Slitherine

Proposed Changes to Pre-Battle set-up and initiative.

I wrote this a while ago and rather than rewrite it I’ve put it up with the proposed changes first and the rational second.

The pre-battle initiative is determined as currently.

The dominant territory type is then determined as follows.

Firstly, the possible territory types available from both sides lists is calculated. Where a territory type exists in both players lists one is discarded (therefore each possible territory type can only occur once).
Once the list of possible terrain types has been determined the player who won the initiative may discard one terrain type of choice from the list. The dominant terrain type is now determined at random from the remaining territory types. This is done by sorting the remaining territory types alphabetically and then numbering them sequentially 1 to N (where N is the number of territory types available ie if these were agricultural, hilly and steppes then N would be 3). The player with the initiative then rolls a die to determine the dominant terrain type. Reroll if necessary until it is chosen.

Terrain choice and placement is as currently but the player with the initiative gets to re-roll any two of their terrain placement rolls (once only for each piece of terrain) if he so wishes (the re- rolled values must then be used).


Rationale:
The current system is too easy to bias towards certain armies. Territory type (as opposed to terrain) is more influenced by geo-political factors (ie who invades who and where) than by the ‘tactical factors’ such as certain troop types or even good army commanders. The current system is illogical and leads to odd situations – the most extreme being infantry armies invading steppe areas on a much higher basis than can be justified from history where as a general rule steppe armies fought non-steppe armies in their opponents terrain more often than the other way round (most of those probably being punitive expeditions).

The above system allows the player winning the initiative some influence on the battlefield setup but without allowing them to tailor it such an extent that the upcoming battle is a fait accompli.

Whether the above proposal gets up is moot but I have to say that losing the initiative and having to face a cavalry army on steppe terrain one game after another frankly frustrates me and honestly is a FUN killer.

I don't think it will make much difference to the potential "fun" to be had from fighting steppe armies with infantry. During my period as a flighty Hun, I often found it preferable to play with terrain than an open board when facing infantry and the reverse was true when I used infantry armies. A nice open table was the only reasonable chance I had of pushing LH/Cav off the board. Any terrain that slowed infantry provided enough of a delay to ensure salvation for the LH/Cav.

Like I said in another post, what I find fun about wargaming is actually fighting a battle, win or lose. Until players have no other choice but to fight it out those able to avoid it will do so if it makes sense. We can tinker all we want with deployment, terrain, how far LH evades and so on but at the end of the day I'm convinced the only thing that will provide the incentive to have a go are objectives. They wouldn't prevent steppe armies from using skirmishing tactics and manoeuvering to achieve those objectives but should they fail it would force cavalry armies to use cold steel as a last resort rather than settle for a draw. I realise objectives may be an artificial means to an end in ancients but on the plus side there isn't a single ruleset that uses victory conditions that I've played that isn't fun to play.

I think we need to move away from thinking the army that won initiative is the invader. Have a fair and neutral system that gives more chioce to the player who wins initiative. It would also remove a table from the book.

Each player takes turns to select 2 to 5 pieces (of any type) starting with the player who wins initiative. (Large areas count as 2 pieces and may not be placed first)

No more than 1 river, coast or village; no more than 2 impassable or roads; no more than 4 of any other may be chosen in total.

Take turns in placing terrain starting with player who won initiative

Placement dice the same as now.

Dice to move/remove terrain but add a another modifier of +1 if won initiative.

Dice Result
1,2 no change
3,4 up to 6 MU
5 up to 12 MU/Rotate
6 Remove
7+ Remove or move up to 12MU/rotate

Adding +1 if imapssable as before, but subtracting 1 if it is players first piece placed.

I think in general we should tone down the advantages to winning initiative a little bit. The above suggestions work.

A similar (but smaller) change that would give a similar (but smaller) effect would be to randomly determine which army's territory list the initiative player can select the terrain type fro: (eg 1-3 Choose from your own list of terrain types 4-6 choose from opponent's list of terrain types)

I completly agree that the current system is biassed to give an advantage to cavalry armys and is not historicall AT ALL. As an anecdote; every time that my illirians, face macedonias in particular, they come down from their hills and get slaugthered.

But the opposite can become dngerous to the game: letting the players set their own terrain and "status" as defenders of that terrain.

I am not in favor of a completly random terain set, also.

So a nice balance could be:

Let the players decide their status (attacker or defender)

A defender can place some terain in his deplyment zone, but he has to defend that terrain or he losses attrition points. Also he will have a small capacity to decide terrain place in the middle of the table and he WONT be allowed to influence the terrain in the enemy deployment zone.

An attacker does not influence the terrain in his deployment zone, but he can influence the terrain in the miidle (where the actual battle take place) and to some extent in the enemy deployment zone.

So a defender - defender situation would make random terrain in the middle and nobody gets an advantage, and eventually you will have to come down from your hill to win the game.
a Attacker - attacker situation would be decided by the cavalry and capacity of the general (but at least gives to the infantry armys the option to go defensive in their terms) but in case of equal armys the terrain in the middle would not be in great advantage for any of the players.
An attacker - defender situation would be interesting and a challenge, as the defender set his terrain, but has to defend it, and the attacker can set the terrain in the middle so as to get close to the enemy line unhindered.

I leave the idea in this point as there are many details to polish.

LambertSimnel wrote:A similar (but smaller) change that would give a similar (but smaller) effect would be to randomly determine which army's territory list the initiative player can select the terrain type fro: (eg 1-3 Choose from your own list of terrain types 4-6 choose from opponent's list of terrain types)

I think that's a great idea. Very simple and requires little change to current rules.

Ranimiro wrote:
A defender can place some terain in his deplyment zone, but he has to defend that terrain or he losses attrition points.

Any idea that gives both players something and somwhere to fight over gets my vote.