Terrain Re-worked in total

[Strategos69]

I don't think the use of clothing is a mere economic response but a preference: the flatter the surface, the easier to move the miniatures. Some people just care about the game, not the historical representation or the overall look.

For example, you can use a cut doormat to depict a field, and actually it is one of the best ways I have ever seen. There are also some carpets, that cut in the proper way, can represent fairly well fields.

Examples:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/oY ... bedwebsite

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/C- ... bedwebsite

[dave_r]

I don't think the use of clothing is a mere economic response but a preference: the flatter the surface, the easier to move the miniatures. Some people just care about the game, not the historical representation or the overall look.

For example, you can use a cut doormat to depict a field, and actually it is one of the best ways I have ever seen. There are also some carpets, that cut in the proper way, can represent fairly well fields.

Examples:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/oY ... bedwebsite

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/C- ... bedwebsite

Quite so. When Asda / Tesco had doormats on special, we send one of the members of the club to go and buy half a dozen. They look great for cornfields in FoW.

[philqw78]

That's what I'm asking - what does happen now ?

This

[NickBowler]

Frankly, I think Fog's current terrain system is vastly better than any of the variants in That Other Ruleset(tm).

As we were playing FOG the other day at our gaming group, we were next to a table playing FOW. They setup, played their game, and packed up before we had managed to decipher the terrain rules and put down the terrain. OK -- we were rusty with the rules, as we only play FOG once every 2-4 months. But still -- the rules are complex and dont result in a lot of terrain being placed where it has any impact on the battle.

[Strategos69]

I am teaching the rules this Saturday to some newcomers and I have decided I will not go through the terrain selection. I will set the table for them before hand. We have around 3 hours and I am afraid the time will be gone when the deployment ends. So, yes, I can fully understand Nick's concerns about the complexity of terrain placing.

In the other hand, I really like the different terrain types. For modelling it is a great source of ideas.

[Polkovnik]

But still -- the rules are complex and dont result in a lot of terrain being placed where it has any impact on the battle.

Most ancient battles didn't have a lot of terrain. In fact the terrain generation system in FOG often results in a lot more terrain than in a typical ancient battle.

And I wouldn't say they are particularly complex.
1) Player with initiative chooses terrain type
2) Each player chooses compulsory piece plus 2-4 others
3) Dice for placement of each piece, player with initiative placing first
4) After each placement, other player dices to move or remove each piece

I'd say that is pretty straightforward. But it does involve some decision making, so if you don't play often and find the terrain placement too time consuming, why not just chuck down a few pieces of terrain and dice for sides. Or if you are at a club, get someone else to set the terrain up for you, so there is no bias.

[hammy]

Frankly, I think Fog's current terrain system is vastly better than any of the variants in That Other Ruleset(tm).

As we were playing FOG the other day at our gaming group, we were next to a table playing FOW. They setup, played their game, and packed up before we had managed to decipher the terrain rules and put down the terrain. OK -- we were rusty with the rules, as we only play FOG once every 2-4 months. But still -- the rules are complex and dont result in a lot of terrain being placed where it has any impact on the battle.

What do you find complex about terrain Nick?

Roll for initiative
Decide which terrain type the game is played in
Initiative player picks one compulsary
Other player gets the other compulsary
Initiative player picks 2-4 other pieces
Other player does the same
Dice for and place compulsaries
Dice for and place other pieces

It usually takes perhaps 5 minutes to get the terrain on the table, at least it does in the games I play.

[Polkovnik]

Great minds think alike !

[NickBowler]

OK. Lets set up the terrain. Dont forget -- I havent played in 3 months, and have only played 1/2 a dozen games in total.

Where is terrain setup. Lets try setting up the game, P35 in the table of contents.. Hmm -- that says look in the appendix.

OK -- found the section in the appendix. OK -- lets sort out an order of march. Were using the basic armies -- Romans and Gauls, so no worry about points.

Got to choose initiative. After reading a lot of text about succesful generals and terrain its roll die plus modifiers. How much cavalry do I have. How much do you have Joe? I've got an field commander, whatever that means, but thats a plus 1. Oh, you have to Joe. OK -- lets roll. I win. Yay. Now what?

I have terrain choice. Which one to pick. What does this table mean. Developed lets me get OF. What is an OF. Is it in the appendix? No! Lets look under terrain. Its not under piece sizes, placement, or dice rolls. So now I have to check every single page reference. 10 minutes later -- Ahha -- here it is -- in a little table. An OF is not even mentioned, but there is an OFI. Lets assume a missprint, and go with that.

OK - I can pick a terrain type from either army. What terrain type can the romans have -- I better open the army list book. Oh, and what can those Gauls have? Which is better -- they all look the same to me. OK -- I'll pick developed -- we need to get playing.

OK -- there are terrain items in brackets that have to be picked -- a Vg and an EF - -whatever they are. Lets flip back -- oh -- a village and a field. OK -- I've got those. What -- one has to go to Joe -- OK. Figured that out. Now 2-4 other pieces. I get to choose. Woohoo. Now what are these abbreviations? OK Got my terrain. Now Joe picks. Hang on Joe, we got this wrong --I got a 'G' so you cant get a 'G'. Lets redo.

