Slitherine

robertthebruce wrote: Page 138 of the Rules:

Pre-Battle Initiative.

From the dawn of time, successful generals have endeavoured to bring the enemy to battle in a place of their choosing.....

I did not found the words "Competitive game" in the text.

Which is, to be honest, irrelevant. Phil is correct that the terrain system is only there to (ideally) provide a table over which we can play an artificial pick-up style game with any pair of armies with both sides having a chance - any wording about historcality in relation to it is really just fluff to ease our conscience and help us kid ourselves. If we want to have it as some sort of representation of getting to the battlefield in some sort of historical context, then we should have a whole pre-battle routine somewhat akin to those in the various Peter Pig rules which abstracts a campaign into a little pre-game game (so to speak) - a single dice roll doesn't cut it for that.

DavidT wrote:So make it a straight unmodified die roll to determine which player chooses the terrain type (from either list as at present). This gives all players/armies an equal chance of getting the terrain type they want - what could be fairer than that.

Don't give armies different terrain lists. Just give a list of terrain for all to pick from. So each player gets a single piece that cannot be removed (not river, road, coast or impassable), and 2-4 other pieces. Dice as now. No more than 1 river, impassable or coast or more than 4 pieces of any other type.

Players take turn to pick starting with player that won initiative.

Player who wins initiative chooses to move or deploy first or second

robertthebruce wrote: If a Mongol army, want invade Poland or Germany, they have to fight in woodlands, I´m sure of that.

Really. Perhaps thats why they didn't invade. So we have to fight the battle on seperate tables then. Your army in the woods and mine on the steppe.

robertthebruce wrote: Page 138 of the Rules:

Pre-Battle Initiative.

From the dawn of time, successful generals have endeavoured to bring the enemy to battle in a place of their choosing.....

I did not found the words "Competitive game" in the text.

So winning the initiative would put the battle in the place of Mongol choosing, the Fulda gap and other such wide open places. Lots of nice open areas in western Europe. Chalon for one.

nikgaukroger wrote:

robertthebruce wrote: Page 138 of the Rules:

Pre-Battle Initiative.

From the dawn of time, successful generals have endeavoured to bring the enemy to battle in a place of their choosing.....

I did not found the words "Competitive game" in the text.

Which is, to be honest, irrelevant. Phil is correct that the terrain system is only there to (ideally) provide a table over which we can play an artificial pick-up style game with any pair of armies with both sides having a chance - any wording about historcality in relation to it is really just fluff to ease our conscience and help us kid ourselves. If we want to have it as some sort of representation of getting to the battlefield in some sort of historical context, then we should have a whole pre-battle routine somewhat akin to those in the various Peter Pig rules which abstracts a campaign into a little pre-game game (so to speak) - a single dice roll doesn't cut it for that.

If the objetive is to give both opponents a chance, not should be given more opportunities to choose favorable terrain mounted armies.

Really. Perhaps thats why they didn't invade. So we have to fight the battle on seperate tables then. Your army in the woods and mine on the steppe.

It should be fun .


Ok, I really like the terrain system, but I think that the foot armies are severe disadvantage in the common games against mounted, and it less attractive to the game.

nikgaukroger wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:hence I favour selecting terrain only from the PBI losers list

IMO a nice simple solution - why go for anything more complex?

Indeed - why did the authors make this overcomplex? PRS* usually did exactly that.



*previous rule sets, of no stated affiliation

robertthebruce wrote: Page 138 of the Rules:

Pre-Battle Initiative.

From the dawn of time, successful generals have endeavoured to bring the enemy to battle in a place of their choosing.....

Unsuccessful generals also endeavoured to bring the enemy to battle in a place of their choosing...

I think steppe terrain largely can be fixed by adding a bit more terrain picks to the mix, it seems odd to me that the "best" strategy for the LH army is to pick all the terrain. They should be taking all the opens with hte non-LH army taking the terrain. Just adding in 2-3 more pieces of RGo and that will basically be fixed.

I am fine with Steppe terrain having more opens and hence more chance for terrain not to land or be heavily constricted - but the current set-up is a bit odd.

ethan wrote:it seems odd to me that the "best" strategy for the LH army is to pick all the terrain. They should be taking all the opens with hte non-LH army taking the terrain.

When I pick the hill with brush on it the gulley the other brush and a uneven I get the chance to place them were they are out of harms way that why LH majority armies pick the terrain.

ok keep it simple.

