Slitherine

robertthebruce wrote:The armies with high iniative choose favourable terrain. But I think is not historical that a mounted army could force a foot army to fight in open terrain.

Except when the foot army is the invader like in Carrhae for example.

And when would mounted charge through woods it will be a strange game if the foot stay in their terrian and the mounted stay if theres.

If the foot army takes an IC they'll get +2 how many armies have less than 12 bases that another +1 so a total +3 how many foot armies take this from my experience not many.

You can't complain about not getting initiative if you don't want to pay the points what I have come across is foot armies only taking Tc's and complain if they lose initiative. If i want it i spend the points on the IC

rogerg wrote:Allow the player without initiative to veto one type of terrain area not on the opponents list.

Surely it would make more sense to veto one FROM the opponents list?

Dave
- plenty of armies can't have 12 bases of cav & LH - most of SoA for starters.

Even if you are a foot army who can have that much, it's going to get butchered by a cav army unless it hides in the terrain!

I´m not complaining for lose the initiative roll, I´m saying that is not necessary to be an inspired comander to know that open terrain is not the best place to face a mounted army.


Foot armies have very few opportunities to beat a mounted one without terrain, if you also give them more likely to choose the field and do some tweaks to avoid the terrain, heavy foot armies are at a serious disadvantage.

How about :
Even dice roll wins inititiative - winner chooses from own terrain list.
Odd dice roll wins - winner chooses from opponents list.

azrael86 wrote:

rogerg wrote:Allow the player without initiative to veto one type of terrain area not on the opponents list.

Surely it would make more sense to veto one FROM the opponents list?

Dave
- plenty of armies can't have 12 bases of cav & LH - most of SoA for starters.

Even if you are a foot army who can have that much, it's going to get butchered by a cav army unless it hides in the terrain!

Its really only the SOA book that has more armies that can't have at least 12 cavalry because its europe who don't have a histroy of large cavalry/light horse troops.

If I want the terrian i will spend the points thats the game, not the fact that someone dos'nt want to spend 80 points but wants to use the 45 points elese where, and argue that they want the terrain why?

I have played large amounts of foot armies commanded by 4 TCs cause they want the points eleswhere, now why should they get the choice then? just cause they are foot. If they get some sort of choice how do you give me some of my points back since i got an IC?

david53 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:

rogerg wrote:Allow the player without initiative to veto one type of terrain area not on the opponents list.

Surely it would make more sense to veto one FROM the opponents list?

Dave
- plenty of armies can't have 12 bases of cav & LH - most of SoA for starters.

Even if you are a foot army who can have that much, it's going to get butchered by a cav army unless it hides in the terrain!

Its really only the SOA book that has more armies that can't have at least 12 cavalry because its europe who don't have a histroy of large cavalry/light horse troops.

If I want the terrian i will spend the points thats the game, not the fact that someone dos'nt want to spend 80 points but wants to use the 45 points elese where, and argue that they want the terrain why?

I have played large amounts of foot armies commanded by 4 TCs cause they want the points eleswhere, now why should they get the choice then? just cause they are foot. If they get some sort of choice how do you give me some of my points back since i got an IC?

But you are focusing on generals only. It is fine to pay for an IC and get the +2 but why should more Cav and LH give a better chance of winning PBI? The logic that more horses increases scouting ability only holds in open terrain, which means FoG puts the horse before the cart somewhat. Why should an Early German army (maximum 12 bases of cavalry or light horse) have less of a chance at fighting in its home terrain (woodlands only) than an army with more than 24 if both choose 4 TCs?

Even then, I have played in numerous games where ‘woodlands’ or ‘hilly’ are neither very woody nor have many hills. I haven’t played on many ’steppes’ that aren’t like steppes.

The terrain rules have inherent bias towards mounted armies. They are more likely to win PBI, and even if they lose the board is often open. The idea seems to be that mounted armies wouldn’t have ventured into mountains or forests but the counter argument that the Welsh etc wouldn’t be too keen in the open gets short shrift in the rules; more often than not they find themselves with barely a scrap of brush as cover.

Walter

waldo wrote:
But you are focusing on generals only. It is fine to pay for an IC and get the +2 but why should more Cav and LH give a better chance of winning PBI? The logic that more horses increases scouting ability only holds in open terrain, which means FoG puts the horse before the cart somewhat. Why should an Early German army (maximum 12 bases of cavalry or light horse) have less of a chance at fighting in its home terrain (woodlands only) than an army with more than 24 if both choose 4 TCs?

How would you change it then?

I think it works as it is, as I have said if a foot player wants to pay 80 points you get +2 have 12 bases cavalry you get another +1 total +3. How a Skythian army +2 General +2 24 bases or more total +4 so only 1 difference someone on here can I am sure work out the chance of the foot army wining PBI.

