Slitherine

ianiow wrote:If the battlefield is too wide you may have a problem during initial deployment as neither side can tell where the other is going to deploy and the battlelines may end up nowhere near each other. In RL you could see generally WHERE the enemy was, if not the finer detail of the troop type and layout. In FoG PC at present, with an extra wide battlefield, it would be a case of deploy and hope that the enemy is somewhere near you !

As an alternative fix, do deployment as in the TT rules where camps are deployed first by both players and then troops. That way you can fairly safely assume that a player won't deploy completely away from his camp.

Chris

That way you can fairly safely assume that a player won't deploy completely away from his camp.

Given that a looted camp reduces your victory chances the same amount as a routed skirmisher I can imagine all sorts of reasons to do precisely that

A better alternative perhaps would be to do as already suggested and restrict how close to the map sides the armies can deploy.

There are currently 20 possible DAG sized armies, from 50 to 1000 points in 50 point intervals. But there are only 2 default map sizes.

Perhaps there could some more map sizes made available which, allied to the point size of the army selected, would be more appropriate. Say four or five point-groups?

A 50 to 150 point army is really only a skirmish and could be easily accomadated on a very small map; whereas tle 750 to 1000 pointers are massive affairs where room for manouever is only provided by the largest maps.

Maybe there could be two possible map sizes allocated to each point-group, chosen randomly on a 50/50 basis; thus providing a different type of challenge for each point-group?

Just some thoughts.

I think its just an issue of resources. Creating that many maps would be a lot of extra work. I wonder if there is a way we can scenario designers involved to submit DAG maps. Need to talk to Keith...

iainmcneil wrote:I think its just an issue of resources. Creating that many maps would be a lot of extra work. I wonder if there is a way we can scenario designers involved to submit DAG maps. Need to talk to Keith...

If it ends up being possible would gladly submit maps to further the cause, as I'm sure would others.
I realize this is likly looking waaay down the road but would be pretty cool if one could also select a specific map when playing a DAG match, ie from the list of all maps/scenarios in the game.

keithmartinsmith wrote:We have set the default map sizes to

<450> 700 points to 30h x 50w
Otherwise 30h x 40w
Keith

Does this mean 30x50 is the default for over 700 points, or is it for 700 points and above?
Or something else? (The <450> is throwing me off.)

Does it mean 450 is the points level for which the 30x40 was designed?

MikeK wrote:

keithmartinsmith wrote:We have set the default map sizes to

<450> 700 points to 30h x 50w
Otherwise 30h x 40w
Keith

Does this mean 30x50 is the default for over 700 points, or is it for 700 points and above?
Or something else? (The <450> is throwing me off.)

Does it mean 450 is the points level for which the 30x40 was designed?

With a quick test, it looks like there are really 3 map sizes:

26x30 <450 points
30x40 <700>= 700 points

(I only tested 400 and 500 point games so didn't verify the 700 and above size.)

Chris

There are indeed 3 map sizes but they are as follows:

450 pts & under = 30 wide x 30 deep

500 pts - 700 pts = 40 wide x 30 deep

750 pts & over = 50 wide x 30 deep


The 26 deep map you found was due to not scrolling out enough, I did the same myself when I first looked into this and then realised what I had done.

Room for a 60 x 30 I'd say for those 1000 point games

To my mind the two larger maps are about right size-wise (maybe not the middle one for a 500 pt) but the smallest is too big for a 400pt army leading to all sorts of hilarious and very gamey manoeuvering.

batesmotel wrote:

ianiow wrote:If the battlefield is too wide you may have a problem during initial deployment as neither side can tell where the other is going to deploy and the battlelines may end up nowhere near each other. In RL you could see generally WHERE the enemy was, if not the finer detail of the troop type and layout. In FoG PC at present, with an extra wide battlefield, it would be a case of deploy and hope that the enemy is somewhere near you !

As an alternative fix, do deployment as in the TT rules where camps are deployed first by both players and then troops. That way you can fairly safely assume that a player won't deploy completely away from his camp.

Chris

Dont know if this is by intent or a bug but the mechanism Chris describes appears to kinda be already in game... I have noticed when you deploy forces second in dag battles (your turn startes immedietly when deployment is over), you can actually see the enemy camp on the map. Once you complete deployment the enemy camp is always where you viewed it when deploying you own guys...

SRW1962 wrote:There are indeed 3 map sizes but they are as follows:

450 pts & under = 30 wide x 30 deep

500 pts - 700 pts = 40 wide x 30 deep

750 pts & over = 50 wide x 30 deep


The 26 deep map you found was due to not scrolling out enough, I did the same myself when I first looked into this and then realised what I had done.

My current feeling is that all of these maps should be wider for the given point ranges. In SOA, I'm currently facing a 400 point Burgundian Ordonnance army which essentially stretches across the map so it can't be flanked. Given that it seems most of the troops in the army seem to be drilled longbowmen, knights and average pikes, it isn't like this is being done with inexpensive troops where it might be more reasonable to go wall to wall. (I think this may more frequently be an issue for SOA armies given the generally very limited number of LF and LH allowed so armies don't have skirmish screens.) My current feeling is that the current maps should each move down to the next lower point range, with the 30x30 for 200 points or under and possibly with a new 60x30 for 750 points and over.

