Slitherine

Had a chance for a quick read of the V2 PDF and in general I'm impressed with the changes and improvement in clarity/organisation. Well done Richard and Brett.

One area I was a little concerned about was the deployment system at the end. I was disappointed to see the original attack/defend system had been pretty much kept in its entirety for the "standard" game. I have always felt it significantly advantages the attacker. This problem is compounded by the use of army initiative scores which ie hand some armies a free advantage and make no sense in non-historical matches anyway.

I also feel the system we were testing with a set of 6 or so standard scenarios was superior to the dice and select system which I think is both a little complicated and will tend to only result in the same options been taken again and again (in general the attacking ones) unless your opponent is lucky enough to block them. I assume Strongpoint is supposed to be an advantage to the defender but why would a defender want to send units on what is essentially a suicide mission outside of his deployment zone, unsupported until deployment restrictions are lifted?

I don't understand why the hidden deployment rules only cover units behind hills/crestlines. What about units in woods, orchards, etc.

Step A on p54 refers to the "Invader" going first. What does this mean?

I think we should instead add to/refine the 5 scenarios we were testing, that showed real promise. I will give the system in the PDF another go (it is very similar to one I tried in one of my earlier test games) to see if I am missing something.

Martin

Had a chance for a quick read of the V2 PDF and in general I'm impressed with the changes and improvement in clarity/organisation. Well done Richard and Brett.

Thanks Marty

Had a chance for a quick read of the V2 PDF and in general I'm impressed with the changes and improvement in clarity/organisation. Well done Richard and Brett.

One area I was a little concerned about was the deployment system at the end. I was disappointed to see the original attack/defend system had been pretty much kept in its entirety for the "standard" game. I have always felt it significantly advantages the attacker. This problem is compounded by the use of army initiative scores which ie hand some armies a free advantage and make no sense in non-historical matches anyway.

I also feel the system we were testing with a set of 6 or so standard scenarios was superior to the dice and select system which I think is both a little complicated and will tend to only result in the same options been taken again and again (in general the attacking ones) unless your opponent is lucky enough to block them. I assume Strongpoint is supposed to be an advantage to the defender but why would a defender want to send units on what is essentially a suicide mission outside of his deployment zone, unsupported until deployment restrictions are lifted?

I don't understand why the hidden deployment rules only cover units behind hills/crestlines. What about units in woods, orchards, etc.

Step A on p54 refers to the "Invader" going first. What does this mean?

I think we should instead add to/refine the 5 scenarios we were testing, that showed real promise. I will give the system in the PDF another go (it is very similar to one I tried in one of my earlier test games) to see if I am missing something.

Martin

Marty the set up scenarios system we are going with was mostly designed by Brett and refined in playtesting by the Kiwis. My first reaction was the same as yours but without trying it. However, on using it, they throw up some really interesting games and challenges for the players to consider. People definitely don't all default to the same option. This can depend on a combination of your personality and army choice. But rather than try selling it to you, I urge you to give it a try over a few games and see what you think.

Strongpoints again can be surprisingly effective in pushing back the attacker's deployment zone, and has a tendency to suck in troops with the new buildings rules. Again, give it a try.

Maybe there is an opportunity to consider troops in terrain as hidden as well.

On keeping the original set up rules, that's an option for the many people who didn't mind it, but we are dropping the army initiative score. The Attacker is simply your CinC quality plus a dice roll.

I was disappointed to see the original attack/defend system had been pretty much kept in its entirety for the "standard" game.

Agreed the existing v1 setup has become a little stale. We've left it as an option for now but this is mainly to provide an alternative for any players who don't like the scenarios setup system. Testing in Auckland so far seems to be resulting in a general thumbs up for the scenario system. If this feedback becomes mirrored by others, then we may be able to delete the existing attack/defence option.

I think is both a little complicated and will tend to only result in the same options been taken again and again (in general the attacking ones)

We've run maybe 30 test games in Auckland so far and have not found this. Some players like particular options but as Richard mentions this tends to reflect their play style. Certainly the attacking options (5 and 6) have not been overly favoured - it is easy to out-deploy a frontal assault, and prepared assault is slow out of the blocks (cannot do 2nd moves in the first turn). If there is a single option that getting a tilt of the head, it would be Probe. I'm keeping a close look at Probe in case it needs to be dialled back a little.
Regarding complexity. In its essence the scenario system involves:
1) Roll 3 dice and pick 0/1/2/3 options to block.
2) Pick one of the remaining 3-6 options available
3) Set up terrain and deploy.
Any additional time involved is really in the decision making process. What do I want to stop the opponent from doing and what to I want to do.
Additional complication comes in the deployment of troops. Instead of always alternating defender/attacker, in some cases one side will have to deploy everything first, and if you go for a frontal assault the deployment sequence is switched (so alternates attacker then defender).

I don't understand why the hidden deployment rules only cover units behind hills/crestlines. What about units in woods, orchards, etc.

Agreed this would make sense. However it would likely lead to a defender deploying little or no visible troops at all. Even limiting the hidden deployment to just hills, we've found some players manage to cram 2/3 of their army behind a single large hill (won't mention any names, will we Kit).
This rule was inspired by the Melbourne Waterloo scenario and is intended to represent Wellingtonian deployment tactics. Maybe it would be useful to change the name from "Hidden Deployment" to "Rear Slope" ?

Step A on p54 refers to the "Invader" going first. What does this mean?

Nothing! thanks for picking it up. It needs to be errata'd out (we had a dice for invader system earlier but removed it).

I will give the system in the PDF another go (it is very similar to one I tried in one of my earlier test games) to see if I am missing something.

