Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote:There is no question of the terrain rules being designed as a blunt instrument to favour Mongols (et al). On the contrary, it is designed to reflect the sort of terrain seen in Ancient/Medieval pitched battles.

At the risk of repeating myself, Mongols don't need "an arbitrary terrain selection" to be effective. They are able to cope with pretty much any terrain selection. The same is not so true of MF-predominant armies, but that reflects history.

I think it is an interactioon of effects that gives steppe armies an advantage.
They have lots of LH and Cav, so have a high PBI, consequently they get to choose terrain more often.
They have lots of LH and Cav, so want low terrain density.
Steppe has a low terrain density, and doesn't work well with the terrain choice system.

The problem with steppe is that a player that doesn't want terrain doesn't do it by picking pieces of Open ground, but by picking 4 minimum pieces, using up 5 of the 8 non open terrain pieces - this is the only terrain type where the first player can pick all the rough and difficult terrain to deny it to their opponent. I suspect the real issue here is that a player can negate a terrain piece by picking it and making it minimum size. The solution is to change the minimum sizes. For a normal piece it should be able to entirely contain a 4x9, and/or a 6x6. For a large piece the sizes should be 5x12 and/or 8x8. I suggest larger sizes for larger pieces to make sure they are larger, and not just a minumum size piece stretched out to just be large.


The other problem is a consequence of FoG not modelling where and why the battle is taking place, but basing the terrain for an army on its homeland, not where it fought. In many cases steppe armies effectively won the PBI, but couldn't choose steppe as they were invading another nation, and there was no steppe near enough.
The question is did the Mongols fight on the steppes, other than in a civil war, sufficiently often to justify it being on their terrain list, other that as a special case?

One way to try to model the why and where without changing the army lists is:

The side that wins the PBI gets the option to invade the other side. If it does so it chooses terrain from the other army's list.
Otherwise the other army may choose to invade. If it does so re-reoll PBI, and the side that wins this chooses terrain from the first army's list.
Otherwise the first army gets a second option to invade. If it does so re-roll PBI, and the side that wins this chooses terrain from the second army's list.
If neither army chooses to invade the game is a draw (10:10)
If the PBI re-roll is a tie then the first army keeps the PBI.
If any PBI roll was a tie the army with the initiative can choose terrain from either army's list.

Ties mean the encounter happens close to the border so that the full choice is available.

sagji wrote: The problem with steppe is that a player that doesn't want terrain doesn't do it by picking pieces of Open ground, but by picking 4 minimum pieces, using up 5 of the 8 non open terrain pieces - this is the only terrain type where the first player can pick all the rough and difficult terrain to deny it to their opponent.

A relatively simple rules modification would be to allow the other player to use say 2 of their 4 terrain picks to replace pieces the opponent chose with equivalent pieces of their choosing.

So you choose two 4x6 pieces and I replace them with 12" circles.

Even simpler might be to just add a couple more non-open pieces to steppes.

I really don't see that there is a problem.

I am really not bothered about winning the PBI and choosing Steppes when using Shooty Cav armies (except against MF Bow armies). I normally want to move first anyway - this is a non-issue.

I like the terrain rules as they stand and would not like to change them

dave_r wrote:I really don't see that there is a problem.

I am really not bothered about winning the PBI and choosing Steppes when using Shooty Cav armies (except against MF Bow armies). I normally want to move first anyway - this is a non-issue.

I like the terrain rules as they stand and would not like to change them

If there is a problem it is that mounted are too good in any terrain (or MF are too weak). MF armies end up fighting in the open anyway unless they commit themselves to a static defence, which isn't going to win them any games.

It seems to me that armoured MF are actually quite good and so are decent MF bow/longbow. If anything, it is only protected/unprotected MF non-shooters that are not cost effective en masse. As RBS pointed out, it is historical that these armies were not very successful, but shouldn't that be reflected in the points cost?

All this discussion of who is invading who etc is a red herring. All that "Steppe" terrain means is that the army with inititative managed to force battle on a battlefield that is mostly a flat and open plan, which could be simply a large clearing in a forest. It does not mean they are in a steppe geographical region.

lawrenceg wrote:All this discussion of who is invading who etc is a red herring. All that "Steppe" terrain means is that the army with inititative managed to force battle on a battlefield that is mostly a flat and open plan, which could be simply a large clearing in a forest. It does not mean they are in a steppe geographical region.

