SETUP and DEPLOYMENT

[terrys]

SETUP and DEPLOYMENT

Current Proposals (Sept. 2016)
NB. Rules remain as in V2 unless changed as below:

1) The player with the initiative selects the terrain from his opponents list.
2) The player with the initiative cannot hand it back to his opponent
3) A compulsory piece may not be chosen as 'Large'
4) Rivers are placed first. Roads are placed last.
5) All other pieces are placed alternately - including towns and open spaces - Starting with compulsory pieces. When one player has placed all his pieces, his opponent places the rest of his in any order. (Roll for placement and sliding as normal).
6(a) Any piece placed with a 5 or a 6 must be placed at least 8MU from a side edge OR ANY OTHER PIECE.
6(b) no more than 2 pieces may be placed on a 5 or a 6. These may both be placed by the same player or one from each. Open spaces and pieces removed entirely do not count towards the limit or 2.
7) Skirmishers may be deployed up to 18MU (increased from 15)

Who goes first?
There are 2 options at the moment:
A) Dice again after deployment, with the better quality commander getting a +1 .... Highest moves first.
B) The player without the initiative goes first.

We have quite polarised views on who goes first.
(A) forces you to deploy without knowing who goes first - Which some players don't like.
(B) is the same as V2 ..... But without the choice of handing the initiative over.
We'd like players to try (A) first - since that's the different rule. Let us know which you prefer?

[ChrisTofalos]

1) The player with the initiative selects the terrain from his opponents list.

Not quite sure of the reasoning behind this one. The proposal sounds like winning the initiative automatically makes you the invader, forcing you to choose from your opponent's terrain. But couldn't it also mean that a defender has lured the attacker into terrain of his choosing, e.g., Parthians v Romans?

As it stands I can't imagine Steppes getting picked very often - or am I missing something (highly possible!)?

Chris

[philqw78]

If I am Parthian and hand over he must chose steppe, I think

[terrys]

Not quite sure of the reasoning behind this one. The proposal sounds like winning the initiative automatically makes you the invader, forcing you to choose from your opponent's terrain. But couldn't it also mean that a defender has lured the attacker into terrain of his choosing, e.g., Parthians v Romans?

The problem at the moment is that when a foot army plays a mounted army that has steppe there is a 4-1 likelihood that they will play in steppe (assuming a 2 difference on initiative. This is a very boring game for the infantry army.
This option means that the player with the initiative would have to choose something like developed. This isn't as bad as it seems - since the only need to choose 1 open field as a compulsory and can then choose 2 pieces of open terrain. With the removal of the free large compulsory piece and a limit of 2 pieces in the center sectors, the table should still be quite open. However, there should still be some terrain for the foot army to hold.

As it stands I can't imagine Steppes getting picked very often - or am I missing something (highly possible!)?

Probably very true - except if 2 steppe armies oppose each other...... unless the mounted army only has Steppe in his terrain options AND he somehow manages to lose the initiative.

[philqw78]

As it stands I can't imagine Steppes getting picked very often - or am I missing something (highly possible!)?

Probably very true - except if 2 steppe armies oppose each other...... unless the mounted army only has Steppe in his terrain options AND he somehow manages to lose the initiative.

So its not hand initiative back in the words above. Players can't give it away any more?

You English is worse than Hall's
So:
Choose an army with low initiative and only mountain or hills. Urartian and others. How do Sea people get a home terrain?

I think terrain needs rethinking to be fair to both. This is cake and arse

[LEmpereur]

SETUP and DEPLOYMENT

1) The player with the initiative selects the terrain from his opponents list.
2) The player with the initiative cannot hand it back to his opponent

Who goes first?
There are 2 options at the moment:
A) Dice again after deployment, will the better quality commander getting a +1 .... Highest moves first.
B) The player without the initiative goes first.

We have quite polarised views on who goes first.
(A) forces you to deploy without knowing who goes first - Which some players don't like.
(B) is the same as V2 ..... But without the choice of handing the initiative over.
We'd like players to try (A) first - since that's the different rule. Let us know which you prefer?

1) This point and others about skirmishers with kill the steppes army.
2) Why not ? It was a really good idea in the V2... and how many times it was done ?

A) again a dice ?
For me this point is only the continuation of the previous phases of deployment ! Logically previous phases are played based on the fact that I moves first or not.
Risk : Player may deploy there BG in case there are defender... so it can slow the game by a deployment made to match an attack...

[ChrisTofalos]

I think terrain needs rethinking to be fair to both.

Very true. What's being proposed seems very complicated and artificial but the V2 system does need a major overhaul.

As I see it there's (a) way too much terrain and (b) it's placed far too randomly. As a result, players on the defensive have to flood the battlefield with terrain pieces in the hope of getting a position they have a chance of defending. That often leads to a table so full of terrain it would surely have deterred both sides in an historical engagement and, in our games, only results in delays whilst troops get into the right positions to attack (or defend).

