Simple Terrain Change

[spikemesq]

In addition to the various terrain ideas bouncing around here, what do you think of this basic one?

Currently, the PBI loser gets shafted pretty hard. Can't pick terrain type, can't pick certain terrain (coast, etc.), gets stuck with leftover options for his 2-4 picks, and has lower chance of landing those pieces because he places them after all the PBI picks go down.

Why not adjust that last bit, and have players alternate terrain placement by piece.

So the sequence could bounce between PBI winner/loser as follows.

PBI Compulsory
Other Compulsory
Village/River/Coast
PBI Opens
Other Opens

Then the remaining 2-4 pieces would be placed PBI/Other/PBI/Other, etc. The choices would still be made in advance (PBI choices then Other) and their order of placement could be fixed before the back-and-forth.

This could help give the non-initiative player some chance of getting terrain on the board, but still favors the PBI winner with pick-of-the-litter, terrain type, etc.

[dave_r]

95% of the time I prefer to lose the initiative.

[rpayne]

95% of the time I prefer to lose the initiative.

Is there some way to stop this phenomenon? Because it is often truth. Armies like say, Late Imperial Roman, don't care TOO much about terrain, and perform much better if they move first.


Perhaps if the difference between winning and losing initiative can be lessened to a sufficient degree, people could just roll for who gets the first move after the fact. At the moment the PBI loser getting the first move feels a tad artificial to me.

[spikemesq]

The grumbles about Steppes seem based in the fact that winning PBI with a Steppe Cv outfit gets you:

Ability to pick Steppes
Chance for a double sized Open Space
First crack at the terrain so you can bogart the few pieces of Rough and the Gully and pick tiny ones
First to drop all of your terrain reducing the chance for the other guy to place the terrain he gets to choose.

A back and forth system would at least give the non-initiative player some relief from that last one, and would not add complexity or another random factor to the process.

[rpayne]

I am 100% in agreement that steppe Cav armies are getting a double whammy on initiative atm, and something needs to be changed.

Seems like everybody has their own idea on what to do about it though.

I still think that the initiative roll should be seperated from an attacker/defender roll. If your steppe Cav army is attacking Scots Isles and Highlands, you should be forced to take Hilly even if you win initiative, and use your initiative bonus to put down gentle hills and a road to clear up the board, and just cry that your opponent gets a doublesized mandatory rough no matter what you do.

[philqw78]

I am 100% in agreement that steppe Cav armies are getting a double whammy on initiative atm, and something needs to be changed.

Seems like everybody has their own idea on what to do about it though.

I still think that the initiative roll should be seperated from an attacker/defender roll. If your steppe Cav army is attacking Scots Isles and Highlands, you should be forced to take Hilly even if you win initiative, and use your initiative bonus to put down gentle hills and a road to clear up the board, and just cry that your opponent gets a doublesized mandatory rough no matter what you do.

Why do you wish to try and make completely unrealistic battles realistic? Steppe cavalry never fought in the Highlands, never mind the Isles. If they got that far I'm sure they would have hired some highlanders to fight for them (they were particularly good at fighting each other).

So to make games more realistic armies separated by time and space should be able to add troops from that time and/or space to their list and then they can fight fairly in that time and space.

[prb4]

I have a suggestion.


Give the winner of the PBI the choice of having the first or second turn.
The loser of the PBI the choice of terrain.
The winner of the PBI should still get to choose their terrain pieces first and place them first.
The person having the first turn deploys camp, ambushes and troops first as normal.


This ought to give armies that like terrain a fair chance of getting terrain versus steppe armies.
However the steppe army still has some ability to keep the board fairly open.

In the event that a terrain army wins the PBI versus a steppe army the steppe army gets to choose steppes.
However the terrain army gets to take the terrain that is available in the steppes and has a fair chance to get it on the table.

Peter

[Strategos69]

95% of the time I prefer to lose the initiative.

Is there some way to stop this phenomenon? Because it is often truth. Armies like say, Late Imperial Roman, don't care TOO much about terrain, and perform much better if they move first.


Perhaps if the difference between winning and losing initiative can be lessened to a sufficient degree, people could just roll for who gets the first move after the fact. At the moment the PBI loser getting the first move feels a tad artificial to me.

I also agree that it does not have much sense to be willing to lose a die roll. That points to a problem in the overall system. I don't know what could be the perfect fix, but my guess is that the winner should be given the possibility of choosing: movng first / determining more the terrain.

[rpayne]

I am 100% in agreement that steppe Cav armies are getting a double whammy on initiative atm, and something needs to be changed.

