Slitherine

NickBowler wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:If you have thought about all of this prior to the game, then setting up terrain shouldn't take longer than about 10 minutes.

Terrain selection and placement needs to be simpler and faster.

Well it would be a lot faster for you if you had looked things up in the rules beforehand !

I don't think ten minutes at the start of a game setting up terrain is a problem.

NickBowler wrote: the current rules in the appendix are complex and slow down game play, .......... And they dont result in a significant amount of terrain that affects game play. .

I really don't think you are qualified to make a statement like that if you've only played the game six times. You are still learning the game, so it will be slow, but as I've explained you can speed it up by being prepared.
And I think you can often get a very significant amount of terrain, and I have found that the terrain has significantly affected the game in most games - I would say in about 80% of games I've played. And that's from playing most weeks for about 3 years.

Of course the battlefield is never covered in terrain, but then ancient battles were generally fought on open plains. But even one piece of terrain in a particular place (such as on a flank to anchor your line, or in the opponents deployment zone to disrupt and restrict his deployment) can have a huge impact on the game.

I generally find if one side really wants to minimise the terrain they can generally do a pretty good job of it. Even if they dont have steppe and you fight in Agr they simply pick an open field, two open spaces and a road. This often leaves a situation where there is very little room left for the person who wants terrain (and has most often lost initiative) to place terrain where they would want it. In fact if you can get one flank with a peice of terrain (which often ends up been an open field which doesnt slow the ever present LH anyway) that is actually fairly lucky. Then you might get a couple of peices on a back edge or somewhere else fairly difficult to use (generally deep in your opponents half of the table).

The best thing about the terrain system is the actual mechanics of placement (the dice rolls for placement and modification) as they make sure you can never get exactly what you want and I would retain this. I would suggest however.

1) No cav bonus' to initiative and no terrain types. I understand the intention to add flavour but it never actually seems to happen except for steppe. I cant remember the last time I played on a table that could have been identified by a passer by as hilly or wooded and I have used armies where I certainly tried!

2) Each side picks 3-5 peices. No more than 2 for each player of any type No more than 1 coast or river or village and these can only be selected by player with initiative.

3) We basically keep the current order of placement except that whatever you place first ( excluding coasts, rivers and open spaces) counts as your "Compulsory" (ie can be double sized for free and harder to modify) and the player with initiative can place a road at the end of all other placement (it doesnt count as a selection).

This is actually simpler than the current system (NO need to check available terrain types and terrain chart) and would restore a little balance to the situations where one side is desperate for terrain and the other wants the opposite.

Martin

why not try as in DBM it is the one with the initiative chooses from the terrain of the defender.

I would agree with Marty, except instead of no more than 2 pieces of a type, I would say it should be at least 3 pieces of the base type. If you pick hilly terrain you should be placing hills. If you pick forested you should be placing forests.

Also remove the 'maximums'. If both players want to fight on hilly terrain, why a limitation on the number of hills that can be placed? Currently the maximums require checking on the table as to what terrain has not been picked.

As a final note, why have one system -- why not two. A quick play system with maybe a couple of set battlefields or some other system, and a more complex system.

The advantage of Flames of War terrain is primarily that it is so much prettier. Also, in tournaments, it's set up in advance by the organisers, which I guess will make it quicker and easier for the players.


Still, I find that terrain setup in FoG is quick and painless. Typically five minutes. It helps to have done it a few times, and the the 3rd party quick reference sheets help a lot

I also find the current system quick (certainly not a problem in comp games). My issue is the result it tends to produce (ie when one or both players want it, a virtually featureless plain).

Pre set terrain is something I have a vast and mixed experience of from many years of WRG 7th and Warrior comps (which in Australia were always pre-set terrain). I cant comment on this for overseas players but I suspect in Aus the ex-Warrior crowd would be unfazed by this while the ex-DBM'ers might find it less appealing.

On the pro side it does require even less time and it does tend to ensure that at least some of the tables have a significant amount of terrain. It does also allow for some unusual "Theme" tables that a random system may not generate (we had one comp every year where one table had a giant walled built up area about 2' in diameter!) . It may, but wont necessarily, lead to a better quality of terrain.

On the con side it removes an area of player control and unless the organisers are carefull can lead to griping about favouritism towards a certain type of army.

We have seen FOG comps in Aus with pre set terrain and it should be remembered the system in the rules is only "suggested" (comp organisers can do whatever they like) but the main concern is are there players who wont come if you dont use the "Normal system"?

Martin

Martin

My decision to attend a tournament is goverend by work and family commitments and travel distance.

I would suggest that if you have players who wont attend because the tournament is not using whatever system they expect, then you are better off without those players.

marty wrote:We have seen FOG comps in Aus with pre set terrain and it should be remembered the system in the rules is only "suggested" (comp organisers can do whatever they like) but the main concern is are there players who wont come if you dont use the "Normal system"?

I think the only real argument for pre-set terrain is to make it look good and a bit more historical. I don't think it slows anything down. A slow player is going to remain slow no matter what.

Now pretty and historical are good arguments. Just not clinching in my view.

hazelbark wrote:
I think the only real argument for pre-set terrain is to make it look good and a bit more historical. I don't think it slows anything down. A slow player is going to remain slow no matter what.

Dan Hazelwood's true confessions ITT.

Let it all out Dan.