Slitherine

melm wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 3:49 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 4:39 pm

melm wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:52 pm I prefer cheap skirmishers.

Indeed, and would still be able to have them, except for Romans in a narrow period from 219-106 BC (The 280-220 BC Romans have normal light javelinmen).

What I am concerning is the stalemate of the game. One side camping on the slope waiting for the opponent to attack, or camping between woods or mountains. Sometimes it is not a big issue if there's enough space to manoenuvre. However, sometimes there's not enough space, or your manoenuvre is hindered by the army list, for example, not having enough medium foot to outflank a piece of woods while opponent's do. In current system, I can't find a more feasible solution other than making plenty of cheap skirmishers to negate the camping behavior. So basically I only love any change that makes skirmishers more and cheaper. I could be wrong. And to be honest, I don't really know the purpose of such change. Maybe it is not just for the variety of units for different flavor.

You don’t get the chance to add units once you get to the map.. You have x amount of skirmishers and that is that. Sometimes you will get a perfect flat plain nicely ready for the heavy infantry armies. Other times the likes of Spain or Thracia have more of a chance because of hills, mountains and rough ground.

Let’s take the Samnites. Their DL record is apparently good but their army’s chance to win is quite heavily dependent on the map.

SLancaster wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 7:45 am
You don’t get the chance to add units once you get to the map.. You have x amount of skirmishers and that is that.

What I mean is that if skirmishers are cheap, you can field most of the available. If they are expensive, then you don't dare to field more for fear that you don't have enough line units. But when the opponents decide to camp on favourable terrain, nothing can force him to change mind because of not enough skirmishers.

melm wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 7:51 am

SLancaster wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 7:45 am
You don’t get the chance to add units once you get to the map.. You have x amount of skirmishers and that is that.

What I mean is that if skirmishers are cheap, you can field most of the available. If they are expensive, then you don't dare to field more for fear that you don't have enough line units. But when the opponents decide to camp on favourable terrain, nothing can force him to change mind because of not enough skirmishers.

I don’t really get your point. It seems to me that the map is the deciding factor for camping. Everyone sets up their armies before you go to the map so skirmishers don’t have so much to do with it (unless you anticipate camping and take a lot of skirmishers?).

A medium infantry army like Spain is always going to take a lot of skirmishers and use the hills if there and why not..

Remember also that the skirmisher cost increase is only proposed for essentially the heavy infantry armies (Romans and Greek phalanx armies). Velites and Greek Peltasts. A faction like Spain will still be able to take zillions of javelinmen and archers at 24.

SLancaster wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 9:39 amEveryone sets up their armies before you go to the map

No they don't.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 10:15 am

SLancaster wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 9:39 amEveryone sets up their armies before you go to the map

No they don't.

I mean your army composition is set.. you can't change it once you see what the map is like! Yes, I need more skirmishers now to get the enemy off that hill!

On a side note.. I am starting to play more games with 50 turns. I am playing someone now and we did a lot of manoeuvering and only my left flank has engaged after 10 turns or so. I think setting the turns to 50 can really help to defeat campers and also bring a bit more strategy and manoeuvering into your battle.

SLancaster wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 11:50 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 10:15 am

SLancaster wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 9:39 amEveryone sets up their armies before you go to the map

No they don't.

I mean your army composition is set.. you can't change it once you see what the map is like! Yes, I need more skirmishers now to get the enemy off that hill!

You can't change which army list you are using, but you can change your army composition within the limits that the army list permits, after seeing the map - unless you are playing Epic Battles, or on Auto force selection.

Good,this can make them more effective against the other skirmishers.

I love the phrase "camp on favourable terrain". Please do that against me, you are surrendering the initiative and you will be surrounded, or at least I will ignore that part of the battlefield with the campground and beat the rest of your army. I think peltasts are over-priced and they, or at least the Thracian peltasts, should simply be made superior or "above average". They cost the same as medium infantry but they are only any use in difficult terrain, and other light infantry often beat them. Medium infantry that costs the same will likely beat them unless they are in difficult (but not rough) terrain. Whatever their abilities they remain light infantry with all the problems of not being allowed to do the sort of things they did in real life, like charge a fragmented heavy infantry unit or charge a heavy infantry unit in the rear etc., etc., so they can become useless and a waste of points for the latter half of the game. Any improvement would be great but I would like to see some difference between velites, Greek peltasts, and Thracian peltasts such as they used to have in previous rule sets. Velites seem to have been better equipped, with a bigger shield and a proper sword, while Thracians seem to have been better motivated but less well equipped (except for the Dii who are specifically referred to as swordsmen). I would like to see massed peltasts be made 100% swordsmen so they are the same as other "mountain men" and other generic medium infantry. Alternatively they could be given a one hex shooting range and an increased likelihood that they will break off if they lose combat.

vakarr wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:31 am I love the phrase "camp on favourable terrain". Please do that against me, you are surrendering the initiative and you will be surrounded, or at least I will ignore that part of the battlefield with the campground and beat the rest of your army.

They are only surrendering the initiate if they want to win, if they simply seek a tie and there entire army is on favorable terrain...,