Seems like everybody has their own idea on what to do about it though.

I still think that the initiative roll should be seperated from an attacker/defender roll. If your steppe Cav army is attacking Scots Isles and Highlands, you should be forced to take Hilly even if you win initiative, and use your initiative bonus to put down gentle hills and a road to clear up the board, and just cry that your opponent gets a doublesized mandatory rough no matter what you do.

Why do you wish to try and make completely unrealistic battles realistic? Steppe cavalry never fought in the Highlands, never mind the Isles. If they got that far I'm sure they would have hired some highlanders to fight for them (they were particularly good at fighting each other).

So to make games more realistic armies separated by time and space should be able to add troops from that time and/or space to their list and then they can fight fairly in that time and space.

Historically, a big advantage to armies like Scots Isles and Highlands was that they never left the highlands, and were experts at fighting in highlands terrain. Anybody who went after them into the highlands generally did very poorly, and any time they left the highlands they generally did very poorly.

There are a number of armies like this, and there should be some system for representing this phenomenon in the game. You can win initiative sure, but it would be very interesting and, dare I say it, fun, to take the side of the Norman who had the bright idea of attacking into the highlands only to find out his heavy foot are suddenly not as effective in all that bad going.

That sort of thing NEVER happens in the current system. If I win initiative with any army I have a preset terrain strategem that I've thought out in my head days in advance, and will be the same every game and nearly vs. every army. This is boring and counterintuitive towards competition.


You can hide under the guise that it's "not realistic" for armies 1000 years apart to attack each other, therefor there's no reason to do something like this, but that same line of logic could be applied to every single sentence of ruling in the entire game, and would ultimately never get anybody anywhere.

Not to mention, in a themed tournament especially it makes a lot of very applicable sense that you are ignoring.

[lawrenceg]

95% of the time I prefer to lose the initiative.

Is there some way to stop this phenomenon? Because it is often truth. Armies like say, Late Imperial Roman, don't care TOO much about terrain, and perform much better if they move first.


Perhaps if the difference between winning and losing initiative can be lessened to a sufficient degree, people could just roll for who gets the first move after the fact. At the moment the PBI loser getting the first move feels a tad artificial to me.

I also agree that it does not have much sense to be willing to lose a die roll. That points to a problem in the overall system. I don't know what could be the perfect fix, but my guess is that the winner should be given the possibility of choosing: movng first / determining more the terrain.

It suggests to me that determining the terrain is of little value compared to moving first.

That is consistent with my (albeit limited) experience that close combat hardly ever takes place in non-open terrain unless both sides have MF.

Perhaps the simplest solution is just to swap the roles of initiative and non-initiative players (i.e winner of initiative picks landscape type, gets first pick of features, places terrain first and deploys second; loser of initiative moves first).
Then the infantry players would stop complaining because they usually get to control the terrain, and the cavalry players would be pleased that they can usually move first.

[philqw78]

Historically, a big advantage to armies like Scots Isles and Highlands was that they never left the highlands, and were experts at fighting in highlands terrain. Anybody who went after them into the highlands generally did very poorly, and any time they left the highlands they generally did very poorly.

So each side should have an equal chance of choosing terrain.

There are a number of armies like this, and there should be some system for representing this phenomenon in the game. You can win initiative sure, but it would be very interesting and, dare I say it, fun, to take the side of the Norman who had the bright idea of attacking into the highlands only to find out his heavy foot are suddenly not as effective in all that bad going.

Not many people had that sort of idea, as it doomed them to failure.

That sort of thing NEVER happens in the current system. If I win initiative with any army I have a preset terrain strategem that I've thought out in my head days in advance, and will be the same every game and nearly vs. every army. This is boring and counterintuitive towards competition.

Having a plan is counterintuitive?

You can hide under the guise that it's "not realistic" for armies 1000 years apart to attack each other, therefor there's no reason to do something like this, but that same line of logic could be applied to every single sentence of ruling in the entire game, and would ultimately never get anybody anywhere.

Few if any competition games are at all realistic, and both sides should be given an equal chance of getting decent terrain for their army. Forcing one terrain type on an army completely unsuited to it is IMO wrong, if it be forcing Steppe upon mountain men, or mountains upon the horse.

Not to mention, in a themed tournament especially it makes a lot of very applicable sense that you are ignoring.

What theme would put opposite terrain type armies together. If the campaign actually happened the opponenets would have some troops that were suited to the terrain being fought over.