The following are just tentative ideas to open up some sort of discussion:

What are the different types of engagements we should be trying to create a terrain system for? I can think of a couple:

(a) One side chooses (or is forced) to defend.

(b) An open battle where both sides advance towards each other.

Not much terrain is needed for (b) and with (a) the defender is likely to choose some sort of a position which gives him an advantage, so his side of the table is likely to be where the terrain pieces are. That said, if it's too good a position the attacker won't want to attack, so carte blanche for the defender with regard to terrain choice is not on.

So, the first thing that needs to be decided is, is there going to be a defender and, if the answer is yes, that has to be down to player choice and army compositions, not simply a random dice roll. Now, I'm not sure quite how you'd decide that but some sort of points system based on troop types available and player choice might work. Lots of mounted troops would be a minus factor and lots of foot a plus. The greater the difference, the more pieces of terrain that can be chosen. A player who then 'succeeds' in becoming the defender has to deploy first AND move second.

At this point I'll stop (don't all cheer at once!). I'm not a rule writer and wouldn't know how to achieve the above. The only thing I am reasonably sure of is the current system and proposed changes don't (or won't) work particularly well...

Chris

[Three]

SETUP and DEPLOYMENT

1) The player with the initiative selects the terrain from his opponents list.
2) The player with the initiative cannot hand it back to his opponent

Who goes first?
There are 2 options at the moment:
A) Dice again after deployment, with the better quality commander getting a +1 .... Highest moves first.
B) The player without the initiative goes first.

We have quite polarised views on who goes first.
(A) forces you to deploy without knowing who goes first - Which some players don't like.
(B) is the same as V2 ..... But without the choice of handing the initiative over.
We'd like players to try (A) first - since that's the different rule. Let us know which you prefer?

1) This point and others about skirmishers with kill the steppes army.
2) Why not ? It was a really good idea in the V2... and how many times it was done ?

A) again a dice ?
For me this point is only the continuation of the previous phases of deployment ! Logically previous phases are played based on the fact that I moves first or not.
Risk : Player may deploy there BG in case there are defender... so it can slow the game by a deployment made to match an attack...

Before starting to play FoG about 6 years ago, I hadn't played an Ancients game in over 35 years. I remember WRG 5th, might have played a couple of 6th, all in 25mm. I completely missed 7th and DBX in all its forms. My recollection of 5th and "draw a map deployment" is largely this, a huddle in the middle or towards one flank, and then ages spend moving to positions where you could actually fight. This might have been a local problem as I never played in competitions then (which were relatively rare to be fair, at least in my part of the country).

From what I have seen of competition games in FoG, deployment seems more important than in those days, and I am in complete agreement that there is a real risk of defensive deployments from both players in a "wait and see" way. Problem is I actually quite like the idea as outlined, and haven't really got much in the way of an alternative either.

[hazelbark]

I think another answer you really, really should consider is 5 foot wide tables. No 799 points gets you 5 foot tables. Just flat out make it 5 feet. OR even 60 inches and in a pinch 150 CM.

[terrys]

So, the first thing that needs to be decided is, is there going to be a defender and, if the answer is yes, that has to be down to player choice and army compositions, not simply a random dice roll.

Not entirely a random dice roll.
With +1 on the Initiative value (more cavalry and/or better CinC) gives you a 2:1 chance of keeping the initiative.
+2 on the initiative gives you a 4:1 likelihood.
+3 makes it 9:1
+4 makes it 30:1

The reasoning behind the proposal is:
1) When identifying when/where the battle will take place it's a combination of who has the more mobile army (and hence better scouting) and a better commander with a good eye for ground. As the attacker this would normally be in the enemies home terrain.
For example: Mongols NEVER fought battles in Steppe except against other Mongols or other steppe armies - so why should we force a Western European army to fight them there. It doesn't make sense for the mongols to decide "I've got the initiative, so I'm making you to find a defensive position in central asia".
NB. If you've actually tried the new deployment rules you'll see that fighting with mongols in developed, agricultural or even hilly isn't very much worse than Steppe.

2) When deciding who initiates the battle (moves first) it's purely down to who's commander is the most decisive once the battle lines have been drawn up.

The reason we originally went for Deploy first/move first was purely for balancing. i.e one player gained an advantage in deployment but this was compensated for by letting the other player move first. There is no historical, reason for this.
It does not make sense that the player about to move first placed all his generals with skirmishers so that they can double move first and pin back the enemy - after which they scuttle back to the battle troops. In dicing for who moves first we remove this unhistorical placement of generals as an issue. (although stopping skirmishers double moving helps here as well).

I can see the argument that when you know who is about to move first you might deploy differently because you then know that you can reach and occupy a good piece of terrain before your enemy. If we didn't have a dice roll we'd have to decide which player moves first:
a) The player with the initiative - More logical, but does give the player with the initiative ALL of the advantages and makes choosing an IC almost compulsory
b) The player without the initiative moves first - Less logical, but does at least balance the game better.

[terrys]

I think another answer you really, really should consider is 5 foot wide tables. No 799 points gets you 5 foot tables. Just flat out make it 5 feet. OR even 60 inches and in a pinch 150 CM.

