Please don't make me come and get you.

[SnuggleBunnies]

The depth of the deployment areas can't be too small or there's no room to deploy multiple lines of troops with sufficient gaps but otherwise limiting the deployment area like that wouldn't do any harm in my opinion. In ideal situation the limits of the map should have no role in the battle itself.

On the other hand this wouldn't really do anything to prevent players from marching backwards to the edge of the map either which would make the change fairly pointless.

Though a closer deployment like this would mean that doing so risks heavy harassment from skirmishers, or rear charges by cavalry.

[Cunningcairn]

How about changing deployment zones for Open Battle mode?
Left: current zones.
Right: how can it look after some change.

IMO open battle should be a classic confrontation of forces after most of deployment job is done. But it could be still a room for some adjustments in a few first turns if the enemy let you do this.

I don't see how this resolves the problem of static defense. A positive in the game at the moment is that it favours players who are skilled at determining the best deployment based on the terrain and their knowledge of their opponents army. By reducing the distance between opposing armies risks games becoming nothing more than a clash of two lines. The problem only seems to occur in the digital league and is normally caused by army mismatches and unfavourable terrain. This is because of the many different types of armies that can be selected which is a good thing. If you view the 9 games in a section as a campaign it very likely that many armies will have at least one game where it is to their advantage to not commit to battle. Why is this so bad? The army a player chooses for example might not be capable of attacking a static defense, or not able to counter a skirmishing horde or meet heavy infantry face to face in the open. The selection of what army you choose will go a long way in determining how many static defenses you face in the campaign. Is this "problem" not been blown out of proportion?.

[76mm]

I agree that we shouldn't be making any significant changes to the game solely to "enhance" the experience in leagues and tournaments. In my experience, for general MP games this is not a significant issue, because people select (or agree to accept) the army match ups when they create or accept the MP challenge.

[Strategiusz]

I believe that maps are generating with some pattern that makes the edges of the map less open, with a higher chance for a big area of forest, 300 height
hills etc. Now it is possible to deploy units at the very edge of the map, strait on that terrain. That increases the pure luck factor at the very beginning of the battle. I would even remove ability to rotate units during the deployment phase.

For battles where one army is attacking and the other is defending itself using favorable terrain there should be some another battle mode.

[vakarr]

If you don't want your opponent to run away from you and hide in suitable terrain, use a different army. For instance, if they are hiding on a hill then shoot them up with artillery and/or massed archers or horse archers. If your opponents are running away from you much of the time it might be because you are using a Roman army, which has some overpowered units and the best way to defeat Romans is to avoid it and hit the non-legionary parts or at least stick to suitable terrain. However if you bring an army with a lot of firepower, your opponent can't just sit there, as they will be shot to bits. So don't blame your opponents, use a different army.

[Karvon]

The depth of the deployment areas can't be too small or there's no room to deploy multiple lines of troops with sufficient gaps but otherwise limiting the deployment area like that wouldn't do any harm in my opinion. In ideal situation the limits of the map should have no role in the battle itself.

On the other hand this wouldn't really do anything to prevent players from marching backwards to the edge of the map either which would make the change fairly pointless.

I agree. Fairly frequently I've found, terrain can really limit your effective space to deploy non light/medium troops. If anything, I'd like to see deployment zone extended closer to the center. That would allow for more ambush options out of terrain and getting to grips faster, if so desired.

[oscarius]

If your opponents are running away from you much of the time it might be because you are using a Roman army, which has some overpowered units

The less-than-spectacular win rates of Roman army lists might suggest otherwise. I actually think the Late Republican army (and to a lesser degree the late imperial) is the best of them as you can field a respectable number of pretty good infantry rather than a tiny force of elites that will typically end up isolated and outflanked due to push-back on most map situations. The very limited number of skirmishers in a lot of the Romans lists also makes them struggle against horse archer forces (though Roman armour also means if you want to be boring you could theoretically park your forces in a forest and soak up their arrows until 20 turns pass and probably win a draw). The addition of allies has given them some much needed firepower, versatility and affordable options to boost their frontage so I suspect they'll start performing better.

