Road Map Wish List

[Blathergut]

1. Less maps with water and rough/difficult ground in/across the centre of the field. A bit of rough going on the outer edges and streams to one side please.

2. Legions Triumphant.

[rbodleyscott]

1. Less maps with water and rough/difficult ground in/across the centre of the field.

I disagree. The real world has such terrain. Historical ancient/medieval battles did not generally take place in the terrain (although they quite often did - e.g. Agincourt, Bannockburn and many more), but the historical battlefield is not represented by the whole map, it is represented by the part of the map on which the battle actually takes place. On most (but not all) such maps there are clear areas in which the battle can take place - if both sides are willing to fight there. If one side takes to the hills and refuses to come out, that is also historical, and if the other side refuses to come in after them, then no battle will take place, which is also historical. In which case you must agree a draw and start again.

Why not?

In my view, the minor inconvenience of the occasional false start is a price worth paying for adding to the historical difficulties that PC generals must learn to deal with. At least you don't have to get all the figures out of the box and put them back again like you do on the TT.

[hidde]

I was thinking of make this a seperate thread but I belive it could fit here...
Namely the size of the maps. I agree with what rbodleyscott is saying but I also think the maps should be bigger to allow for such decisions.
I belive this is even more accentuated with IFR. I have only just started to play IFR but as I understand it those lists wil become bigger than most of earlier ones. I have built a 500p Thracian army that I will try and it contains 71 BG:s. The map for that size is 40 hexes wide.
Right now my Indian bow army is being mauled by Greek hoplites. There is no room to manouver and without it such an army has no chance(not in my hands, anyway).

[Gersen]

I just know I am going to get shot down on these, but I don't care ...

For Scenario Designers:

1. Fixed Units till a specified or variable turn, or enemy entering a specified area on the map.

2. Late entry of BGs onto the battlefield till a specified or variable turn, or enemy entering a specified area on the map.

3. Buildings terrain.

Major enhancements:

4. Sieges. Yup, castles, trebuchets etc.

5. Campaign mode.

[Blathergut]

Hey...it's just a wish list..can't get shot down for a wish.

Maybe the devs will see some little thing that gives them an idea they go with...who knows??

[gabeeg]

I just know I am going to get shot down on these, but I don't care ...

For Scenario Designers:

1. Fixed Units till a specified or variable turn, or enemy entering a specified area on the map.

2. Late entry of BGs onto the battlefield till a specified or variable turn, or enemy entering a specified area on the map.

3. Buildings terrain.

Major enhancements:

4. Sieges. Yup, castles, trebuchets etc.

5. Campaign mode.

I like all of them...but I need #3 right now. I am creating a medieval scenario and it has a hamlet in the map...I got nothing to work with...not even a hut...I ended up using a plantation tile (yuck)

[deadtorius]

Even the TT has built up areas, or buildings, I am surprised they didn't have them in the game by now. Perhaps its just a matter of how many different BUA's you would need to cover all the different historical periods covered by the rules. Its difficult going so anything other than lights wants to avoid it.

For a wish of mine, the ability for pursuers who have pursued routers and then contact fresh enemy to be able to fight them instead of being locked on the routers when your turn begins.
Pursuers of lights who hit an enemy in the rear it counts as a rear charge with the auto cohesion drop.
Some luckier virtual dice

[TheGrayMouser]

Im really looking forward to to sand terrain.... Ok, not that much, but it will certainly make camels usefull!

[Blathergut]

Has a camel ever been useful?

[mceochaidh]

As a veteran ancient and medieval miniatures gamer, I would like to see thought given to the following:

1) Tone down the variability of combat results. A level of chance is good to promote taking risk in games, but I think, from my rather limited experience, that chance plays too big a role.
2) It seems to me that true flank attacks are not as powerful as they should be, while rear attacks are devastating. Hitting a pike unit in flank, for example, was probably as decisive as a rear attack. To achieve this result, though, I believe that such charges should be straight forward, at least for a minimum number of hexes, and start behind the flank. It seems I can achieve a rear attack that includes turns, but perhaps I am wrong in this.
3) Allow commands that include a general to start off board and enter either on a flank or on the armies back line, based on some chance element. This has always been typical in miniatures games.
4) Allow units led by generals into combat to have some additional factor. Perhaps this is the case, but I could not find any additional combat factor for a BG led by a general. This would compensate for the risk of the general being KIA. Perhaps this could only apply to higher quality generals.
5) I think there is some justification for the double move rule as it is. I would prefer a rule which would allow BGs in command range to move one additional hex if heavy foot and two hexes for all others and have this at all times. I believe this would result in more careful positioning as battle lines close. Maintaining command control would become more inportant.

All for now!

[rbodleyscott]

4) Allow units led by generals into combat to have some additional factor.

They do already. Units with a general re-roll combat misses as if one quality level higher than they are. (Check out the predicted hits for two units of identical cavalry, one with a general and one without).

[TimW]

I agree with what rbodleyscott is saying but I also think the maps should be bigger to allow for such decisions.

