Slitherine

Why did we migrate away from the mechanism where the INVADER (iniative player) had to choose the terrain listed by the DEFENDER (non-iniative player)?

Wouldn't this eliminate the GARRANTEE that a Steppe army plays in the Steppes?

Gino
SMAC

General confusion perhaps???
Or is he strictly allowed in Chinese armies?

kal5056 wrote:Why did we migrate away from the mechanism where the INVADER (iniative player) had to choose the terrain listed by the DEFENDER (non-iniative player)?

Wouldn't this eliminate the GARRANTEE that a Steppe army plays in the Steppes?

Gino
SMAC

But it would get back to the problem of steppe armies rarely, if ever, playing in steppes.

I, for one, think the FoG terrain and initiative system--whatever its flaws may be--is far superior to the systems I have seen in the past.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

kal5056 wrote:Why did we migrate away from the mechanism where the INVADER (iniative player) had to choose the terrain listed by the DEFENDER (non-iniative player)?

Wouldn't this eliminate the GARRANTEE that a Steppe army plays in the Steppes?

Gino
SMAC

But it would get back to the problem of steppe armies rarely, if ever, playing in steppes.

I, for one, think the FoG terrain and initiative system--whatever its flaws may be--is far superior to the systems I have seen in the past.

Marc

I agree! Other than the roads blocking terrain on a side, the system produces very enjoyable battlefields!

johno wrote: if the terrain system is designed to have the feature distribution set out in the table, and there is a simple exploit which breaks that distribution, there is cause for concern, regardless of what sort of armies are perceived to benefit!

johno

I don't think its broken. It was designed. But people with a lot of medium foot think the table should be crowded with terrain.

kal5056 wrote:Why did we migrate away from the mechanism where the INVADER (iniative player) had to choose the terrain listed by the DEFENDER (non-iniative player)?

Wouldn't this eliminate the GARRANTEE that a Steppe army plays in the Steppes?

Gino
SMAC

Isn't this from another set of rules

philqw78 wrote:

johno wrote: if the terrain system is designed to have the feature distribution set out in the table, and there is a simple exploit which breaks that distribution, there is cause for concern, regardless of what sort of armies are perceived to benefit!

johno

I don't think its broken. It was designed. But people with a lot of medium foot think the table should be crowded with terrain.

I think medium foot armies should have extra terrian choices.

david53 wrote: I think medium foot armies should have extra terrian choices.

It won't work Dave, I'm supposed to be baiting you. But then again you can have as much difficult as you want with your Scots.

kal5056 wrote:Why did we migrate away from the mechanism where the INVADER (iniative player) had to choose the terrain listed by the DEFENDER (non-iniative player)?

Wouldn't this eliminate the GARRANTEE that a Steppe army plays in the Steppes?

Gino
SMAC

Assuming you are referring to DBM then it is because we moved from a system that determined strategic initiative (i.e. who invaded who) to one that determined tactical initiative (i.e. who got most influence on selecting the battle field)

In DBM the problem was that people picked armies with low aggression and no hills to get a terrain advantage.
In FoG the problem is that it means that it is too easy for high initiative armies to fight on home terrain which only really matters if the home terrain contains desert or steppe.

david53 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

johno wrote: if the terrain system is designed to have the feature distribution set out in the table, and there is a simple exploit which breaks that distribution, there is cause for concern, regardless of what sort of armies are perceived to benefit!

johno

I don't think its broken. It was designed. But people with a lot of medium foot think the table should be crowded with terrain.

I think medium foot armies should have extra terrian choices.

I don't think that is a justifiable mechanism - did they bring that gulley with them when they invaded? And it doesn't solve their problem on the steppe where there isn't any terrain to pick from as the side with the initiative will have picked all but one of them.

I think the fix for MF armies is a some small tweeks.
Reduce the ability of the side with tactical initiative to choose terrain in their home area.
Increase the minimum size of terrain pieces - say a small piece must be able to contain 10 40x40 "ambush markers", and a large one 20.
Remove the use of a road to reduce terrain - either it doesn't block placement of terrain, or it can't hog the edge.

sagji wrote: In FoG the problem is that it means that it is too easy for high initiative armies to fight on home terrain which only really matters if the home terrain contains desert or steppe.

From a baseline of assuming two identical armies, then it's random who has the initiative, and
personally I think choosing the territory, choosing and laying terrain first, and deploying second
far outweigh moving first. It was instructive seeing the lists for Roma as umpire that many of
what I considered the stronger players were using an IC. Yes, there are other benefits for an IC,
but the +2 at set-up is one of the major ones. Perhaps it would have been more balanced if the
player without initiative got first terrain pick (not territory type).


I'd also be curious to know the reasoning behind the 10+ and 24+ cavalry/LH bonuses for
initiative. I have the impression of a simplified version of the scouting/outscouting that used
to be in WRG 6th and before (maybe 7th too, never played it). First, the limits seems somewhat
arbitrary, but how important historically was the number of mounted in an army in taking
the "initiative"? If it's a simplified version of scouting, surely in hilly and even more so
woodlands, mountains and tropical, LF and maybe MF, ie your hillsmen or woodsmen, would
be just as important?

Regards,
Peter

peterrjohnston wrote: If it's a simplified version of scouting, surely in hilly and even more so
woodlands, mountains and tropical, LF and maybe MF, ie your hillsmen or woodsmen, would
be just as important?