Hopefully trying a couple of games might give you a different perspective. As Richard says, we've had some initial feedback that this looks complicated. But once people play it a couple of times the feedback has been pretty positive.

I was disappointed to see the original attack/defend system had been pretty much kept in its entirety for the "standard" game.

Agreed the existing v1 setup has become a little stale. We've left it as an option for now but this is mainly to provide an alternative for any players who don't like the scenarios setup system. Testing in Auckland so far seems to be resulting in a general thumbs up for the scenario system. If this feedback becomes mirrored by others, then we may be able to delete the existing attack/defence option.

I think is both a little complicated and will tend to only result in the same options been taken again and again (in general the attacking ones)

We've run maybe 30 test games in Auckland so far and have not found this. Some players like particular options but as Richard mentions this tends to reflect their play style. Certainly the attacking options (5 and 6) have not been overly favoured - it is easy to out-deploy a frontal assault, and prepared assault is slow out of the blocks (cannot do 2nd moves in the first turn). If there is a single option that starts getting a tilt of the head by players who have played 6 or 7 scenario games, it would be Probe. I'm keeping a close eye at Probe in case it needs to be dialled back just a little.
Regarding complexity. In its essence the scenario system involves:
1) Roll 3 dice and pick 0/1/2/3 options to block.
2) Pick one of the remaining 3-6 options available
3) Set up terrain and deploy.
Any additional time involved is really in the decision making process. What do I want to stop the opponent from doing and what to I want to do.
Additional complication comes in the deployment of troops. Instead of always alternating defender/attacker, in some cases one side will have to deploy everything first, and if you go for a frontal assault the deployment sequence is switched (so alternates attacker then defender).

I don't understand why the hidden deployment rules only cover units behind hills/crestlines. What about units in woods, orchards, etc.

Agreed this would make sense. However it would likely lead to a defender deploying little or no visible troops at all. Even limiting the hidden deployment to just hills, we've found some players manage to cram 2/3 of their army behind a single large hill (won't mention any names, will we Kit).
This rule was inspired by the Melbourne Waterloo scenario and is intended to represent Wellingtonian deployment tactics, rather than some kind of ambush rule. Maybe it would be useful to change the name from "Hidden Deployment" to "Rear Slope" ?

Step A on p54 refers to the "Invader" going first. What does this mean?

Nothing! thanks for picking it up. It needs to be errata'd out (we had a dice for invader system earlier but removed it).

I will give the system in the PDF another go (it is very similar to one I tried in one of my earlier test games) to see if I am missing something.

Hopefully trying a couple of games might give you a different perspective. As Richard says, we've had some initial feedback that this looks complicated. But once people play it a couple of times the feedback has been pretty positive.

I'll definitely give it a go. I've been really enjoying the test games I've had so far.

we are dropping the army initiative score

Glad to hear it! It is still there at the moment though (point C p55).

Surprised to hear Probe is favoured. It would leave many armies with 1 division on table at the start.

Martin

As the primary villain behind the 'Scenarios' deployment system, it might be a useful if I mention something about the philosophy behind it.

The Start point was general dissatisfaction with the existing set-up, which for experienced players has become a little stale, and in some players view biased towards the attack. A replacement deployment option was high on the agenda for v2.

The strategy options are supposed to be a range of operational possibilities open to a force commander when he gets close to the enemy force. We've notably left out retreat, as we want to fight a battle here.

The benefits/disadvantages of the various options are largely small evolutions of v1 systems - movement restrictions in the first 1/2 turns; playing with the deployment sequence; outflanks, reserves & reinforcements. Strongpoint comes from the v1 rule allowing defenders to leave their deployment area to defend a forward building. Hidden Deployment is just a variation on deployment sequence. The only really new idea is Bombardment, where a player can sacrifice his 2nd moves in the first turn for a couple of rounds of free long range artillery shooting.

One of the big effects of the scenario system is it allows players to decide whether they want attack or defend. Feedback from players with low aggression armies is that this has made the game much more interesting for them - it was sometimes getting a bit tiresome sitting & defending a hill game after game against their aggression 3 opponents.

The other big effect is you get 35 possible game set-up mixes, with what (once you have played it a couple of times) is a pretty simple mechanism.
These run the gammit from traditional attack-defence type games, to outflanks (much more common than in v1), encounter type games (probe) or both sides going for at other in a mutual attack. Even position defence v position defence can create an interesting game. The last PD v PD game I saw was very tactical in first 2 turns as one player raced his cavalry reserve behind the lines to mass on a flank, and his opponent tried to match the movement. Looked like a game a grid iron with all that scurrying around behind the line of scrimmage.

Lastly, I should mention that one of the features of FoGN for me was the efforts of Terry & Mike to build in player decision making throughout the phases of the game. The scenario system, with set-up driven by choices rather than dice throws, is an attempt to extend this philosophy deeper into the deployment system.

Cheers
Brett

marty wrote:Surprised to hear Probe is favoured. It would leave many armies with 1 division on table at the start.

I know - it seems like a weird one to become a favourite.
The attraction of Probe is that you always get to out-deploy your opponent. You can see their entire army before deciding where to place your on-table troops. The reserve division can march straight on table any time you like - you can try and use this to set a defensive trap. It's only the reinforcing division that is dice dependent, and you can mitigate it's potential absence by giving it a L2 DC, and/or making it a small division you don't care much about.

If played thoughtlessly, Probe is a likely terrible choice. But it's a great option for cunning players.

Perhaps NZ players just want to make feeble double entendre's about probing people?

Martin

LOL!
there has been a little of that