Slitherine

ChrisTofalos wrote:Fair comment Peter. But then what's the point of listing Steppes at all?

It’s useful for campaigns where the campaign determines who is the invader. I’m doing one based on the old DBA simplified campaign system. The winner of the initiative gets to choose the terrain type from the list of the original owner of the territory which means steppe armies pretty much get to choose step if invaded.

As for tournaments I’m sure imaginative organizers could easily fix the problem.

As for the rules...I never thought strategic aggressiveness = scouting advantage / tactical terrain selection. Perhaps each army should have a strategic agressiveness factor (1 to 3) added to a die roll to determine the invader. The winner of the initiative gets to choose from the invaded territory list. So mongols = 3, late republican Roman = 3, Parthian = 2 or even 1, etc.

Or...use the CinC level as a proxy for aggression. An invader roll with the CinC level as the only modifier (high roll = invader) precedes the tactical initiative roll (modified as per the rules). IC more likely to be the invader but more likely to get terrain pick albeit from the opponent’s list.

For campaigns that I have put together, I use point to point maps and generate terrain for each each point on the map. Players use those choices for battles in the points (or nodes). Seems to work pretty good.

berthier wrote:For campaigns that I have put together, I use point to point maps and generate terrain for each each point on the map. Players use those choices for battles in the points (or nodes). Seems to work pretty good.

Don't encourage him about campaigns. He's been banging on about that for years....

dave_r wrote:

berthier wrote:For campaigns that I have put together, I use point to point maps and generate terrain for each each point on the map. Players use those choices for battles in the points (or nodes). Seems to work pretty good.

Don't encourage him about campaigns. He's been banging on about that for years....

Would that be....[bang on] OR [whinge] about [random topic]?

shadowdragon wrote:

dave_r wrote:

berthier wrote:For campaigns that I have put together, I use point to point maps and generate terrain for each each point on the map. Players use those choices for battles in the points (or nodes). Seems to work pretty good.

Don't encourage him about campaigns. He's been banging on about that for years....

Would that be....[bang on] OR [whinge] about [random topic]?

You moan rather than whinge.

Get it right please.

philqw78 wrote:But Catalaunian Plains looked a lot like steppe with no significant terrain at all

Apart from the heaving great hill that was the focus of the battle.

The hill was to the Roman right and certainly wasn't the focus

You really ought to go and read Jordanes Phil

philqw78 wrote:The hill was to the Roman right and certainly wasn't the focus

In case you're mislaid your Jordanes: "The battle field was a plain rising
by a sharp slope to a ridge, which both armies sought to
gain; for advantage of position is a great help. The
Huns with their forces seized the right side, the Romians,
the Visigoths and their allies the left, and then began a
struggle for the yet untaken crest. "

grahambriggs wrote:

philqw78 wrote:The hill was to the Roman right and certainly wasn't the focus

In case you're mislaid your Jordanes: "The battle field was a plain rising
by a sharp slope to a ridge, which both armies sought to
gain; for advantage of position is a great help. The
Huns with their forces seized the right side, the Romians,
the Visigoths and their allies the left, and then began a
struggle for the yet untaken crest. "

Not to forget the stream of gore.