Terrain Tweaks

[Polkovnik]

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.

Sorry, I thought the "alternative" he was talking about was the current situation. Easy to lose track of who's arguing for what.

Maybe the terrain should be randomly chosen from both players terrain choices ?

Yes. That is what we (me and waldo) are advocating.

No, I meant the terrain type should be randomly chosen. So list the possible terrain types each army can have and roll a dice to choose which one. Then make choices as per table in rules for this terrain type.

But I suppose if the set-up rules are catering for ahistoric battles, then just choosing pieces at random would work also. Choose whether you want 2, 3 or 4 choices and roll on a table. If a type comes up that you cannot provide, then your opponent can provide you with an appropriate piece.

[spikemesq]

No, I meant the terrain type should be randomly chosen. So list the possible terrain types each army can have and roll a dice to choose which one. Then make choices as per table in rules for this terrain type.

I like this idea, actually, as it eliminates some of the "sameness" that the current terrain rules yield. A dice for flavor rule like one of these could be pretty cool:

Single Die:

Terrain types are drawn by a single die roll. The players assign number to the available terrain types, initiative gets 1-4, non-initiative gets 5 and 6. No more than 2 numbers can be assigned to any one type, unless all available types have 2 slots already assigned. Terrain types that appear in both lists count as separate slots -- e.g., if both sides get Agricultural, there are two Agricultural slots to cover.

Two Dice:

This is a little more tricky, but a chart streamlines the math. Each player assigns the possible results of 2d6 to the available terrain types (both sides' terrain types get a slot as above) and can double up only on one terrain type, unless all types are doubled up already. The player with initiative gets 5-9 (five picks), the other player gets 2-4 and 10-12 (six picks). Note that this favors the player with initiative, even though he gets one less pick, because of the odds. (Craps playas, represent!) So the results would skew as follows with initiating player in bold:

2: 1/36 = 2.8%
3: 2/36 = 5.6%
4: 3/36 = 8.3%
5: 4/36 = 11.1%
6: 5/36 = 13.9%
7: 6/36 = 16.7%
8: 5/36 = 13.9%
9: 4/36 = 11.1%
10: 3/36 = 8.3%
11: 2/36 = 5.6%
12: 1/36 = 2.8%

Initiative = 24/36 (66.6 %)

Non-Initiative = 12/36 (33.3%)

Under this system, armies with limited terrain have a boost towards getting that terrain because there are fewer options to spread their picks over. Also, the initiating player gets some preference. OTOH, neither side can really "bank" on getting one terrain type, and both sides face the prospect of getting a type that neither side might have chosen in the first place. Moreover, where both sides share common terrain types, that terrain gets some weight, which makes sense because if both armies are familiar with Agricultural, then it should be more likely that they face each other in the common terrain.

I suppose it would mildly hamper big empire types (Romans, Chinese) because they have more types to spread their picks, but they also get a benefit in that an opponent with only one or two types must also spread their picks.

As I type this, I really like the 2d6 method. What am I missing here, other than the extra 2 minutes it might take to deal with this added complexity?

Spike

[babyshark]

I like your system, Spike, at least at first glance. It would add a layer of complexity, though. Not insurmountable by any means. I am sure that a clever player could come up with an easy-to-use chart that would make deciding the terrain type a breeze.

Marc

[ethan]

One thing I think we should be cautious about is making the actual make-up of a terrain list terribly important from a game-play perspective. If it turns out that have "Steppe" terrain in your list as a non-steppe army is a major handicap that would be unfortunate IMO.

[lawrenceg]

One thing I think we should be cautious about is making the actual make-up of a terrain list terribly important from a game-play perspective. If it turns out that have "Steppe" terrain in your list as a non-steppe army is a major handicap that would be unfortunate IMO.

I think I'd prefer to have other things changed so fighting on steppe terrain is not, or at least not often, a major handicap. Something as simple as giving the non-initiative player first terrain pick might do it (so they can maximise the size of the rough going pieces).

[Polkovnik]

Single Die:
Terrain types are drawn by a single die roll. The players assign number to the available terrain types, initiative gets 1-4, non-initiative gets 5 and 6. No more than 2 numbers can be assigned to any one type, unless all available types have 2 slots already assigned. Terrain types that appear in both lists count as separate slots -- e.g., if both sides get Agricultural, there are two Agricultural slots to cover.
Spike

I prefer this method, but rather than deciding during the set-up phase which numbers to assign to each terrain type (which will add a few minutes to set-up) this could be decided beforehand and included in the players' army list (in the same way that order of march is).

So each player would assign a terrain type to the numbers 1-4 (for when he wins initiaitive) and 5-6 (for when the opponrent wins). The numbers 1-4 would have to each be a different type, unless there are only three choices, in which case one is repeated. The numbers 5 & 6 must both be different types.
So If the choices were Agricultural, Developed, Hilly, and the player wanted to maximise terrian, he might specify :
1 Agricultural
2 Developed
3 Hilly
4 Hilly

5 Hilly
6 Agricultural

This would actually speed up the set-up process slightly, as there is no decision to make about which terrain type to choose.

