Slitherine

In regards to your first response I'm pointing out that if you had desired to deploy in the back corner then ostensibly that should be the center point of the battle not the back corner. By adopting strategies in back corners you are undermining the core of the game. The 24 turn timer is actually not that due to the time involved in reaching the point of engagement. You are adopting a totally defensive posture which would only work if you hadn't been forced into battle and as such it isn't an open battle scenario but a defensive one which requires alternate parameters for fairness (e.g. the attacker receives additional points). You are also anchoring yourself unrealistically on the board edge artificially preventing flanking etc. Also playing weaker armies (whether terrain dependent or simply possessing poor options) means that they are weaker and will struggle thus making the thrill of victory all that more satisfying. Basically every battle is in itself the center point and it is only because the map isn't floating that we encounter this anomaly.

In response to your second point that is why I think my idea can potentially work. As per your example in current open battles a foot army will probably have some kind of terrain advantage in their deployment zone or back corners to hide in from outset forcing a standoff. The same applies to MF armies versus cavalry or HF armies. Basically most maps will provide some place to hide if a player is so inclined. Now if you will lose unless advancing to the center of the battlefield to claim it thus forcing your enemy to retire a player will have to marshal their forces and use them to their best capabilities. If the terrain to fight over is unsuitable to both forces then so be it and it would certainly make for some interesting battles. If it favors one side more than the other than so be it but I am pretty sure you won't be able to have favorable terrain all along the front thus presenting an opportunity for your opponent to exploit. I think you have to understand that making the center point a goal will result in players more than likely fighting till one side breaks well before the time limit runs out. The only time I don't foresee it is a skirmisher army that relies upon wearing down the enemy through attrition at range.

The last point regarding my view on draws is followed by a sentence which was relating to what I have just discussed in the previous paragraph. As for draws my point is history doesn't consider two armies looking at each other or performing minor skirmishes as draws. A draw occurred when two armies fought each other to a standstill neither gaining an advantage or both becoming so exhausted that battlefield integrity had reached a crumbling point preventing further action or finally the fall of night after serious fighting.

Notice how attack and defence scenarios are not available in FoGII unlike Pike and Shot and Sengoku Jidai.

shawkhan2 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:19 pm I think the generated battlefields are the main problem. Opposing generals would generally choose a battlefield where one or the other side would not be overwhelmingly favored by the terrain.

Exactly this. There were of course exceptions, Athenians matching through a mountain pass, Tutobergerwald, etc. In the TT game terrain generally falls around the edges of the battlefield and none of it is large enough to place an entire army in. Each army list had several terrain types associated with it. The player on the defensive picks a type from his opponents list and then both selected a certain amount of terrain pieces to place. This random placement could then be moved by the opposing player depending on dice rolls. With the random terrain in the open battles of FOGII you can get a large steep hill with rough terrain covering 50% of the map. I see that as an issue, having smaller areas of terrain would still allow terrain for the medium foot but allow open areas for cavalry and the HI. Perhaps the terrain do over rule in the next DL tournament will alleviate some of this issue.

Is there any way that the random map generator can be adjusted to place very difficult terrain (e.g. steep hills with rough ground on top, or dense forest, or fast flowing rivers) less often in the central areas of the map?

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:11 pm Is there any way that the random map generator can be adjusted to place very difficult terrain (e.g. steep hills with rough ground on top, or dense forest, or fast flowing rivers) less often in the central areas of the map?

Personally I would be against this, I generally like the random maps as they are. Even now, it is relatively rare for such terrain to dominate the center of the map, and when it does, it just makes the game more interesting.

I don't mind it being in the center. The problem is being on the edge and large enough to protect your army. Being forced into the center creates options while someone turtling limits them.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:11 pm Is there any way that the random map generator can be adjusted to place very difficult terrain (e.g. steep hills with rough ground on top, or dense forest, or fast flowing rivers) less often in the central areas of the map?

Random terrain placement is already heavily weighted away from the centre, though clearly not as much as some would like. (In fact the densest part of the generated terrain will be actually be in the 16 square wide border that is off the edge of the playable map. That is why we chose not to make it visible.)

All objectives are going to do is force players into having to do things they don't want to do. Any battle plan will have to include artificial objectives and still doesn't really solve the issue of favourable terrain for a particular army. I've had a couple of battles recently where the majority terrain has been awful for HI and Cav but both armies had a mix of everything so the MI and LI duked it out in the rough terrain and woods whilst the HI and Cav moved into the few open sections. They turned out to be very enjoyable battles because of the match up of similar armies. The same terrain with an MI army against an HI or Cav army would have been a dull one sided affair or a stand off, irrespective of whether there were any objectives.
If someone wants to turtle on me then fine, give me the initiative. 24 turns should be enough turns to crack you open if you have left a weak spot. Turtling is done either because you think I'm a better player ( a complement, and if true, then I should be able to open you up), because you have managed to initiate a battle in a location where you have good defensive terrain (it happened. I don't accept that someone should have to give up that position) or that the two armies are so disparate that whatever the terrain, one side is going to be heavily advantaged over the other (why should the disadvantaged side be forced into an impossible fight.
Army match ups make the battle more than the terrain. HI and Cav based armies both enjoy open terrain but have you tried chasing down a Cav army with Hoplites. It's not a fun experience.
I don't have a solution for peoples concerns about the issues here but feel any "solution" would only create a whole new set of arguments and other reasons for people to be unhappy about or be so involved as to be impractical.