That would be complexified, and would be more suitable for a campaign system. (In fact my computerised campaign system has just such an algorithm).

In FOG it would cause an infinite loop:

Use numbers of certain troop-types (cross-referenced to territory type) to determine the initiative, which in turn determines the territory type.

Hmm, shurely shome mishtake.

rbodleyscott wrote: In FOG it would cause an infinite loop:

Use numbers of certain troop-types (cross-referenced to territory type) to determine the initiative, which in turn determines the territory type.

Hmm, shurely shome mishtake.

Not really and arguably the same as now by loose association - how many LH/cavalry armies have mountain
territory types?

I would have thought it would be an easy rule to have that if either army has a territory type of hilly(maybe?),
mountains, woodlands or tropical, each LF or MF base counts towards the modifiers? (or as 1/2, I suspect you'd need
to tinker with the numbers). So only two potential modifiers, pre-calculated before.

After all, as your rules say , you are endeavouring to bring the enemy to battle in a place of your own choosing. Under
the current system, one would think only mountain dwellers are stupid enough to go down in the plains, whereas that
bright chap on a horse is far to clever to go up into the hills, cross that pass, and so on.

Anyway, this is all idle speculation.

peterrjohnston wrote: After all, as your rules say , you are endeavouring to bring the enemy to battle in a place of your own choosing. Under
the current system, one would think only mountain dwellers are stupid enough to go down in the plains, whereas that
bright chap on a horse is far to clever to go up into the hills, cross that pass, and so on.

Anyway, this is all idle speculation.

But the horsey blokes would wait until the mountain blokes came down off the mountain to get something to eat. Then catch him on the fertile plains

philqw78 wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote: After all, as your rules say , you are endeavouring to bring the enemy to battle in a place of your own choosing. Under
the current system, one would think only mountain dwellers are stupid enough to go down in the plains, whereas that
bright chap on a horse is far to clever to go up into the hills, cross that pass, and so on.

Anyway, this is all idle speculation.

But the horsey blokes would wait until the mountain blokes came down off the mountain to get something to eat. Then catch him on the fertile plains

Or Yorick the Yodeller would wait until Steppe Stepan wanted a bit of cheese to vary his rather boring
diet of grass, grass and grasshoppers

rbodleyscott wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote: If it's a simplified version of scouting, surely in hilly and even more so
woodlands, mountains and tropical, LF and maybe MF, ie your hillsmen or woodsmen, would
be just as important?

That would be complexified, and would be more suitable for a campaign system. (In fact my computerised campaign system has just such an algorithm).

In FOG it would cause an infinite loop:

Use numbers of certain troop-types (cross-referenced to territory type) to determine the initiative, which in turn determines the territory type.

Hmm, shurely shome mishtake.

In reality who chooses the battlefield depends on many factors, including political, strategic and logistical ones. The availability of mounted troops who can scout out potential battlefields over a large area, and do hit-and-run raiding on the enemy camp if they refuse battle, is just one factor. Commander skill is another. It so happens in FOG that these are the only ones explicitly modelled, the rest being accounted for by the dice roll. The influence of these two factors is (supposedly) taken into account in the point values of mounted troops and commanders.

The FOG terrain system is predicated on the observation that the vast majority of battles in the period took place in open ground with terrain playing little part. Historically armies evolved to make mounted troops their primary arm of decision when they could, or to maximise the effect of their infantry against mounted troops in the open. FOG achieves what it considers realistic open terrain by a number of mechanisms: choose steppe and select all the bad terrain as minimum size; place large open areas to block terrain; remove opponent terrain or move it out of the way. It seems that another mechanism has been discovered. Apparently the authors were made aware of it in play testing and decided to keep it in, so they clearly felt it did not push things too far in the open space direction.

In FOG a shooty LH/Cav army can give a mismatched game against a lot of opponents, which will usually be more frustrating for the opponent. A lot of players ascribe the frustration to the lack of terrain, but it IMO it is principally due to the abilities of shooty mounted troops, which can be effectively applied in nearly all terrain configurations. Indeed, the world champion exponents of shooty mounted have stated on many occasions that it is better to lose initiative than to win and it is disadvantageous to fight on a bare plain.

I think we should be focusing on dealing with the fundamentals of what makes shooty mounted armies frustrating, and not get side-tracked by issues of terrain and initiative.

peterrjohnston wrote: Or Yorick the Yodeller would wait until Steppe Stepan wanted a bit of cheese to vary his rather boring
diet of grass, grass and grasshoppers

Grasshoppers. Empires of the Dragon hasn't been printed yet.

"It has been said that the lance can never give way, but that a man can give way."

KCC

peterrjohnston wrote:
Or Yorick the Yodeller would wait until Steppe Stepan wanted a bit of cheese to vary his rather boring
diet of grass, grass and grasshoppers

I thought we had already established that if Steppe Stepan wanted a bit of cheese he could simply put a road and a river down.

lawrenceg wrote: I think we should be focusing on dealing with the fundamentals of what makes shooty mounted armies frustrating, and not get side-tracked by issues of terrain and initiative.

It might be seen as a step too far by some, but on reflection I'd fully back any proposed amendment that successfully legislated against the use of Dave Ruddock in competition.

lawrenceg wrote: I thought we had already established that if Steppe Stepan wanted a bit of cheese he could simply put a road and a river down.