Sorry I think it is as fair as you'll get it while staying resonably simple otherwise it all becomes like MM a system of terrian picking i find more difficult than the rules, keep it simple i say.

david53 wrote:
Its really only the SOA book that has more armies that can't have at least 12 cavalry because its europe who don't have a histroy of large cavalry/light horse troops.

And blood and gold.
And about a third of STE
Roughly a third of the Oath of fealty armies - (although the vikings are just about the only example of heavy foot invading steppe).


Of course, the side effect of this is that if a foot army has 12 bases of cav/LH, what happens to that cav/lH when it fights a cav army ?

david53 wrote:

waldo wrote:
But you are focusing on generals only. It is fine to pay for an IC and get the +2 but why should more Cav and LH give a better chance of winning PBI? The logic that more horses increases scouting ability only holds in open terrain, which means FoG puts the horse before the cart somewhat. Why should an Early German army (maximum 12 bases of cavalry or light horse) have less of a chance at fighting in its home terrain (woodlands only) than an army with more than 24 if both choose 4 TCs?

How would you change it then?

I think it works as it is, as I have said if a foot player wants to pay 80 points you get +2 have 12 bases cavalry you get another +1 total +3. How a Skythian army +2 General +2 24 bases or more total +4 so only 1 difference someone on here can I am sure work out the chance of the foot army wining PBI.

Sorry I think it is as fair as you'll get it while staying resonably simple otherwise it all becomes like MM a system of terrian picking i find more difficult than the rules, keep it simple i say.

Remove the modifier for cavalry, light horse and chariots and just leave the general modifiers. Even simpler than at current.

Walter

The real problem is the rules favor open battlefields, not for historical reasons, but because a relatively open battlefield facilitates quick play to satisfy the tournament crowd, who want their games short and decisive. Armies that don't provide a quick, decisive game are repugnant to the tourney tigers. If you show up with an all HF army and a ton of FF you will hear just as many groans as if you show up with 17 BG of LH. A game designed to satisfy the desires of the tourney set is going to be biased against any army that doesn't meet the quick and decisive mold (fast, drilled, hard troops with enough filler to bulk up the army without risk). The lack of objectives in the game means that a dug in, defensive army cannot win for holding the field. Courtrai cannot be duplicated because the rules don't force players to attack. In a tourney setting if a dug in foot army were facing an army of knights, the knight player would just whine about how it's unfair and he just got screwed by having to play a person who isn't there to win. Then both armies will stare at each other until time is called. And then we'd hear about how unbalancing lots of FF are because they slow the game down too much and should be restricted to maybe 6 or less, at least for tournaments. Or other rule changes which penalize a player for using his resources in a historical fashion.

gozerius wrote:In a tourney setting if a dug in foot army were facing an army of knights, the knight player would just whine about how it's unfair and he just got screwed by having to play a person who isn't there to win. Then both armies will stare at each other until time is called. And then we'd hear about how unbalancing lots of FF are because they slow the game down too much and should be restricted to maybe 6 or less, at least for tournaments. Or other rule changes which penalize a player for using his resources in a historical fashion.

Then I would like my rules to include an ability to lay siege to your fortress, which is also historical. How about my cavalry raids your supply lines and I watch you starve to death?

The problem with all these "but it is historical" arguments is that they only want to include part of the historical repsones - digging in and not the counter-response laying siege.

ethan wrote:

gozerius wrote:In a tourney setting if a dug in foot army were facing an army of knights, the knight player would just whine about how it's unfair and he just got screwed by having to play a person who isn't there to win. Then both armies will stare at each other until time is called. And then we'd hear about how unbalancing lots of FF are because they slow the game down too much and should be restricted to maybe 6 or less, at least for tournaments. Or other rule changes which penalize a player for using his resources in a historical fashion.

Then I would like my rules to include an ability to lay siege to your fortress, which is also historical. How about my cavalry raids your supply lines and I watch you starve to death?

The problem with all these "but it is historical" arguments is that they only want to include part of the historical repsones - digging in and not the counter-response laying siege.

But I can't choose to not come out of my hills if you show up with a mounted army?
I wonder if giving a player with 10+ FF a +1 PBI, and 24+ FF a +2 PBI wouldn't balance things out. An army determined to defend should have as good a chance to get his terrain as an army with lots of horses.

waldo wrote:

david53 wrote:

waldo wrote:
But you are focusing on generals only. It is fine to pay for an IC and get the +2 but why should more Cav and LH give a better chance of winning PBI? The logic that more horses increases scouting ability only holds in open terrain, which means FoG puts the horse before the cart somewhat. Why should an Early German army (maximum 12 bases of cavalry or light horse) have less of a chance at fighting in its home terrain (woodlands only) than an army with more than 24 if both choose 4 TCs?

How would you change it then?

