Slitherine

I think in 2.0 that the player winning PBI should HAVE to choose terrain from the other player's list choices.

There could be a couple of excetpions made when an army was known to fight in other places such as the Euro Crusaders could have Steppes in some era's.

Gino
SMAC

I think that the thinking was that the army with initiative chooses where the battle is, if two countries are at war then the battle can happen in either.

Doesn't allow for the countries in between, but that would just over complicate things.

kal5056 wrote:I think in 2.0 that the player winning PBI should HAVE to choose terrain from the other player's list choices.

There could be a couple of excetpions made when an army was known to fight in other places such as the Euro Crusaders could have Steppes in some era's.

Gino
SMAC

I don't.

There are at least three threads here where this appears anyway.

I think using either list is more realistic. A good commander (part of the init bonus) would do Alexander-y/Napoleon-y/Frederick-y things and maneuver strategically to make opponents fight him by cutting lines of communication, supply, threatening vital areas, etc. LH and Cav bases would yield more intelligence, maneuverability, and mobility to allow that same stategic initiative.

A poorly led army of foot can only choose the ground they fight on if they don't mind their opponent setting up directly to their rear and ready to charge!


I think FoG's initiative system is different in that regard from something like DBM's army aggression rating (IIRC - its been a looong time)... where certain armies were always the invader and so it made sense for them to be fighting outside their country against the more passive armies that only defended themselves against invasion.

Pre-battle initiative and which country they're fighting in are wholly different things. The player with initiative shouldn't be forced to play in the other players lands just as much as he shouldn't get to pick either or.

Obviously systems of aggression do not make any sense when your two armies are 1000 years apart and entire oceans away. However, ignoring that (which we must), aggression would be the main decider of which region the battle takes place in.


It is entirely possible for say, Alexander to attack Persia, and because he is an amazing general outmaneuver the Persian army, and fight the big battle in a part of Persia that he thinks gives him an advantage. Probably not a big flat open area where the Persian armies size can overwhelm his small elite force.


It is entirely impossible for Alexander to attack Persia, outmaneuver the Persian army, and end up fighting the big battle in Greece. That does not make any sense whatsoever, and the farther apart your two opponents are, the less sense it makes.


I am under the impression that pre-battle initiative represents the strategic maneuvering of a few days to a few weeks prior to the actual battle, not the actual choice of whether or not to go campaigning into enemy lands.

Of course, for two opponents whose lands are immediately right next to each other, these two things are probably very similar. However, two opponents whose lands are right next to each other probably have the same terrain options anyway.

philqw78 wrote:

kal5056 wrote:I think in 2.0 that the player winning PBI should HAVE to choose terrain from the other player's list choices.

There could be a couple of excetpions made when an army was known to fight in other places such as the Euro Crusaders could have Steppes in some era's.

Gino
SMAC

I don't.

There are at least three threads here where this appears anyway.

And is doesnt prevent list engineering.
People just switch to looking for mobile armies with limited terrain choices and structure thier list hoping to fail the PBI and still forcing thopponent to select disadvantageous terrain types despite winning initiative.

expendablecinc wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

kal5056 wrote:I think in 2.0 that the player winning PBI should HAVE to choose terrain from the other player's list choices.

There could be a couple of excetpions made when an army was known to fight in other places such as the Euro Crusaders could have Steppes in some era's.

Gino
SMAC

I don't.

There are at least three threads here where this appears anyway.

And is doesnt prevent list engineering.
People just switch to looking for mobile armies with limited terrain choices and structure thier list hoping to fail the PBI and still forcing thopponent to select disadvantageous terrain types despite winning initiative.

Yes. Pick an army that only has steppe terrain.