Slitherine

I would be interested in hearing/reading more about terrain in the game.

1) How is the set up done?

2) One of the weaknesses in the DBM 3.1 is too much cloggin the center.

3) One of the weaknesses in many games is the billiard table effect. Personally I think battlefields were far more crowded with terrain that had an impact. Most rules try and simplify this and say the die rolls take care of undulations and small scrbus. But if the game system allowed a lighter imapct you could have a far more interesting tactical challenge.

So tell me more about terrain.

Without going tino details....

1. The system allows both sides to choose terrain pieces

2. Both sides place terrain and the other side has a dice roll to move it or remove it

3. Terrain has a 1 in3 chance of starting on the long edges, short edges, or away from an edge

4. Terrain choice is driven by the territory type in which you fight

5. An army with good initiative due to strong generals has a greater chance of choosing the territory (so influencing where a battel is fought).

Seems to give lots of variety of terrain in practice and a nice mix of dense and even. One of the areas testers have been most complimentary about.

Si

shall wrote:Without going tino details....

1. The system allows both sides to choose terrain pieces

2. Both sides place terrain and the other side has a dice roll to move it or remove it

3. Terrain has a 1 in3 chance of starting on the long edges, short edges, or away from an edge

4. Terrain choice is driven by the territory type in which you fight

5. An army with good initiative due to strong generals has a greater chance of choosing the territory (so influencing where a battel is fought).

Seems to give lots of variety of terrain in practice and a nice mix of dense and even. One of the areas testers have been most complimentary about.

Si

How are Strong Generals determined? Is it within the armylist or extra Points to pay to make a General from Average to Strong?



Cheers,
Jer

whitehorses wrote:

shall wrote:5. An army with good initiative due to strong generals has a greater chance of choosing the territory (so influencing where a battle is fought).

How are Strong Generals determined? Is it within the armylist or extra Points to pay to make a General from Average to Strong?

Generals come in three flavours:

Troop commanders (TC) - able to effectively lead a small number of battlegroups and unable to influence where a battle is fought.
Field commanders (FC) - your normal main general for an army, these can manage a good number of BG's and give a small benefit when selecting battle.
Inspired commanders (IC) - Hanibal, Alexander or some other such great leader. Able to affect most of an army, provide significantly more benefits in battle than the other types of general and give a bigger benefit when selecting the location of a battle.

Generals are bought as part of an army list, better generals cost more points.

The location of battle die roll is also affected by the amount of cavalry and light horse in your army.

Hammy

hammy wrote:Generals come in three flavours:

Troop commanders (TC) - able to effectively lead a small number of battlegroups and unable to influence where a battle is fought.
Field commanders (FC) - your normal main general for an army, these can manage a good number of BG's and give a small benefit when selecting battle.
Inspired commanders (IC) - Hanibal, Alexander or some other such great leader. Able to affect most of an army, provide significantly more benefits in battle than the other types of general and give a bigger benefit when selecting the location of a battle.

This has me a little confused. In looking at the sample army lists, it appears that the Macedonians can have 1 Inspired Commander (if it is Alexander), 2-4 Field Commanders (sub generals, or C-in-Cs other than Alex?), and 0-2 Troop Commanders ('wing' commanders?).

What happens if Philip is commanding the army? Would he then be one of the 2-4 FCs, with Alex an IC under him, and leading one of the army wings? How can there be more than one "normal main general for an army?" Please be assured that I am not trying to cause trouble, just attempting to wrap my head around how the command structure works in the rules and army lists.

Many thanks,
Scott K.

ars_belli wrote:This has me a little confused. In looking at the sample army lists, it appears that the Macedonians can have 1 Inspired Commander (if it is Alexander), 2-4 Field Commanders (sub generals, or C-in-Cs other than Alex?), and 0-2 Troop Commanders ('wing' commanders?).

The sample army list is out of date.

The current version has the generals listed in the form:

C-in-C: IC/FC/TC 1
SGs: FC 0-2, TC 0-3

In addition:

- The maximum total number of generals in any army is 4.
- If Alexander is the C-in-C he must be an IC. (Thus if Philip is the C-in-C, Alexander will be serving his apprenticeship as an FC or even TC).

Ahhh.... that makes much more sense!

Many thanks,
Scott K.

shall wrote:Without going tino details....

1. The system allows both sides to choose terrain pieces

2. Both sides place terrain and the other side has a dice roll to move it or remove it

3. Terrain has a 1 in3 chance of starting on the long edges, short edges, or away from an edge

4. Terrain choice is driven by the territory type in which you fight

5. An army with good initiative due to strong generals has a greater chance of choosing the territory (so influencing where a battel is fought).

Seems to give lots of variety of terrain in practice and a nice mix of dense and even. One of the areas testers have been most complimentary about.

Si

Is terrain separated in Good, Rough & Difficult as in DBM? And are Heavy Foot & Horse affected by going through said terrain?



Cheers,
Jer

whitehorses wrote:Is terrain separated in Good, Rough & Difficult as in DBM? And are Heavy Foot & Horse affected by going through said terrain?

