Slitherine

sagji wrote: I would not describe a factor of 2 discrepancy as a blatant exaggeration.

All my girlfriends did.

stefoid wrote: 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?

To be honest, I don't know. I think the majority of battles weren't done in a sneaky kind of way. The enemy would allow them to deploy and it would be a front on fight. It's like an oversized version of a school playground punch-up. One calls the other out. The other get's up and starts to take his jacket off. The first doesn't rush in and start punching (some do, but not most)... they taunt them, allowing them to retort, and then get into it when both are ready.

Ian

sagji wrote: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.

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.

OK, now you've explained your logic you come across as more reasonable, although I'm not sure where half a battlefield plus an hour's march comes from. The principle of the initiative rule is that the side with initiative chooses the battlefield and the other is forced to fight there, for whatever reason. You can't fight them from 5 miles away if they are deployed here, however favourable the ground 5 miles away is. Maybe the rationalisation is that the huns are better able than Romans to make good their escape to the Ukraine (or Hungary would probably be good enough) without allowing a major engagement.

As the authors are unlikely to change the terrain rules in the foreseeable future, I suppose you will have to like it or lump it, or play a game with a terrain-choosing system more to your taste.

lawrenceg wrote:As the authors are unlikely to change the terrain rules in the foreseeable future, I suppose you will have to like it or lump it, or play a game with a terrain-choosing system more to your taste.

In competition you have to have a mechanism that allows unusual (ahistorical) opponents to fight.

In a friendly, you're going to get sick and tired of playing mis-matched armies, so are likely to end up choosing compatible fights anyway.

Ian

DaiSho wrote: In a friendly, you're going to get sick and tired of playing mis-matched armies, so are likely to end up choosing compatible fights anyway.

Ian

At MAWS people tend to bring historically matched armies, even when I tell them not to because I want practice for an open comp.

lawrenceg wrote:

sagji wrote: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.

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.

OK, now you've explained your logic you come across as more reasonable, although I'm not sure where half a battlefield plus an hour's march comes from. The principle of the initiative rule is that the side with initiative chooses the battlefield and the other is forced to fight there, for whatever reason. You can't fight them from 5 miles away if they are deployed here, however favourable the ground 5 miles away is.

p138 says "..., reflecting a likelihood that he will have a greater influence of choosing the battlefield."
To me this implies that the side with the initiative controls when and where contact occurs, but both sides can influence where exactly the battle takes place.
By contact I mean the point at which the situation changes from looking for the enemy army, to looking for a suitable battlefield.

Maybe the rationalisation is that the huns are better able than Romans to make good their escape to the Ukraine (or Hungary would probably be good enough) without allowing a major engagement.

That sounds like a 25:0 win for the Romans - they have lost no men, and the enemy has run away. Yes the Huns would be better at getting to the Ukraine, however they would have no ability to force the Romans to follow them.

As the authors are unlikely to change the terrain rules in the foreseeable future, I suppose you will have to like it or lump it, or play a game with a terrain-choosing system more to your taste.

FWIW I think the terrain system for FoG is a real plus.

I've been gaming 30+ years and this system is arguably the best I've seen. The combined effects give a totally random outcome every time. It's impossible for either player to engineer a defensive position.

I'm not saying it's perfect.....

I'd like to see Roads placed last so that they lose their ability to block other terrain features.

And I'd also prefer to see Rivers placed up to 12 MU from the side edge whilst allowing most other area features to be superimposed upon them.

But those are just 2 personal preferences.

I suspect that most of the silent majority are also pretty comfortable with the system. But if it doesn't work for you and your friends - change it and do something you prefer. A recent mini comp at Farnborough used largely pre-planned terrain. That worked fine too.

The main thing is to enjoy the game.

Pete

petedalby wrote:FWIW I think the terrain system for FoG is a real plus.

I agree. Whether I like the final terrain layout or not I always feel as though I had a chance to influence the shape of the battlefield. And that is where the fun lies, IMHO.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

petedalby wrote:FWIW I think the terrain system for FoG is a real plus.

I agree. Whether I like the final terrain layout or not I always feel as though I had a chance to influence the shape of the battlefield. And that is where the fun lies, IMHO.

