Slitherine

This has been bugging me for a while. Why do you go second when you win the initiative? I would think going first would be a big advantage. I use double-move to seize hills and other nice spots immediately.

>initiative gives your choice of terrain...er...well...sort of anyway
>you do see your opponent's camp placement

In the TT version, it also allows you to place groups of BG down after your opponent places his, so you have a better chance of targetting specific troops.

Blathergut wrote:>initiative gives your choice of terrain...er...well...sort of anyway
>you do see your opponent's camp placement

In the TT version, it also allows you to place groups of BG down after your opponent places his, so you have a better chance of targetting specific troops.

Okay, but in the digital version I have to say its a disadvantage. I would rather lose initiative and be given the first turn, because then I will seize the heights and put my MF in rough terrain. Winning the initiative in this game means that you start off on the wrong foot, unless you chose a type of terrain that your opponent can't possibly fight in (and apparently its not certain you actually get your choice of terrain).

I'd agree.
The only advantage of getting the initiative is getting the terrain you want, and with the current terrain-selection process, even that's an iffy proposition.
There's the camp-advantage, but that's not much of one. Personally I could care less if my camp gets looted.
I'll defend it if it's convenient in my tactical situation, but otherwise the 4 BPs you lose are rarely game-deciding.

I'd like the initiative winner to either get the choice of moving first, or have some influence on the terrain.
Maybe being offered a choice of 10 maps and then picking whichever suits him best.
Would admittedly add another phase to the pre-game setup, but that's a fair price to pay IMO, especially seeing how easy it is passing game-turns through the server-system.

Lars

I think deployment is potentially the area of the game that could use the most improvement. Initiative/ map choice mean very little or very much and really is out of your hands. The maps in the dag also IMHO give advantage to larger "medium style" armies. This is because they can park on a corner and slide amonst terrain til the cows come home regardless if the map is open or not.. How many maps do you see with twisting convoluted contour lines of hills/ rough hills, or tree lines that bisect a map?

I know several players have indicated they would not want a feature that I have proposed before which is why it could be/ should be optional.. That is allow deployment like in the TT. The player that loses the initiative deploys 25 % of his army, then the winner etc etc until the winner places his last 25% and the game starts... Sure it would increase the time to "get it on" but I feel it would be worth it.

You could look at it this way:

By having the initiative, your opponent must move first. This means he, at least partly, must commit troops to a certain plan. You do have the chance to react to that if you place your key units centrally.

Blathergut wrote:You could look at it this way:

By having the initiative, your opponent must move first. This means he, at least partly, must commit troops to a certain plan. You do have the chance to react to that if you place your key units centrally.

Right . but often times the depth of the maps are such that the player that moves ist can beeline troopies to occupy positions(it matters not whether they are terrain features ) and then DENY double moves to his opponnent... The game never encourages players to deploy centrally but rather to make a giant clump in one corner of the map. You really cant force someone to commit when they do this, after all their entire army is a "reserve" You will be the one that ends up committing and likly defeated piecmeal....(uless yu want to dance around the map or just sit . I truly believe it is the blind deployments that are the root of the problem

One reason I never take inspired commanders is to minimize my chances at winning initiative. Moving first is far better allowing yo to position your army appropriately. Also the terrain selection process is so poor that I'm better off relying upon their algorithm for map selection. I don't feel the way they have ranked their maps from open to dense really make sense. I believe that any alternative system mustn't introduce any additional steps to the deployment process as a streamlined system makes the game more accessible but it really needs to be more involved. A temporary fit would be supplying the initiative loser with a number of battlefield choices (based upon historical terrain choices for their army) in a pop up menu and once the fied is selected they deploy their full army upon a randomly chosen side. The attacker then deploys his army with full view of the enemy force as viewed from any point behind their start line (thus if they have elevation they will be able to see behind the enemy front ranks).This would promote attempts to conceal units from initial view. The winner of initiative then starts play. I think allowing the defender to choose terrain but be left open to being out-deployed by the initiative winner would be a fair trade-off. Also the initiative winner has the opportunity of reaching positional advantage on central terrain first (thus possibly promoting choices of battlefield with open centers).

My two cents worth.

Steve

CheerfullyInsane wrote:The only advantage of getting the initiative is getting the terrain you want, and with the current terrain-selection process, even that's an iffy proposition.

Agree.

CheerfullyInsane wrote:There's the camp-advantage, but that's not much of one. Personally I could care less if my camp gets looted. I'll defend it if it's convenient in my tactical situation, but otherwise the 4 BPs you lose are rarely game-deciding.

Agree.

