Slitherine

Well I tried my Later Jewish against Lance's Serbs last night, fielding 8 BGs of 8 LF, javs, slings & bows.

The game started well when I gained the initiative and opted to fight in Hilly. Unfortunately 3 of my 5 terrain pieces were removed when Lance threw 3 'sixes' in a row. The only terrain feature which played a part in the game was my large compulsory steep hill which was in the middle of the Serb's deployment area. The rest were on the edges and played no meaningful part in the game.

This meant my army had very few options and despite beating everything on the hill I had no answer to the knights.

It wasn't a great match up of armies and although we had plenty of turns it was always going to end in a defeat for the Jews. We were both left reflecting on some of the extreme results we seemed to have.

6 shooting dice on evens failed to score a single hit on a 4 BG of LH. The unscathed LH charged across the 4 MU gap, throwing a six whilst my evaders threw a 1. Exit one unit of LF.

On another occasion the same 4 LH had 2 shooting dice against a 6 BG of MF accompanied by a General. They disrupted at the first shot and went Fragmented on the second. I'd missed the fact that I had a threatened flank as I was within 6 MU of my own base line? The glossary is clear that it is any table edge. But is that right?

A 4 BG of Knights charged a 6 BG of MF, both had generals attached. Both were on evens - the knights registered 5 hits, the MF just 1.

It obviously wasn't meant to be my night! This wasn't the first time that we'd experienced such extremes - I wonder if others have too?

In DBR 6 :1 's are deadly but normally you only lose 1 element. The effect seems more magnified in FoG.

I'll try the Jews in a different version but without any terrain? Maybe not.

Pete

In DBR 6 :1 's are deadly but normally you only lose 1 element. The effect seems more magnified in FoG.

I'll try the Jews in a different version but without any terrain? Maybe not.

AH delafted by battle fatigue it seems to me

In DBM a 6-1 can lose you the whole game quite easily whereas here is can lose you 1 BG and there is usually room to revocer due to the prusuit rules. I once lost my whole ar y to a 6-1 LH charging my c-in-c KN(S) general - comman went down, portuguese ally swapped sides....how they laughed!!

And I have to say I don't think a Jewish army of LF with unsuitable terrain is one you can expect to survive much in any rules - LF in FOG need to be used as LF in reality. They are not going to win any head to head punch ups, and nor should they.


A gallant try my good man but you really depended on terrain so the real freaky results was the 3 6s for terrain - rather like the odd dust storm or strong wind in DBM - but less common. We want these as they add colour and fun t the game - but need to make them not too common and partly dirven by choices. Your choice of army left you vulnerable to it and it happened an a 1 in a couple fo hundred chance. Surely that's half the fun ina comp - trying not to get hammered when that happens.

Si

petedalby wrote: I'd missed the fact that I had a threatened flank as I was within 6 MU of my own base line? The glossary is clear that it is any table edge. But is that right?

Yes, it is intended to discourage players from trying to use the rear table edge to secure their flank.

Yes quite deliberate - that's the end of corner and table edge sitting!!!

Si

Si & Richard

I made some comments on terrain placement some time ago which no one was interested in discussing these issues. The simple facts are that if one player can force an absence of defendable terrain on their opponent in areas which count for sucess or failure , and that this make certain nations unplayable in any competition.
I agree that it could swing too far in the other direction so a workable terrain placement needs to be looked at. Unfortunatly we are now probably too late in the day to test any changes.

Spike

It remains to be seen whether (on balance) the present terrain system leads to excessively open battlefields.

All I can say is that when I want an open battlefield I am rarely able to get one.

With the reduction of open terrain pieces to no more than 2 in all but Steppe territory, my experience is that they rarely have any impact on enemy terrain placement.

If your opponent throws 6's for all your terrain pieces then you are out of luck - but that is luck and is not the norm.

Apart from steppe, most territories have 2 compulsory "bad" terrain pieces and you can place 4 more.

If these 6 pieces all end up round the edges or taken off, you are indeed unlucky.

However, neither do we want players to often be able to create terrain fortresses - this would be equally unfair on cavalry armies, and does not make for good games.

Yes quite deliberate - that's the end of corner and table edge sitting!!!

I can understand the rationale - but if my opponent hugs the base line - when I go to attack him I get the minus one when I get within 6 MU too!!

Pete

Yes quite deliberate - that's the end of corner and table edge sitting!!!

I can understand the rationale - but if my opponent hugs the base line - when I go to attack him I get the minus one when I get within 6 MU too!!

Pete

Yes but then you have the initiative so can set up winning match-ups. The -1 only matters if you lose!!

When people corner sit what you find is that you start winning by getting better match ups but you don't have the time tog et through them in DBM.

The -1 above changes that balance radically.

Give it a try against anyone who can manouvre troops and you will see what I mean -it is basically a results accelerator that compensates for you having to take time to walk across the table.

Si

Posted: 29 Jun 2007 15:13
Si & Richard

I made some comments on terrain placement some time ago which no one was interested in discussing these issues. The simple facts are that if one player can force an absence of defendable terrain on their opponent in areas which count for sucess or failure , and that this make certain nations unplayable in any competition.
I agree that it could swing too far in the other direction so a workable terrain placement needs to be looked at. Unfortunatly we are now probably too late in the day to test any changes.

Spike



It remains to be seen whether (on balance) the present terrain system leads to excessively open battlefields.

All I can say is that when I want an open battlefield I am rarely able to get one.

With the reduction of open terrain pieces to no more than 2 in all but Steppe territory, my experience is that they rarely have any impact on enemy terrain placement.

We have changed it a fair bit since Pete in fact - as response above. Seems to be better all round balance now.

Si

We have changed it a fair bit since Pete in fact - as response above. Seems to be better all round balance now.

I quite agree. I'm very happy with the terrain system. It's very random and although I lost 3 pieces in the last game that must be extreme.

If there's one change I'd like to see it would be to make the '6+' - slide up to 12 MU OR remove entirely. If I'm looking for more terrain on the board, currently a '6' is not a good adjustment roll for me.

The bigger test will be say Tartars with an IC - +4 on initiative and lots of open spaces. I'm keen to hear how they get on at Roll Call.

Pete