\

Hi Lawrence,

That's a good point, and one that I haven't actually thought of before. It additionally puts to sleep the 'edge of the world' complainants as the same argument could be used to say that using the table edge is a large terrain feature that is not on table but of sufficient size to effectively limit the use of that area by the opponent.

What I mean by that is, that this 'steppe' area in the middle of the Black Forrest is (as you suggest) a clearing, but the table edge can be 'the black forrest' and so limits the enemy getting on the flank.

In one game which I recently played we used 6x4 tables with pre-set terrain and 600AP armies. In the end we only used a 4x3 section of the table, but were able to 'pick and choose' where we wanted to go that was beneficial to both. Effectively the setup stages worked out where we wanted to fight and then we shuffled for position and eventually duked it out once we were happy we weren't going to be disadvantaged.

No sane general would walk headlong into a position where he was going to allow his troops to fight at a severe disadvantage, and any opponent who is using 'ooh, you're corner sitting' is actually arguing against themselves as much as anything, as they are equally able to charge headlong into the formed sheildwall and impale themselves on spears... they are choosing to not do so. That's their choice!

Ian

lawrenceg wrote:

dave_r wrote:I really don't see that there is a problem.

I am really not bothered about winning the PBI and choosing Steppes when using Shooty Cav armies (except against MF Bow armies). I normally want to move first anyway - this is a non-issue.

I like the terrain rules as they stand and would not like to change them

If there is a problem it is that mounted are too good in any terrain (or MF are too weak). MF armies end up fighting in the open anyway unless they commit themselves to a static defence, which isn't going to win them any games.

It seems to me that armoured MF are actually quite good and so are decent MF bow/longbow. If anything, it is only protected/unprotected MF non-shooters that are not cost effective en masse. As RBS pointed out, it is historical that these armies were not very successful, but shouldn't that be reflected in the points cost?

All this discussion of who is invading who etc is a red herring. All that "Steppe" terrain means is that the army with inititative managed to force battle on a battlefield that is mostly a flat and open plan, which could be simply a large clearing in a forest. It does not mean they are in a steppe geographical region.

Part of the value of protected/unprotected MF in many armies is it increases the size of the army without costing too much. e.g. 3 BGs of 4 bases of undrilled protected MF Light spear is handy in an Ilkhanid army.

Unfortunately, that value is a bit wasted when the rest of the army is also rubbishy MF. 20 BGs of 6 undrilled protected MF light spear are unlikely to be high on anyone's wish list.

I hear the arguments about it being historical that MF armies are a bit rubbish in more open terrain. However, there were pleanty of MF based armies that knew this and stayed home by and large (Dacians for example). If you wanted to fight them you'd have to storm the Iron Gates. Or, they had a go at finding a terrained up battlefield (HYW English for example)

I agree that the solution here is not to deny mounted armies steppe terrain (as others have said they hardly need it to be good so denying it to them wouldn't be that much of a hardship).

Perhaps it would be better to reflect the 'stick to terrain' nature of the MF armies instead? A mechanism could be that if an army has at least 60 bases of MF and loses the initiative it has the option to veto the initial terrain type chosen by the winner.

grahambriggs wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to reflect the 'stick to terrain' nature of the MF armies instead? A mechanism could be that if an army has at least 60 bases of MF and loses the initiative it has the option to veto the initial terrain type chosen by the winner.

Would this not make English Longbow too good. They don't seem to be having many problems on the competition circuit, in fact they are doing very well. So is the Dominate Roman with 9+ BG of MF. Perhaps there is no problem as MF armies are doing very well thank you very much. At least until next week

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to reflect the 'stick to terrain' nature of the MF armies instead? A mechanism could be that if an army has at least 60 bases of MF and loses the initiative it has the option to veto the initial terrain type chosen by the winner.

Would this not make English Longbow too good. They don't seem to be having many problems on the competition circuit, in fact they are doing very well. So is the Dominate Roman with 9+ BG of MF. Perhaps there is no problem as MF armies are doing very well thank you very much. At least until next week

So, did you miss the number 60 or did you just ignore it?

grahambriggs wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to reflect the 'stick to terrain' nature of the MF armies instead? A mechanism could be that if an army has at least 60 bases of MF and loses the initiative it has the option to veto the initial terrain type chosen by the winner.

Would this not make English Longbow too good. They don't seem to be having many problems on the competition circuit, in fact they are doing very well. So is the Dominate Roman with 9+ BG of MF. Perhaps there is no problem as MF armies are doing very well thank you very much. At least until next week

So, did you miss the number 60 or did you just ignore it?

