Terrain Tweaks

[olivier]

Excuse me but I don't really understand the problem here
When I play Cv army against HF army, I choose generally agricultural as I can put 2 or 3 big uneven pieces and when I play HF army I rather happy to fight in a steppe! As I haven't any terrain who slow or disturb my foot!
The only army that struggle in steppe are undrilled MF not a world winners in history And, apart in B&G I don't remember any without at least 10 horses

[nikgaukroger]

And, apart in B&G I don't remember any without at least 10 horses

Whilst it is true that there are not that many that can't have at least 10 mounted bases for PBI (although you should look at StE as well as B&G for them ), there are many where it isn't really sensible to take them - WotR, HYW, etc.

[olivier]

WotR or HYW aren't armies specially afraid of shooty Cv either ! It's even the opposite

[azrael86]

Excuse me but I don't really understand the problem here
When I play Cv army against HF army, I choose generally agricultural as I can put 2 or 3 big uneven pieces and when I play HF army I rather happy to fight in a steppe! As I haven't any terrain who slow or disturb my foot!
The only army that struggle in steppe are undrilled MF not a world winners in history And, apart in B&G I don't remember any without at least 10 horses

The point is that it is entirely unrealistic for armies with who traditionally fought on the (strategic) defensive, in their own landscape, to suddenly decide to invade Russia or Mongolia. It pretty much never happened, but the current system means that in an OAF/D&F theme an army of (say) early scots could easily find itself playing 75% of games in steppe or similar. If your HF are superior, maybe. Otherwise they're going to be in trouble, because after turn 1 you have still got 32MU to cross, taking around 9 moves, during which time you will be shot at a lot, usually from outside charge reach. Lets say they get only 15 shots, with a typical 4 to hit then that's probably 4 tests, and you have no rear support, if you're average then you'll fail one test (and if you fail early then may welll drop again). Admittedly armoured legions will do better but how can they cover the table?

Numerous early armies from EotD and Lost scrolls lack enough cav and LH.

[olivier]

The point is that it is entirely unrealistic for armies with who traditionally fought on the (strategic) defensive,

It's unrealistic to bring this type of army in tournament! If you want to play only Historical encounter, you'll never play Mongol against (say) early scot
If you want enter in tournament with at least a historical encounter you must think about new tactic and not historical ones!
Teutonic wanted fight Mongol with their usual tactic and they were crushed!

only 6 armies in lost scroll and only 2 of them who can't have an ally who gave them missing horses...
In EOTD all army who don't have horses have Nellies, not a nice option to enemies horses.

[nikgaukroger]

It's unrealistic to bring this type of army in tournament!

Which is entirely the wrong attitude. It should be possible to bring any sort of army to a tournament and have a good time and a reasonable chance (caveat for skill of course).

Plus, importantly, you must, of course, have a plan of how you are going to win the battle - which shouldn't just be wanting your opponent to lose it.

[philqw78]

It should be possible to bring any sort of army to a tournament and have a good time and a reasonable chance (caveat for skill of course).

I look forwards to you bringing an Early Slav Nik. Honestly some armies are unsaveable if based on their historical prototype.

[nikgaukroger]

It should be possible to bring any sort of army to a tournament and have a good time and a reasonable chance (caveat for skill of course).

I look forwards to you bringing an Early Slav Nik. Honestly some armies are unsaveable if based on their historical prototype.

And Phil wins the prize for missing the sort from what I said - I am under no illusions that any actual army is going to have a chance, some are indeed pretty much dog meat regardless

Actually, I'd revise my statement a bit and say I'd be fairly happy if an army entirely of LF was hopeless reagrdless

[nikgaukroger]

FWIW on the whole terrain issue I'd generally go back to a more DBM-like principle and say the terrain type must come from the loser of the PBIs territory types. Maybe with some tweaks.

[philqw78]

FWIW on the whole terrain issue I'd generally go back to a more DBM-like principle and say the terrain type must come from the loser of the PBIs territory types. Maybe with some tweaks.

I'd prefer it go back to nobody in particulars territory type. Why are we trying to kid ourselves that it is historical to use this set up?

