Slitherine

hammy wrote: LH evading off table and armies with lots of BGs are related, converting off table BGs to 2 AP when the camp falls is IMO a nice one and will make life harder for massed LH armies but they are hardly dominiating the game at the moment are they?

They are not dominating, but there is still the complaint that you miss out on your 5 point bonus when you have beaten one (for all practical purposes) by eliminating all the battle troops and driving most of the LH off the field, the remainder being in full "escape mode".

lawrenceg wrote:

hammy wrote: LH evading off table and armies with lots of BGs are related, converting off table BGs to 2 AP when the camp falls is IMO a nice one and will make life harder for massed LH armies but they are hardly dominiating the game at the moment are they?

They are not dominating, but there is still the complaint that you miss out on your 5 point bonus when you have beaten one (for all practical purposes) by eliminating all the battle troops and driving most of the LH off the field, the remainder being in full "escape mode".

time to start capping BG break-points. heard today that 14 could be the maximum points you need to break any army with more than 14 BG.

this way even when your cowardly 18BG LH player starts fleeing to the corners you can still get a result.

Has Tim Porter started logging on as OldenTired?

OldenTired wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

hammy wrote: LH evading off table and armies with lots of BGs are related, converting off table BGs to 2 AP when the camp falls is IMO a nice one and will make life harder for massed LH armies but they are hardly dominiating the game at the moment are they?

They are not dominating, but there is still the complaint that you miss out on your 5 point bonus when you have beaten one (for all practical purposes) by eliminating all the battle troops and driving most of the LH off the field, the remainder being in full "escape mode".

time to start capping BG break-points. heard today that 14 could be the maximum points you need to break any army with more than 14 BG.

this way even when your cowardly 18BG LH player starts fleeing to the corners you can still get a result.

The only Army I faced with 19 BG was'nt LH it was roman.

Some ideas to resolve a couple of problems listed:

1. Themed tournaments: for each tournament specify geographical and time limits for armies (something like: Mediterranean in III century BC). In this way you have only historical match up (or near historical) and armies have troops which are adapt to fight their opponents
2. pre made terrains: with a more appropriate rule decide defender and attacker; then defender chooses the type of terrain between that of its country (I mean: mountain, hilly, agricultural, developed) and then pick at random one of that type. In this way you will be sure you have not too open terrain and you give more interest in some match up (ask to Greece if Thracian was so easy to defeat at home)

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
BG moving through others and gaining extra move distance. That BG can then itself be passed through by the same BG to gain extra move distance again. This can give massive move distances for some mounted and LF. (Even I believe this is broken)

What's the solution?

Give it a hand and derisive name? As in, "HEY! this is not a game of 'leap FoG'!"

(Sorry - been reading to may political venting blogs)

marioslaz wrote:Some ideas to resolve a couple of problems listed:

1. Themed tournaments: for each tournament specify geographical and time limits for armies (something like: Mediterranean in III century BC). In this way you have only historical match up (or near historical) and armies have troops which are adapt to fight their opponents
2. pre made terrains: with a more appropriate rule decide defender and attacker; then defender chooses the type of terrain between that of its country (I mean: mountain, hilly, agricultural, developed) and then pick at random one of that type. In this way you will be sure you have not too open terrain and you give more interest in some match up (ask to Greece if Thracian was so easy to defeat at home)

The first I agree with and in the UK there are at least as many themed tournaments as open ones. The second I am much less sure about. Personally I have no issues with the terrain rules, I honestly can't understand why people get worked up about medium foot for example needing terrain to be of any use.

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
Player chooses a road and river and places them at table edge to reduce the amount of terrain that can be placed on the table by the opponent. (I don't think there is anything wrong with this personally, obviously lots of others do)

Whats the Solution?

I fall into the NOT A PROBLEM camp here. Deliberately choosing a constricted corridor to fight in or hold is as basic a tactic as its inverse - flanking.

Do people really feel Leonidas cheated poor Xerxes?

(Horse archer player by the way - fair is fair)

marioslaz wrote:Some ideas to resolve a couple of problems listed:

1. Themed tournaments: for each tournament specify geographical and time limits for armies (something like: Mediterranean in III century BC). In this way you have only historical match up (or near historical) and armies have troops which are adapt to fight their opponents
2. pre made terrains: with a more appropriate rule decide defender and attacker; then defender chooses the type of terrain between that of its country (I mean: mountain, hilly, agricultural, developed) and then pick at random one of that type. In this way you will be sure you have not too open terrain and you give more interest in some match up (ask to Greece if Thracian was so easy to defeat at home)

Were would the Skythians play then.

Skullzgrinda wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
Player chooses a road and river and places them at table edge to reduce the amount of terrain that can be placed on the table by the opponent. (I don't think there is anything wrong with this personally, obviously lots of others do)

Whats the Solution?

I fall into the NOT A PROBLEM camp here. Deliberately choosing a constricted corridor to fight in or hold is as basic a tactic as its inverse - flanking.

