Slitherine

Mairtin wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 3:15 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 8:04 am ...
Given that rough ground and marsh can also act as a barrier, particularly when you have a substantially HF army facing a substantially MF army, then maybe the scripting could be changed to avoid putting these blocks of terrain in the most central areas?

Why should the heavy foot get the preference? Surely the idea of pot luck terrain is that you don't know exactly what you will be facing. It may, or may not, suit one or both of you, no matter the armies involved. Would you do the same if it was two medium armies facing each other, or two heavy armies even?

This comment shows you don't understand at a mathematical level how the dynamic patches of rough terrain have on how HF and MF interact on their terrain choice of battle. MF already have a built-in discount on troop pricing if we assume that the free-wheel is worth the +1 CT check HF gets which most players agree with. The disparity comes with the fact that HF cannot engage "like for like" point costed units in rough terrain given the permanent debilitating PoA penalties they suffer while MF can engage "like for like" units in open terrain only should a CT check be in order and it is a minor one at that. To put this disadvantage into perspective, the only HF unit that can legitimately rumble in rough terrain is 96 point Vet Legionaries found in the 105BC list. And even then they can only really go up against middling MF in rough terrain.

Meanwhile a powerful MF and cost-effective MF unit, say a Vet. Samnite Foot or Vet Italian Foot can be expected to fight well in rough *and* open terrain and bulldoze weak HF without difficulty or relying on the terrain of their choice to effect this outcome. Beyond this basic consideration are ZoCs. A patch of 2x2 rough ground held by MF effectively exerts a 4x4 radius through its ZoCs where HF can have its movement hampered. So while "a few rough patches" might on the surface seem like something little consequence for the HF army, depending on the layout of the rough terrain, it can effectively turn huge areas into no go zones for armies lacking in the required MF numbers to drive them out or at least remove the ZoC locks. Even then having sufficient MF to attack and to pin ZoCs doesn't equalize the tactical situation. The MF army retains the ability to dictate where you can and can't go and what if combat goes poorly for the side with limited MF options? The MF army can simply shove reinforcements into the breach and retain ZoC control while their HF opponent might simply not have the MF picks in numbers of quality to do such a task.

So if viewed in a vacuum and players were allowed to "build your own unit and armies" using the point system in the game, the best infantry would always be MF paired with good efficient PoAs. The only rules-based PoAs that are terrain dependant are Pikes and so they might be the rare exception in this case since 200 PoA in Impact and Melee is stupid good. FoG2 largely avoids this problem by two means. The first is that MF units typically do not get good PoAs combinations that make the super cost-effective. The second is that when they do exist, there are relatively few armies that can acquire them in any large number and quite often many of them are one-dimensional gimmick armies like the Jewish Revolt lists that lack any and all cavalry or other supporting infantry making them susceptible to being locked out by combined arms armies if all of a sudden Potluck generates a blank map for them. Finally, we have the primary tournament structure run by Pete which limits the number of armies which can show up in any given division.

Even with that level of suppression, we required 2 rounds of direct nerfs to MF that had good PoAs. The Bowman nerf after Season 1 and the point cost allocation adjustment which directly hit the Jewish Revolt list and many other "elite level" MF units like the Samnites while making a lot of mediocre HF cheaper. With this, Late Antiquity still retains metagame issues with KoS and Romano-Brits. That can be explained by the fact that HF foot armies absolutely suck in Late Antiquity and only the best players can leverage their skill advantage to wins. Elsewhere like in Classical and Early Med, enough good combined arms lists exist along with Potluck terrain to stop MF from running amok. So there are ways other than evening the playing field at a base level but uninteractive terrain runouts remain a thing.

TLDR is that your base assumption that HF vs MF is equal based on rough vs open is incorrect.

Mairtin wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 3:15 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 8:59 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 8:29 am There are plenty of historical examples of armies lining a hill slope, so I don't really see what the problem is.