OK now lets start placing. I put down the village. Thats easy enough. Now I have to place a compulsory. What is my compulsory. Isnt that my village? I'm so confused. OK -- lets skip that.

Finally, we got all the terrain down. Now lets start with the troops. Who goes first? What -- I just noticed that there were modifiers to the dice roll for placement for some terrain types. Oh hell -- lets leave it where it is. Back to the troops.

What do you mean Jim -- you've finished your FOW game and you're going home. Yes -- Joe and I will lock up when we finish. See you next week!



Point 1: A Better Index is required.
Point 2: Non rule text should be in a different color / font / background ala FOW.
Point 3: Lots of different terrain types are available, but how many are actually used!

[prb4]

What do you mean Jim -- you've finished your FOW game and you're going home. Yes -- Joe and I will lock up when we finish. See you next week!

Have you ever tried to use the FOW terrain rules? They are incomplete, unworkable and badly defined.

The terrain setup looks simple until you reliase that after dicing for random terrain you are supposed to add in roads and other bits and pieces. This can result in lots of arguing if one side wants open terrain and the other closed terrain.

The descriptions of the terrain are open to interpretation and in some cases the rule book says "discuss with your opponent before hand". Not helpful in a competition.

There are also optional rules that may or may not apply.


No matter how complicated the FOG terrain rules may or may not be, they are at least well defined, playable and suitable for a competition.
If you play regularly they are, in my opinion fairly quick.

Peter

[Strategos69]

Hehehe Nick, that was hilarious and actually described my first attempt of game (which actually ended without any important fight due to time). After a couple of minutes (and realising that we didn't have the minima compulsory) we had someone else doing that for us. So, YES, the terrain rules are VERY complex. And all those abreviatures kill people before stating to play. That is why I will save some headaches to my new players this Saturday.

[Polkovnik]

If you have that much trouble with setting up the terrain, I'd hate to see what happens when you actually play the game ! FOG is not a simple game, and some combats where there are multiple units on each side with different POAs in each file can get pretty tricky. But setting up the terrain is one of the more straightforward processes.
If you only play occassionaly, you really need to re-familiarise yourelves with the rules each time you play. Most of what you describe could have been done prior to the game. You should include your Pre Battle Initiative modifier on your army list, so as soon as you sit down to start playing you are rolling initiative dice. You should also think about your terrain choice prior to the game. Depending on your army and the opponents army you will want to either minimise or maximise terrain. So look at the terrain types and work out which choices will do this. For example, if your choice is Agricultural, Developed or Hilly, you might choose Developed if you want minimum terrain (i.e. if the opponent is likely to have better terrain troops than you) or Hilly if you want maximum terrain. Think about what pieces you would choose under various options. (so for Hilly you might choose a large Steep Hill as Compulsory, a couple of brushy gentle hills, a small steep hill and a gully). Read up on each terrain type before you play, so you know which ones to choose under given circumstances. For example, if you have lots of MF archers, you might want Open Fields, Broken or Brush, but not Plantations (only shoot in one rank) or Enclosed Fields (provide Cover). If you have lots of knights or Impact foot, don't bother choosing Gentle Hills. If you have thought about all of this prior to the game, then setting up terrain shouldn't take longer than about 10 minutes.

[expendablecinc]

I would like some pretty terrain but the manufactured stuff is very expensive. Making your own is cheaper but takes time (which I havent got) and also tends to be bulky, so transport is an issue. Maybe when I have bought and painted all the armies I want I will have time and money to look at terrian. Meanwhile I will use felt.

If you have $$ for paitned armies you have $$ for terrain. if yo uhave time to paint your own armies you have time for decent terraina and baggage.

[expendablecinc]

I think you would have more success simply by urging competition organisers to demand nice-looking terrain from players and enforcing its removal (or replacement by the opponent) if it is not up to standard, and encouraging a zero-tolerance culture amongst players so that they will get it enforced. I don't think trying to deal with it in basic game rules is the right approach.

I agree. Either that or preset.
Same expectation of terrain as is expected of the armies.

[NickBowler]

If you have that much trouble with setting up the terrain, I'd hate to see what happens when you actually play the game ! FOG is not a simple game, and some combats where there are multiple units on each side with different POAs in each file can get pretty tricky. But setting up the terrain is one of the more straightforward processes.
If you only play occassionaly, you really need to re-familiarise yourelves with the rules each time you play. Most of what you describe could have been done prior to the game. You should include your Pre Battle Initiative modifier on your army list, so as soon as you sit down to start playing you are rolling initiative dice. You should also think about your terrain choice prior to the game. Depending on your army and the opponents army you will want to either minimise or maximise terrain. So look at the terrain types and work out which choices will do this. For example, if your choice is Agricultural, Developed or Hilly, you might choose Developed if you want minimum terrain (i.e. if the opponent is likely to have better terrain troops than you) or Hilly if you want maximum terrain. Think about what pieces you would choose under various options. (so for Hilly you might choose a large Steep Hill as Compulsory, a couple of brushy gentle hills, a small steep hill and a gully). Read up on each terrain type before you play, so you know which ones to choose under given circumstances. For example, if you have lots of MF archers, you might want Open Fields, Broken or Brush, but not Plantations (only shoot in one rank) or Enclosed Fields (provide Cover). If you have lots of knights or Impact foot, don't bother choosing Gentle Hills. If you have thought about all of this prior to the game, then setting up terrain shouldn't take longer than about 10 minutes.