One thing the TT rules do is to give a -1 cohesion test penalty for any non skirmishers are within 6 MU of a table edge to make it more difficult to use the table edge to anchor a flank. (This is the same -1 as having enemy threatening the flank or rear so is not cumulative with that.) To my knowledge the PC game does not impose a similar penalty when near the map edge so possibly that should be introduced. Probably it should apply for a non-skirmisher BG with 4 (or maybe 5 hexes) of the map edge.

Chris

petergarnett wrote:Room for a 60 x 30 I'd say for those 1000 point games

Definitely!

I have never found a problem with flanking on any map in DAG with any size armies. The problem, I find, is that it is way too easy to turn a flank unopposed, via a hugely unrealistic wide sweep, in 400 point DAG battles. Way too easy.

Paisley wrote:I have never found a problem with flanking on any map in DAG with any size armies. The problem, I find, is that it is way too easy to turn a flank unopposed, via a hugely unrealistic wide sweep, in 400 point DAG battles. Way too easy.

Try fighting an Illyrian army with 92 BGs (650 points) on the standard map

Chris

batesmotel wrote:

Paisley wrote:I have never found a problem with flanking on any map in DAG with any size armies. The problem, I find, is that it is way too easy to turn a flank unopposed, via a hugely unrealistic wide sweep, in 400 point DAG battles. Way too easy.

Try fighting an Illyrian army with 92 BGs (650 points) on the standard map

Chris

I feel the ability to outflank an army in the smaller battles has less to do with maps being too big, but that overall armies are too maneuverable, especially the heavies, coupled w the tendancy of players to bunch the troops togther at deployment instead of deploying linearly. It is all too easy to "fan out" to meet threats in all directions.

That being said i would like all the maps to be bigger, howbout some 100 by 100's ???
(never did like the "edge" of the world syndrome inherant in all games) If you want to protect a flank, use you men or find a piece of terrain to anchor on

Certainly armies that can buy hordes of mediums that can literally stretch from one side of a map to the other can be difficult, to say the least, as is being proved in the Lost Wold Camp.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Certainly armies that can buy hordes of mediums that can literally stretch from one side of a map to the other can be difficult, to say the least, as is being proved in the Lost Wold Camp.

The Panther planet one?

MikeK wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:Certainly armies that can buy hordes of mediums that can literally stretch from one side of a map to the other can be difficult, to say the least, as is being proved in the Lost Wold Camp.

The Panther planet one?

Yes. Although other lists can do this as well, Spanish, Late Jewish etc

Making the maps bigger is a poor solution for a problem that is inherently one of too much manoueverability.

Mind you, it is perfectly possible for two armies to set up in such a way that they're not opposite each other, more so at smaller points (which is very unhistorical, I think). Then there's no recourse but to manoeuvre like a panzer division on speed to try and contact the enemy. Making maps bigger will make this problem even worse - and give lights and bow armed cavalry even more room to evade.

Paisley wrote:Making the maps bigger is a poor solution for a problem that is inherently one of too much manoueverability.

Mind you, it is perfectly possible for two armies to set up in such a way that they're not opposite each other, more so at smaller points (which is very unhistorical, I think). Then there's no recourse but to manoeuvre like a panzer division on speed to try and contact the enemy. Making maps bigger will make this problem even worse - and give lights and bow armed cavalry even more room to evade.

I kinda of agree and disagree. You feel it is too easy to outflank, I feel it is too easy to counter a flank attack. My gut feeling is heavies are too maneuverable and can easlily fan out from a deep formation to counter any kind of attack that threatens them. Imho I think all heavy units should be treated as undrilled for movement purposes(not coheion anrchy tests) which would reduce overall Mobility. Historicaly if you look at Alexender phalanx, for all intents and purposes it was a single unit.. Could move fowrad or maybe obliquely fwrd but that was it, i doudt segment of it (ie BG's) could peel off and counter any and all threats, they were not small Swiss pike blocks but part of a linear formation.... of course this really couldnt be well simulated in a turn based game.

The issue w large maps and horse archers is of cousre a concern, but after all that was their historic strength....
I doudt the game will ever feature ammo depletion which might offset the problem
Maybe something simple as in JT games ie everytime a unit fires, it rolls to see if "low" on ammo, if so it fire w a reduction, and has to roll w worse odds to see if "out of ammo" units low could have a small % chance to regain full ammo status but once reach out of, they are out f for the game... I dont think having ammo carriers in a game of this era would "feel right" although there are historic situations where its was so (carrhea)

I do agree that w really large maps both players could completely "miss eachother" at deployment....The only way around that would be to have a smalled deoplyment eare in terms of width but w greater depth and have both deploy areas not be too offest, this would however decrease the flexibility...
I guess there is no easy solution, I do like large maps though!