I think it works as it is, as I have said if a foot player wants to pay 80 points you get +2 have 12 bases cavalry you get another +1 total +3. How a Skythian army +2 General +2 24 bases or more total +4 so only 1 difference someone on here can I am sure work out the chance of the foot army wining PBI.

Sorry I think it is as fair as you'll get it while staying resonably simple otherwise it all becomes like MM a system of terrian picking i find more difficult than the rules, keep it simple i say.

Remove the modifier for cavalry, light horse and chariots and just leave the general modifiers. Even simpler than at current.

Walter

Great so if you don't buy an ic you think this would stop complaints about foot armies having to fight in the steppe as TC's would still count nothing.

I'm all for it +2 against 0 is an okey chance for me.

azrael86 wrote:

david53 wrote:
Its really only the SOA book that has more armies that can't have at least 12 cavalry because its europe who don't have a histroy of large cavalry/light horse troops.

And blood and gold.
And about a third of STE
Roughly a third of the Oath of fealty armies - (although the vikings are just about the only example of heavy foot invading steppe).


Of course, the side effect of this is that if a foot army has 12 bases of cav/LH, what happens to that cav/lH when it fights a cav army ?

Come on Blood and gold lets go to a book and say theres no cavalry when the horse was'nt there yet think your pushing it there
So 2/3 of STE and 2/3 of OOF that works out at a majority of armies can have cavalry? whats the problum then.
If you want a chance of choseing the terrain pay the points if not can't complain if you want to use them somewhere elese...

gozerius wrote:The real problem is the rules favor open battlefields, not for historical reasons, but because a relatively open battlefield facilitates quick play to satisfy the tournament crowd, who want their games short and decisive. Armies that don't provide a quick, decisive game are repugnant to the tourney tigers. If you show up with an all HF army and a ton of FF you will hear just as many groans as if you show up with 17 BG of LH. A game designed to satisfy the desires of the tourney set is going to be biased against any army that doesn't meet the quick and decisive mold (fast, drilled, hard troops with enough filler to bulk up the army without risk). The lack of objectives in the game means that a dug in, defensive army cannot win for holding the field. Courtrai cannot be duplicated because the rules don't force players to attack. In a tourney setting if a dug in foot army were facing an army of knights, the knight player would just whine about how it's unfair and he just got screwed by having to play a person who isn't there to win. Then both armies will stare at each other until time is called. And then we'd hear about how unbalancing lots of FF are because they slow the game down too much and should be restricted to maybe 6 or less, at least for tournaments. Or other rule changes which penalize a player for using his resources in a historical fashion.

I take it you don't like tounaments then.

I play them to play the game not a tournament tiger myself. But yes I like a game as three and a half hours is a long time to sit around not doing something.

In all my non tournament tiger games i have not come across this player your talking about if you want to sit on top of a hill behind your FF then your dammed right I'll not go at you from the front but with FOG you can't defend everything so no never played someone like that have you!

gozerius wrote:

ethan wrote:

gozerius wrote:In a tourney setting if a dug in foot army were facing an army of knights, the knight player would just whine about how it's unfair and he just got screwed by having to play a person who isn't there to win. Then both armies will stare at each other until time is called. And then we'd hear about how unbalancing lots of FF are because they slow the game down too much and should be restricted to maybe 6 or less, at least for tournaments. Or other rule changes which penalize a player for using his resources in a historical fashion.

Then I would like my rules to include an ability to lay siege to your fortress, which is also historical. How about my cavalry raids your supply lines and I watch you starve to death?

The problem with all these "but it is historical" arguments is that they only want to include part of the historical repsones - digging in and not the counter-response laying siege.

But I can't choose to not come out of my hills if you show up with a mounted army?
I wonder if giving a player with 10+ FF a +1 PBI, and 24+ FF a +2 PBI wouldn't balance things out. An army determined to defend should have as good a chance to get his terrain as an army with lots of horses.

As stated why do this if all you want to do is sit behind your FF. By doing this your giving your oppenant the chance to make you react to him unless of course you want to put your FF from table edge to table edge! You can't win a game if all you do is defend well not in FOG but then again you might not want to win.

david53 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:

rogerg wrote:Allow the player without initiative to veto one type of terrain area not on the opponents list.

Surely it would make more sense to veto one FROM the opponents list?

Dave
- plenty of armies can't have 12 bases of cav & LH - most of SoA for starters.

Even if you are a foot army who can have that much, it's going to get butchered by a cav army unless it hides in the terrain!

Its really only the SOA book that has more armies that can't have at least 12 cavalry because its europe who don't have a histroy of large cavalry/light horse troops.

If I want the terrian i will spend the points thats the game, not the fact that someone dos'nt want to spend 80 points but wants to use the 45 points elese where, and argue that they want the terrain why?

