DAG-Field Size & Troop Advantages/Disadvantages??

[Blathergut]

I'm finding the maps to be very large. A 400pt DAG army, esp. if mostly HF, seems to have a hard time getting to the enemy if they choose to keep moving away. And, those same HF seem to be much more vulnerable to LH w bows or javelins esp, since there is so much distance to cover.

Are certain troop types starting to show advantages/disadvantages??

[keithmartinsmith]

We have set the default map sizes to

<450> 700 points to 30h x 50w
Otherwise 30h x 40w

Any suggestions of an alternative would be appreciated. I
Thanks
Keith

[petergarnett]

My suggestion would be to simply leave it to the player how to deploy - if he wants his heavies in the front line that's up him. I find it annoying that I'm only permitted to put my lights there currently.

[Paisley]

I think it makes bow armed troops more useful than previously, which is perhaps no bad thing. But some of the smaller armies (in terms of the relative numbers of units) look a bit lost on the maps sometimes - and are very vulnerable to being surrounded by lights and cavalry if they are mainly HI based like the Romans. I'm not sure anything need schanged, but these battles seem to me to play very differently from the 'historical' ones. The precise layout and compostition of the random terrain can have a dramatic impact too.

[petergarnett]

I didn't think the terrain was random - played 2 DAG games & had the same map.

[Blathergut]

We have set the default map sizes to

<450> 700 points to 30h x 50w
Otherwise 30h x 40w

Any suggestions of an alternative would be appreciated. I
Thanks
Keith

Have to play a pile of games first!!

[keithmartinsmith]

There are 160 maps that the system randonly chooses from. They are all scored for density of terrain and then after the two players have chosen their preferred density the game systehm builds a list of maps within the acceptable range and randomly chooses from within that. So the odds of the same map are quite low. Keit

[arsan]

I like the current map sizes. Not too big and not small...
What woudl be nice for DAG battles would be to have the units on the deploy phase somewhat better organized. Like all the same type together and on the map border to reduce clicking around.
What i mean is let the usual deploy zone (center of the map, as near the enemy as possible) clear of units so you don't have to click twice, once to first remove a unit from a hex you want to use and then click again to put the unit you want to deploy there.

Oh, another very welcomed improvement for DAG battles against teh AI would be to give the AI some instructions about deploying.
As it is now, the AI don't deploy anything, just start the battle with their troops scrambled together as they appear on the deployment phase. That is, all mixed up in heaps, with no resemblance of a line. It makes DAG battles against the AI very easy.
Some basic instructions like "infantry in the center in line, cav on the flanks and lights in front" will make the AI more fun to play to.
Maybe its planned for the promised AI improvement patch??
Cheers

[Blathergut]

Am finding the maps way too large. At 400 pts, Romans barely cover a half. All but one game so far has seen the battle lines end perpendicular to their starting positions as each weights one flank heavy and then keeps pulling the other back and around.

LH has come into its own...so much room to move and shoot...5 or 6 skirmish BGs can spend 3 or 4 turns ganging up on one enemy BG.

Will play more and see...

[Xiccarph]

For my Pontic the battle field seems about right at 400 at teh default setting. Maybe try for more cover with the Romans?

[pantherboy]

I'm finding the sizes just right. If you go heavy on powerful units then you risk envelopment but you do have the ability to smash what you contact but if you go with weak and plentiful units then you want the ability to maneuver. If you make the battlefield smaller then you risk making a number of the armies unplayable due to poor composition choices.

[76mm]

I think the map sizes and map diversity are a good thing as well. does the computer also "spin" the maps when it chooses them? This could greatly increase replayability...

[CharlesRobinson]

I like the map size - perfect - I tried a 400pt battle for each of the available armies and it looks good regardless of the army. Also tried a 900pt army and the map adjust to the size of the armies perfectly no changes needed there - did run into a issue on the my first challenge - both camps dropped in the center of the no mans land right next to each other.

[Paisley]

That's not an issue... it's a fine obstacle to your advance.

Seriously though, it needs fixing. Allowing camps to be set up on slopes would avoid it occurring.

[Scutarii]

Well, i find the map size correct but cant say the same for the unit size, i think that not barbarian infantry units (like phalanx) need 2 size types, 1500 and 1000 because fight with this armies VS barbarians is a little... well, as roman you have with a few extra elite or superior infantry at least but in armies like Ptlomeic you have average troops (line troops) and you are carnage to flanking (and need to defend your camp dont help nothing plus enemy camp is near impossible to assault) i see that this armies not barbarian and not roman are a little in the middle of nowhere, they dont have quality in infantry but they dont have quantity... think that they need 1000 soldiers units to give to your army ... 4-5 pike extra units, at least can or extend your line or have a poor second line.

[TimW]

If anything I'd like a larger (wider rather than deeper) map - especially for 600+ point armies.

Smaller maps make it too easy for one or both sides to secure at least one flank on the "edge of the world"; not only is this unrealistic and artificial (there is no map edge to protect your flank in real life) it makes life much harder for light horse armies such as the Parthians. Expanding the number of units in an army so they can avoid envelopment by having a presence on more hexes would have pretty much the same effect as a narrower map in this respect. I suspect it would also alter the historical balance between armies quite drastically as well. Unless the smaller close-fighting units were to have their combat factors reduced by 1/3 to match their reduction in number of course.

Smaller units would also be easier to break by causing casualties, which I suspect may make them a push-over to a head-on assault by late Republican Roman legionaries.

[Paisley]

My understanding is that a unit of 100 pikemen (at game start) will be as resilient as a unit of 1500 (game start) because casualties are calculated as percentages. The idea is that for balance, 1500 infantry = 500 lights = 1000 horse = 20 heffalumps and their combat power is factored into that 75:25:50:1 relationship. So if you adjust the size of one unit, you must really adjust the others proportionally to keep the mechanics working as expected.

In essence the starting number of men in a unit has no relevance.

[Morbio]

I can see the sense in a wider map, the map edge is artificial and shouldn't be something that is easily used to secure a flank. anything that gives cavalry a chance to do the job it was supposed to (i.e. get round the flanks and attack the rear) is a good thing.

[ianiow]

If the battlefield is too wide you may have a problem during initial deployment as neither side can tell where the other is going to deploy and the battlelines may end up nowhere near each other. In RL you could see generally WHERE the enemy was, if not the finer detail of the troop type and layout. In FoG PC at present, with an extra wide battlefield, it would be a case of deploy and hope that the enemy is somewhere near you !

[Morbio]

That should be easy to fix. Just limit the initial deployment to the middle 1/3 or 1/2 hexes.