Do people really feel Leonidas cheated poor Xerxes?

(Horse archer player by the way - fair is fair)

You seem to have missed the point here. The horse archer player is the one that places the road and river. Then any constricting terrain that the other player tries to put will be lost if required to touch a side edge - as it won't fit and can't be placed on top. Basically it is a way to prevent Leonidas from using his tactic.

Fleeing LH/LF count full 2 AP if opponents camp is sacked is a good start...

But in a timed game, it is hard to achieve that and going for the camp.

BGs max of 14 has some merit, but seems to be such a random number.

To me the problem is BGs of 4 allows a nice cadre of cheap troops resulting in the swarm army becoming unbeatable (in a timed game).

Perhaps allow the army AP norm of 12 BGs of any size allowed by the army books but then any further BGs have to be in BGs of 6+.

I know I seek out how many BGs of 4 LH/LF I can purchase (&MF if playing dominate) as it allows me a huge base of troops that make me nearly invincible...

If these were capped perhaps my tactics would change...

hammy wrote:

david53 wrote:

Blathergut wrote:
The problem is that Graham Evans is a good player,

Let's not forget he is also a snazzy dresser.
Gino
SMAC

lawrenceg wrote:

Skullzgrinda wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
Player chooses a road and river and places them at table edge to reduce the amount of terrain that can be placed on the table by the opponent. (I don't think there is anything wrong with this personally, obviously lots of others do)

Whats the Solution?

I fall into the NOT A PROBLEM camp here. Deliberately choosing a constricted corridor to fight in or hold is as basic a tactic as its inverse - flanking.

Do people really feel Leonidas cheated poor Xerxes?

(Horse archer player by the way - fair is fair)

You seem to have missed the point here. The horse archer player is the one that places the road and river. Then any constricting terrain that the other player tries to put will be lost if required to touch a side edge - as it won't fit and can't be placed on top. Basically it is a way to prevent Leonidas from using his tactic.

Why would I as a Horse archer player pick that terrian as a Hun.Mongol,Tatar,Skythian,Seljik I just pick steppes if i pay 80 points for a IC, its all nice and flat except for that gully and gentle hill

kal5056 wrote:

hammy wrote:

david53 wrote: Let's not forget he is also a snazzy dresser.
Gino
SMAC

Is he?

I met an English player named Graham at the IWF that dressed like the love child of Willie Wonka and Bozo the Clown. I presume this is the same Graham. I could be wrong.
Gino
SMAC

david53 wrote: Why would I as a Horse archer player pick that terrian as a Hun.Mongol,Tatar,Skythian,Seljik I just pick steppes if i pay 80 points for a IC, its all nice and flat except for that gully and gentle hill

Not all horse archer armies have Steppe in their terrain list (including Seljuq IIRC).

You are. That was Graham Briggs. Here are some tips on how to distinguish between the two:

- Graham Evans is about 2 foot shorter than Graham Briggs
- Graham Evans will not be wearing clown trousers
- Graham Evans does not look like Shrek

Why is there such consternation about a player choosing a river and a road to try to frame the battlefield? There is a %33 chance that the river gets removed, then compulsaries get placed, with a decent chance for the stuff ending up on the opposite side. (%33 for the initiative player, %67 for the non initiative player, with only a %50 chance that it gets moved away.) Terrain is supposed to be selected before all terrain is placed. Therefore the road can't morph to fit the terrain after the fact. Be a stickler if you have to. Measure the road to make sure it's placed legally. (If he tries to place it so it can't be shifted, make sure it actually fully fits where he wants it, no over/underhang.) You still have a %17 chance of removing the road, even if you can't shift it. Then your other 4 selections have a %67 chance of not landing on the flanks, so there should still be plenty of your terrain on the board.

To me all this rules broken is begining to sound like I'm on the MM site all confusion about rule changes.

What needs to be asked is all these changes people are suggesting are they to make the rules better or make their own army better. So what you can't catch a LH BG on the steppes with your medium foot killers would it have happened in real life no, then i think the writers have it correct.

This idea of there must be loads of terrain on the table so my super medium foot can move and fight in the rough protected from anyone is just another way of getting your fav army move chance of wining.

Nothing wrong with these in themsleves but lets not think these have anything to do with broken rules. These have more to do with peoples ideas about making their army better.

This is of course my idea from someone who is very happy playing FOG, against even HF armies maybe not longbow's though.

lawrenceg wrote:

david53 wrote: Why would I as a Horse archer player pick that terrian as a Hun.Mongol,Tatar,Skythian,Seljik I just pick steppes if i pay 80 points for a IC, its all nice and flat except for that gully and gentle hill

Not all horse archer armies have Steppe in their terrain list (including Seljuq IIRC).

Seljik do have Steppes? What I was meaning if I wanted no terrian theres loads of Horse armies that have steppes I take a IC i have +4 PBI and more than likely you fight on the steppe. But thats my choice of how i spend my points. I don't need a river or road to keep the field open just do the above.