Terrain i do not see why terrain cannot overlap simply allow all terrain to overlap. With the 'worst' result counting for the troops inside that terrain.
i do not see any problem with an unattended vineyard being overgrown by a neighbouring wood or a river crossing a wood/plantation/ etc.

david53 wrote:

ethan wrote:it seems odd to me that the "best" strategy for the LH army is to pick all the terrain. They should be taking all the opens with hte non-LH army taking the terrain.

When I pick the hill with brush on it the gulley the other brush and a uneven I get the chance to place them were they are out of harms way that why LH majority armies pick the terrain.

I understand why the LH players do it, I just think it wasn't how the system was intended to work. I see one solution as giving the LH player control of hte open ground but giving the non-LH player control of a few pieces of terrain.

ok...

i am leader of a Cav/LH invasion army.
Where will i choose to fight?
a wood? nooo i force the enemy to fight on my terms on a plain somewhere.

Jilu wrote:ok...

i am leader of a Cav/LH invasion army.
Where will i choose to fight?
a wood? nooo i force the enemy to fight on my terms on a plain somewhere.

An invasion army? So the plain would be agricultural or developed?

Historically, how many armies "surrendered" the initiative and walked into the steppes?
This is the problem with the current terrain system.

ethan wrote:

david53 wrote:

ethan wrote:it seems odd to me that the "best" strategy for the LH army is to pick all the terrain. They should be taking all the opens with hte non-LH army taking the terrain.

When I pick the hill with brush on it the gulley the other brush and a uneven I get the chance to place them were they are out of harms way that why LH majority armies pick the terrain.

I understand why the LH players do it, I just think it wasn't how the system was intended to work. I see one solution as giving the LH player control of hte open ground but giving the non-LH player control of a few pieces of terrain.

But then dave R states he dos'nt care about losing PBI with his LH armies which he seems to do quite well with.

david53 wrote: But then dave R states he dos'nt care about losing PBI with his LH armies which he seems to do quite well with.

I get the impression that most of the good LH players prefer to lose initiative to ensure that they get first move (so don't use ICs or FC CInCs).

Even losing initiative, there is a limit to how much terrain the opposition can put down, and you still have a chance to remove it or shift it out of the way. It will not be possible for the infantry player to put all his troops in LOS-blocking terrain to protect them from both close combat and shooting.

lawrenceg wrote:Even losing initiative, there is a limit to how much terrain the opposition can put down, and you still have a chance to remove it or shift it out of the way. It will not be possible for the infantry player to put all his troops in LOS-blocking terrain to protect them from both close combat and shooting.

Its just one more thing to moan about

lawrenceg wrote: Even losing initiative, there is a limit to how much terrain the opposition can put down, and you still have a chance to remove it or shift it out of the way. It will not be possible for the infantry player to put all his troops in LOS-blocking terrain to protect them from both close combat and shooting.

But then if they could put terrian all on their side if would be a dull game as no one sensible would take mounted into any real bad terrian...

david53 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: Even losing initiative, there is a limit to how much terrain the opposition can put down, and you still have a chance to remove it or shift it out of the way. It will not be possible for the infantry player to put all his troops in LOS-blocking terrain to protect them from both close combat and shooting.

But then if they could put terrian all on their side if would be a dull game as no one sensible would take mounted into any real bad terrian...

Makes a change from having a dull game because foot can't catch mounted in the open.

lawrenceg wrote:

david53 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: Even losing initiative, there is a limit to how much terrain the opposition can put down, and you still have a chance to remove it or shift it out of the way. It will not be possible for the infantry player to put all his troops in LOS-blocking terrain to protect them from both close combat and shooting.

But then if they could put terrian all on their side if would be a dull game as no one sensible would take mounted into any real bad terrian...

Makes a change from having a dull game because foot can't catch mounted in the open.

The trick is to put the terrain on the opponenets side. Then the cav/LH struggle to run away. If it's Kn/LH that can be tricky.

The big problem is the buffer zone. A cleverly placed minimum sized piece can almost guarantee that no other terrain can be placed on that side. Each terrain piece occupies a set space, but the buffer zone increases the area it blocks significantly. A minimum sized piece of terrain, 4MU by 6MU covers about 12 MU by 14MU with its buffer zone.

Jilu wrote:ok...

i am leader of a Cav/LH invasion army.
Where will i choose to fight?
a wood? nooo i force the enemy to fight on my terms on a plain somewhere.

So the enemy stay in their fortified towns and wait for winter when your horses will starve?

If you are invading, but the enemy will not fight, will your invasion succeed (Hannibal in italy, Huns before Chalons)