Initiative scores

[rpayne]

This is a suggestion that would be dependent upon other changes being made, but it is something that bothers me a little and I would like to see what other people think about it.

Supposing that the issue of terrain armies vs. steppe armies is fixed via. reorganizing the way terrain works (several threads on this already, do not want to discuss it here), thereby lessening the impact of having a steppe army with a high initiative score, I wonder if people would like to see it be possible to have a +5 in initiative.


The reasoning for this being that I do not feel it is accurate that a combined arms force, taking the exact number of Cavalry stands required to get a +2, is as maneuverable as an army that is entirely Cavalry.

I think the best example of this in practice is the Mongol Conquest army vs. contemporary armies of similar location and time period such as Xi Xia, Ghurid Afghan, Jin and Song Chinese. Aside from the Song, all of these armies can obtain a +2 in initiative from mounted while taking MF and HF, but as far as I understand, historically the Mongols beat these armies by outmaneuvering them before the actual battles occured.

I also think it is reasonably fair for an all mounted army with an IC to automatically win initiative vs. an all foot army led by a TC. I do not think there is anything particularly wrong with that.


So the proposal would be to change the initiative bonus from mounted to this:
10 stands Cav/LH - +1
25 stands Cav/LH - +2
100% of army BGs mounted - +1

You could even throw in something like a 10 point "mobile baggage" that is required to obtain this further +1 if you want.


Again, I would only propose this assuming that the current bias towards steppe armies was fixed via other means, but I'm wondering if people don't think this would more accurately portray an army like the Mongols pre-battle maneuvering advantage over contemporary foes.

[mbsparta]

I would have the player that wins the initiative choose a terrain type from the player that lost the initiative dice roll.

Mike B

[rpayne]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I am trying to talk about, thanks.

[lawrenceg]

So the proposal would be to change the initiative bonus from mounted to this:
10 stands Cav/LH - +1
25 stands Cav/LH - +2
100% of army BGs mounted - +1

You could even throw in something like a 10 point "mobile baggage" that is required to obtain this further +1 if you want.


Again, I would only propose this assuming that the current bias towards steppe armies was fixed via other means, but I'm wondering if people don't think this would more accurately portray an army like the Mongols pre-battle maneuvering advantage over contemporary foes.

Interesting idea.
At least it would provide a reason not to take a couple of BGs of poor LF filler.

[eldiablito]

So, something that I'm sure that someone has already posted, but I wonder about... Why not bring back Aggression?

IOW, let us keep the same terrain selection process, but use an aggression score to determine if you play in the enemy's terrain locals or your own?

So, let us assume that the Normans are playing against the Welsh. Using the older DBA & DBM system of aggression (shock! Horror!), the Normans will probably win the aggression roll. Now, because the Normans are attacking, they HAVE to select one of the Welsh terrain locals (mountains, hilly, or woodlands). In FoG 1.0, the Normans would have access to mountains, woodlands, hilly, or agricultural. I'll try to state it as some sort of rule;
"The available terrain types are determined by who LOOSES the aggression roll."
Afterward, you can roll the same initiative roll as before, using initiative, terrain piece selection, etc...

I say this because it would expand the list of interesting armies for us players. The worst case scenarios are when people want to play medium foot armies like meso-americans or samurai and they go up against a steppe army (say the mongol invasion). If you use the above suggestion, the mongols will have a high aggression, so they will unlikely play in the steppes. The mongols WILL still probably get to select the terrain and move second because it is hard for them to NOT have +4 for their initiative. However, the terrain dependent armies will not need fear playing in the steppes (well, not quite as often).


Perhaps this topic has been discussed already, and if so, I apologize for repeating something that was already put to rest.

[marty]

I'm not convinced that any terrain change based on limiting whose terrain types you can choose is going to have much effect. Most armies seem to have agricultural or developed on their list. There are very few armies that only have the "heavier" terrain types. If the side that wins initiative wants it agricultural or developed turns (in effect) in to a steppe anyway (road, 2 open spaces, open fields that dont slow LH anyway). We need to look elsewhere for changes that are going to have any effect.

