Set up and Initiative

[mikekh]

First let me say that the FoG rules are superb and the more I play the better it gets! However...
My only *minor* gripe is with the initiative and who moves first. If I get the initiative then my opponent moves first, this just doesn't seem right, does it? Of course moving second I get to see what my opponent is up to. But the reality of this is that my opponent, moving first, puts LH and LF on a double move and immediately closes my army down. I think it should be the other way round.

Of course it can be argued that if you want the opportunity to move first then try to lose the initiative by not taking an IC - personally I would have preferred to see an IC being able to add or subtract 2 from the initiative dice and/or the side with the initiative choosing to move first or second or some permutation of these alternatives.

As I said it's only a small issue in an otherwise excellent rule set but having , in almost every game I play, the side without initiative moving first and pushing LH 14mu out doesn't really work well.

What do others think?

Thanks

Mike

[hammy]

The reason that the side without initiative moves first is that if the side with initiative got to choose where the battle is fought, deploy second and move forst everyone would want to get intiative, all armies would be +2 to +4 initiative and the first roll of the game would be critical.

Allowing the general modifier to be optional is an interesting possibility but to be honest as things stange there is IMO a reasonable choice as to having and IC or not for initiative or moving first.

[neilhammond]

As I said it's only a small issue in an otherwise excellent rule set but having , in almost every game I play, the side without initiative moving first and pushing LH 14mu out doesn't really work well.

What do others think?

I think it balances quite well. The player with initative gets to watch his opponents deployment and react to that. The player without gets some opportunity to react. If the initiative player deployed second and moved first it would be too much of an advantage.

For me, the key to initiative is all about getting the terrain you want, not so much as who deploys first/second.

[mikekh]

As I said it's only a small issue in an otherwise excellent rule set but having , in almost every game I play, the side without initiative moving first and pushing LH 14mu out doesn't really work well.

What do others think?

For me, the key to initiative is all about getting the terrain you want, not so much as who deploys first/second.

Yes, you get the terrain you want but have little say in where it's placed - random placement with a chance of some shifting.

[neilhammond]

Yes, you get the terrain you want but have little say in where it's placed - random placement with a chance of some shifting.

Nooooo! It's all about denying your opponent the type of terrain he might want. Where it's placed isn't that relevent

[rayfredjohn]

As usual Neil is correst

Imagine having the initiative and going for steep hills covered in rough going. Not only do you get the terrain you want, you deny your opponent the rough selections. Or alternatively, in a game against a shooty cav army you probably don't want to meet them on the Steppe (been there done that and waiting for Nik's AAR). The benefits of chosing the terrain you fight in compared to moving first are IMHO considerable.

Ray Duggins

[rayfredjohn]

As usual Neil is correst

Imagine having the initiative and going for steep hills covered in rough going. Not only do you get the terrain you want, you deny your opponent the rough selections. Or alternatively, in a game against a shooty cav army you probably don't want to meet them on the Steppe (been there done that and waiting for Nik's AAR). The benefits of chosing the terrain you fight in compared to moving first are IMHO considerable.

I take your point about chance in terrain placement. On Thursday my opponent Sixed two of my non compulsary steep hills leaving me exposed. without wishing to sound pompous you need to have a plan that can cope with these situation.

Hope this helps.


Ray Duggins

[rayfredjohn]

Sorry about double post something weird happened to my display driver during post.


Ray

[mikekh]

As usual Neil is correst

Imagine having the initiative and going for steep hills covered in rough going. Not only do you get the terrain you want, you deny your opponent the rough selections. Or alternatively, in a game against a shooty cav army you probably don't want to meet them on the Steppe (been there done that and waiting for Nik's AAR). The benefits of chosing the terrain you fight in compared to moving first are IMHO considerable.

I take your point about chance in terrain placement. On Thursday my opponent Sixed two of my non compulsary steep hills leaving me exposed. without wishing to sound pompous you need to have a plan that can cope with these situation.

Hope this helps.


Ray Duggins

So you're suggesting that the plan really should be formulated before any terrain is placed? In other words start planning once you know who your opponent is? I've not really looked at it from that perspective. My plans generally start once the terrain is placed - mainly because the location of terrain is not really under the players control. So plans like 'I'll place a marsh in his center and force him to split his forces' don't really work.
I'll try playing the game from this viewpoint and see how that affects my reasoning on initiative etc.

Cheers

Mike

[Scrumpy]

The reason that the side without initiative moves first is that if the side with initiative got to choose where the battle is fought, deploy second and move forst everyone would want to get intiative, all armies would be +2 to +4 initiative and the first roll of the game would be critical.

I don't recall seeing dbm reports of everyone using aggression 4 armes.

I must admit it is annoying that a mobile mounted army cannot utilise their speed by moving first. Maybe the initiative winner can have the choice of moving first or second ?

[hammy]

My Huns and Assyrians IMO benefited a fair amount from aggression 4 in DBM.

The thing was that in DBM if you invaded your opponent got a lot more control over the terrain. In FoG if you get initiatve then a mounted army can happily welcome it's opponent to the steppes.

If you feel that moving first is that important don't use an IC.

Allowing the side with initiative to move first as well as pick the terrain type and deploy second is FAR too much advantage for initiative.

[Scrumpy]

My Huns and Assyrians IMO benefited a fair amount from aggression 4 in DBM.

From what I have read they would have benefited from a c-in-c who knew the rules, and how to play the army a lot more than their aggression rating of 4.

[hammy]

My Huns and Assyrians IMO benefited a fair amount from aggression 4 in DBM.

From what I have read they would have benefited from a c-in-c who knew the rules, and how to play the army a lot more than their aggression rating of 4.

[SirGarnet]

So you're suggesting that the plan really should be formulated before any terrain is placed? In other words start planning once you know who your opponent is?

In a word, yes. Ideally you've worked through your doctrine and drill so you'll have several terrain-based deployment and battle plans available which guide terrain placement and you modify and put in operation during and after deployment.

I've not really looked at it from that perspective. My plans generally start once the terrain is placed - mainly because the location of terrain is not really under the players control. So plans like 'I'll place a marsh in his center and force him to split his forces' don't really work.

You either place or adjust most of the terrain pieces. Any of these decisions can shift the advantage for or against you (hard to tell and easy to err).

I'll try playing the game from this viewpoint and see how that affects my reasoning on initiative etc.

Whether to build the army to try to win or to try to lose initiative is an important strategic decision. For some doctrines for some armies, moving first in order to gain maneuvering room (or to pin your prey and quickly stab to the heart) is preferable to picking the region, placing terrain first, and deploying second.

[neilhammond]

So you're suggesting that the plan really should be formulated before any terrain is placed? In other words start planning once you know who your opponent is? ...

Yes. You need a plan to deal with each of: shooty-steppe armies, medieval knight-heavy armies, pike and spear HF armies, Romans with all their crack legions, barbarian warband armies, mass-elephant armies. Part of each plan is: what terrain do I want?

Of course, once you have carefully evaluated all the options and your response, you realise it's impossible to construct an army that can deal with all possible permutations, so you just go for an army doctrine that you think will work. So, for example, shooty cavalry armies will usually want to ensure the table is as open as possible and so go for steppe. HF armies will usually want lots of terrain to help protect their flanks.

Alternatively, you might decide that no matter what, you want to move first and so go for an initiative zero army.

Neil