Stop it with the Damn Rivers!

[Buttons]

I am so sick of every random map battle having a river straight down the middle. I was actually going to put together a collage of bow many times I needed to reroll maps before I got one without a river strait in between both deployment zones, but gave up after nine maps in a row with a river right across the middle. I already hate this feature as it paralyzes any army that relies on heavy infantry or heavy cavalry, a rough terrain patch, forest, hill, lake, swamp, those can be interesting, do you split up your army? Do you rush the hill? Do you go around the hill? But any melee army has no choice with the river, you either force a crossing with a massive disadvantage or you just let the enemy shoot you. I wouldn't even mind if this happened some of the time, terrain that really works against my army is fine but not over 90% of the time.

[tyronec]

Would be sympathetic with this point, while rivers across the center of the map are not as common as 90% they do occur too often.

The only historical battle I can think of where this happened was Granicus, there were others where one army crossed at a ford or bridge but that is a different situation and is not modelled in the game. More common was that when there was a river between two armies then the manoeuvre stage continued and battle was delayed.

[Nijis]

River or stream? I've never had a major river separating deployment zones.

I think it was relatively common in ancient and medieval battles to have a stream (in FoG terms) running roughly parallel to the two armies. Pretty much any valley will have some sort of watercourse in the middle, even a dry wadi, although often it will be parallel to the main road and thus likely be to one side or the other of the attacking forces.

One example would be Issus, but there are others like Bannockburn or Stamford Bridge where (presumably) the stream divided the battlefield but neither side chose to use it as a main line of defense. This happens frequently enough in FoG, where high ground is generally preferable to a stream, especially if you're planning an active defense.

[markleslie]

Putting any sort of significant terrain in the middle of the battlefield for equal points pickup games is a problem.

I don't care if it is as common as mud to have a tank trench between the armies it doesn't make for a good pickup game and, maybe, should be left for scenarios or, alternatively, be a feature that one can opt in or opt out of during terrain generation.

Terrain in the middle of the battlefield should not be dictating the course pickup games.

[SnuggleBunnies]

This sort of thing *can* cause draws, but it's not guaranteed. One approach is to simply hang far back behind the river to give the enemy time to cross. It's also possible to feint a central approach and then cross on a flank, although it's certainly not easy. And of course, not all rivers are created equal. A Deep Stream cutting down the center of the field can be tough certainly, but the others are surmountable.

Really it comes down to force comp, and if there is a tournament context in which players are incentivized to get points. Anyway it really isn't that common, and you can if you choose pick map types that are even less likely to have this sort of thing going on.

[tyronec]

This sort of thing *can* cause draws, but it's not guaranteed. One approach is to simply hang far back behind the river to give the enemy time to cross.

The problem with sitting back is that in a competition game, like in a Slitherine tournament, there is no certainty that the opponent will advance. So you have a choice, make a bad attack or risk a 0-0 draw.
It seems to be around 10% to 20% chance to get a river between the armies. Shallow stream is no problem but Medium and Deep rivers are. A solution might be to just remove the chance of that happening.
I can't really see a benefit in having these rivers, most players dislike them and probably the exception is where they see their opponent feeling they have to make an attack across one.

[Hari72]

This sort of thing *can* cause draws, but it's not guaranteed. One approach is to simply hang far back behind the river to give the enemy time to cross.

I can't really see a benefit in having these rivers, most players dislike them and probably the exception is where they see their opponent feeling they have to make an attack across one.

Adds a little strategy to the game, and it makes a difference. Otherwise it becomes like the game Rock-paper-scissors. Infantry over cavalry, cavalry over archers and so on. And it gives meaning to the army selection phase.

[Nijis]

I think the bigger problem is that there is no disincentive to turtle on a defensible edge within the context of the particular 1-1 battle. Yes, in a tournament you get penalized for a 0-0 draw, but that seems like a game of chicken.

Typically one side would find itself under some political or logistical pressure to attack, but there may not be a fair way to designate an attacker. I don't think it would be too ahistorical to award a 0-0 or otherwise tied game to any side that dominates the center. That could represent either political pressure (ie, you made a show of aggression and the enemy's failure to respond loses him the confidence of his sub-commanders) or logistical (that stream running down the middle is the main source of potable water).

[Buttons]

This sort of thing *can* cause draws, but it's not guaranteed. One approach is to simply hang far back behind the river to give the enemy time to cross. It's also possible to feint a central approach and then cross on a flank, although it's certainly not easy. And of course, not all rivers are created equal. A Deep Stream cutting down the center of the field can be tough certainly, but the others are surmountable.

Really it comes down to force comp, and if there is a tournament context in which players are incentivized to get points. Anyway it really isn't that common, and you can if you choose pick map types that are even less likely to have this sort of thing going on.

The issue is that if the terrain favours one player than they have no incentive to advance, if I have medium infantry as the core of my army why would I leave the river for near certain death? Even if the other player wants to advance and use the time and space provided to them for maneuver than it still slows down the game massively with several turns of posturing and maneuvering before any actual conflict.