Terrain Tweaks

[nikgaukroger]

Do we need Uneven terrain - what would be the consequences for the game if we dropped it?

tears in Manchester?

No bad side then

[david53]

Do we need Uneven terrain - what would be the consequences for the game if we dropped it?

tears in Manchester?

No bad side then

Tears hair pulling and other such things or maybe nothing as nice LH people don't care about terrain. As the Master Mr Ruddock says it just slows you down when your evading allowing you to come back all the quicker and shoot you again (is that tears i hear in London now?)

[Strategos69]

Do we need Uneven terrain - what would be the consequences for the game if we dropped it?

I see uneven as a terrain that looks like open and when you get into it you realize it was not the case. It is a good idea as long as it has more similarities with open. For example, it should not slow down the movement of infantry (maybe it should for mounted). Troops might not take that into account when being forced to check for charging without orders (thus you can trick the enemy to get into a terrain that disorders them), troops pursuing wouldn't be able to stop their pursuit when getting into it and other things alike.

[bahdahbum]

Phalanx will have an easier time, medium barbarians will cry...

[spikemesq]

Do we need Uneven terrain - what would be the consequences for the game if we dropped it?

It could make the set up rules a bit . . . . uneven.

heh

[rpayne]

Elephant heavy armies such as Classical Indian or Pagan Burmese need uneven terrain. Pretty badly.

[simone]

FWIW on the whole terrain issue I'd generally go back to a more DBM-like principle and say the terrain type must come from the loser of the PBIs territory types. Maybe with some tweaks.

I think this is more elegant and simple solution. Invader choose terrain from defender choices, I would go further in eliminating the adjustment rolls. You place a terrain feature, it stays there.
Simone

[philqw78]

FWIW on the whole terrain issue I'd generally go back to a more DBM-like principle and say the terrain type must come from the loser of the PBIs territory types. Maybe with some tweaks.

I think this is more elegant and simple solution. Invader choose terrain from defender choices, I would go further in eliminating the adjustment rolls. You place a terrain feature, it stays there.
Simone

And everyone would take MF armies with 4 TC.

[simone]

I think this is more elegant and simple solution. Invader choose terrain from defender choices, I would go further in eliminating the adjustment rolls. You place a terrain feature, it stays there.
Simone[/quote]And everyone would take MF armies with 4 TC.[/quote]
And now everyone is taking Cv and Lh combos with no foot.. I think a terrain fix will go a long way to adjust MF problems (both bw and impetuous foot) mentioned in other treads. A return to a more straight forward use of terrain will improve playability of many armies.

[philqw78]

I think this is more elegant and simple solution. Invader choose terrain from defender choices, I would go further in eliminating the adjustment rolls. You place a terrain feature, it stays there.
Simone

And everyone would take MF armies with 4 TC.

And now everyone is taking Cv and Lh combos with no foot.. I think a terrain fix will go a long way to adjust MF problems (both bw and impetuous foot) mentioned in other treads. .

No they aren't. Dom Rom, with minmum legio and Christian Nubians, mainly MF, are doing very well thank you.

A return to a more straight forward use of terrain will improve playability of many armies

It will remove the playability of mounted armies. Go for 0 PBI, an army with few terrain choices, mountain/woodland, and loads of MF. Put 5 full sized bits down and don't see it moved, oh and your opponent needs to put 3 bits down as well. Then move first to pin your opponent in the terrain placed. Brilliant.

[gozerius]

FWIW on the whole terrain issue I'd generally go back to a more DBM-like principle and say the terrain type must come from the loser of the PBIs territory types. Maybe with some tweaks.

I think this is more elegant and simple solution. Invader choose terrain from defender choices, I would go further in eliminating the adjustment rolls. You place a terrain feature, it stays there.
Simone

And everyone would take MF armies with 4 TC.

I like taking an IC, 26 Cav/LH and lots of MF and LF (Thracians). Uneven is my friend.

[expendablecinc]

Do we need Uneven terrain - what would be the consequences for the game if we dropped it?

Nothing too significant if this is coupled with an increase in the amount of other rough available to each terrain type. Removing uneven without significantly increasing terrain available would only exacerbate the malarchy wherby players actively pick terrain they dont want.

[nikgaukroger]

Do we need Uneven terrain - what would be the consequences for the game if we dropped it?

Nothing too significant if this is coupled with an increase in the amount of other rough available to each terrain type.

I assumed it went without saying that the terrain choices would have to be tweaked if Uneven were removed.

[expendablecinc]

Do we need Uneven terrain - what would be the consequences for the game if we dropped it?

Nothing too significant if this is coupled with an increase in the amount of other rough available to each terrain type.

I assumed it went without saying that the terrain choices would have to be tweaked if Uneven were removed.

Would it reduce the viability of elephant armies?
I dont know how Classical Indian armies used thier elephants but a current on table sight is them interleaved with MF, crashing through uneven at 4 inches/turn?

Would Rough be slightly downgraded to enable elephants to travel through it normally?

[philqw78]

Would Rough be slightly downgraded to enable elephants to travel through it normally?

It should be anyway, IMO.

[nikgaukroger]

Would Rough be slightly downgraded to enable elephants to travel through it normally?

It should be anyway, IMO.

I'd probably agree with that.

[rpayne]

FWIW on the whole terrain issue I'd generally go back to a more DBM-like principle and say the terrain type must come from the loser of the PBIs territory types. Maybe with some tweaks.

I think this is more elegant and simple solution. Invader choose terrain from defender choices, I would go further in eliminating the adjustment rolls. You place a terrain feature, it stays there.
Simone

This is essentially the suggestion I posted in the attacker/defender thread.

Just add a second die roll. First die is unmodified and gives attacker/defender, second die gives initiative as normal. Winner of initiative has to pick a terrain type from the defenders options.

Gives the big MF armies a slightly higher chance of bad terrain, doesn't remove the advantage of winning initiative, and adds the possibility of more interesting terrain on the table when a steppe army has to fight in Hilly while winning initiative and ends up taking lots of gentle hills since there's no opens.

Not perfect, but has the advantage of being super easy.


Additionally, I'd be very much in favor of Elephants moving as normal in Rough. Uneven would be a pretty silly feature at that point IMO. The only difference between it and Rough would be LH, and Knights being Disordered instead of Severe Disordered. But who ever sends Knights into terrain.

[philqw78]

. But who ever sends Knights into terrain.

Always to fight elephants

[footslogger]

Has anyone ever tried running a terrain-based FoG theme event? Seems like book-based themes have been done, or themes based on timeframe. Marc ran a steppe trash and the civilizations they invaded kind of thing at Fall-In last year, so I imagine everyone was ready to fight on the steppes for that. Maybe a theme based on fighting in the woods would be interesting?

[Niceas]

I like the idea of the invader having to pick terrain from the defender's list.

But does anyone have any ideas for doing something about the sight pollution that are these perfect circle terrain pieces?