[spikemesq]

Single Die:
Terrain types are drawn by a single die roll. The players assign number to the available terrain types, initiative gets 1-4, non-initiative gets 5 and 6. No more than 2 numbers can be assigned to any one type, unless all available types have 2 slots already assigned. Terrain types that appear in both lists count as separate slots -- e.g., if both sides get Agricultural, there are two Agricultural slots to cover.
Spike

I prefer this method, but rather than deciding during the set-up phase which numbers to assign to each terrain type (which will add a few minutes to set-up) this could be decided beforehand and included in the players' army list (in the same way that order of march is).

So each player would assign a terrain type to the numbers 1-4 (for when he wins initiaitive) and 5-6 (for when the opponrent wins). The numbers 1-4 would have to each be a different type, unless there are only three choices, in which case one is repeated. The numbers 5 & 6 must both be different types.
So If the choices were Agricultural, Developed, Hilly, and the player wanted to maximise terrian, he might specify :
1 Agricultural
2 Developed
3 Hilly
4 Hilly

5 Hilly
6 Agricultural

This would actually speed up the set-up process slightly, as there is no decision to make about which terrain type to choose.

I too thought about building the terrain type selections into the Order of March. To do this, however, the player could only assign slots to his own terrain types, since the opponent's terrain is unknown. That might still be OK.

I would not require all the slots to be different, though. That basically makes it random for big empire types with 3-4 terrain types. The players should have some influence over the result to balance between full random and no random. That's why I prefer the limited "double up" version, where a player can favor one terrain type. Perhaps, this should be refined to doubling up on one until all types are slotted, then doubling on a second, until all are doubled, then tripling -- if that is even possible under a single d6 system.

So consider the following example (with made up terrain choices, because I don't have the books handy):

Roman Player - Developed, Agricultural, Wooded, Hilly (i.e., big empire type)

Nomadic Turk - Agricultural, Steppe (i.e., LH wanderer)

If the choices are limited to the player's home selections, their OBs might designate their picks in one table with 1-4 for initiative and 5-6 without. The OB entries, then would look like this:

Romans:

1 - Wooded
2 - Wooded
3 - Hilly
4 - Developed
5 - Wooded
6 - Wooded

Turks:

1 - Steppe
2 - Steppe
3 - Agricultural
4 - Agricultural
5 - Steppe
6 - Steppe

So if the Romans get initiative, the possible results are:

1 - Wooded
2 - Wooded
3 - Hilly
4 - Developed
5 - Steppe
6 - Steppe

but if the Turks get initiative, the possible results are:

1 - Steppe
2 - Steppe
3 - Agricultural
4 - Agricultural
5 - Wooded
6 - Wooded

Actually, by forcing the player to "pre-set" their terrain picks, the system would permit the more complex 2d6 method because most of the "legwork" happens before set-up. I may tinker with that scenario for another post (never stop posting).

Spike

[bahdahbum]

Why not make it simple :

The player with initiative has the choice :

Choose a terrain type in his opponent's list and deploy second, move second .

Choose a terrain type in his own list , deploy first , move first .

[lawrenceg]

Why not make it simple :

The player with initiative has the choice :

Choose a terrain type in his opponent's list and deploy second, move second .

Choose a terrain type in his own list , deploy first , move first .

Steppe cavalry/LH armies would always choose the second option, which gives them the best of both worlds, especially if they still get the +2 initiative for having lots of LH/CV. At least currently an infantry army that loses the initiative gets an initital double move in to cut down the evade room of the LH, which is enough of a balancer that most LH players try to lose the initiative by having a TC CinC.

[bahdahbum]

I forgot about that and made my proposal too quickly . I see , for now, no easy way to solve this .

[lawrenceg]

I forgot about that and made my proposal too quickly . I see , for now, no easy way to solve this .

A couple of simple changes that I think would be helpful are:

1. The player who chooses the terrain type gets second choice of features instead of first choice, and places them second.

2. On a roll of 5/6 you can either move/remove the feature, or replace the feature with a larger one of the same type.

[spikemesq]

I forgot about that and made my proposal too quickly . I see , for now, no easy way to solve this .

A couple of simple changes that I think would be helpful are:

1. The player who chooses the terrain type gets second choice of features instead of first choice, and places them second.

2. On a roll of 5/6 you can either move/remove the feature, or replace the feature with a larger one of the same type.

On No. 2, this would need some limits, or every terrain piece has a 1/3 chance of exploding.

It might work if the increase were available only for small pieces (currently not defined) or the increase were limited to "no larger than a normal sized piece" -- since expanding into a large piece turns one terrain selection into two.

