

What about Italian Ostrogoth. Is nobody going to copy that?

[grahambriggs]

And finally a note about terrain: there really needs to be a change in mindset in the ancients community regarding the modeling of terrain. Personally, I find it quite heartbreaking spending half a year painstakingly researching and painting an army only to play it on a table littered with colored felt and cardboard. I played a high-profile international event this summer where my opponent actually put down a plain cardboard circle and wrote the terrain type on it with a marker! For shame! [/quote]

Since I've been fogging I've made an effort to steer clear of felt terrain, useful and lightweight as it is, and at least put down modelled terrain even if it's not the best. It's light enough to travel with.

[philqw78]

Since I've been fogging I've made an effort to steer clear of felt terrain, useful and lightweight as it is, and at least put down modelled terrain even if it's not the best. It's light enough to travel with.

There is lots of nice terrain out there now and it is much more useable in FoG. I even have a working volcano for my Romans.