Page 8 of 11
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:17 pm
by timmy1
More information than we require, Powell...
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:28 pm
by azrael86
olivier wrote: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
Well, not only is it ahistorical for steppe armies to fight close terrain armies on the steppe, as Lawrence noted, it was relatively usual for steppe armies to fight in terrain, because they were invading it!
Very few armies can cover much more than 140cm with decent troops.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:34 pm
by philqw78
azrael86 wrote:Well, not only is it ahistorical for steppe armies to fight close terrain armies on the steppe, as Lawrence noted, it was relatively usual for steppe armies to fight in terrain, because they were invading it!
Were these equal battles, did both armies have the same points value of troops in the field? I think the Russ did quite well in the steppe, and they're certainly a heavy foot army.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:27 am
by olivier
Battles noted by Lawrence where fight between STEPPE ARMIES ! Not a very useful argument
And as Phil noted Russ crushed the might of the Khazar in the steppe. And the Catalaunics fields wasn't exactly wooded or hilly ( just a little gentle hill, if I remember well) as Gaugameles
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:29 am
by ethan
philqw78 wrote:nikgaukroger wrote:Reminds me - I think I'd not have HF slowed by Uneven, just the disorder (and associated nastiness for some capabilities).
Hooray.
Interesting but we would then have to make sure MF were worth the points.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:06 am
by shall
shall wrote:
One thing we are considering is to allow the player who wins the PBI roll to either:
Choose terrain and deploy second move second
or
Let opponent choose terrain and deploy first and move first
Would allow high PBI foot armies to move first for instance.
Si
Problem is Si you don't have high PBI foot armies. Most they can have is +2 with IC. So if you consider a PBI steppe army with a PBI of 4 will mostly win that roll: the first option is wthe one they have at the moment. The second option could be an advantage to them in some circumstances.
So this surely gives more choice to a PBI4 steppe army - another thing in their favour (assuming they'll make more good choices than bad).
Did you want that to happen?
Assuming we keep the way the PBI score is calculated the same as at present ... which we are mulling over.....
Personally I am wondering about having PBI score based just on generals - 3 for an IC, 2 for and FC and 1 for a TC - add em up and add a dice. My Parthians would be a 5 on this, my Ancient Britons a 6. Early days as not an agreed position at all - personal thought only. But would welcome thoughts from the forum on merits or otherwise?
Also additional option for Steppe armies a bit academic perhaps as I suspect they will take Steppe option as today anyway. So in practice even without the above change it might be more new options for foot sloggers and in general anyone preferring to move first.
Si
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:23 am
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
That would make 4TCs as good as an IC and a TC. I dont see lots of mediocre generals outwitting a military genius. It could even be a case of to many cooks spoil the broth.
Paul
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:27 am
by nikgaukroger
shall wrote:
Assuming we keep the way the PBI score is calculated the same as at present ... which we are mulling over.....
Personally I am wondering about having PBI score based just on generals - 3 for an IC, 2 for and FC and 1 for a TC - add em up and add a dice. My Parthians would be a 5 on this, my Ancient Britons a 6. Early days as not an agreed position at all - personal thought only. But would welcome thoughts from the forum on merits or otherwise?
To be honest if you wanted to keep it really nice and simple you could just have the winner of an unmodified dice off - generals have other uses to justify their points costs (assuming something is done around FCs) so don't need to be in this.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:51 am
by shall
That would make 4TCs as good as an IC and a TC. I dont see lots of mediocre generals outwitting a military genius. It could even be a case of to many cooks spoil the broth.
But you wouoldn't take and IC and a TC rather and IC and 2 TCs
S
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:09 pm
by philqw78
shall wrote:But you wouoldn't take and IC and a TC rather and IC and 2 TCs
S
Would and have
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:33 pm
by grahambriggs
You could keep it simple and say +2 for IC, +1 for each FC and none for TCs.
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:29 am
by shall
Basically what I was thinking as a possibility.
Si
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:47 am
by hannibal
Personally I don't see why the decision on a "home or away" fixture has anything to do with who has what generals, or PBI for that matter. Keep it simple - throw a dice, highest score is at home. No mods
Marc
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:00 am
by waldo
hannibal wrote:Personally I don't see why the decision on a "home or away" fixture has anything to do with who has what generals, or PBI for that matter. Keep it simple - throw a dice, highest score is at home. No mods
Marc
Why not just scrap the whole homeland idea altogether as someone suggested and have players pick whatever they want. Everyone should be equally (un)happy then.
Walter
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:35 am
by philqw78
waldo wrote:hannibal wrote:Personally I don't see why the decision on a "home or away" fixture has anything to do with who has what generals, or PBI for that matter. Keep it simple - throw a dice, highest score is at home. No mods
Marc
Why not just scrap the whole homeland idea altogether as someone suggested and have players pick whatever they want. Everyone should be equally (un)happy then.
Walter
Hooray
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:23 pm
by gozerius
waldo wrote:hannibal wrote:Personally I don't see why the decision on a "home or away" fixture has anything to do with who has what generals, or PBI for that matter. Keep it simple - throw a dice, highest score is at home. No mods
Marc
Why not just scrap the whole homeland idea altogether as someone suggested and have players pick whatever they want. Everyone should be equally (un)happy then.
Walter
Yes. And while we're at it, lets get rid of those confining army lists as well. Why should my army have to conform to someone elses idea of what an ancient army should look like?
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:26 pm
by philqw78
gozerius wrote:Yes. And while we're at it, lets get rid of those confining army lists as well. Why should my army have to conform to someone elses idea of what an ancient army should look like?
Thats a useful comment Gozerius. My arse.
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:58 am
by waldo
gozerius wrote:waldo wrote:hannibal wrote:Personally I don't see why the decision on a "home or away" fixture has anything to do with who has what generals, or PBI for that matter. Keep it simple - throw a dice, highest score is at home. No mods
Marc
Why not just scrap the whole homeland idea altogether as someone suggested and have players pick whatever they want. Everyone should be equally (un)happy then.
Walter
Yes. And while we're at it, lets get rid of those confining army lists as well. Why should my army have to conform to someone elses idea of what an ancient army should look like?
So Picts fight in steppes without a scrap of cover because they lost a die roll? Ilkhanids fight in woodlands because they lost a die roll? What is the logic?
Were they both just magically transported there?
At least the alternative means each player gets something that is vaguely appropriate for his or her army.
Walter
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:31 am
by Polkovnik
waldo wrote:
At least the alternative means each player gets something that is vaguely appropriate for his or her army.
Walter
No it doesn't. It means one player gets something that is appropriate, the other gets something that is often completely inappropriate.
Maybe the terrain should be randomly chosen from both players terrain choices ?
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:42 am
by philqw78
Polkovnik wrote:No it doesn't. It means one player gets something that is appropriate, the other gets something that is often completely inappropriate.
That is how it is now. One of the players often ends up with totally inappropriate terrain.
Maybe the terrain should be randomly chosen from both players terrain choices ?
Yes. That is what we (me and waldo) are advocating.