Balancing Terrain Selection

[sadista]

Pretty sure it has happened to us all, armed with a MF army and end up facing Cav and LH in Steppe.
To counter this I came up with an idea to balance this somewhat.

All lists have agricultural as a terrain option as well as the terrain options from their historical climate.
Terrain can only be selected if both armies have a common terrain type.

E.g. Army #1 Agricultural, Developed, Steppe
Army #2 Agricultural, Developed, Woodland, Hilly

If the two armies face each other the only terrain able to be used is Agricultural or Developed.

This would in fact benefit both armies and not give a big advantage to one only. Army 1 wont have to fight in Woodland and Army 2 wont have to fight in steppe.

[babyshark]

This idea would pretty much eliminate the more rare terrain possibilities, as a practical matter. Because of that, it would also likely change player's army selections, IMHO.

I should also say that I do not think the "MF army in steppe" issue s a big concern overall, but that may be just me personal experience.

Not sure this proposal is a good idea.

Marc

[DaiSho]

Dare I say it, but I think the idea of the 'attacker/invader' bought up by DBM is a reasonable one.

The one winning the initiative is the invader, and thus chooses from the defenders terrain options. This then brings about the problems of steppe nomads who end up invading Switzerland or Norway. Equally unrealistic.

It's one of the inevitable problems you're going to face when you play ahistorical opponents.

The thing that FoG gives that other systems don't seem to is the ability to out-roll your opponent even when they have an overwhelming intiative advantage.

If you take an all Medium foot TC army you can still out initiative a IC Cavalry army with an initiative of +4.

My suggestion for any Medium foot army in an open comp is to get an IC. With an IC and allies my Vikings have a +3. So I go into the steppes more often than not, but not often enough to be a bother.

Ian

[Polkovnik]

If you're going to take an MF army to an open comp, learn how to play it in the steppes against a cavalry army.

[DaiSho]

If you're going to take an MF army to an open comp, learn how to play it in the steppes against a cavalry army.

Well, the same could be said for a cavalry army in the mountains

Ian

[Polkovnik]

If you're going to take an MF army to an open comp, learn how to play it in the steppes against a cavalry army.

Well, the same could be said for a cavalry army in the mountains

Ian

Yes, of course it could. If you're using an army that is not balanced and has one main troop type, then you need to practice using it it against various different opponents and in various different terrains.

With a balanced army (heavy foot battle line, some medium foot to hold terrain, some mounted for reserves / manoeuvre) then you're more likely to get a reasonable match-up against most opponents. With a one-shot army you're going to get good match-ups and bad ones.

[DaiSho]

Well, the same could be said for a cavalry army in the mountains

Ian

Yes, of course it could. If you're using an army that is not balanced and has one main troop type, then you need to practice using it it against various different opponents and in various different terrains.

With a balanced army (heavy foot battle line, some medium foot to hold terrain, some mounted for reserves / manoeuvre) then you're more likely to get a reasonable match-up against most opponents. With a one-shot army you're going to get good match-ups and bad ones.

I think the trouble is where someone likes one sort of army for 'x' reason, but can't seem to play it in open comps. For example, I really love the Vikings. It's very one dimentional. I have to resort to using allies to have any kind of reasonable chance in open competition.

Now, yes, I could go with Romans or Alexandrian Imperial, but I like Vikings

So, you have your 'favourite' army shoved into something 'less than desirable' terrain wise.

I think it's worse when you take your favourite army (let's say Hoplite Greek) and use it in it's traditional terrain (Mountains or Hilly) but because you're up against an army who technologically and strategically are more advanced than you, you can't use your own terrain the way it was historically used.

This is a problem with open competition. I feel that themed competitions would be VASTLY superior, but we don't get many in Australia - mostly because we don't get many wargamers and distance is against us... so...

Ian

[hazelbark]

My Dailami feel just fine at home on the steppe.

In fact I have found that if the Dalami plays its game it is happy as a lamb on the steppe.