[spikemesq]

I don't really want to drift back to the days of low-aggression guerrilla armies with an ability to reliably drag opponents into a minefield. Recall the goofy days of extreme ambushes in DBM 1.2 or so.

That is just the reverse of the current Steppe army imbalance.

Ideally, armies at the ends of the terrain spectrum (e.g., Mongols and Thracians) should have some ability to steer battles to those terrain types and some comfort that they can get a board somewhere in between those extremes. I agree that amending the terrain rules to encompass Normans invading Vietnam makes little sense. Really wacky terrain skews are best left to scenarios (e.g., Mongols invade Japan). OTOH, the Thracians and Vietnamese that rely on terrain should have some chance of getting a board to work with. Not a fully booby-trapped Jungle, but at least a couple pieces of favorable ground.

Currently, the spectrum skews toward the non-terrain end. If you want terrain, you need PBI. Terrain-loving armies, however, can only get half the PBI influence available (because they lack mounted troops), so they struggle to get a field in Mountains, Hilly, Woodland, etc. Consider Swiss with Mountains. Opponents that win PBI will pick Steppes if they have them, or anything else on their own list (Agricultural, etc.). They will never fight in the Mountains. (This was true in DBM too since Swiss had Agg 4, but stick with me). All the Swiss can do is take an IC (+2), and that puts them at 50-50 PBI chance against a mounted army that doesn't even think about terrain.

Per contra, mounted armies necessarily get the same PBI weight based on their make-up. Thus, mounted armies with Steppes can load up PBI with +4 for an IC (+2) and the natural initiative bonus for their army (24+ stands of mtd). Even non-steppe mounted armies can ignore PBI (and still extinguish the best PBI bonus that a terrain-lover can get) and still have pretty good chances for a reasonably open board. Terrain lovers can never achieve the same PBI influence. Moreover, combined arms outfits can easily get greater PBI bonuses (IC + 10 LH) than the terrain-lovers that need them more.

Thus, IMO, the first opportunity for balance is the terrain placement sequence. IGYG moves the fulcrum slightly away from the PBI winner. Perhaps it is not enough, but I like a lot of the current terrain system, so baby steps feel right to me.

Another simple change for balancing this would be adding a corresponding PBI modifier for MF/LF. Thus, the PBI modifiers would be:

• +1 FC CinC
  +2 IC
  +1 > 10-24LH+Cv+LCh OR 20-48 LF+MF
  +2 >24 LH+Cv+LCh OR >48+ LF+MF

Note that the counts of mounted and terrain troops are exclusive, so combined arms outfits would pick the best of the PBI modifiers, but not mix them (so 10 LH and 50 LF does not yield +3). Obviously these treat mounted stands as 2x MF/LF stands. Could be adjusted to 1.5x, who knows? Ultimately, it should be an equivalent investment of points towards PBI.

This levels the PBI field to allow any army to invest towards getting the terrain and other benefits of high initiative. Thracians can angle for Mountains, and Mongols can angle for Steppes. It is consistent with the rationale behind the PBI modifiers (faster movers get to jockey for position). It leaves HF armies somewhat in the cold, but only at the extremes (e.g., Spartans or Rus?), since many of those armies are combined arms with mounted or MF/LF stands that will yield some PBI help.

Even with this change, I think other adjustments to terrain might be worthwhile to temper the bigger pendulum swings or huge mismatches at either end. IGYG terrain could help with that aspect.

[Strategos69]

It suggests to me that determining the terrain is of little value compared to moving first.

That is consistent with my (albeit limited) experience that close combat hardly ever takes place in non-open terrain unless both sides have MF.

Perhaps the simplest solution is just to swap the roles of initiative and non-initiative players (i.e winner of initiative picks landscape type, gets first pick of features, places terrain first and deploys second; loser of initiative moves first).
Then the infantry players would stop complaining because they usually get to control the terrain, and the cavalry players would be pleased that they can usually move first.

I agree with you but instead of swapping roles and let it be determined by the luck of the draw, I prefer the idea of choosing so that the players can form an army to have the initiative. And I would connect that with spike's suggestion that includes the LF and MF (ambushing troops par excellence). You prepare an army to have the initiative and then do what you prefer: drive the enemy to a terrain more of your liking (for example, Trebia and Trasimenus for Hannibal) or move first (Cannae).

Regarding the fact that combats are never fought in non open terrain (except for MF), I think that could be solved if troops moved more in bad terrain. If HF gets into non open terrain that equals to disappear from most of the game. At the same time, shock troops should be forced to charge other troops in terrain that disorders them (but not severely disorders them). I wonder if, when on the ground, it is that easy to detect uneven terrain. And the opposite for MF shock troops already in uneven.

