Slitherine

The terrain placement section is the part of FoG I least like. It is good for environment type eg Tropical and desert. It has been so far in the games I have played time consuming to set out. The following is an alternat system that I look to put forward to my gaming friends. Feed back such as it (the alternate) would give an odd result if both player chose only impassable is what I seek. Please make comments.

The Alternate:

Field of Glory Table Top Terrain Generator:

Both players must provide three pieces of normal sized terrain; that come from the Uneven, Rough, Difficult, Impassable or Slope “Terrain Description Visibility and Combat Effects” table page 131. You may substitute two normal pieces for one large piece.

Each player may also provide one additional doubled sized piece from the Uneven, Rough, Difficult, Impassable or Slope “Terrain Description Visibility and Combat Effects” table page 131, or Call for Open Space (see below), or provide one of the following a: road, coastline, or river.

If both players choose “River” then the river will run across the table centre from short edge to short edge at least 18” from each long side. This river must have one ford or bridge in the centre section if the river is impassable - see page 131 (Rv), Stamford Bridge.

If both players choose “Coastline” then play will take place on a 6 x 4 foot table length wise – deploy on the short ends of the table, Thermopoly.

If one player chose “Coastline” and the other “River” then consider the long side edge behind the non initiating player to be impassable – such as a lake, Lake Trasimene.

If both players choose road then the road must run from short edge to short edge and will be at least 72 MUs in length.

1. The player without the initiative will place all of the terrain.

2. The initiating player will choose his deployment edge/side.

3. Once placed; Road, River and Coastline features are fixed.

4. If a road runs across the table from short edge to short edge; the initiating player may insist that all terrain is now fixed. The non initiating player must then deploy in March order along the road, Teutoburg Forest.

5. All other pieces both normal and large will have a d6 rolled and will be removed on a 6.

6. If one player Called for Open Space then the above roll will remove on a 5 or 6.

7. If both players Called for Open Space then the above roll will remove on a 4, 5 or 6.

The player with the initiative may choose to: add one, subtract one or leave all the above die rolls unmodified. The initiating player must make the choice before any die are rolled. The modification choice made will be the same for all terrain pieces.

That sounds a little like overdoing it at first glance. However, I agree that the randomness of terrain can be a major issue. It is hard to fathom a competent general accepting/ initiating battle in terrain that horribly afflicts his army. I'm sure it happened from time to time, but that strikes me as the exception

With a minimum of 6 terrain pieces and a max of 10 it can be very unfriendly to a good-going army. I have played several games where one army was in big trouble before it was even placed.

YMMV

John

I think terrain placement in FOG is one of the worst done elements.

A typical example I see in most games with a barbarian army with lots of MF and not much cav is that it finds itself fighting in the open more often than not as the other side with cav will have the initiative. Once the initiative player has put down the max open areas and gentle hills there isn’t much room for more difficult terrain.

maxigoth wrote:
The terrain placement section is the part of FoG I least like. It is good for environment type eg Tropical and desert. It has been so far in the games I have played time consuming to set out.

Somewhat surprised that you find it time consuming. How long are you taking on terrain? All seems to get done in about 5 mins in my experience, perhaps a little longer, 10 mins max.

Dear nikgaukroder,

You are right it does take 10min at most to "set out" --- bad choice of wording by me. The time we spend on "Set Up Rules" from post initiaive rolls to Deploy camps.... is taking time. I think it is because choice of terrain is made at that time; after and including "territory types" p. 139 choice. My friends and I will get quicker I am sure.

The next comp in Aust. will require that the players provide terrain which with the number of options available after post initiative rolls is of concern to some in my group. If choice of terrain is fixed to the alternate system (above) that I wish to try - within my club - (not suggesting it to others - other than for their comments) it would mean less terrain items be transported to club venue and comps.

Regards

I think with more games you get to know what terrain you want immediately. If I'm fighting mainly foot I want as much open space as possible, if mainly better/more mounted as difficult going as possible.

maxigoth wrote:
You are right it does take 10min at most to "set out" --- bad choice of wording by me. The time we spend on "Set Up Rules" from post initiaive rolls to Deploy camps.... is taking time. I think it is because choice of terrain is made at that time; after and including "territory types" p. 139 choice. My friends and I will get quicker I am sure.

I see what you mean now.

As Phil says extra experience will help speed things up as you become more familiar with what suits your army (armies) against various different opponents and you choices will take no time at all - all the other bits of the pre-battle sequence speed up at the same time

The next comp in Aust. will require that the players provide terrain which with the number of options available after post initiative rolls is of concern to some in my group. If choice of terrain is fixed to the alternate system (above) that I wish to try - within my club - (not suggesting it to others - other than for their comments) it would mean less terrain items be transported to club venue and comps.

Again experience will mean that you won't need to take all the options just the ones you will actually need so it shouldn't be too much of an issue in the future IMO. Hope you find that too.

The current system means most terrain will be at the edges. Your system would allow a player who wants rough terrain to put a line of it down the middle of the table.

It effectively gives the initiative to the player who rolls lowest on the initiative roll, as he can decide whether the terrain goes around the edges / on the baselines, where it will have little effect, or in the middle where it can have a significant effect. This would simply cause a stalemate in a game between a rough terrain army and a mounted army.
The terrain placement system is pretty straightforward once you get used to it. You don't need to take loads to a tournament, as many pieces double up as different types.

