Terrain Selection

[Morbio]

I'm going to risk re-opening old wounds here....

I think the terrain selection process is not very good. Here's an example from a recent game I played. I chose VERY OPEN and my opponent chose CROWDED. I won the initiative and so I was expecting something ranging from neutral to very open (not knowing what my opponent chose at this stage). Now knowing what he chose I would expect neutral to open since the result should favour me as initiative winner. The battlefield presented was:



Now, maybe I'm alone in my view of this battlefield, but I think this is distinctly CROWDED. I haven't seen many battlefields with more different terrain options and so little contiguous open space.

IMO either the algorithm that decides the battlefield type needs refining to favour the initiative winner more, or the algorithm which classifies battlefields needs refining, or both. I suspect it is the classification process that is sub-optimal. Personally, given there aren't that many battlefields then maybe it would be better to manually categorise the battlefields.

[cothyso]

well, as we're here again, I have a grunge for most of the battlefields presented for DAG games: in no heavenly way would most of them have been picked up by in-their-whole-mind commanders as battle sites in antiquity!!

well now.. if both commanders were partying hard in the night before the battle, smoking pot all night long and drinking themselves senseless 'til the morning.. who knows?

[ericdoman1]

Completely agree with Morbio.

I do not have a saved print screen but I even conceded a game due to ridiculous "very open" terrain.

Steep hills, clear hills dotted with woods on my left flank, centre 13 to 15 hexes open, to my right a valley one side steep hills 2 hexes wide max, then plantation and then clear hills 2 hexes wide max and finally open plain (HA) of 5 hexes. I was using a LAP army 33 mtd, 11 LF vs a 26th dyn Egyptian army. The central plain had armoured hoplites and HCH while his MF, bow and lt spear with some HF def spr occupied the valley and hills to my left. Have played numerous games where I have won initiative and the battlefield is not very open. Even using a Thracian, specified very crowded battlefield, win initiative and voila, very open.

Discussing this with Hidde and the actual terrain rules in FOG-TT. Surely there should be a definition of what very crowded etc is. HAve 10 battlefields for each option, very crowded etc. VEry open 80% + completely plain? It would be a pain to try and implement the TT terrain rules as the games would last so much longer but some system should be designed/developed.

[Skanvak]

It would be good to be able to select and/or add custom maps for DAG battle if we want...

[deeter]

There was a long thread about this awhile back in which several good suggestions were made to bring terrain selection out of the Twilight Zone, but I see no evidence that any those will be adopted. At the very least, the math behind this should be revamped.

I still believe the easiest thing would be for the player with initiative to be presented with say six maps in the same class to chose from and that those maps should be less choatic than the one we often see now.

How about a call for player-designed maps? I'm sure you'd get a bunch in short order and they might actually be playable.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

ironically, I have the same map as posted above in a league batttle vs Deeter

I have less issue with most of the maps ingame but the above map is quite silliy because it clearly was made to be "reciprical" ( and thus defies realism)
i think the designers though a map like this would offer intersting tactical decsions, but it doesnt , quite the opposite because of the DEPLOYMENT in dag battles

For example, in my game vs deeter, both of us have similar armies (Grekko bact vs Alex)
Both of us hunkerded down on the diagonal hill opposite of eachother w our pikes.... Could be a real impasse in the game,,,,

Although having players chose maps would be intersting , i would much rather have a differnt deploy method because really, no commander ever just deployed his troops and then a magical curtain unveils his opponents army 9 on turn one.
As an option, i would like to see deployment similar to the TT game where each opponent deployes 1/4 of his troops at a time. Sure , it would take a little longer to start but i feel it would be worth it, and again it would be optional.

I am all for user made maps getiing into the game, would certainly contribute

[deeter]

The TT deployment routine is better, but of course there is no FOW there except for ambushes and flank marches. Hey! Why aren't those on the PC?

The biggest problem with existing maps is the massive and minute sizes of terrain features. Hills as big as mountains, marshes as small as one hex. I do believe players should have more input on the battlefields the have to fight on.

