Terrain Tweaks

[david53]

The big problem is the buffer zone. A cleverly placed minimum sized piece can almost guarantee that no other terrain can be placed on that side. Each terrain piece occupies a set space, but the buffer zone increases the area it blocks significantly. A minimum sized piece of terrain, 4MU by 6MU covers about 12 MU by 14MU with its buffer zone.

But you get 3,4,5 or 6 to move it? how fair is that....

[gozerius]

ok...

i am leader of a Cav/LH invasion army.
Where will i choose to fight?
a wood? nooo i force the enemy to fight on my terms on a plain somewhere.

So the enemy stay in their fortified towns and wait for winter when your horses will starve?

If you are invading, but the enemy will not fight, will your invasion succeed (Hannibal in italy, Huns before Chalons)

Isn't the point of the "game" to have a fight? Why should the defender have to debouch from his fortifications to drive off the stand-offish cav army if it is unwilling to assault the position? Perhaps the victory conditions need to be modified to take into account the strategic significance of the battle. A shoot and scoot army might have more incentive to close with the enemy if the stakes were high enough. Fortifications cost points, they should be worth something more than 5 MUs of deployment depth.

[philqw78]

Isn't the point of the "game" to have a fight? Why should the defender have to debouch from his fortifications to drive off the stand-offish cav army if it is unwilling to assault the position?

I am gobsmacked there is not a smiley at the end of this statement. What utter bollocks. Is an infantry army going to fight your cowrdly self, whilst you are sat behind fortifications at the top of a hill. Of course he will because he plays fair and uses infantry. My arse.

[david53]

ok...

i am leader of a Cav/LH invasion army.
Where will i choose to fight?
a wood? nooo i force the enemy to fight on my terms on a plain somewhere.

So the enemy stay in their fortified towns and wait for winter when your horses will starve?

If you are invading, but the enemy will not fight, will your invasion succeed (Hannibal in italy, Huns before Chalons)

Isn't the point of the "game" to have a fight? Why should the defender have to debouch from his fortifications to drive off the stand-offish cav army if it is unwilling to assault the position? Perhaps the victory conditions need to be modified to take into account the strategic significance of the battle. A shoot and scoot army might have more incentive to close with the enemy if the stakes were high enough. Fortifications cost points, they should be worth something more than 5 MUs of deployment depth.

Are you sure about this you want to punish the Cavalry player cause he will not charge you behind the fortications? why did'nt i think of this.

BTW its a game and no one will do that not a second time at least, you can't win FOG games by sitting on the defensive.

[lawrenceg]

The big problem is the buffer zone. A cleverly placed minimum sized piece can almost guarantee that no other terrain can be placed on that side. Each terrain piece occupies a set space, but the buffer zone increases the area it blocks significantly. A minimum sized piece of terrain, 4MU by 6MU covers about 12 MU by 14MU with its buffer zone.

But you get 3,4,5 or 6 to move it? how fair is that....

On a 3 or 4 you can move it 6 MU, which is only half the with of the buffer zone. Not very significant.
On a 5 12 MU which is significant
On a 6 you can't move it, but you can remove it, so if none of your terrain falls where it would have been blocked, you have harmed yourself by reducing the amount of terrain on the table. That is a significant risk.

So only a 5 is really any use if you want to increase the influence of terrain on the game. On the other hand, if you want to decrease the influence of terrain, both a 5 and a 6 are useful. How fair is that?

[azrael86]

, you can't win FOG games by sitting on the defensive.

Curious. That is exactly what most shoot/scoot armies do!

[grahambriggs]

ok...

i am leader of a Cav/LH invasion army.
Where will i choose to fight?
a wood? nooo i force the enemy to fight on my terms on a plain somewhere.

So the enemy stay in their fortified towns and wait for winter when your horses will starve?

If you are invading, but the enemy will not fight, will your invasion succeed (Hannibal in italy, Huns before Chalons)

Isn't the point of the "game" to have a fight? Why should the defender have to debouch from his fortifications to drive off the stand-offish cav army if it is unwilling to assault the position? Perhaps the victory conditions need to be modified to take into account the strategic significance of the battle. A shoot and scoot army might have more incentive to close with the enemy if the stakes were high enough. Fortifications cost points, they should be worth something more than 5 MUs of deployment depth.

Jilu suggested that the invading mounted army would be able to dictate that the battle was fought on a nice open plain. My point was that this was not necessarily the case as the invaded party could refuse battle in anything other than close terrain. Both outcomes were possible. Parthians did lure Romans into the open plains. Achaeamenid Persians could not do so with the Greeks, hence Marathon, Plataea and succeeded (to their cost) with Alexander.

But this all relates to pre battle strategy and its role in selecting the nature of the battlefield. Nothing to do with scoring systems or resolving games between unbalanced opponents.

[philqw78]

Jilu suggested that the invading mounted army would be able to dictate that the battle was fought on a nice open plain. My point was that this was not necessarily the case as the invaded party could refuse battle in anything other than close terrain. Both outcomes were possible. Parthians did lure Romans into the open plains. Achaeamenid Persians could not do so with the Greeks, hence Marathon, Plataea and succeeded (to their cost) with Alexander.

But this all relates to pre battle strategy and its role in selecting the nature of the battlefield. Nothing to do with scoring systems or resolving games between unbalanced opponents.