The first trick is (I think this is often true) never deploy in the center with both flank in the air.

You deploy from the center to one board edge.
Put your fastest mounted wing against the board edge.
Prepare to wheel so your outside board edge moves faster toward the enemy baseline and center.

You will find people are very surprised at how quickly this happens.

If the enemy decides to attack down the board edge, then your whole army pins them up against the side and you will have one big bloody fight and the shooty cav have to stand or leave the board.

If someone says, ah-ha my mounted get an extra POA in impact versus MF. Let them attack your center. You will quickly have overlaps and possibly flank attacks and even a minor reserve means that you plug the whole that may break and then overwhelm what strikes you.

So the shooty can army quickly decides to attack the end of your line in the center. It is the vulnerable point and your camp may be exposed. First it takes them some time to get real force there to threaten it. Two if they don't pin the rest of your army you can quickly reinforce.

Now the shooty army can likely fall back and deny a battle in most time limits, but then you can taunt the Shooty steppe player for having every advantage and running away.

Is it full proof, no. But it works amazingly well. In fact I think it works well enough that I use it for other armies that are going to be outmaneuvered.

[spikemesq]

Pretty sure it has happened to us all, armed with a MF army and end up facing Cav and LH in Steppe.
To counter this I came up with an idea to balance this somewhat.

All lists have agricultural as a terrain option as well as the terrain options from their historical climate.
Terrain can only be selected if both armies have a common terrain type.

E.g. Army #1 Agricultural, Developed, Steppe
Army #2 Agricultural, Developed, Woodland, Hilly

If the two armies face each other the only terrain able to be used is Agricultural or Developed.

This would in fact benefit both armies and not give a big advantage to one only. Army 1 wont have to fight in Woodland and Army 2 wont have to fight in steppe.

This is pretty dumb. It weights the bulk of games toward one or two terrain types. Those of us who remember the BUA/WW/Rd bowling alleys recognize this flavor of suck.

Work on playing outside of your wheelhouse. Mounted armies deal with it. So should Thracians.

Spike

[madaxeman]

A big part of the problem may well be that a one-dimensional Lh-rich army can get it's preferred 1-dimensional terrain a lot more easily than a 1-dimensional foot army can.

Having the current initiative rules, but with a MAXIMUM initiative score of +2 would be interesting as a way to partly fix this. Having a +1/2 for shed loads of MF as well as shed loads of L h would also be an idea....

[philqw78]

Having a +1/2 for shed loads of MF as well as shed loads of L h would also be an idea....

I don't think any foot should alter initiative. Marching towards their objective MF, HF and LF will move at the same speed, until they reach the battle field and go into battle mode. Cavalry and LH cost more points, I'm sure the points system took this into account.

And a lot of the guys I know using LH/Cav/Steppe armies don't take an IC, hoping that they don't get initiative and can have first move.

[stefoid]

I find this to be incredibly cheesy, given the table edges are an artifact.

alls fair in love and war, but I wonder if there is any way to make the 'edge of the world' table factor less abusable.

My Dailami feel just fine at home on the steppe.

In fact I have found that if the Dalami plays its game it is happy as a lamb on the steppe.

The first trick is (I think this is often true) never deploy in the center with both flank in the air.

You deploy from the center to one board edge.
Put your fastest mounted wing against the board edge.
Prepare to wheel so your outside board edge moves faster toward the enemy baseline and center.

You will find people are very surprised at how quickly this happens.

If the enemy decides to attack down the board edge, then your whole army pins them up against the side and you will have one big bloody fight and the shooty cav have to stand or leave the board.

If someone says, ah-ha my mounted get an extra POA in impact versus MF. Let them attack your center. You will quickly have overlaps and possibly flank attacks and even a minor reserve means that you plug the whole that may break and then overwhelm what strikes you.