Deeter

P.S. I agree with you, GreyMouser, about our game. Shall we start over and hope for better terrain?

[TheGrayMouser]

Thanks for the offer Deeter, hope you dont think i was angling for that from my postings of that map, just so irionc we get that map after Morbio posted a screenie

I'm up for a retry on the map if you are! , just shoot me a pm w password and ill close out the current game, cheers

[deeter]

Done, Grey Mouser. New challenge issued, same password. No PM needed. Hopefully, we'll get a better map this time.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Done, Grey Mouser. New challenge issued, same password. No PM needed. Hopefully, we'll get a better map this time.

Deeter

You are a scholar and a gentleman, i will start tonite (man I hate Mondays, work and all)

[Xiggy]

Actually the maps illustrated looks to be mixed terrain believe it or not. Most of my battles are decided by the terrain before the battle is started. Most of our Dag battle are meeting engagements, but the maps favor 1 side or the other. It is very bad in SOA where you have 3 kinds of armies. The horde army that needs horrible terrain, the missile army that needs steep hills and or bad terrain and the impact armies like the swiss, Condotta, or German that prefer very open or open. So if the horde or longbow army gets a flat billiard board, they will lose, if it is any kind of mixed terrain that goes down the center of the map, they have a very good chance of winning.

I dont remember to many historical meeting engagements with bad terrain running down the center of the map. There are a handful of exception, but most terrain was around a side, so at least the mounted and shock armies had a shot. The current terrain model is very frustrating to me. Not sure how the crusader armies fighting the light horse mounted armies will do playing a game in a swamp or on mount Everest most of the time.

[ericdoman1]

Yep agreed Xiggy. Maybe some changes will be made when the S&S list comes out, it is predominantly mounted or HF armies except the Catalans (looking forward to using them). Wouldn't it be good as well where a player can erase certain parts of the map, as in creating a scenario. Maybe they will give you the option of 20 to 50 hexes to erase/delete if you are the attacker. Being the attacker can have numerous disadvantages, not only your terrain selection is a bit WRONG but then your opponent moves first so he can claim said terrain?

[TheGrayMouser]

Its funny, there are so many maps that have a diagonal river or "tree line" running across the map, yet there isnt a single map that has a true river crossing, ie a river in the center with maybe 2 or 3 fords/bridges.

Although i wouldnt want a map like that to come up often, it would be interesting and make a lot more sense than some of the other river style maps.

[deeter]

Why can't we just have a blank map and a selection of terrain pieces to place the same way we place a camp?

Deeter

[ericdoman1]

That would be something similar to the TT version. Some changes would have to be made though. For example each army/nation would have their own territory types, eg agricultural, developed, hilly etc and then what scales would be required for each piece. Thing is it is down to the designer and the limits of the software. My knowledge of IT nowadays is not good but it does sound reasonably easy. Those of you who play FOG-TT will know the terrain system. Others either buy the rules, f you intend to play TT or surf the web.

[deeter]

That's what I had in mind. We kicked this around awhile back. Alternating placing of terrain would take too long, but having the defender set up the map and the attacker picking the side would work and only add on extra step.

Deeter

[batesmotel]

Its funny, there are so many maps that have a diagonal river or "tree line" running across the map, yet there isnt a single map that has a true river crossing, ie a river in the center with maybe 2 or 3 fords/bridges.

Although i wouldnt want a map like that to come up often, it would be interesting and make a lot more sense than some of the other river style maps.

You obviously haven't played on the crossing the amazon map!



Chris

[ericdoman1]

I rest my case hence the victory. Shame there wasn't any steep hills around as well:)

[TheGrayMouser]

Holy cow, have never gotten that map in a dag battle (and hope i never do unless i am playing one of the Indian lists w pacs and archers galore!)

[hidde]

I rest my case hence the victory. Shame there wasn't any steep hills around as well:)

Your Persians favourit map,I gather?
They beat the Egyptians there as well...