Well, during the course of every FOG2DL season, I get PM's from players grumbling about so-and-so is just sitting on a hill and not moving. I know it happens because that is how I sneaked through in one of my KO matches this year. And I also know some of these players have stopped playing altogether now. Some of these losses are down to natural churn, of course, but there is still a bit of an issue with negative play, I would say.
...

This is not, I would suggest, a problem with the terrain, but more with the player(s) involved camping in one spot for a perceived advantage.
I had a game with Scots vs Vikings(Irish) on a Mountainous map.The majority of both armies was heavy foot (close to equal amounts on both sides) with a smattering of mediums and quite a few lights on both sides, and we both had a few of the cavalry we were allowed. There was a reasonable amount of open ground in the centre, wider than my Scots shieldwall anyway, the map basically ensuring we both had secure flanks. Yet my opponent decided to camp his shieldwall on a gentle hill on his baseline, flanked by a mountain on one side and a largish forest on the other.

The problem with the competitive play and terrain in this game goes beyond rough ground and MF vs HF, though bad terrain clogging up the map is no fun. In your example, even if he advanced to meet you, with both armies having secured flanks, what is there to play for in that case? Lining up units and watch them smash each other head-on? Is that fun and engaging gameplay? Hardly. I am sure there will be some edges that you can eake out here and there if you knew your PoAs and your combat stats but really you are just flinging dice at each other at that point. I can go to a slot machine for that.

With respect to the problem of camping defensive terrain, it isn't even so much the passive play that gets me, it is the time pressure knowing the clock is running and that you are the only one in the game that is actually willing to go for a win. If I had infinite time to tease out a position, I probably wouldn't mind so much but that isn't the case. I have 24 turns to meet victory conditions, the guy on the hill doesn't care if that doesn't happen to him. In the 3 seasons, I have chosen to play, there are a significant number of games where I know I can crack the position but simply don't have time to literally march my army in a circuitous route near their side of the map edge while maintaining safe distance during so I don't get jumped. So often I am left with an inferior solution that usually has me at a disadvantage and the most interesting decision I have left is whether I should potentially award a result to someone who is smart enough to recognize a strong position but not smart enough to know what to do other than to sit on it and wait.

You might say that's what happened in history. Armies get jumped all the time. That isn't fun for me in a competitive setting and often there are no fun decisions to make in those games.

Mairtin wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 3:15 amI don't believe you are asking for the centre to be completely clear, but if you limit the amount of terrain able to go near the centre, then that could be the effect.

Well, I am not sure about that. I think it would reduce the amount of terrain going into the very central area a bit in some maps, so instead of having a 4x4 block of rough ground in the centre you would have a 4x4 area that maybe had 6-8 rough ground squares in it. But most maps would not really be affected.

Why should the heavy foot get the preference? Surely the idea of pot luck terrain is that you don't know exactly what you will be facing. It may, or may not, suit one or both of you, no matter the armies involved. Would you do the same if it was two medium armies facing each other, or two heavy armies even?

But the point at the moment is that the odds are so prohibitive for HF units against MF in rough ground that they just should not try to fight their way across it. They will lose if they do, so they need to avoid that terrain feature completely. That is why I am also suggesting that the terrain type "rough ground" should be downgraded in severity so that HF are only "slightly disordered" by it instead of "moderately disordered". An alternative way has just been suggested by travlin_canuck where HF stay at "moderately disordered", MF become "slightly disordered" and light foot are the only ones that are "steady". I think that has got something going for it too, certainly as far as rough ground goes anyway, but maybe with other terrain types too (e.g. marshy ground would discomfort MF). That would need to be thought about carefully though.

This is not, I would suggest, a problem with the terrain, but more with the player(s) involved camping in one spot for a perceived advantage.

Yes, partly it is, but on some occasions players who want to fight are stymied by the terrain. So I am trying to reduce the chances of this happening in the game although I realise it will never be completely eradicated. I actually also think the rectangular nature of many of our terrain features can also be a negative issue in some map configurations but there doesn't seem to be much support for my point of view. Nature is not rectangular.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 5:00 am ...
TLDR is that your base assumption that HF vs MF is equal based on rough vs open is incorrect.
...

