Terrain Choice

[hannibal]

At the moment the terrain choice falls to the player with the initiative. This is fine to an extent - if A has invaded B the army with the initiative should get to choose the site of the battle. Fair enough

However, why does winning the initiative get you to choose whether you invaded or not?

So if you have a steppe army with +4 initiative modifier, you are more likely than not to be able to choose to be invaded and fight in your own (steppe) terrain. Who invaded who has nothing to do with pre-battle initiative.

This feels wrong. Which territory the fight takes place in (i.e. who is the invader) should be a 50:50 all the time. Player with the initiative should then get to choose which of the available terrain types of the defender the battle takes place in. So throw 2 dice at the start of the game, 1 for invader/defender, 1 for Pre-battle initiative.


Thoughts?

Marc

[nikgaukroger]

To be honest I think in a FoG context a single role for invader/defender a la DBM and then use the defender's terrain choices would work perfectly well without needing a 2nd roll. I don't think the terrain options in the territory types in FoG allow the same sort of tricks that could be pulled under DBM with a low aggression army.

[philqw78]

I remember, not too long ago, doing a historical re-fight, Romans angainst Huns in Western Europe. There were 3 pieces of terrain on a 18 foot wide table. A gentle hill and 2 uneven ground. Chalons IIRC.

But that was a game based on history, not points.

I feel a number of armies are rather badly done to with their terrain choices. For example Urartian. A mounted army. What are its terrain chioces? Mountains or Hills??????????

If it becomes an attacker defender thing the list writers would have to look at what type of terrain armies fought their battles on. Not what the prevelant terrain in that area is.

I personally feel that there is far too much terrain placed in early, pre-medieval, battles unless steppe is chosen. But that may be due to the belief that MF existed as a seperate entity, rather than there just being foot and skirmishing foot.

[grahambriggs]

Perhaps one solution would be to keep things as they are but allow the player losing the PBI roll to veto one terrain type? I can't really see a Dacian army wandering onto the steppe, nor can I see Mongols wandering into the mountains if the dacians did fluke the PBI roll.

[timmy1]

------------------
Graham is right

[ethan]

Perhaps one solution would be to keep things as they are but allow the player losing the PBI roll to veto one terrain type? I can't really see a Dacian army wandering onto the steppe, nor can I see Mongols wandering into the mountains if the dacians did fluke the PBI roll.

This would lead to no battles on Steppes or Mountains which seems a bit odd.

I would rather see the terrain lists themselves modified a bit.

The addition of a bit of terrain to the step list and perhaps an open or two to the more closed options would achieve much of hte same effect.

[lawrenceg]

The terrain system is slanted towards getting open terrain, which favours mounted armies.

This is not just the natural tendency of steppe armies to have lots of LC/CV and therefore high PBI so a high chance of being able to choose steppe. This is probably the least part of the problem as most experienced steppe army players say they would rather lose the PBI so they get the first move.

IMO more significant is the ability to effectively or entirely remove your opponent's terrain from the battlefield (or block it with an open space or road), which is not balanced by an equal ability to make your opponent's open space or out-of-the-way, minimum sized uneven into a significant, in-the-way rough or difficult. Yes, you might be able to move the terrain 6 or 12 MU, but if it is a tiny piece it doesn't matter much where you move it.

I think it would be worth looking at balancing the terrain game by allowing players to replace their opponent's piece with one of their own choice, or possibly one of the same type only, instead of simply removing it on a roll of 6 (and maybe also on a 5).

e.g.

5 = may move 12 MU, or rotate, or replace with same type and size classification, at least partly overlapping the original.
6 = may remove entirely, or replace with any type and size piece still available.

One still needs to reflect the fact that most historical battles took place in open ground. However, many had their width limited by the terrain on the flanks so I think it would be worth changing the system to make it easier to get terrain to narrow the field. This should also help reduce the prevalence of games which rotate 90 degrees out of a corner, which was not a common occurrence historically AFAIK, but seems to happen a lot in FOG.

Apart from that, I'm not convinced that the direct link between mounted troops and PBI is all that historical. The location of the battle was probably determined more by logistical and to some extent political factors than by the availability of mounted scouts. On the other hand, it does act as a balancer in that it increases the chance of a foot army getting the first move and stopping the enemy LH double moving.

[hazelbark]

You could also say if you roll a 6 instead of remove. You demote or promote it one level, IE difficult can be shifter to rough. would make rough a less easy choice for MF armies.