Seconded. I've been having a great deal of fun trashing Scythian AI armies. Any points will do, 400-600+. Just pick a hoplite army (in fact, pick pretty much any IF infantry army) and very open terrain. Form a solid wall of close-combat infantry from map edge to map edge, without a single vacant hex. Then walk forwards spearing as you go. My best result so far is 68 - nil, with a casualty ratio of over 5 to 1 in the Greek's favour. It's not so much a battle as an exercise in herding horses

That kind of result between a horse-archer army and one consisting almost entirely of slow moving close-combat foot, fought on a billiard table with a few hills on it, strikes me as unlikely.

[Blathergut]

Well, as for terrain:

1. The maps are silly sometimes with huge chunks of stuff right across the middle. Usually it is made up of impassable stuff and gullies/steep hills/woods. I could see it to one side or to a lesser degree across the centre. Some of the fields I've had to fight with pikes or Romans on have been impossible. Screen shots are not needed; you've all seen them.

Or this leads to the "dancing." If that is enjoyable to you, then cool. Enjoy. It's just not my cup of tea.

2. As far as size, again, the maps allow for the "dancing." Again, if you like it, enjoy. The best games I've played though have been where we actually get into it (even if that meant I had to drive up a hill at poor pikes or better stuff).

So it all comes down to what you enjoy. I would just like to see a bit more of the other end of the spectrum so us "wallflowers" can enjoy too.

[TheGrayMouser]

I dont seem to recall you playing like a "wallflower" in any of our matches, more like Blathergut the Bold (or Rash)

My favorite map is what i call the "Bloodbowl" Imagine an oval inside the rectangle of the map edges, the area that would fill the gap between the rectangle and the oval is rising hills and rough terraign.. The center of the map , the majority, is basically open ground with the occasional hex of scrub or whatnot

I love this map as it is what i would expect most battle to take place on., ie two large armies basically finding a vally or open ground amidst the wilderness...

Unfortunalety, I only seem to get this map when playing with or against RoR Spanish or Granadine Armies

[deeter]

Here's my wish: As posted above, the range of casualties is too broad and not really tied to the quality of troops engaged. Most of have read the debate in the multi-page Chance of Dices thread which really altered nothing. I bring this back up because of a depressing increase in the use of horde tactics even among technical armies such as Romans and pike types.

I lost a game to ianiow who has resorted to hordes. He explained that the outcomes of combat are just too unpredictable to count on superior quality, so just take waves of cheap troops and keep throwing them in. Don't even waste points on leaders. The army with the highest AP total will win in the end. He's right of course, but the idea of fighting in a style that an army never used bugs me. The only real antidote is to do likewise. I can now field a 56 AP Seleucid army designed to beat Bosporans with a little success, but it looks and acts rediculous.

It comes back to the randomness of combat, I think. The POA/dice outcomes are fine and reasonably consistant. It's the second set of randomness to determine casualties that skews the results. This has been dismissed as an halucination, but many players new and old are still annoyed by it, and I think it's driving playing styles in ahistorical directions.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Deeter, are you saying you are losing to horde tactics because of the casualties? ie you are having units auto rout /lose effectivenes because of attrition alone? That seams historical if you are a heavy foot army getting hammered by a bow army (Carhae)

I find "horde" armies difficult not because of the casualty band but because your opponent can stretch them from one side of the map to the other so there is no flank, no weak spot to exploit and you do run the risk of getting swamped..... Late Jewish, Swiss etc can do this, but i have beaten them before , and now of course Early Greeks from the IF lists will increase the "horde" style armies
I guess its really nothing new, hordes have been around since the beginning!

Solution : 100*60 maps!

[omarquatar]

It comes back to the randomness of combat, I think. The POA/dice outcomes are fine and reasonably consistant. It's the second set of randomness to determine casualties that skews the results. This has been dismissed as an halucination, but many players new and old are still annoyed by it, and I think it's driving playing styles in ahistorical directions.

Deeter

count me, as for one, among those very much annoyed by it

[kujalar]

I wish terrain on hexsides. Like palisade wall for 6 direction, also streams, cliffs, fences, ditches, walls etc. so you could make a battle in front of an ancient town or make better looking fields , roads etc.

Then I wish the line of sight when playing with fog of war would be corrected with different height levels. Now you may make a grand canyon type depression and still you can see every hex of battlefield from the bottom of it.

[deeter]

Not auto routes per se, but superior types will get worn down eventually. I'm really talking about infantry hordes like Late Jewish and now increasingly, vast Roman armies with no leaders and up to 60 bp. Yes, I too have beaten many horde armies but more and more people are using them because they are effective.

One great thing about IF is that many of the armies were hordes so playing them seems historical. And there are a lot of lists that complemt each other, like all-cavalry types fighting each other, or the huge Greek armies that fill up the map.

Deeter

[Blathergut]

It would be nice (but a departure from the TT) if the ability to inflict casualty percentage was linked at least to a degree to troop type/quality. So LF have a chance of standing and holding (few casualties done to them, i.e., no dice hit) but they in turn, if they hit once, can't do 18% or such back.