Whether terrain?

[bjarmson]

I've owned and played FoG for month now. I've read the instructions. I've played wargames since they were only on boards, so not a novice, but I'm still trying to figure out what effect terrain plays in FoG battles. I know some units are disordered/very disordered when in some terrain, that there are some attack costs, but I've yet to figure out exactly how to utilize terrain when fighting. For instance, there are a number of scenarios that mention a river crossing point as if it has some importance, but the river is crossable at any place by virtually every unit. Doesn't this make the river crossing point superfluous? Missile units fire across otherwise impassible hills when enemy units are within range. Don't ask me how. When I've placed units in what should be strong defensive positions (uphill, behind ditches and streams, whatever) the benefits seem negligible. Does FoG really take terrain into consideration (other than what I've mentioned above)? Holding a good defensive position seems to yield marginal results, at best. Can anyone explain just what role terrain plays in this game?

[deeter]

Good use of terrrain in FOG is decisive! Take a close look at the terrain chart in the lamentable "help" section. Some terrrain will disorder only the unit in it while other terrain will disrupt the unit in it and the unit attaching it. Try attacking a LF LS in a tree hex with pikes. The + POA for being uphill is also a big deal. True, you can shoot across impassible hills which is wrong, but LOS does otherwise exist.

Having the proper troops for the available terrain can make most games a foregone conclusion. You might also check the FOG wiki for more info.

Deeter

[voskarp]

I interpret impassible as very rough rocky terrain rather than high mountains. Therefore not hindering line of sight.

[Tiavals]

I'm guessing the river crossing point has a movement cost of 1 as opposed to 1½ of a normal river, meaning it's twice as fast for HF.

Terrain is one of the most important things in a battle in FOG(between roughly equal players). Being uphill when an attacker is downhill will most often assure victory, unless the attacker has a lot of ranged units or you've positioned your units terribly. Terrible positioning includes putting archers(without swordsmen or armor or such) in the first uphill hex and such. Pikes attacking archers uphill still have POA++. Pikes attacking armored DS uphill are at POA-. A huge difference.

Fighting HF with MF(equal otherwise) in terrain that disrupts the HF is a massive advantage. Terrain negates lancers and pikes/spears(if bad enough terrain).

Anyway, terrain is a big deal.

[batesmotel]

Most of what are on the FoG maps are what is classed as streams rather than rivers. Rivers (and lakes and ponds) are wider water and go through the hex rather than along the hex side. Theses hexes are impassible except at bridges or fords. Unfortunately the pictures in the terrain effects chart aren't really clear that rivers are wider and go through a hex instead of a hexsied but it is generally clear on the maps. See the Callinicum scenario for a clear example of a river instead of a stream. The Granicus scenario uses a stream to represent the Granicus River (which is relatively dry at the time of year when the battle occurred.)

Chris

[Brenmusik]

Anyway, terrain is a big deal.

Is it too big a deal?