I'm sorry, where did I make this assumption? The MF discussion is going on elsewhere, and I'm not sure anyone has made that argument there either.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 6:36 am

Mairtin wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 3:15 amI don't believe you are asking for the centre to be completely clear, but if you limit the amount of terrain able to go near the centre, then that could be the effect.

Well, I am not sure about that. I think it would reduce the amount of terrain going into the very central area a bit in some maps, so instead of having a 4x4 block of rough ground in the centre you would have a 4x4 area that maybe had 6-8 rough ground squares in it. But most maps would not really be affected.

Ok, that clarifies it for me, as I thought you were asking for a significantly lower chance of anything being placed. Specifically the keep out part in

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 8:31 am ...
However, there is specific code to even more drastically keep woods out of the centre of the map, and I will look into whether this should also be applied (to some extent) to the other terrain types you mention.
...

A less dense area is a different thing though. I would still prefer to see a chance, however small, of it being filled. A straight 50-50 chance for each square within a 4x4 block would on average give 8 squares and a 1:65,536 (0.0015%) chance each of it having 0 or 16.
I'm not familiar with scripting in the game so don't know how precise you can get with rng to simulate percentages. Is it limited to 6 sided dice or is anything possible?

Why should the heavy foot get the preference? Surely the idea of pot luck terrain is that you don't know exactly what you will be facing. It may, or may not, suit one or both of you, no matter the armies involved. Would you do the same if it was two medium armies facing each other, or two heavy armies even?

But the point at the moment is that the odds are so prohibitive for HF units against MF in rough ground that they just should not try to fight their way across it. They will lose if they do, so they need to avoid that terrain feature completely. That is why I am also suggesting that the terrain type "rough ground" should be downgraded in severity so that HF are only "slightly disordered" by it instead of "moderately disordered". An alternative way has just been suggested by travlin_canuck where HF stay at "moderately disordered", MF become "slightly disordered" and light foot are the only ones that are "steady". I think that has got something going for it too, certainly as far as rough ground goes anyway, but maybe with other terrain types too (e.g. marshy ground would discomfort MF). That would need to be thought about carefully though.

To me, that's not an issue with the terrain itself, but rather the troop types, and I'm slowly working my way through the MF thread.

This is not, I would suggest, a problem with the terrain, but more with the player(s) involved camping in one spot for a perceived advantage.

Yes, partly it is, but on some occasions players who want to fight are stymied by the terrain. So I am trying to reduce the chances of this happening in the game although I realise it will never be completely eradicated. I actually also think the rectangular nature of many of our terrain features can also be a negative issue in some map configurations but there doesn't seem to be much support for my point of view. Nature is not rectangular.

I think a lot of battlefields with significant terrain features, could have 1 or 2 of those with an edge either parallel or perpendicular to the main battle lines, and could be a significant reason that site was chosen for a battle. It's difficult to deal with a curving feature due to using squares, so a straight edge of at least one side would be a solution. Irregular edges though seems perfectly reasonable.

A consideration is whether you would want to fill the centre of a terrain block if they are enclosed by others, the script would be more complex of course. But, that could lead to a way to build hills beyond a single layer, with each layer being superimposed on the previous. There are probably other methods that could be used in place of adding square blocks as well, eg. randomly adding to a starting square, for either a fixed number of squares or using a diminishing percentage chance of adding another.

As for competition games, do you allow for terrain re-rolls in the DL? That might be a solution, if not ideal.

Mairtin wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 8:56 am As for competition games, do you allow for terrain re-rolls in the DL? That might be a solution, if not ideal.

Rule 4 has this provision . . .

"Players may agree to re-start a match within the first three turns if they believe the terrain is likely to produce a sterile match or a draw. The maximum number of re-starts permitted for a single match is two."