Which is why a system that determines Invader/defender/PBI and allowable terrain selections from only one of the lists is flawed if used during competitions. If its not a competition do what you want with terrain. Both players should have a chance getting some of their favoured terrain.

[philqw78]

Terrain Selection

Players choose one of their available terrain selections for the entire competition.

Roll for PBI as now. Player with initiative chooses to either select and place terrain first or move first.

Players select one compulsory and 2-4 other pieces from their own list.

Number of pieces/types selected cannot be more than the maximum in either list. e.g. If both had selected mountain there could still be only 2 impassable. If both select Steppe a maximum of 4 open.

compulsory piece

This is placed and diced for as now, before any other pieces. The first player to place as decided above.

For the remaining pieces

Players place remaining terrain in the order decided above

Dice for initial position as now. Dice for adjustment using a modified dice roll.

-1 if CinC a TC
+1 if CinC an IC

Result.
A game fairer for armies suited to a particular terrain type with low PBI.
More use for FC
And more mind games at the start.
e.g. If I have a mounted army with PBI I may wish to place terrain first to ensure a more open table before his possible river/coast, woods go down. Or let him get that terrain on before my open spaces but move first. Or if am MF with PBI I may wish to get the terrain down before any open spaces prevent it, but give up my first move. If I lose PBI with my foot I will still get one big piece of bad terrain, possibly much more if moving second, and almost certainly some if forced to move first, when I can charge forward and try to reach what there is before he prevents me from doing so.etc, etc

[nikgaukroger]

, you can't win FOG games by sitting on the defensive.

Curious. That is exactly what most shoot/scoot armies do!

Curious, I've never seen one sit on the defensive

[azrael86]

, you can't win FOG games by sitting on the defensive.

Curious. That is exactly what most shoot/scoot armies do!

Curious, I've never seen one sit on the defensive

Oh yes you have. They just start doing it from 4MU (usually). Or are you suggesting a doctrine of moving directly up to the enemy and NOT having the option to run away?

Admittedly there are some armies that might do that (Hungarian perhaps) - but they don't.

[azrael86]

Terrain Selection

Players choose one of their available terrain selections for the entire competition.

I take it you mean submit it as part of the list. Although it seems a bit arbitrary to do this before you know what you are facing.

[nikgaukroger]

Curious. That is exactly what most shoot/scoot armies do!

Curious, I've never seen one sit on the defensive

Oh yes you have. They just start doing it from 4MU (usually). Or are you suggesting a doctrine of moving directly up to the enemy and NOT having the option to run away?

Admittedly there are some armies that might do that (Hungarian perhaps) - but they don't.

I hardly think that an army which moves up to the enemy to attack them (albeit mostly by shooting), retiring and doing it all again repeatedly can be described as sitting on the defensive. Not unless you have a very odd definition of that.

[philqw78]

I take it you mean submit it as part of the list.

yes

Although it seems a bit arbitrary to do this before you know what you are facing.

Its also quite arbitrary submitting what troops you must use and what order of march they must be in before you know where or what you are fighting

[philqw78]

I hardly think that an army which moves up to the enemy to attack them (albeit mostly by shooting), retiring and doing it all again repeatedly can be described as sitting on the defensive. Not unless you have a very odd definition of that.

You're thinking about a wall of armoured spearmen sitting between 2 terrain pieces Nik. Thats offensive, at least to me.

[azrael86]

I hardly think that an army which moves up to the enemy to attack them (albeit mostly by shooting), retiring and doing it all again repeatedly can be described as sitting on the defensive. Not unless you have a very odd definition of that.

OK, so you are claiming that retiring* ISN'T defensive?





*AKA running like girls, or like those Boer auxiliaries in Zulu

[nikgaukroger]

I hardly think that an army which moves up to the enemy to attack them (albeit mostly by shooting), retiring and doing it all again repeatedly can be described as sitting on the defensive. Not unless you have a very odd definition of that.

OK, so you are claiming that retiring* ISN'T defensive?

It certainly isn't "sitting on the defensive".

[david53]

I hardly think that an army which moves up to the enemy to attack them (albeit mostly by shooting), retiring and doing it all again repeatedly can be described as sitting on the defensive. Not unless you have a very odd definition of that.

OK, so you are claiming that retiring* ISN'T defensive?





*AKA running like girls, or like those Boer auxiliaries in Zulu

Retiring is a tactic not a stratagy such as defensive.

[azrael86]

I hardly think that an army which moves up to the enemy to attack them (albeit mostly by shooting), retiring and doing it all again repeatedly can be described as sitting on the defensive. Not unless you have a very odd definition of that.

OK, so you are claiming that retiring* ISN'T defensive?



*AKA running like girls, or like those Boer auxiliaries in Zulu

Retiring is a tactic not a stratagy such as defensive.

Rubbish it can be either. The Russians in 1812 and 1941 retired as a strategy. However strategy isn't a part of Fog or any other TTG system. So yes, taking a tactical defensive is exactly what steppe armies do. And as such, it is no different from the HYW english who use strategic aggression and then deploy between two woods.

[lawrenceg]

I hardly think that an army which moves up to the enemy to attack them (albeit mostly by shooting), retiring and doing it all again repeatedly can be described as sitting on the defensive. Not unless you have a very odd definition of that.

OK, so you are claiming that retiring* ISN'T defensive?

It certainly isn't "sitting on the defensive".

I agree with Nik. It is alternating between offensive and defensive.