Slitherine

What we tried to do with the terrain and initiative was to set up a system where the decisions of what was beneficial was not so clear, and where the diversity and realism of terrain was reasonable. Seems to have met these objectives pretty well. There are varied opinions of the merits of an IC and moving first vs getting steppes say.

As an aside I have hurt a LH army most in steppes becuase there are no obstacles to stop your mass MF moving 4MU every move and driving them of table with limited shots in a nice streight block. Its a mixed blessing at times.

I am very open to improvements but I think we need to beware making any that detract from these broader objectives - they are very easily broken in the search for some false realism, as some other sets have shown.

What I don't want to see is stereotyped terrains, too many terrains where somebody has no chance, or standard patterns emerging. I am keepig a close eye on the table-turning play that happens sometimes and have some ideas on this should we ever want to stop it. So far I would say it isn't common enough to worry me too much.

On the -1 for CTs it is only the same for both sides in combat - if you have any shooting troops it is a problem for the opponent to stay near a base edge.

Si

This is another suggestion for kind of de-edgyfying the table.

How about you just let units voluntarilly leave the side of the table (i.e. move off the table, rather than evade off it) without penalty?

and let them re-enter from that same spot on any subsequent movement phase?

stefoid wrote:This is another suggestion for kind of de-edgyfying the table.

How about you just let units voluntarilly leave the side of the table (i.e. move off the table, rather than evade off it) without penalty?

and let them re-enter from that same spot on any subsequent movement phase?

That's terrible as players could just hide any troops off the table if they are in danger. Since I assume fighting doesn't happen off-table then they are safe forever while their enemies look like idiots from the table. LH pressured by cavalry? Go and hid off-table until they go away. Steppes terrain and no place to hid your LF? Put them off-table.

stefoid wrote:This is another suggestion for kind of de-edgyfying the table.

How about you just let units voluntarilly leave the side of the table (i.e. move off the table, rather than evade off it) without penalty?

and let them re-enter from that same spot on any subsequent movement phase?

There was something like this in one of the earlier editions of WRG ancient rules. As Carlos says, it's a disaster.

rbodleyscott wrote:

stefoid wrote:This is another suggestion for kind of de-edgyfying the table.

How about you just let units voluntarilly leave the side of the table (i.e. move off the table, rather than evade off it) without penalty?

and let them re-enter from that same spot on any subsequent movement phase?

There was something like this in one of the earlier editions of WRG ancient rules. As Carlos says, it's a disaster.

okay, well, how about if you want the action to be central to the table space, dont let anyone deploy within , say, 20 inches of the edge of the table edges? in retrospect that seems like the best and most simple solution to me.

how about if you want the action to be central to the table space, dont let anyone deploy within , say, 20 inches of the edge of the table edges

This is a good way of ensuring that there isn't action in the central table space. If you know that there is going to be whacking great big gap at the side of your opponents army there is nothing to stop highly mobile Light Horse units moving into this space in the first turn.

This in turn leads to the defending army effectively turning 90 degrees to fight the enemy, which is exactly what we are trying to prevent!

I think the terrain and deployment works very well, to change it to how it was in DBM and how it is now in other rulesets would be a huge step backwards IMO.

dave_r wrote:

how about if you want the action to be central to the table space, dont let anyone deploy within , say, 20 inches of the edge of the table edges

This is a good way of ensuring that there isn't action in the central table space. If you know that there is going to be whacking great big gap at the side of your opponents army there is nothing to stop highly mobile Light Horse units moving into this space in the first turn.

This in turn leads to the defending army effectively turning 90 degrees to fight the enemy, which is exactly what we are trying to prevent!

I think the terrain and deployment works very well, to change it to how it was in DBM and how it is now in other rulesets would be a huge step backwards IMO.

I dont follow your logic.

I believe the logic is that if you mandate clear space on the flanks then players who have the first move will simply move light horse 14 MUs into it to start with. The opponent will be at an immediate disadvantage. So they will deploy with flanks refused.