Exactly what I am arguing for. In my opinion, the current rules in the appendix are complex and slow down game play, precisely because so many decisions are made at setup time, and not pre-game. And they dont result in a significant amount of terrain that affects game play. I.e., the complexity is far higher than warranted. If I am Romans, I know that in most cases my cavalry are going to be poorer, so I want flank protection. My suggestion is that I pre-pick a terrain type - developed say, pre-pick my 3/4/5 pieces - say a village, 3 enclosed fields, and a woods/olive grove/plantation, and make this choice as part of building my army. And then when it comes to game time it goes straight to placement. Right now I have to be expert in all possible terrain types, and even have to bring jungle, because my army could be lost and I am fighting Burmese in Burma. Right now I make the decision as to what to place after seeing what the other player has chosen, and hence there is a decision point that takes time. I may not even be able to choose the terrain types I was expecting. And yet most people will agree that most terrain is placed out of the way. Terrain selection and placement needs to be simpler and faster.

[NickBowler]

Have you ever tried to use the FOW terrain rules? They are incomplete, unworkable and badly defined.

The terrain setup looks simple until you reliase that after dicing for random terrain you are supposed to add in roads and other bits and pieces. This can result in lots of arguing if one side wants open terrain and the other closed terrain.

The descriptions of the terrain are open to interpretation and in some cases the rule book says "discuss with your opponent before hand". Not helpful in a competition.

There are also optional rules that may or may not apply.
Peter

And yet FOW tournaments are large (and, in my experience, a LOT of fun). Life is simpler with pre-placed terrain and sheets on each table defining what the terrain is -- rules that encouraged this rather than building terrain for each battle would work well in FOG. If FOW can do it, why not the ancients community. Given the current terrain standards, its just pre-positioning some felt, so expense is not an issue!

[nikgaukroger]

As we were playing FOG the other day at our gaming group, we were next to a table playing FOW. They setup, played their game, and packed up before we had managed to decipher the terrain rules and put down the terrain. OK -- we were rusty with the rules, as we only play FOG once every 2-4 months. But still -- the rules are complex and dont result in a lot of terrain being placed where it has any impact on the battle.

if you're playing that infrequently if I were you I'd just chuck down some terrain that you think will create an interesting table to play across. If you're not playing often enough for this bit of the rules to stick I wouldn't use it if it means you aren't enjoying some of it.

[philqw78]

I agree with Nick Bowler. Simplify.

[ethan]

And yet FOW tournaments are large (and, in my experience, a LOT of fun). Life is simpler with pre-placed terrain and sheets on each table defining what the terrain is -- rules that encouraged this rather than building terrain for each battle would work well in FOG. If FOW can do it, why not the ancients community. Given the current terrain standards, its just pre-positioning some felt, so expense is not an issue!

Like many others I am suitably impressed by FoW tournaments. They are spectacular looking. What I am not so sure of is if much of that translates to ancients - or at least not ancients as typified by FoG.

I think much of the discussion of scenarios, etc just isn't relevant to ancients. Ancient battles that FoG models (which explicitly excludes sieges) basically come down to only having one objective - destroy the enemy army. Not much else is relevant.

Consider the campaing leading up to Issos, Alexander had to put himself in a bad tactical position to get the Persians to even agree to fight him. If he didn't the Persians could just keep retreating. No WW2 army was capable of that sort of thing at the same scale.

I am just not sure that the FoW style tournament makes sense in an ancients context. Clever terrain pre-sets, etc just don't seem to me to fit ancient warfare, but they make senes in moderns. It seems to me that the vast majority of ancient set-piece battles took place on pretty boring terrain actually...for me at least that is what FoG is about.

I have oftent thought what was missing in the ancients world was a good set of skirmish rules, where the this sort of thing would be very different. Two fifty man warbands might fight in very different circumstances than two 25,000 man armies. Pre-set terrain here would make a lot of sense, as would scenarios, etc.

[lawrenceg]

And yet most people will agree that most terrain is placed out of the way. Terrain selection and placement needs to be simpler and faster.

Currently the terrain system does favour a player who wants to minimise the significance of terrain in the game.

Personally, I'm hoping for changes that result in terrain being placed in the way. Although most historical battles apparently took place on flat, open ground, it is only necessary to ensure that there is enough open ground for the two armies to fit into, not the whole table.

However, if it will continue to have marginal effect on the game, then it would make sense to spend less effort on its placement.