A number of bits of potential cheese.

1. Take 0 PBI choose a river. Always put it down the centre, move first, move your lights up to it and stand behind it

2. If you are a slow army never ever take a road. You may end up deployed on it. Is your victory condition then just to reach the end of the road and do the opposition get to deploy both sides of the road? Where does your camp go? If the opposition only deploys on one side, you have no camp and are fairly mobile take a road and hope you are deployed on it. You will start further forward and have no camp to loose.

“Coastline” then play will take place on a 6 x 4 foot table length wise – deploy on the short ends of the table, Thermopoly.

3. I'm sure the Persians didn't choose[/] coast

If one player chose “Coastline” and the other “River” then consider the long side edge behind the non initiating player to be impassable – such as a lake, Lake Trasimene.

4. Loss of 2 terrain pieces and no change in terrain on table??

The player without the initiative will place all of the terrain.

5. Just put it all in one big lump. Don't spread it out. This could work if you have a manouver army or a terrain army. Put all your troops in it or all your troops out of it.

Thanks for input so fay - I see a few things I will need to cover as I work on my alternate system.

I certainly will continue to use the system in the rule book as well as other terrain systems.

The last FoG comp held in Sydney did not use the terrain system in FoG rule book. That comp used pre placed terrain from previous Horse & Musket maps - terrain. As far as I know the comp went well - I cannot say for certain as I was not in it.

I like FoG so muh that I am thinking of reentering the comp seen after two decades - Old sixth edition WRG Player -Yes old in age and as a long time gamer.

Do other comps that use Field of Glory rule utilize the FoG terrain system?

Are people who are playing FoG consistantly using its terrain system?

Regards

maxigoth wrote: Are people who are playing FoG consistantly using its terrain system?

I cant speak for any other group, but after reading the rules for terrain placement, I doubt my group will be using it. Just too convoluted. Better to just take turns putting a few pieces down and be done with it.

Are people who are playing FoG consistantly using its terrain system

Every competition and club game I have played in has used the system in the rules. But we could be said to be a competition oriented club. So thats about 31 competition games and 20 club games.

But I also like using pre set terrain as it saves time,...... but then perhaps my army choice would change.

maxigoth wrote:
Do other comps that use Field of Glory rule utilize the FoG terrain system?

I believe that all the GB comps have used it - although Hammy's 650 comp did reduce the number of pieces available due to smaller table size.

Are people who are playing FoG consistantly using its terrain system?

Yes in the case of my club.

Using a terrain deployment system like in FoG reinforces the impact of player skill in the game. It's one more thing where a good player can make better choices than the bad player. For each of my armies I have a picture in my head of the ideal terrain I'd like to fight in, and then negotiate getting that on the table every game. Having a simplified or pre-set system for terrain removes one more skill element from the game. In other words, skill comes in at turn 1 instead of at turn 0. To each his own though. I think in comps rules should be by the book as the development team put a lot of time in balancing things out, whereas user-generated systems surely didn't have as much playtesting.

As for the time it takes, if you've done it enough times, you can go from starting the game to moving the first troops in 10-15 minutes. At least that's how it goes in my club for most players.

I agree that placing terrain is a critical skill to master. Your army will dictate what kind of battlefield you will prefer. The key is to know how to get there no matter what terrain type you are fighting in. If you are an army that prefers a wide open table, place the minimum sized compulsary possible, take as many open spaces as possible, and/or open gentle hills. Place these to maximize the dead zone between terrain. If you are worried about enemy missile capabilities, select cover terrain to hide from shooting.

It's a good system, and like the rules themselves offers a short road to basic competence but an extended journey to achieve fine tuned excellence, with the reward being an edge that is significant - but not decisive against a player who has good sense and basic competence.

As mentioned above, the FOG terrain system is like a "negotiation" between the players involving a series of actions and responses offering opportunities for incremental advantages or making mistakes. Terrain doctrine should be developed alongside army composition, order of march, deployment doctrine, and tactical doctrine.

Just as historically, the general who knows the kind of battlefield he wants is more likely to get it, and knowing how to deploy in the face of any kind of terrain is going to help in making the right spot decisions during terrain placement.

Let me put in a plug for competitive terrain drills - in friendly games, rather than deploying terrain just once, try a couple of dry runs first for practice and see if everyone's skills don't improve in the third run.

maxigoth wrote:
Do other comps that use Field of Glory rule utilize the FoG terrain system?

Are people who are playing FoG consistantly using its terrain system?

Regards

In France, I think that all comps so far used the Fog terrain system.
I heard no complaints about this system.
It is simple and fast.

Lionel

Omar - while you are learning the game, you're probably not playing too competitively so just putting a few pieces of terrain down would work fine. Bear in mind that most ancient battlefields were relatively open, and most terrain would be at the edges.
When / If your group gets more competitive you will probably find that this method for putting terrain down will not work. It is virtually always the case that one player's army will benefit more from rough or difficult terrain that the other, so the terrain layout becomes a key factor, and can significantly advantage on player or the other.