CheerfullyInsane wrote:I'd like the initiative winner to either get the choice of moving first, or have some influence on the terrain. Maybe being offered a choice of 10 maps and then picking whichever suits him best. Would admittedly add another phase to the pre-game setup, but that's a fair price to pay IMO, especially seeing how easy it is passing game-turns through the server-system.

Totally agree!

TheGrayMouser wrote:I think deployment is potentially the area of the game that could use the most improvement. Initiative/ map choice mean very little or very much and really is out of your hands.

I fully concur. Too many of the maps have features in really wierd places. You just wouldn't fight a battle on some of them!

TheGrayMouser wrote:I know several players have indicated they would not want a feature that I have proposed before which is why it could be/ should be optional.. That is allow deployment like in the TT. The player that loses the initiative deploys 25 % of his army, then the winner etc etc until the winner places his last 25% and the game starts... Sure it would increase the time to "get it on" but I feel it would be worth it.

I can take or leave this suggestion, if it's optional I have no problem with it. If mandatory it would be a drag versus players who make a move every few days, but against the guys that make a few moves a day then I see no real problem.

Blathergut wrote:By having the initiative, your opponent must move first. This means he, at least partly, must commit troops to a certain plan. You do have the chance to react to that if you place your key units centrally.

I generally prefer to act rather than react, so I don't see this as an advantage.

TheGrayMouser wrote:...but often times the depth of the maps are such that the player that moves 1st can beeline troopies to occupy positions(it matters not whether they are terrain features ) and then DENY double moves to his opponnent... .

This is the biggest problem with the current system.

pantherboy wrote:...the terrain selection process is so poor that I'm better off relying upon their algorithm for map selection. I don't feel the way they have ranked their maps from open to dense really make sense.

So true!

pantherboy wrote:A temporary fit would be supplying the initiative loser with a number of battlefield choices (based upon historical terrain choices for their army) in a pop up menu and once the fied is selected they deploy their full army upon a randomly chosen side. The attacker then deploys his army with full view of the enemy force as viewed from any point behind their start line (thus if they have elevation they will be able to see behind the enemy front ranks).This would promote attempts to conceal units from initial view. The winner of initiative then starts play. I think allowing the defender to choose terrain but be left open to being out-deployed by the initiative winner would be a fair trade-off. Also the initiative winner has the opportunity of reaching positional advantage on central terrain first (thus possibly promoting choices of battlefield with open centers).

Why temporary? It's a great suggestion and would mirrors my sense of perceived reality of history. The defenders would have (IMO) the biggest influence on where the battle was fought. They would have great local knowledge and have opportunity to prepare some surprises for the enemy, whether by installing some fortifications or hiding troops. The attacking army would most likely arrive second and thus set up their lines based on the results of seeing what the defenders have done. I'm also thinking that as 'attackers' they are likely to attack 1st while the defender defends and reacts.

One more thing....

I think the deployment phase should be tweaked to only allow units to be assigned to hexes in the central third or half of the map (Make maps wider if this doesn't leave too much space). This should stop, or at least minimise, the artificial use of map edge to guard a flank. If this was implemented, then some new maps should be designed that had a river, cliffs, or whatever, along one edge of the deployable part of the map to simulate those battles where a commander chose a battlefield with a feature that did protect his flank.

It will make more sense when you see Legions Triumphant.

iainmcneil wrote:It will make more sense when you see Legions Triumphant.

Oh, now you're teasing me! Will new features be available to all players or for only those with the LT pack?

Morbio wrote:

iainmcneil wrote:It will make more sense when you see Legions Triumphant.

Oh, now you're teasing me! Will new features be available to all players or for only those with the LT pack?

I know it hurts you that there are no Seluecids(or any other pikes for that matter) in LT but you should still get it

Another suggestion is the concept of an 'aggression level' (as I believe was used in DBA/DBM TT army lists). High aggression level armies would include Mongols, Alexander's Macedonians, Early Galatians etc, who tended to do their fighting in other peoples' countries. Low aggression states would be those who tended to be invaded rather than invade, such as Welsh, later Egyptians and so on. Low aggression armies could then have a better chance of choosing the terrain, since it's their home ground after all.
Initiative could be handled separately, (as the 'invader' could still be able to out-wit the defenders tactically) using some of the excellent suggestions mentioned above. I always find the 'invisible enemy' in the deployment phase ludicrous- surely all that light cavalry which gave you the initiative in the first place would at least have bothered to ride an extra few hundred yards to discover where the enemy actually was?
This of course, like some of the other suggestions, adds a bit of extra complexity to set-up, but for some of us the planning & deployment is the best bit of the game- before we have to watch all our plans go horribly wrong...