[hannibal]

TBH I quite liked the DBM mechanic of grading armies by their historical aggressiveness, but I don't think there's too much wrong with the terrain rules so was trying to suggest something simple.

There are a couple of cheesy things that need fixing - but they seem easy enough to me - this game of deploying roads/coasts/rivers (I forget which) on the flanks and so prevent terrain should be fixed by roads being superimposed on other terrain or else making the river/coast form a new edge & allowing terrain to be placed adjacent to it.

Other than that my main gripe is mounted steppe armies nearly always fighting on steppe (if they want to that is).

Marc

[stecal]

Easy fix- just add some more terrain types to steppe. Steppe ain't all that flat or easy going

[david53]

Easy fix- just add some more terrain types to steppe. Steppe ain't all that flat or easy going

I thought they were just that

[hazelbark]

Easy fix- just add some more terrain types to steppe. Steppe ain't all that flat or easy going

I thought they were just that

There are an awful lot of gulleys and undulations. Not to mention scrub.

One option would be to up the number of pieces of say rough but put a star in there that they can't be larger than say 6x6 MU

[deadtorius]

That would be nice. When I play my Bactrians Blathergut takes every piece of cataphract unfriendly stuff he can get and drops it on my nice clean steppe. Then it is not so nice and open. Being pikes versus Romans, I am pikes, I am constantly putting up with battle fields full of crap that the evil Romans get their gods to drop in my way..

[pcelella]

I don't know what could be done about it, but I would love to see the terrain placement segment of a tournament game made quicker. I've frequently spent an hour for terrain placement and deployment - even against fairly experienced opponents. Maybe if terrain choices came in packets (i.e. specific terrain features for terrain choices so that, say, an Agricultural choice would get a pre-specified selection of terrain) it would speed things up a bit.

In addition, I'd love to see the placement tables modified to get move terrain in the middle of the table. There are too many chances for 'touching side edge' and 'touching long edge' to have terrain really effecting the battle.

Because of the two things I mention, I think too much time is spent placing terrain that ultimately can have little effect on the course of an engagement.


Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[philqw78]

In addition, I'd love to see the placement tables modified to get move terrain in the middle of the table. There are too many chances for 'touching side edge' and 'touching long edge' to have terrain really effecting the battle.

But surely most battlefields were chosen because they were clear open space in the centre.

[grahambriggs]

I don't know what could be done about it, but I would love to see the terrain placement segment of a tournament game made quicker. I've frequently spent an hour for terrain placement and deployment - even against fairly experienced opponents. Maybe if terrain choices came in packets (i.e. specific terrain features for terrain choices so that, say, an Agricultural choice would get a pre-specified selection of terrain) it would speed things up a bit.

In addition, I'd love to see the placement tables modified to get move terrain in the middle of the table. There are too many chances for 'touching side edge' and 'touching long edge' to have terrain really effecting the battle.

Because of the two things I mention, I think too much time is spent placing terrain that ultimately can have little effect on the course of an engagement.


Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

An hour?! Ten minutes at most is needed!

[jlopez]

I don't know what could be done about it, but I would love to see the terrain placement segment of a tournament game made quicker. I've frequently spent an hour for terrain placement and deployment - even against fairly experienced opponents. Maybe if terrain choices came in packets (i.e. specific terrain features for terrain choices so that, say, an Agricultural choice would get a pre-specified selection of terrain) it would speed things up a bit.

In addition, I'd love to see the placement tables modified to get move terrain in the middle of the table. There are too many chances for 'touching side edge' and 'touching long edge' to have terrain really effecting the battle.

Because of the two things I mention, I think too much time is spent placing terrain that ultimately can have little effect on the course of an engagement.


Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

An hour?! Ten minutes at most is needed!

For me too but it is an issue with a remarkable number of indecisive players. So much so that a couple of competitions are now playing with the terrain already down and varying rules on modifying it.

[lawrenceg]

In addition, I'd love to see the placement tables modified to get move terrain in the middle of the table. There are too many chances for 'touching side edge' and 'touching long edge' to have terrain really effecting the battle.

But surely most battlefields were chosen because they were clear open space in the centre.

In the centre of the battlefield, not the centre of an arbitrary rectangle of ground.

If you have terrain at the centre of the table, you can still have a fight between the terrain and the edge, which would give you clear open space in the centre of the battlefield.

[MatthewP]

An hour?! Ten minutes at most is needed!

I agree. In three years of playing I dont think I've ever had a game were terrain placing took more than 15 minutes. I think I would have shot my opponent if he was taking that long.

[timmy1]

Matt - you had better not play me else you will up before the beak me suspects...