This is really down to competition organisers. There are some comps that do this - Britcon usually has one of the periods on small table. (60"x40" I think).
I'm happy with this, but it does remove any likelihood of mounted armies winning the competition - unless we also go for less points, again down to competition organisers.
One of the aims of V3 is to keep all currently used armies viable, and a lot of players like mounted armies.

[berthier]

V2 limited the overall viability of mounted armies as a whole in our opinion. The additional changes to skirmishers in the V3 proposals look to have an even more significant impact on their viability. Until we see what changes to army lists will be forthcoming, I do not think we will know how harshly these changes will come into play.

[ChrisTofalos]

1) When identifying when/where the battle will take place it's a combination of who has the more mobile army (and hence better scouting) and a better commander with a good eye for ground. As the attacker this would normally be in the enemies home terrain.

I'm not sure that's entirely right. A previous post mentioned Parthians v Romans where e.g., at Carrhae, the Romans were the invaders but the Parthians certainly had better scouting. Under the proposal they won't be allowed to choose steppes, which is a severe disadvantage.

There doesn't seem a great deal in V3 that's going to improve mounted armies (except Byzantines?!) and virtually eliminating steppes from the game certainly isn't going to help them. Personally, I think there's far too much terrain around and the system does need a radical rethink. Defenders need the opportunity to occupy some sort of position that will give them a chance against mounted (or superior) opponents. Quite how you achieve that is another matter...

[terrys]

I'm not sure that's entirely right. A previous post mentioned Parthians v Romans where e.g., at Carrhae, the Romans were the invaders but the Parthians certainly had better scouting. Under the proposal they won't be allowed to choose steppes, which is a severe disadvantage.

Carrhae was certainly one of those foolhardy invasions into steppe by foot against a mounted opponents.
Crassus was advised to head south rather then east which would have taken him along the Euphrates through less open terrain (the Parthians having 'agricultural' in their list), but he decided to head east into Steppe instead. (His choice!)

With 4000 cavalry Crassus would probably have had +1 for his scouting, with the Parthians obviously having a +2.
With either commander being any of the 3 options (although it does seem that Crassus shouldn't be classified as an IC), the initiative dice modifications could easily have been equal.
(assume Crassus is an FC and Surenas a TC)
So we can assume that for this conflict crassus won the initiative roll - which wouldn't have been difficult.
Instead of heading South as advised - through agricultural, he headed East through Steppe.
Most wargames, as Romans, would choose the southern route - but the new system allows them to choose either, which is a good simulation of the situation.

[petedalby]

There doesn't seem a great deal in V3 that's going to improve mounted armies (except Byzantines?!) and virtually eliminating steppes from the game certainly isn't going to help them. Personally, I think there's far too much terrain around and the system does need a radical rethink. Defenders need the opportunity to occupy some sort of position that will give them a chance against mounted (or superior) opponents. Quite how you achieve that is another matter...

I must confess to being slightly confused. On the one hand you say there is little to improve mounted armies - and on the other that defenders need the opportunity to create a position to defend against mounted.

The current terrain system is totally variable. You can have an empty table or a table full of terrain, and everything in between - and this is influenced by the choices both players make. Other rules allow a defender to create an impregnable position which just results in a non-game. Steppes can sometimes end up with more terrain than Agricultural. Why does this need a radical re-think?

FWIW I think the current system works well but a few tweaks won't do it any major harm.

[Vespasian28]

I would agree with Pete that the system seems to work pretty well as is. I certainly don't seem to suffer from an over abundance of terrain,especially in the centre, and especially when I need it!

[awat]

A quick question about the proposed changes. You can only have two pieces in the central zone(a roll of 5 or 6 to place terrain). What happens if you already have these two pieces and you roll another pieece or two that should go either in your half or your opponents central section? Do you reroll the terrian placement roll until you get aresult of 1-4 or does the piece get discarded?

[petedalby]

Do you reroll the terrain placement roll until you get a result of 1-4 or does the piece get discarded?

As it stands the proposal is that the piece would be discarded. But if there is sufficient feedback from games that too many pieces are being discarded the proposed change could be amended to allow a re-roll until you roll a 1-4.

[philqw78]

If there's already maximum terrain in the centre a 5 becomes a 1 a 6 becomes a 2. Easy, wastes no time

[Three]

Do you reroll the terrain placement roll until you get a result of 1-4 or does the piece get discarded?

As it stands the proposal is that the piece would be discarded. But if there is sufficient feedback from games that too many pieces are being discarded the proposed change could be amended to allow a re-roll until you roll a 1-4.

Last week's game, played on Agricultural, had 4 pieces discarded (out of 8 ) that rolled 5 or 6, as two pieces already placed.

Last night's game, played on Agricultural, again with 8 pieces picked, had 1 piece discarded but no 5s or 6s thrown, so cluttered flanks but an open centre. Dice luck is a big factor in any system like this, but so far I prefer the proposed version to the V2 one.