[ethan]

How about something like:

If an army loses the initiative roll (counting bonuses) by 5 or more you must choose of that armies terrain list.

The exact number (5? 6? whatever) could be subject to debate. The point is to inject some uncertainty into the process as the steppe army.

Perhaps instead if you lose by enough you get a reversal and the initiative loser picks terrain, deploys second and moves second.

I realize there are differing views on teh desirability of picking terrain, open boards, etc. The fact that there are pretty passionate views on each side of the fence suggest it isn't easily resolved and that playing styles, attitudes, etc may play a role in your preference for fighting LH out in the open with HI or in hilly terrain...Something like this would at least inject a bit of uncertainty and occasionally give each preference what they desire (as well as giving the LH what they desire occasionally). This would also let a +4 initiative LH army occasonally get the first move against HI - which at least some claim is desirable.

[nikgaukroger]

FWIW on the whole terrain issue I'd generally go back to a more DBM-like principle and say the terrain type must come from the loser of the PBIs territory types. Maybe with some tweaks.

I'd prefer it go back to nobody in particulars territory type. Why are we trying to kid ourselves that it is historical to use this set up?

I'm not - I just think that by something like I suggested there would be some kind of balance, I'm not going to claim it is based on any sort of historical model. Also fairly simple which is what you want at set up so you get into the actual game quickly - IMO anything more than a simple dice off with simple +/- modifiers is pointless for the sort of game where you are using the set up routine.

[olivier]

olivier wrote:

It's unrealistic to bring this type of army in tournament!



Which is entirely the wrong attitude. It should be possible to bring any sort of army to a tournament and have a good time and a reasonable chance (caveat for skill of course).

You doesn't understand my point. Bring an army on tournament wwich only tactic is to stay between terrain or sitting on hill and hope opponents impale on it is, IMHO totally irrealistic and, at least, a bit unsociable. ( as to take a shooty army and sneak all the game!)
I accept any armies gleefully if you have a plan too win a game and not a plan only not to lose.
Even in tournament, the social contract is to have fun and good game with your opponent not to ruin his day

[nikgaukroger]

olivier wrote:

It's unrealistic to bring this type of army in tournament!



Which is entirely the wrong attitude. It should be possible to bring any sort of army to a tournament and have a good time and a reasonable chance (caveat for skill of course).

You doesn't understand my point. Bring an army on tournament wwich only tactic is to stay between terrain or sitting on hill and hope opponents impale on it is, IMHO totally irrealistic and, at least, a bit unsociable. ( as to take a shooty army and sneak all the game!)
I accept any armies gleefully if you have a plan too win a game and not a plan only not to lose.
Even in tournament, the social contract is to have fun and good game with your opponent not to ruin his day

Ah, you are talking about the tactical defensive, whereas the poster mentioned the strategic.

In general I agree with your point, and, as you say, both players should have a plan to deal with various opposing tactics - and, as mentioned, this should not just involve the other player committing suicide in some way, either by impaling himself on an entrenched enemy, nor by advancing blindly into a wide open space to be encircled.

[olivier]

Ah, you are talking about the tactical defensive, whereas the poster mentioned the strategic.

Yep, but in fine, his complain from some posts is about defensive tactic who doesn't work.

nor by advancing blindly into a wide open space to be encircled.

But we play generally on a 180*120 cm table (6*4) not specially a wide open space

[nikgaukroger]

When I play Cv army against HF army, I choose generally agricultural as I can put 2 or 3 big uneven pieces and when I play HF army I rather happy to fight in a steppe! As I haven't any terrain who slow or disturb my foot!

Reminds me - I think I'd not have HF slowed by Uneven, just the disorder (and associated nastiness for some capabilities).

[olivier]

from 3 to 2 in uneven + the other nastiness about being not steady

[philqw78]

Reminds me - I think I'd not have HF slowed by Uneven, just the disorder (and associated nastiness for some capabilities).

Hooray.

[olivier]

In fact, I think I'd not have any difference in move between MF and HF

[philqw78]

In fact, I think I'd not have any difference in move between MF and HF

Yippee!

(now I just need no basic difference at all to reach orgasm)