Marc

Well said. We all feel a little agrieved when we don't get the terrain we are after. If you don't get it though it is just simulating that "you can't always get what you want". The terrain system in FOG is not predictable which is ultimately good.
It is no good whingeing that you are facing a mounted army with MF on a bare tabletop. The dice could just have easily gone the other way ( both initiative and terrain rolling ) and the mounted could be facing MF surrounded by woods and steep hills. Just make the most of it and enjoy the challenge.



Cheers...Geoff

DaiSho wrote:

stefoid wrote: 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?

To be honest, I don't know. I think the majority of battles weren't done in a sneaky kind of way. The enemy would allow them to deploy and it would be a front on fight. It's like an oversized version of a school playground punch-up. One calls the other out. The other get's up and starts to take his jacket off. The first doesn't rush in and start punching (some do, but not most)... they taunt them, allowing them to retort, and then get into it when both are ready.

Ian

What gives you that idea?

petedalby wrote:FWIW I think the terrain system for FoG is a real plus.

I've been gaming 30+ years and this system is arguably the best I've seen.

I'm broadly in agreement with Pete

petedalby wrote:I've been gaming 30+ years ...
Pete

You must have had an easy paper round Pete

petedalby wrote:FWIW I think the terrain system for FoG is a real plus.

I'm not saying it's perfect.....

I'd like to see Roads placed last so that they lose their ability to block other terrain features.

And I'd also prefer to see Rivers placed up to 12 MU from the side edge whilst allowing most other area features to be superimposed upon them.

But those are just 2 personal preferences.
Pete

I mostly agree.
There are some minor issues.
It is too easy for a player to pick their own army's special terrain (i.e. steppe, or desert)
The side that picks steppe gets to remove most of the terrain by picking it - instead of picking open.
No minimun length for road - so you don't get silly short roads.

I like you suggestion for placing roads last - I would have them placed after open areas have been removed. This removes the ability to use a road to ensure a 5MU (6MU in 25mm) wide clear area at one edge of the table - by placing it just under 4MU from the edge, ensuring that edge touching pieces can't be placed, and potentially making the player placing last choose their terrain pieces as being minimum width and reducing their effectiveness.

However I don't think allowing rivers 12MU is better - it brings the artificial edge of the world effect too close to the river.

geoff wrote:

babyshark wrote:

petedalby wrote:FWIW I think the terrain system for FoG is a real plus.

I agree. Whether I like the final terrain layout or not I always feel as though I had a chance to influence the shape of the battlefield. And that is where the fun lies, IMHO.
Marc

...It is no good whingeing that you are facing a mounted army with MF on a bare tabletop. The dice could just have easily gone the other way ( both initiative and terrain rolling ) and the mounted could be facing MF surrounded by woods and steep hills. Just make the most of it and enjoy the challenge.
Cheers...Geoff

I almost agree - however with mounted armies being able to achieve a +4 initiative, and "foot" armies being able to get only +2 or +3, maths means that the dice could NOT just as easily gone the other way.

Where a mounted army wants open terrain and a foot army wants closed the mounted army will get their choice more often. Which is a lovely retro touch for those of us who started with 5th and 6th edition, but seems somewhat odd in The Ruleset of The Future [/b]

But foot armies are generally bigger so they get to fill more of the open plain than a mounted army does

I dunno. I've played a few games recently where I had a +2 PBI and my opponent had a 0 PBI. I've yet to win initiative - won the games though .

Viper

madaxeman wrote:but seems somewhat odd in The Ruleset of The Future [/b]

What FoG SF next?

philqw78 wrote:But foot armies are generally bigger so they get to fill more of the open plain than a mounted army does

If the mounted army can beat half the foot army before the other half can get there from the other side of the plain, then filling the plain doesn't help.

sagji wrote:This removes the ability to use a road to ensure a 5MU (6MU in 25mm) wide clear area at one edge of the table - by placing it just under 4MU from the edge, ensuring that edge touching pieces can't be placed, and potentially making the player placing last choose their terrain pieces as being minimum width and reducing their effectiveness.

Don't you have to choose all terrain pieces before rolling for placement ? So you can't choose a minimum width piece to fit in the gap.

Have people been using roads to keep one side of the table clear? Is this something that happens often? I don't really have a problem with it...makes sense an area w a road would be relatively clear...farm fields and such...at least sometimes.