Terrain Placement- Not completly happy with mechanic?

[spike]

Is anyone else happy with how Appendix 4 works, as I still unconvinced after 8 games + others I have seen. For me its the terrain placing die sequence, which seems to should one player wish it to be so, it can and does still leave a very open table even after the amendments to reduce the availability of open areas.

As an alternative can I suggest the following:

Instead of each player rolling one die one after each other, the appropriate player rolls take the sum of 2 dice on the following table (or something similar). All items are rolled for inc roads river and coasts, the linear items are then placed .

2 & 3- Item placed by other player but in opponents 1\2 more than 8" from any edge.
4- Item placed by other player in own 1/2 more than 8" from table edge.
5- Item placed by other player in opponents 1/2 within 4" of any edge.
6- Item placed by other player in own 1/2 within 4" of any edge, (waterway or river discarded).
7- Item discarded- if compulsory re-roll.
8- Item placed by selecting player in own 1/2 within 4" of any edge, (waterway or river discarded).
9- Item placed by selecting player in opponents 1/2 within 4" of any edge.
10- Item placed by selecting player in own 1/2 more than 8" from table edge.
11 & 12- Item placed by selecting player but in opponents 1\2 more than 8" from any edge.

I have simulated it a few times on 3 basis
Both wish open field,
One player wants open, other more terrain in centre,
Both want terrain.

I have compared the system in App 4 vs The above & it is less easy for a player wanting a more open battlefield to force his way and have no significant terrain items, against someone who feels his troops need terrain (unless its steppe), this should make medium foot armies feel more comfortable, with the table vs those with lots of mounted.
I would also introduce, a rule such no more than 1/2 the players voulntary selections may be of the same type.

[malekithau]

Personally I think there is too much terrain in ancient wargames. This is usually because we want more of a tactical challenge which terrain seems to give and as it helps armies that historically didn't do that well but due to the way rules are written do better on a wargames table.

I am fine with the terrain rules as written. Perhaps your terrain pieces should be larger ie at the top end of the range?

John

[spike]

Personally I think there is too much terrain in ancient wargames. This is usually because we want more of a tactical challenge which terrain seems to give and as it helps armies that historically didn't do that well but due to the way rules are written do better on a wargames table.

I am fine with the terrain rules as written. Perhaps your terrain pieces should be larger ie at the top end of the range?

John

As a "game" you may be right, but history is full of battles which had or was effected by local terrain- hHistoiry is full of battles near rivers (Hydaspes), Lakes (Lake Trasimene), defending mountain passes (Themopylae), or funneling your opponent into gaps in heavy woodland (Teutoberger Forrest), as well as the ubiquitous defensive position on a hill (Senlac). The rules are there to represent history, and landacapes usualy have features, there not flat open land of rolling low hills, unless its the steppe's.

Armies usually reflect their home terrain, or particular tactics and will probably fight best when these are reflected.

The game should therefore reflect this, I therfore looking to see if the terrain placement system for "random" games can give a player with a defensive army that chance if it can choose the ground on which it fights, without their opponent shifting the terrain to leave what can only be discribed as a featureless billiard table (which has happened more than once in games I have played in, dispite mine or my opponents best efforts to put some terrain down).

[petedalby]

I think the revised system works very well - it's random and does not allow either player to create an ideal position.

In our games there's usually plenty of terrain on the board - the reduction in the number of Open Spaces was a good change.

Pete

[thefrenchjester]

hI ?
totally agreed Pete's message , in all terrain placements tried ( solo tried , above you will understand why I have tried it )
Ididn't find an ideal position to defend or to attack an area without any chance to the opponent army to try something on the board;
not a real problem after all my future Samnite army was historically able to fight in the open and I'll try to recreate that on FOG

thefrenchjester " a view from the hill "