Slitherine

Has anyone ever had this? :-

Me and my friends are still relatively new to FOG, and are working through the rules using the Carthaginians and Romans. When it comes to placing terrain, a lot of rolls end up with the terrain on the table edges with massive open spaces in just about the entire table. Is this right? It doesn't seem like this is the way settup is meant to be

Brainsnaffler wrote:Has anyone ever had this? :-

Me and my friends are still relatively new to FOG, and are working through the rules using the Carthaginians and Romans. When it comes to placing terrain, a lot of rolls end up with the terrain on the table edges with massive open spaces in just about the entire table. Is this right? It doesn't seem like this is the way settup is meant to be

It can happen, especially with steppe armies. That was my first impression too but the more you play, the better you become at making use of what terrain there is.

Remember that after placing a piece of terrain your opponent can roll to modify the placement and depending on the score can move it 6 or 12 inches. This often helps to shift terrain towards the centre.

Julian

And most battles were open terrain in the centre, and the game is meant to encourage battles not hiding in terrain.

Remember that after placing a piece of terrain your opponent can roll to modify the placement and depending on the score can move it 6 or 12 inches. This often helps to shift terrain towards the centre.

But that's what rolls I mean! Some of the initial placement rolls put the terrain further into the table, but the opposing players roll and shift it out of the way. I don't have a problem with this from a player point of view as the HF need the open, but it just seems a bit unrealistic and unless you get good rolls, there will never be terrain in any place other than the board edges - vastly different from any other wargame I ever played.

What I'm trying to say is from a player point of view, this isn't a problem as terrain hinders more than it helps (unless your Numidian perhaps); but it just seems unrealistic to set up like this

Brainsnaffler wrote:What I'm trying to say is from a player point of view, this isn't a problem as terrain hinders more than it helps (unless your Numidian perhaps); but it just seems unrealistic to set up like this

Unrealistic or only different from other tourament-like wargames?

I think that this system with an higher probability of open center battlefield is far more realistic than others.
In history there were a very few army that didn't want to engage an enemy in open terrain, for the most an open terrain with some strategical terrain features would be the right choice because many ancient army relay on heavy infantry or cavalry.

Maybe in FoG terrain system there are too many types of terrain (a few less should be enough) and too many types of dicing results (in other words the system could be simpler) but it creates a realistic battlefield.

DBA system is far more simpler but is it realistic?
In history could you really force an invading cavalry army to fight in a forest only because you have auxilia infantry in your list and a lower aggressivity?

"If you are such a great general, come out and fight!."

"If you are such a great general, make me!"

Brainsnaffler wrote:But that's what rolls I mean! Some of the initial placement rolls put the terrain further into the table, but the opposing players roll and shift it out of the way. I don't have a problem with this from a player point of view as the HF need the open, but it just seems a bit unrealistic and unless you get good rolls, there will never be terrain in any place other than the board edges - vastly different from any other wargame I ever played.

As others have mentioned, it is possible that your experiences from other rule sets could be coloring your idea of 'realistic' battlefield terrain. The vast majority of large-scale ancient battles were indeed fought in large open spaces, with at most one or two key terrain features. If the terrain was too unfavorable to one side or the other, then often there was no battle at all. So if other ancient-period wargames do encourage regular placement of dense terrain in the middle of the battlefield, then in fact they could be considered more 'unrealistic' in that regard.

Cheers,
Scott

Well said and supported by history.
In FoG. I don't think that we are playing "hide 'n seek", but rather seeking terrain in which the historical armies can reasonably do battle using formations and tactics compatible with the sizes, compositions and equipment of the ancient and medieval armies.
Let's leave the guerrilla warfare, mountain warfare, etc to other gaming systems
Cheers!

Well argued! I take the point - I began trying to think of battlefields with prominent terain in the midst of the battles, but there isn't any to my knowledge so I well and truly capitulate the point I guess it is other systems colouring my perception of what is right and wrong.

Romans and Carthos are both likely to want a wide open space in the middle of the table. A different choice of armies, say ones with lots of MF and little or no CV, might be a more likely to place terrain towards center table, and a lot less likely to shift it towards the perimeter. I played a game of Later Jewish vs Gauls recently. We fought in agricultural, and the center of the table was chock-a-block with uneven ground and rough going because that is how we set up and/or shifted terrain.

Viper

So far our battles have been on battlefields that favor one or the other army. Sadly, as a rule, NOT my army.

That said, my memories of battles long gone often included mention of the terrain being a big help to one of the armies involved.

That said....we old farts are enjoying the system.