So the shooty can army quickly decides to attack the end of your line in the center. It is the vulnerable point and your camp may be exposed. First it takes them some time to get real force there to threaten it. Two if they don't pin the rest of your army you can quickly reinforce.

Now the shooty army can likely fall back and deny a battle in most time limits, but then you can taunt the Shooty steppe player for having every advantage and running away.

Is it full proof, no. But it works amazingly well. In fact I think it works well enough that I use it for other armies that are going to be outmaneuvered.

[rbodleyscott]

I find this to be incredibly cheesy, given the table edges are an artifact.

alls fair in love and war, but I wonder if there is any way to make the 'edge of the world' table factor less abusable.

Flank march

-1 CT modifier for threatened flank

[rbodleyscott]

A big part of the problem may well be that a one-dimensional Lh-rich army can get it's preferred 1-dimensional terrain a lot more easily than a 1-dimensional foot army can.

Tim,

I know that you are looking at this from a tournament perspective, but from a historical point of view how many MF armies were "successful" historically? Compare that with the number of LH armies that were.

There is a school of thought that wargames rules should reflect reality and that historically successful armies should do best in the tournament rankings. Not one that everyone agrees with, I know. Some want a completely level playing field, however bizarre or historically ineffective the army. I would note, however, that the tournament success of obscure armies (and poor performance of historically successful armies, including Mongols) was one of the criticisms levelled at DBM, particularly 3.x which was the version that gave the most level playing field. I guess you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

I have lost count of the number of times it has been pointed out that LH armies don't need "1-dimensional terrain" anyway. Many of the more tournament successful ones don't even have Steppes in their terrain list.

Empires of the Dragon will see a lot of historically successful armies with their main infantry graded as MF. It will be interesting to see how effective or otherwise they will be in open competition. There are various factors that may make them more cavalry-proof than MF in other lists (notably mixed BGs with Heavy Weapon front rank, Bow or Crossbow rear rank), and they are very likely to sweep LH armies off the field in short order.

[DaiSho]

This is pretty dumb. It weights the bulk of games toward one or two terrain types. Those of us who remember the BUA/WW/Rd bowling alleys recognize this flavor of suck.

Work on playing outside of your wheelhouse. Mounted armies deal with it. So should Thracians.

Spike

Welll, don't mince words Spike... say what you really mean

Ian

[madaxeman]

A big part of the problem may well be that a one-dimensional Lh-rich army can get it's preferred 1-dimensional terrain a lot more easily than a 1-dimensional foot army can.

There is a school of thought that wargames rules should reflect reality and that historically successful armies should do best in the tournament rankings. Not one that everyone agrees with, I know. Some want a completely level playing field, however bizarre or historically ineffective the army. I would note, however, that the tournament success of obscure armies (and poor performance of historically successful armies, including Mongols) was one of the criticisms levelled at DBM, particularly 3.x which was the version that gave the most level playing field. I guess you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

I've no problem with this in principle (honest!). However I just feel that using a rather arbitrary terrain selection mechanic as the means by which armies like the Mongols get to be "better" in these rules is a rather blunt and inelegant solution that damages "playability" a little too much in pursuit of its objective.

[rbodleyscott]

I've no problem with this in principle (honest!). However I just feel that using a rather arbitrary terrain selection mechanic as the means by which armies like the Mongols get to be "better" in these rules is a rather blunt and inelegant solution that damages "playability" a little too much in pursuit of its objective.

There is no question of the terrain rules being designed as a blunt instrument to favour Mongols (et al). On the contrary, it is designed to reflect the sort of terrain seen in Ancient/Medieval pitched battles.

At the risk of repeating myself, Mongols don't need "an arbitrary terrain selection" to be effective. They are able to cope with pretty much any terrain selection. The same is not so true of MF-predominant armies, but that reflects history.

[stefoid]

I find this to be incredibly cheesy, given the table edges are an artifact.

alls fair in love and war, but I wonder if there is any way to make the 'edge of the world' table factor less abusable.