I have played large amounts of foot armies commanded by 4 TCs cause they want the points eleswhere, now why should they get the choice then? just cause they are foot. If they get some sort of choice how do you give me some of my points back since i got an IC?

The thing is, a horsey army gets +2 PBI and pays no points for it.

They also have a chance to make the opponent's terrain vanish, or move it somewhere less significant. A player who wants terrain cannot make terrain that the opponent does not choose appear, nor move non-existent terrain into a more useful position.

lawrenceg wrote:

david53 wrote:

azrael86 wrote: Surely it would make more sense to veto one FROM the opponents list?

Dave
- plenty of armies can't have 12 bases of cav & LH - most of SoA for starters.

Even if you are a foot army who can have that much, it's going to get butchered by a cav army unless it hides in the terrain!

Its really only the SOA book that has more armies that can't have at least 12 cavalry because its europe who don't have a histroy of large cavalry/light horse troops.

If I want the terrian i will spend the points thats the game, not the fact that someone dos'nt want to spend 80 points but wants to use the 45 points elese where, and argue that they want the terrain why?

I have played large amounts of foot armies commanded by 4 TCs cause they want the points eleswhere, now why should they get the choice then? just cause they are foot. If they get some sort of choice how do you give me some of my points back since i got an IC?

The thing is, a horsey army gets +2 PBI and pays no points for it.

They also have a chance to make the opponent's terrain vanish, or move it somewhere less significant. A player who wants terrain cannot make terrain that the opponent does not choose appear, nor move non-existent terrain into a more useful position.

Okey no problum +2 for an IC =1 FC hows that I'm happy

Of course we could let the foot armies take what terrian they want but your horsey type armies might just sit outside. So its all down to being as fair as possible, whats fair to cavalry is'nt to foot and the oppisite for cavalry.

There has to be some way paying points for generals seems the easiest or just deducting some more points to get a higher score when rolling for PBI

david53 wrote:

gozerius wrote:

ethan wrote: Then I would like my rules to include an ability to lay siege to your fortress, which is also historical. How about my cavalry raids your supply lines and I watch you starve to death?

The problem with all these "but it is historical" arguments is that they only want to include part of the historical repsones - digging in and not the counter-response laying siege.

But I can't choose to not come out of my hills if you show up with a mounted army?
I wonder if giving a player with 10+ FF a +1 PBI, and 24+ FF a +2 PBI wouldn't balance things out. An army determined to defend should have as good a chance to get his terrain as an army with lots of horses.

As stated why do this if all you want to do is sit behind your FF. By doing this your giving your oppenant the chance to make you react to him unless of course you want to put your FF from table edge to table edge! You can't win a game if all you do is defend well not in FOG but then again you might not want to win.

That's my point. Many campaigns hinged on taking a fortified position, or fighting in dense terrain, but you won't find that being depicted on the table top. Why? FoG favors the player who is more maneuverable and the terrain rules are set up for maneuver armies benefit. This is the reason that everyone bemoans the cursed LH armies for being too good. And it is the reason that stodgy foot armies are bewailed as useless. If only everyone would bring the exact same army to play on a billiard table could we really ensure fairness for all. Oh, wait. That's chess.

gozerius wrote:

david53 wrote:

gozerius wrote: But I can't choose to not come out of my hills if you show up with a mounted army?
I wonder if giving a player with 10+ FF a +1 PBI, and 24+ FF a +2 PBI wouldn't balance things out. An army determined to defend should have as good a chance to get his terrain as an army with lots of horses.

As stated why do this if all you want to do is sit behind your FF. By doing this your giving your oppenant the chance to make you react to him unless of course you want to put your FF from table edge to table edge! You can't win a game if all you do is defend well not in FOG but then again you might not want to win.

That's my point. Many campaigns hinged on taking a fortified position, or fighting in dense terrain, but you won't find that being depicted on the table top. Why? FoG favors the player who is more maneuverable and the terrain rules are set up for maneuver armies benefit. This is the reason that everyone bemoans the cursed LH armies for being too good. And it is the reason that stodgy foot armies are bewailed as useless. If only everyone would bring the exact same army to play on a billiard table could we really ensure fairness for all. Oh, wait. That's chess.

Like all things in life if you hear the same people who complain enough you think thats what the majority think, the majority of FOG players arn't on here so the majority of people don't bemoans LH. It all depends on the skill of the player now maybe thats the problum, if i play a person of average skill I'll have an easier time using my LH but should a play a top player its harder for me to use them. I am sure it would be the same if i used a HF army its down to skill and experience and dare i say luck.

Right what you miss is that FOG is a game and therefore it has to give both people who come to the table a change that why you use army lists too allow armies that did'nt exist together a fair chance to play.

Once again in your first line you have a problum FOG is not a campaign if it was I'd starve you out and not attack your walls with my LH. Its a game thats all not a matter of life and death if you don't like it great not the end of the world.