Even then, I wonder if there are too many gimmicky potential swaps. If a 5/6 can turn a regular terrain piece into a larger elongated piece, that could get pretty trashy. Also, what constitutes "larger"? Jumping up from a category (e.g., normal to large)? Otherwise, we'll need to do some calculus to determine square inches.

[lawrenceg]

I forgot about that and made my proposal too quickly . I see , for now, no easy way to solve this .

A couple of simple changes that I think would be helpful are:

1. The player who chooses the terrain type gets second choice of features instead of first choice, and places them second.

2. On a roll of 5/6 you can either move/remove the feature, or replace the feature with a larger one of the same type.

On No. 2, this would need some limits, or every terrain piece has a 1/3 chance of exploding.

It might work if the increase were available only for small pieces (currently not defined) or the increase were limited to "no larger than a normal sized piece" -- since expanding into a large piece turns one terrain selection into two.

Even then, I wonder if there are too many gimmicky potential swaps. If a 5/6 can turn a regular terrain piece into a larger elongated piece, that could get pretty trashy. Also, what constitutes "larger"? Jumping up from a category (e.g., normal to large)? Otherwise, we'll need to do some calculus to determine square inches.

A 1 in 3 chance of exploding balances out the 1 in 3 chance of a piece vanishing or moving 12 MU to where it has no effect on the game, or a 6 in 6 chance of the player wanting to minimise terrain choosing one of the absolute minimum size. It could be made a 1 in 6 if that is found to give better balance in testing.

I'd probably define "larger" as "completely covering the other piece". It could be limited to the same size category. The rule would probably still work if it was simply "remove or replace with another feature of the same type and size category" as a player wanting to minimise terrain will just remove it and one wanting more terrain will normally put a larger one on.

Basically it was a couple of suggestions that the authors can put detail on if they decide to pusue them. The aim is to get out of the current asymmetry where it is easy to minimise the impact of terrain on a game if you want to do so, but difficult to maximise it.

[philqw78]

it is easy to minimise the impact of terrain on a game if you want to do so, but difficult to maximise it.

Like real battles

[marty]

That most ancient battles took place on relatively open fields is probably the case (although I would suggest that few primary sources on ancient battles are of a sort to make observations about terrain whether it was there or not).

There is, however, I feel a fairly simple explanation for this. Most historical battles were fought between neighbours. The armies were often very similiar to each other. There was little reason for one of two hoplite armies to seek a battle in the mountains or for one steppe horde to seek out the forest for a clash with its, to all intents and purposes, identical neighbours.

This is not, however, the situation in competition wargaming (not even in themed book events). We have armies from all over the world and 4500 years of history fighting each other. Given this it is not enough to simply say "we think most historical battles were fough in fairly open terrain so we should do that to". The difference is choice. Most ancient battles took place on open fields by what amounted to mutual agreement (ie neither side wanted anything different). That is not to say that if one side had wanted to fight on something different it was easy to force them to come out in the open. As just one example I'm sure the Mongols would have found the conquest of China quicker and easier if the Southern Chinese had obliged them by leaving the shelter of the rice paddies and rivers to come out and fight in the north.

Martin

[Strategos69]

I agree with Martin's explanation. I would add that some terrain we call open it was not really open. In some places, Greece for example, It is rather difficult to find a nice flat surface, especially appropriate for the cavalry. The few times I have been hiking, if the day before rained, what could have been easy to walk through became a nightmare (especially if there was a little slope). What I really miss from the terrain system is uneven terrain being more common. When uneven was included I really liked the idea, but I didn't like the implementation of it.

We know for the accounts of Ancient battles that, when you were disadvatadged in cavalry, you would seek montanious terrain. With the actual system, that reduces movement for heavy infantry so much, it is not wise either. If you get into difficult terrain, you can be in there up to 12 turns until you manage to get out of there. I also think that is another reason why medium foot are such a good choice.

So, to summarize, some thought should be given to the table of move distances. I think that heavy foot should not be so much disadvantaged in all terrains, especially in the reduction of movement. There should be some terrain that only disadvantages cavalry or disadvantages all mounted more than foot, like hills. Uneven should be more common, maybe making more of those items compulsory, like 1 in every terrain.

[bahdahbum]

. I think that heavy foot should not be so much disadvantaged in all terrains

They should at least be disordered . They might keep moving 3 MU in uneven .

[hazelbark]

. I think that heavy foot should not be so much disadvantaged in all terrains

They should at least be disordered . They might keep moving 3 MU in uneven .

Well this is a partial fix, I agree. Right now the 2 MU move effectively means HF going into uneven are out for the game.

[nikgaukroger]

Do we need Uneven terrain - what would be the consequences for the game if we dropped it?

[madaxeman]

Do we need Uneven terrain - what would be the consequences for the game if we dropped it?

tears in Manchester?