Martin

[rpayne]

Why is it that people are unable to actually discuss the topic at hand.

This thread is not about the terrain selection process, in any way. This point was made at both the beginning and end of the OP, which people are clearly not reading.

Rather insulting, really. Not much point in tossing out ideas if there will be no discussion on them.

[dave_r]

Initial thoughts say that this is a reasonable idea.

However, if you could give me PBI of zero then I would think a lot harder about taking an IC. I personally want to move first - I don't care about terrain and I don't care about deploying first.

This way gives me a cheap and easy option for losing one of my PBI - bizzarely, I think this would actually detract from the current game where sometimes you win initiative and you don't want to.

Of course, there are those daft enough who want to move second and choose terrain

[grahambriggs]

So, something that I'm sure that someone has already posted, but I wonder about... Why not bring back Aggression?

Don't you mean "Why don't we steal handy concepts from other rule sets"? Is it because those rule sets, while they might have some authors in common, are owned separately and that would be seen as theft of ideas?

[Polkovnik]

that would be seen as theft of ideas?

But you could say that about pretty much every rule mechanism in FOG or any other game. There are very few completely new ideas so they all could be described as stolen.

I assume you are not implying that there is some sort of copyright over rules mechanisms and ideas, because that is not the case.

[pezhetairoi]

I think this is a pretty clever idea, with some nice historical flavour.
You might want limit the "mounted" qualification to only CAV and LH, and maybe Camelry.
Otherwise the all knight/chariot/elephant/cataphract armies might qualify, too.

[ethan]

Light Chariots would be all right, not sure if there are any all light chariot armies though...

[Polkovnik]

I think this is a pretty clever idea, with some nice historical flavour.
You might want limit the "mounted" qualification to only CAV and LH, and maybe Camelry.
Otherwise the all knight/chariot/elephant/cataphract armies might qualify, too.

It could state : >24 bases of Cav, LH, Light Chariots, and no foot troops - +3

[rpayne]

I think this is a pretty clever idea, with some nice historical flavour.
You might want limit the "mounted" qualification to only CAV and LH, and maybe Camelry.
Otherwise the all knight/chariot/elephant/cataphract armies might qualify, too.

There are a couple armies that can be say, all shooty Cav/LH + 1 unit of Knights (Seljuk Turk), or all shooty Cav/LH + some elephants (Muslim Indian Sultanates).

I think it's probably fair for them to get the +1, though it's certainly debatable. You'd have to get into a big argument of whether or not elephants are helpful or a hindrance to an army logistically, something that I am not prepared to do.


The medieval 100% Knight armies would get a +1 too, which is a little more odd, but I don't think those armies are usually very good. The good versions of them will usually contain a unit or two of LF anyway, which would negate the bonus.

[spikemesq]

I think this is a pretty clever idea, with some nice historical flavour.
You might want limit the "mounted" qualification to only CAV and LH, and maybe Camelry.
Otherwise the all knight/chariot/elephant/cataphract armies might qualify, too.

There are a couple armies that can be say, all shooty Cav/LH + 1 unit of Knights (Seljuk Turk), or all shooty Cav/LH + some elephants (Muslim Indian Sultanates).

I think it's probably fair for them to get the +1, though it's certainly debatable. You'd have to get into a big argument of whether or not elephants are helpful or a hindrance to an army logistically, something that I am not prepared to do.


The medieval 100% Knight armies would get a +1 too, which is a little more odd, but I don't think those armies are usually very good. The good versions of them will usually contain a unit or two of LF anyway, which would negate the bonus.

What army can be 100% Knights? Even the Romanian Franks have to bring some archers IIRC.

[nikgaukroger]

Condotta?

[philqw78]

There's definately a 100% cataphract army