There are downsides to hugging the table edges that will discourage it. a -1 on CHT, threat of flank marches on the side edge and the fact that it is relatively easy to ride away from.

It's not too cheesy. Remember that the successful Roman invasions of Parthia tended to keep the Euphrates to one flank as a table edge.

grahambriggs wrote:I believe the logic is that if you mandate clear space on the flanks then players who have the first move will simply move light horse 14 MUs into it to start with. The opponent will be at an immediate disadvantage. So they will deploy with flanks refused.
.

Since your example includes light horse, then I ask - what is wrong with that scenario? It seems a reasonable response if your army is in dnager of being enveloped by light horse that you cant match.

The problem is that it is likely to delay or possibly even prevent any action in the center, not speed it up or make it more likely. Worse it strengthens LH armies, a type of army not currently considered weak.

Ghaznavid wrote:The problem is that it is likely to delay or possibly even prevent any action in the center, not speed it up or make it more likely. Worse it strengthens LH armies, a type of army not currently considered weak.

depends on your definition of action i suppose

yet it seems like a more natural interaction between such armies in open terrain, whereas you say its better that a foot army hugs an imaginary boundary ?

Id say that if you want actual terrain to secure aflank, that you endevour to put it there during placement.

yet it seems like a more natural interaction between such armies in open terrain, whereas you say its better that a foot army hugs an imaginary boundary ?

Id say that if you want actual terrain to secure aflank, that you endevour to put it there during placement.

And what if it doesn't? It is exceptionally unlikely that you will have both flanks covered by terrain, especially if the LH army takes steppes and doesn't allow you any - your initial argument was that we need to encourage action in the centre of the table. As previously stated your proposal would make that much less likely to occur.

I prefer historical scenarios, and at first it seemed reasonable to entertain a certain 'historical' bias for the terrain rules. Reflecting on my experience and philosophy, I'm more in agreement with Madaxeman. Even though I don't generally like tournaments, to skew them as though they should in some way be more historical misses that they are quite artificial, starting from the concept of equal points. To have an equal chance for a steppe army to fight in the mountains as an MF army has in fighting in the open seems more reasonable in a competitive context. It's like sports: test who best uses the home field advantage. (Best 3 out of 5? )

Situational terrain can be added to a mini-campaign based on territory type, where, for example, a horse army would have to risk entering MF territory to make gains, and vice versa, which I enjoy.

dave_r wrote:

yet it seems like a more natural interaction between such armies in open terrain, whereas you say its better that a foot army hugs an imaginary boundary ?

Id say that if you want actual terrain to secure aflank, that you endevour to put it there during placement.

And what if it doesn't? It is exceptionally unlikely that you will have both flanks covered by terrain, especially if the LH army takes steppes and doesn't allow you any - your initial argument was that we need to encourage action in the centre of the table. As previously stated your proposal would make that much less likely to occur.

what would occur then?

Fighting taking place artificially close to the table edge with those armies not having Light Horse being disadvantaged before a dice throw is made.

Lot's of games decided on who lost the PBI roll (i.e. got to move first) between lot's of highly mobile mounted armies.

Or, to put another way, an unmitigated disaster

stefoid wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:I believe the logic is that if you mandate clear space on the flanks then players who have the first move will simply move light horse 14 MUs into it to start with. The opponent will be at an immediate disadvantage. So they will deploy with flanks refused.
.

Since your example includes light horse, then I ask - what is wrong with that scenario? It seems a reasonable response if your army is in dnager of being enveloped by light horse that you cant match.

It's too powerful an advantage,. The second player is unlikely to be able to make a double move out as well. And there already mechanisms to make edge hugging risky.

dave_r wrote:Fighting taking place artificially close to the table edge with those armies not having Light Horse being disadvantaged before a dice throw is made.

Lot's of games decided on who lost the PBI roll (i.e. got to move first) between lot's of highly mobile mounted armies.