Maybe that should be 60 bases of MF and LF.

The fact that certain armies are historically recorded as preferring to fight in terrain suggests that it was difficult to bring them to battle in the open. (Otherwise, how would the historians know that they preferred to fight in terrain?)

In that case, rather than giving a veto on terrain type when theys lose initiative, why not give them, say, +1 initiative for 60 bases of MF/LF and +2 for 80 bases ? These would probably have to be exclusive with the + for mounted troops as there are armies that can muster 10 or 24 LH/Cav and 60-80 LF/MF. Then you maintain the balancing feature of terrain picker moving second.

lawrenceg wrote:All this discussion of who is invading who etc is a red herring. All that "Steppe" terrain means is that the army with inititative managed to force battle on a battlefield that is mostly a flat and open plan, which could be simply a large clearing in a forest. It does not mean they are in a steppe geographical region.

If that is the case then explain why a Hunnic army sacking Rome can trivially find such a battlefield when attacked, but 2 Roman armies fighting a civil war can't?

If they are fighting in a big clearing in a forrest than that is woodlands, and the open pieces have caused the others to be discarded.

Steppe terrain ensures there are no enclosed fields, plantations, forests, vineyards, marshes, soft sands, villages, steep hills, rivers, or roads, any where near by. How far from Rome do you think a Hunnic army would have to have been to not have any of these within 5 miles? My guess would be somewhere in the Ukraine.

It is historically inaccurate to allow an army allways to be able to choose terrain types that only occur in its own home area - it could only do so when its opponent choose to attack it. For most steppe armies this was a small proportion of the total battles.

An alternative solution would be to change some of the entries for steppe to 1+1, meaning that each player can choose one piece - this stops the steppe terrain monopolisation effect.
Restrict the choosing of terrain to be in the enemy's list.
Then define some armies as "terrain" armies that get a bonus piece of normal sized terrain. For Huns, Mongols and most similar armies this would be open, for German tribes it might be a forrest.

sagji wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:All this discussion of who is invading who etc is a red herring. All that "Steppe" terrain means is that the army with inititative managed to force battle on a battlefield that is mostly a flat and open plan, which could be simply a large clearing in a forest. It does not mean they are in a steppe geographical region.

If that is the case then explain why a Hunnic army sacking Rome can trivially find such a battlefield when attacked, but 2 Roman armies fighting a civil war can't?

The Romans with initiative choose Agricultural. One places a small OF and two open spaces. The other places two small OF and a gentle hill. That is less uneven ground than a typical steppe terrain and no rough going at all.

Steppe terrain ensures there are no enclosed fields, plantations, forests, vineyards, marshes, soft sands, villages, steep hills, rivers, or roads, any where near by. How far from Rome do you think a Hunnic army would have to have been to not have any of these within 5 miles? My guess would be somewhere in the Ukraine.

A FOG battlefield is not 5 miles. A 72 inch wide field is 12 bowshots, say 3600m, around 2.5 miles at most, allowing for long shots.


If you only argue by blatant exaggeration, you just make yourself look like a blustering fool with no grip on reality. You don't advance your case at all.

You could just leave the initiative modifiers the same as they are, but have a maximum possible difference in initiative scores of +2.

That then means anyone can "try" to get either the first move or the terrain they want by jiggling around with LH / Cv or Generals, but with the qualifier that mounted armies are more likely to get the choice of terrain rather than first move. Which isn't that bad either logically or game-wise.

It also makes it a bit harder for an army to try and "guarantee" first move or choice of terrain - which means more varied battlefields, and more challenges to generalship.

This is the question that has occupied my mind the most when thinking about my Army design. The MF/Prot/Lspear/Sw BGs form the bulk of the Romano British list in the 'fun' period. Fortunately, it is just possible (with Welsh Allies) to get the maximum initiative modifier. My big worry is Steppe armies and a player smart enough to take all the good terrain first and make it small.

It's a big worry, but that need not be a 'problem' as far as game balance is concerned IMO, bad matchups happen in games like this.

From someone who likes to play infantry armies I dont see a problem with the mechanics as they now work.

Though I do see FOG as primarily a game with an ancient background bolted on, yes it works fairly well but I wouldnt claim it was a simulation of ancient warfare. For that you would need less control over army selection, far less control over unit movement once the game got going etc etc

The Romans with initiative choose Agricultural. One places a small OF and two open spaces. The other places two small OF and a gentle hill. That is less uneven ground than a typical steppe terrain and no rough going at all.