[hannibal]

I've posted this before, but IMHO it makes no sense for the location of the fixture (home or away) to be based on the number of mounted troops of the quality of generals you have. At least DBM tried to quanitify how "aggressive" an army was and therefore how likely it was to invade somewhere else, but you still have the issue of unhistorical match-ups (Ancient British are never going to invade NKE so the aggression is pretty meaningless).

The location of the battle should be a separate decision to the initiative for the actual battle - so in the absence of a better idea why not throw a dice & the player with the higher score is the defender & gets to choose the terrain TYPE (Woodlands, Steppe etc) from their own terrain picks? PBI then influences the excact field of battle & terrain picks within this type and gets any advantages from scouting etc (as currently)

At the moment steppe armies can usually fight in their choice of terrain because they have on average higher PBI, but there's no logic for this.

Marc

[gozerius]

Many assumptions in this thread.
"Horse armies will always max their PBI."
"HF/mounted will never enter disordering terrain to fight."
"MF armies are toast in the open."
"Thracians can't get favorable terrain."
I have personally done all these things that people say can't be done.
Basically, if you want to fight, and the enemy is in terrain that favors him, maneuver to nullify his advantage. If this is impossible, park out side charge range and taunt him for his cowardice.

[hazelbark]

95% of the time I prefer to lose the initiative.

This makes sense in particular for the cynical mounted armies you employee most often.

This is something that I think is different among player skill levels and also national playing pools.

I think it is fair to say that many top GB players have learned to deal with shooty cav on the steppe, followed by the shooty cav players learning to deal with those counters and then learning the advatanges of moving 2nd and dealing with ag or whatever terrain.

But I think it is important to segment off what works for top players as different than what works for most players. You see here a lot of voices crying out for something to balance.

[spikemesq]

Many assumptions in this thread.

Look how dumb you are.

"Horse armies will always max their PBI."

Wrong. Horse armies, however, have unmatched ability to max their PBI. They have an inherent +2 and infantry armies cannot match the +4 available to them.

"HF/mounted will never enter disordering terrain to fight."

Who cares about the micro level of mounted fighting in terrain. Surely you are not so daft as to suggest that mounted armies can be indifferent to a cluttered board, even if they can achieve some situational success in disordering terrain.

"MF armies are toast in the open."

MF enjoy a -CT modifier and bad POA match-ups against most of the universe in open terrain. If you want to run stats on Lancers vs MF in open, knock yourself out. That MF benefit from terrain is axiomatic.

"Thracians can't get favorable terrain."

Thracians have a "bid ceiling" of +2 for PBI. Against a mounted army, they are outgunned on the terrain set-up. If that mounted army also has Steppes, they are in a pretty bad way.

I have personally done all these things that people say can't be done.

You are a special snowflake.

Basically, if you want to fight, and the enemy is in terrain that favors him, maneuver to nullify his advantage. If this is impossible, park out side charge range and taunt him for his cowardice.

Again, in particular situations, that is fine. But when your entire MF army routinely faces battlefields devoid of any meaningful terrain, there is something wrong.

[hazelbark]

Many assumptions in this thread.

Basically, if you want to fight, and the enemy is in terrain that favors him, maneuver to nullify his advantage. If this is impossible, park out side charge range and taunt him for his cowardice.

Again, in particular situations, that is fine. But when your entire MF army routinely faces battlefields devoid of any meaningful terrain, there is something wrong.

What spike is perhaps trying to say is that while what you say is true. It is not necessarily appealing to be forced to say we've played for an hour in a 4 hour time slot of my life and I am now reduced to taunting to have a game.

The issue seems to me is striking a balance that everyone agrees right now is too far to one end. The question is are the ideas of re-balancing actually effective?

[philqw78]

quote]
Thracians have a "bid ceiling" of +2 for PBI. Against a mounted army, they are outgunned on the terrain set-up. If that mounted army also has Steppes, they are in a pretty bad way.

Thracians have a huge amount of LH Spike. But that is not the point since you are correct in that the terrain system is not fair. Fair does not matter in scenarios, but it does in points based stand up fights. THat is what we need to create. Not a system that favours putting a lot of terrain down so MF have a chance, nor no terrain so the Mongols have a chance, but one were both sides have equal chance.

[ethan]

I still think much of this could be solved by adding 2 good going open terrain picks to those terrain types that don't have it and adding 2 more RGo choices to steppe.