Or, to put another way, an unmitigated disaster

I dont get it, but I wont reflog the issue.

stefoid wrote:I find this to be incredibly cheesy, given the table edges are an artifact.

alls fair in love and war, but I wonder if there is any way to make the 'edge of the world' table factor less abusable.

I don't consider this cheesy at all. Considering most people use ahistorical tactics and focus a lot on flanks which weren't really focused on to the same degree, it could be said that people who don't fight 'front on' are cheesily using the rules to gain an unhistorical advantage.

Sure, there were some armies who tried to wrap the flanks etc, but seriously, how many camps were sacked throughout history? How many times did flanks get rolled up. Compared to the number of battles (Canae, Granicus) with high cavalry content who didn't wrap flanks I think we as wargamers over-use flank attacks. I'm not talking flank marches, I'm talking about 'leave nothing in front and wrap around the flank.

Ian

DaiSho wrote: Compared to the number of battles (Canae, Granicus) with high cavalry content who didn't wrap flanks I think we as wargamers over-use flank attacks. I'm not talking flank marches, I'm talking about 'leave nothing in front and wrap around the flank.

I think a lot of historical match-ups are unlikely to feature flank attacks in reality and FoG, so it is not surprising really.

Consider two traditional hoplite armies fighting. I just won't matter much if they hug the table edge or not. They are going to smash into each other with 48+ stands of hoplites and there is little possibility to outmaneuver each other. Sure each army might have a BG or so of pretty bad cavalry, but that isn't likely to make a decisive contribution. Two medieval undrilled Knight outfits are probably much the same.

Consider two Ghilman armies or perhaps Mamluks vs. Ilkhanids at Ayn Julat. They can't really outmaneuver each other either. Every BG one pulls out of line to try to "get around" the flank the other side can trivially match. So you migth see the two lines smash into each other, or a lot of somewhat ineffective jokeying for position leading mostly to frontal clashes.

Now, I don't think this means these armies when fighting each other are brainless "smash into each other affairs" but the advantages and good play won't show up as flank attacks and probably didn't do so historically.

ethan wrote:

DaiSho wrote: Compared to the number of battles (Canae, Granicus) with high cavalry content who didn't wrap flanks I think we as wargamers over-use flank attacks. I'm not talking flank marches, I'm talking about 'leave nothing in front and wrap around the flank.

I think a lot of historical match-ups are unlikely to feature flank attacks in reality and FoG, so it is not surprising really.

Consider two traditional hoplite armies fighting. I just won't matter much if they hug the table edge or not. They are going to smash into each other with 48+ stands of hoplites and there is little possibility to outmaneuver each other. Sure each army might have a BG or so of pretty bad cavalry, but that isn't likely to make a decisive contribution. Two medieval undrilled Knight outfits are probably much the same.

Consider two Ghilman armies or perhaps Mamluks vs. Ilkhanids at Ayn Julat. They can't really outmaneuver each other either. Every BG one pulls out of line to try to "get around" the flank the other side can trivially match. So you migth see the two lines smash into each other, or a lot of somewhat ineffective jokeying for position leading mostly to frontal clashes.

Now, I don't think this means these armies when fighting each other are brainless "smash into each other affairs" but the advantages and good play won't show up as flank attacks and probably didn't do so historically.

Actually the really interesting point is that in history flank attacks are even missing in battles where on might have expected them. For example we did a Varna refight a few weeks ago. The problem I saw was, that in the actual battle the Ottoman cavalry seems to have engaged the knights in close combat rather early, instead of keeping a cycle of shoot and evade. Something I didn't expect to see repeated on the table. Indeed in the refight, the Ottoman players were more prudent and kept evading until the flanks of the Knights became exposed. (On one flank we could still defeat the Cv, if barely, but the other side collapsed rather quickly, ending the game). It's battles like these that makes me wonder. Was the historical Ottoman Cv just overconfident? Did they see no real chance to expose the flanks of the Europeans (i.e. is it still to easy in our games)? Or what prompted them to engage the European knights frontally without apparent need?