Game Balance

[Strategos69]

So, you want the DBM deployment order. Let's recap the problems that system gave us (plus some other bonus problems adapting it to FoG).

I assume that you wish to scrap the quartile deployment entirely, and replace it with dividing the army into center/left/right, further limiting what must be in the center portion (HF) and what must be in a wing (Cv). You state that skirmishers can be anywhere.

1. What are the boundaries? In DBM, many pixels died in the agony over when a command was sufficiently to the left or rear of another command for deployment. It was a lot of fun. Early gimmicks were to write deployment for 3 commands (A,B,C) as:

A
B
C

then deploy them as (X = empty space)



AAAAAAAAAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXBBBBBBBBBXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCCCCCCCC

OR

XXXXXXXAAAAAAAAXXXXXXXX
BBBBBBBBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXCCCCCCCC

etc.

Then came rules about drawing a line between commands so they did not intermingle. It was really awesome, and beyond ASCII representation.

I am not referring to that. DBM system was crazy. You just deploy in the boundaries predefined by the rules, like right now, except that there are more limitations. They also put some limits to deploying next to the sides of the table.

2. Deploy second FTW. Assuming you get past the question of intermingling, if both sides have to deploy their center first, the first to deploy shows a ton of information about his army. The first group reveals (a) where his other two groups will be and (b) whether and how much HF is in the army. Those two information items will be enough for most players to stymie things with their deployment. If your center goes down anywhere but the middle of the table, I can deploy to one side to lock you into a bad match up, or box you out of a good match up. I can also deploy to one side, knowing that I can gang up on one third of your army. So, even if the proposed rule does not explicitly limit deployment of the center group in the middle sector, there will be too much risk in placing it elsewhere.

Another good reason to want to win the initiative. I would also let the winner of the initiative to choose moving first or placing terrain first, instead of being determined by a roll. Doesn't it happen right now in FoG something similar that the first one deploying HF also shows a lot to the other with the point that with these changes at least you know where to expect the enemy center line. Now if the enemy wins the initiative and does not want to engage, they can deploy the center in the opposite corner. There can also be ways to counter the fact of revealing your whole plan. As I said, it can be thought that generals (IC and FC) have a set of units that they can deploy everywhere. It can be stated as a fourth batch if you prefer it that way so that you do not reveal your plans that much.

3. Reserves. Where do they go? Must I commit to a reserve force before deployment? If I want to reinforce the center, I have to deploy them deep. I also cannot reinforce them with a mounted reserve, absent more complex exceptions to "mounted on the wings."

Actually reserves go where you want them to be. FoG does not have any rule that allow you to bring in some troops after deployment, which could be fun and taken into account in a campaign book. Now you also have to deploy your reserves, but I like the idea of letting players bring in some BG's after the battle started.

4. B-b-b-but it's historical. Not really. Your "center" first rule will lead to a bunch of offset engagements where maneuver will be even more important because more games will require armies to redeploy to break out of stupid initial placements. Moreover, how would your system account for:

Taginae 552AD



Poitiers 1356



Mohi 1241



Hastings 1066



None of these follow the mounted/foot/mounted orthodoxy you want to build into deployment rules.

Right now, stupid deployments happen too and you try to catch shadows or redeploy. In fact the winner of the initiative can always trick a player low in cavalry.

In the other hand, those are good examples of cavalry that should be allowed to deploy in the center. I think that it should be allowed, when it corresponds. This thing is something to be dealt within every period. Note that all your examples are also AD.

[spikemesq]

How would you counter "revealing the entire plan" if HF must be in the center and the center must be deployed first? If your answer is "win the initiative" then the deployment rules turn into a single die roll. The winner gets to choose whether to provide a game or refuse one (by jacking his troops into an offset deployment.

Also, who cares if the examples are all A.D., they are drawn from several places and times within the FoG period.

On reserves, my problem with your idea is that you have to commit to your reserve strategy at the OB stage -- long before knowing whether reserves are necessary. If you want a mounted reserve, you have to dedicate those BGs as "center" troops (assuming your rule even permits that) and deploy that way every time.

If your "simple" system avoids DBM problems by deploying in channels, then what happens to deep deployments? Again, you have to commit to that at the OB stage or lose the option.

How do armies with little or no mounted work in this system? So Spartans or Rus deploy everything at once? Can HF never deploy on a wing? What about Mongols? Do they have a center? Must it always be skirmishers? Or do expect the deployment rules to vary by army list?

[Strategos69]

How would you counter "revealing the entire plan" if HF must be in the center and the center must be deployed first? If your answer is "win the initiative" then the deployment rules turn into a single die roll. The winner gets to choose whether to provide a game or refuse one (by jacking his troops into an offset deployment.

Well, in my games the table is huge and I can't barely cover it. Usually a third of it is empty so even if your HF has to be in the center, your oponent will not know what and where. In fact, allowing certain type of generals the placing of some units at the end of the phase would reinforce that kind of generals.

Also, who cares if the examples are all A.D., they are drawn from several places and times within the FoG period.

That was to note that what was common in some periods is not in others. In Ancients battles sometimes you have to cross from corner to corner to find the HF that would face you.

On reserves, my problem with your idea is that you have to commit to your reserve strategy at the OB stage -- long before knowing whether reserves are necessary. If you want a mounted reserve, you have to dedicate those BGs as "center" troops (assuming your rule even permits that) and deploy that way every time.

I wonder how much generals could think ahead of events. Usually you had a plan before the battle, maybe after spotting the terrain, sometimes not. Anyway, as it is about making the game more enjoyable, it can be conceive that. instead of flank marches, you can make your reserves come in.

If your "simple" system avoids DBM problems by deploying in channels, then what happens to deep deployments? Again, you have to commit to that at the OB stage or lose the option.

How do armies with little or no mounted work in this system? So Spartans or Rus deploy everything at once? Can HF never deploy on a wing? What about Mongols? Do they have a center? Must it always be skirmishers? Or do expect the deployment rules to vary by army list?

The best way to deal with this would be a campaign book and probably a few introductory notes by time period covered. Ideally each list, but that would imply lots of research. Moreover, I am not saying that these rules should be compulsory for tournaments or anything, but this option woudl really increase the fun for players that enjoy the historical feel of the battle.