Flank march

-1 CT modifier for threatened flank

that modifier for being non-skirmishers near the tbale edge you mean? it applies equally to both sides, so its no deterrent. And a flank march against against overwhelming opposition (since the bulk of the wheeling players army is in that flank) is worse than a waste of time. The Wheeler can comfortably leave a detachment to deal with flank marchers since it is patently obvious which flank they are arriving on.

My take is that the table, which is an arbitary window through which to view the battle, is supposed to be centered around the action. You wouldnt want to watch a movie where all the characters only appeared agaisnt the left side of the screen, would you?

Im not sure exactly about what should be done to encourage that, but here are some ideas.

1) Some kind of unit count so you have to deploy, say, at least 1/3rd of you units in the centre.
2) Restrict initial deployment to , say, >= 16 inches from a table edge

????

[Ghaznavid]

A big part of the problem may well be that a one-dimensional Lh-rich army can get it's preferred 1-dimensional terrain a lot more easily than a 1-dimensional foot army can.

There is a school of thought that wargames rules should reflect reality and that historically successful armies should do best in the tournament rankings. Not one that everyone agrees with, I know. Some want a completely level playing field, however bizarre or historically ineffective the army. I would note, however, that the tournament success of obscure armies (and poor performance of historically successful armies, including Mongols) was one of the criticisms levelled at DBM, particularly 3.x which was the version that gave the most level playing field. I guess you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

I've no problem with this in principle (honest!). However I just feel that using a rather arbitrary terrain selection mechanic as the means by which armies like the Mongols get to be "better" in these rules is a rather blunt and inelegant solution that damages "playability" a little too much in pursuit of its objective.

I admit I've never played Mongols, but from my experience with other HA armies, the one thing I crave far more then steppe against most opponents is to move first. I'm not taking a IC with such armies any longer and if I use a FC it's certainly not the C-in-C. If the rules allowed to substract or add to the PB initiative at will ... then I would say the rules are skewed in favour of HA armies. Because then you could pretty reliably either get your favourite terrain or 1st move depending on the opposing army. As is you are facing the dilema of either getting the terrai you would like reliably or having a better (not even good) chance to move 1st. As stated before I've come to embrace the second more chancy solution, as in my opinion 1st move helps against far more armies then steppe.

[expendablecinc]

There is a school of thought that wargames rules should reflect reality and that historically successful armies should do best in the tournament rankings. Not one that everyone agrees with, I know. Some want a completely level playing field, however bizarre or historically ineffective the army. I would note, however, that the tournament success of obscure armies (and poor performance of historically successful armies, including Mongols) was one of the criticisms levelled at DBM, particularly 3.x which was the version that gave the most level playing field. I guess you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

I've no problem with this in principle (honest!). However I just feel that using a rather arbitrary terrain selection mechanic as the means by which armies like the Mongols get to be "better" in these rules is a rather blunt and inelegant solution that damages "playability" a little too much in pursuit of its objective.

I admit I've never played Mongols, but from my experience with other HA armies, the one thing I crave far more then steppe against most opponents is to move first. I'm not taking a IC with such armies any longer and if I use a FC it's certainly not the C-in-C. If the rules allowed to substract or add to the PB initiative at will ... then I would say the rules are skewed in favour of HA armies. Because then you could pretty reliably either get your favourite terrain or 1st move depending on the opposing army. As is you are facing the dilema of either getting the terrai you would like reliably or having a better (not even good) chance to move 1st. As stated before I've come to embrace the second more chancy solution, as in my opinion 1st move helps against far more armies then steppe.

I started out in Beta and early on taking ICs lots - mainly because I didnt haave enough figs for a full FoG army. Now, particularly when playing mobile mounted armies (Byzantines, Assyrians, parthians) that like open terrain I like having a TC and getting second move much better. particularly with parthians where you need the LH to race forward and give the cataphract some room to move before getting withint 6 inches.

anthony