No and yes,

There are more types of terrain, different types of terrain affect different troops in different ways. There is also impassble terrain which has no equivalent in DBM.

Hammy

hazelbark wrote:3) One of the weaknesses in many games is the billiard table effect. Personally I think battlefields were far more crowded with terrain that had an impact. Most rules try and simplify this and say the die rolls take care of undulations and small scrbus. But if the game system allowed a lighter imapct you could have a far more interesting tactical challenge.

Historically most battles did take place on the topographical equivalent of a billiard table. The troops where for the most part not equipped to fight in anything but the open so why fight where they were less effective? The majority of ancient battles appear to have been fought on open fields in fact the commanders sought these areas out for battles. Ancients games should be mostly open depending on where the battle is taking place, who initiated the battle and the respective skills of the sides. IE an army of peltats types would prefer to meet Spartans in hills, rough terrain then in the open and if the commander is able to he will force a battle in those conditions. The Spartans on the other hand would want to meet any opponent on the billiard table.

I'm happier with a relatively open table as that is more realistic where as most wargames rules seem to want to have more terrain the would seem appropriate.

Just my 2 cents
John

I too am happy with most games being on a billiard table. most rules do not give a good game if one side depends on rough terrain troops. Is AoW the exception?

Of course, that said, a little terrain is fun and gives good tactical possibilities.

malekithau wrote:

hazelbark wrote:3) One of the weaknesses in many games is the billiard table effect. Personally I think battlefields were far more crowded with terrain that had an impact. Most rules try and simplify this and say the die rolls take care of undulations and small scrbus. But if the game system allowed a lighter imapct you could have a far more interesting tactical challenge.

Historically most battles did take place on the topographical equivalent of a billiard table. The troops where for the most part not equipped to fight in anything but the open so why fight where they were less effective? The majority of ancient battles appear to have been fought on open fields in fact the commanders sought these areas out for battles. Ancients games should be mostly open depending on where the battle is taking place, who initiated the battle and the respective skills of the sides. IE an army of peltats types would prefer to meet Spartans in hills, rough terrain then in the open and if the commander is able to he will force a battle in those conditions. The Spartans on the other hand would want to meet any opponent on the billiard table.

I'm happier with a relatively open table as that is more realistic where as most wargames rules seem to want to have more terrain the would seem appropriate.

As you can see from my initial comments, I disagree. Not only that I strongly disagree. History I am convinced backs me up. Terrain has always mattered significantly. Agincourt -- bounds by forests and some have argued had a ridge that mattered. Bannockburn, the Scots were on a rise, and the english pushed through a boggy area. The Romans frequently occupied hills versus Gauls. Cynoccepylae -- significnat awkaward ridge between the armies. Muslim battles dry wadis abound. In fact it is hard to find a battle that was bare.

Variety being the spice of life..

The rules have a mechanism for armies who want a billiard table to strive toreards this and for thoise wanting a series of passes to put 300 spartans in to strive for this instead etc. But there are no guarantees so you may be brought to battle on a field that you find rather unpleasant or otherwise. Having and IC raises the odds of getting the teritory you fancy.

Thus far the terrain system has generated up with much priase for its variety and effectiveness. It seems to handle both views pretty well.

Si

Some battles certainly did have terrain, sometimes a lot of. However, I would suggest that for the vast majority the ground was basically open and fairly flat for where the majority of the action took place. It is easy to create a list of the eceptions from a period covering 4500 years but this, IMO, distorts the reality.

Additionally we must remember that the bits we reprsent as flat and open does have featues but these are considered to be minor and abstracted away into the luck of the dice in combat.

However, it is worth pointing out that, at least in 15mm, armies don't necessarily fill the table from one side to the other.

Hence the actual battle takes place where the troops meet, which may be only part of the table. This is the terrain that would be reported in a historical battle account, not the terrain on the whole table.

Hence it is reasonable to have a fair amount terrain on a table. If the battle ends up only taking place in the open part of the table, this is entirely historical and is what would be reported in a historical battle account.

As the terrain on the rest of the table is not involved in the actual clash of the armies, it would probably not be mentioned in a historical account.

In 25mm (on the same sized table) the situation is rather different. The terrain on the table probably does represent the "historical" battlefield.

I'd also just comment that terrain in a typical "equal points" game is there to facilitate a good game and is not influenced by all the strategic factors that the real battlefields were a result of. This is why wargames rules do not in general allow features such as the hills at Kynoskephalae.

Will there be option to place a waterway (or whatever terminology you wish to use) along one table edge?

Regrads
Ridd

In my opinion there should be

Anyone able to answer on the Waterway yet please? I'd hate it to go to the boot sale

Ridd

riddcowler wrote:Will there be option to place a waterway (or whatever terminology you wish to use) along one table edge?

Regrads
Ridd

Yes. But it can only be 6" wide. So you can put the rest of it in the car boot sale. (Unless you are willing to wait for the Campaign Supplement which may allow it to be wider to accommodate shipping).