You're not even trying Lawrence.

Each has a small compulsory open field. Player with PBI takes a river and a road, other takes 2 open. The the river may become difficult but it gives no advantage to anyone really, unless you want no terrain, and it has a very good chance of being taken off.

...

MARVIN_THE_ARVN wrote:From someone who likes to play infantry armies I dont see a problem with the mechanics as they now work.

Though I do see FOG as primarily a game with an ancient background bolted on, yes it works fairly well but I wouldnt claim it was a simulation of ancient warfare. For that you would need less control over army selection, far less control over unit movement once the game got going etc etc

Exactly Arvn.

I think there was a game (was it Tactica? - I never played it) where once you set up the board you basically looked at the two sides and said "Well done, you win'. This is probably a historical game. Once you've deployed you don't have to do anything else... you've either won or lost.

It's a bloody game.

With lead painted in pretty colours.

With dice!!!

We try to make it as simulation as possible, but it's bloody nearly impossible to do with a set of rules and maintain any kind of fun. It's like Chess. Great game. Helps you think strategy, but it has absolutely no similarity to what the real thing is like.

Ian

Xelee wrote:This is the question that has occupied my mind the most when thinking about my Army design. The MF/Prot/Lspear/Sw BGs form the bulk of the Romano British list in the 'fun' period. Fortunately, it is just possible (with Welsh Allies) to get the maximum initiative modifier. My big worry is Steppe armies and a player smart enough to take all the good terrain first and make it small.

It's a big worry, but that need not be a 'problem' as far as game balance is concerned IMO, bad matchups happen in games like this.

In my experience (with Ancient Britons), steppe armies in the steppe are not that much of a problem. You'll probably get a fairly even and fun game from them.

DaiSho wrote:

stefoid wrote:I find this to be incredibly cheesy, given the table edges are an artifact.

alls fair in love and war, but I wonder if there is any way to make the 'edge of the world' table factor less abusable.

I don't consider this cheesy at all. Considering most people use ahistorical tactics and focus a lot on flanks which weren't really focused on to the same degree, it could be said that people who don't fight 'front on' are cheesily using the rules to gain an unhistorical advantage.

Sure, there were some armies who tried to wrap the flanks etc, but seriously, how many camps were sacked throughout history? How many times did flanks get rolled up. Compared to the number of battles (Canae, Granicus) with high cavalry content who didn't wrap flanks I think we as wargamers over-use flank attacks. I'm not talking flank marches, I'm talking about 'leave nothing in front and wrap around the flank.

Ian

interesting point. If true, perhaps it has something to do with deployment? At what point (how far away in time and space) would opposing armies break camp or break from column in order to form up into battle formation? Maybe, for practical reasons, this happened fairly close to the enemy so there wasnt so much time for flanks to envelop a prepared enemy before the centes clashed?

lawrenceg wrote:

sagji wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:All this discussion of who is invading who etc is a red herring. All that "Steppe" terrain means is that the army with inititative managed to force battle on a battlefield that is mostly a flat and open plan, which could be simply a large clearing in a forest. It does not mean they are in a steppe geographical region.

If that is the case then explain why a Hunnic army sacking Rome can trivially find such a battlefield when attacked, but 2 Roman armies fighting a civil war can't?

The Romans with initiative choose Agricultural. One places a small OF and two open spaces. The other places two small OF and a gentle hill. That is less uneven ground than a typical steppe terrain and no rough going at all.

You are assuming the both sides want open terrain. I am talking about the situation where one side wants open terrain, and the other doesn't.

Steppe terrain ensures there are no enclosed fields, plantations, forests, vineyards, marshes, soft sands, villages, steep hills, rivers, or roads, any where near by. How far from Rome do you think a Hunnic army would have to have been to not have any of these within 5 miles? My guess would be somewhere in the Ukraine.

A FOG battlefield is not 5 miles. A 72 inch wide field is 12 bowshots, say 3600m, around 2.5 miles at most, allowing for long shots.

If you only argue by blatant exaggeration, you just make yourself look like a blustering fool with no grip on reality. You don't advance your case at all.

I would not describe a factor of 2 discrepancy as a blatant exaggeration. And who was talking about the size of the battlefield? I was talking about how far the side that lost the PBI could adjust the location of the battle. 5 miles is one hours march plus half the width of the battlefield.