[SimonLancaster]

Overall, I don’t have a problem with camping and staying way back from the enemy. Certain armies like the Romans generally have an advantage on open, flat plains. Their generals would live to play on it every game! Most of my games are straight up bloodbaths so to try to outwit a very defensive player is a different challenge.

Historically, some generals stayed way back from the enemy and set up on good defensive positions as well. Just something to deal with.. I know it upsets some players and so this is a good thread to let it all out...

[Ludendorf]

...and it pulls me back in.

I'm a little rusty at this point, but in my experience, the best cure for camping is to realise it usually does not confer the invincibility some players think it does, and then boldly march out to beat the camper. Skirmisher supremacy can usually force a taciturn opponent out onto the field. If he or she still won't move, just keep attacking until a section of the line breaks and then push through the resulting gaps. Skirmishers destroy camping armies, especially if you can surround the area they're camping on with suitable troops. The defensive position becomes a trap; your troops can wait there like hungry sharks until your opponent becomes desperate and sallies out or becomes so weakened that points in the line become vulnerable to regular assault.

If you don't have skirmisher supremacy, or the skirmishers more or less cancelled each other out, keep your distance and analyse your opponent's line. There is usually somewhere they aren't 100% immune. If they're sitting in forests or atop a mountain, get your mediums involved, and look for somewhere you can get a 2 or 3 on 1 or a flank attack. If you don't have mediums, either because you neglected to bring them or because your army just doesn't have medium options, then look for somewhere you can turn the line. Corners on a forest work well if you can surround the forest; they can't cover everything with their ZOCs. Mountains are trickier because of the rough ground, but two heavies on one medium should have a chance if the mediums are disrupted in a flank attack first. If they're hiding inside the forest, it's harder. Try using cavalry (not lancers) to scout it out; the cavalry can escape and you can plot out where your opponent is.

Genuine corner camping where the defence isn't terrain but the sides of the map themselves is rare, but trickier. If they're only partially protected by bad ground, attack one of the few places that isn't safe with your strongest (appropriate) soldiers. This may be tricky if they've put something truly formidable there, to be fair. If they're totally protected by bad ground, and you don't have any mediums or skirmishers... AND there's no way to either get round the flanks or pin the line in place long enough to force a flank attack... ok, you might genuinely have a problem. That is vanishingly rare in my experience however.

If the position truly is impregnable, the only option might be to... lose. Or rather, pretend to lose, or 'pretend' to lose if your assault went badly. Lose a few units assaulting their position, enough to seemingly put you at a disadvantage, but keep the rest of your army back and in reasonable order; maybe make it look like your initial defeat has exposed you to a flank assault, but keep a few units in reserve, just enough to plug the gap. Make it seem like your units are stuck facing bad ground, but leave just a little bit of room to manoeuvre. Seem to split your army, leaving part of it tantalisingly exposed, but the rest not too far away to support it... Many players who are too timid to come out and fight will finally change their minds if they see your army is in 'disarray' and they now have a point or some kind of positional advantage. As campers tend not to be the most confident players (that's why they're camping), you now have the chance to turn the tables. Do what Joan of Arc did to Harold Godwinson at the battle of Stamford Bridge... I think I'm misremembering that conflict, but either force or persuade them to come out by feigning a retreat. You may even be able to create this situation with enemy raw troops; if a unit of your more expendible units routs in melee with them, there's a chance they'll actually come running out after you.

(That last one is one I've not had cause to try, and admittedly sounds a bit desperate even to me. Even if you pull one unit out of line, there's no guarantee reserves won't just close the gap.)

That said, camping is still a frustrating thing to face. It can almost be appropriate to some armies like some of the Persian or massed archer lists, but while it can be a satisfying experience to weed someone out of a mountain range they thought was immune to your Romans, it can be tedious and frustrating to face repeatedly, and I consider it a little rude if taken to extremes. If the camping doesn't make the battle a complete mismatch, I can appreciate the challenge of rooting an enemy army out of a difficult position under time pressure... but there are some situations which make me sigh and roll my eyes. There are probably ways for my army of hoplites to root your medium warbands out of that forest, but I'm not going to appreciate being forced to find them. And any lancer assault upon a mountain or forest is generally a complete non-starter...

A few ways to mitigate the risk is always bring an army which has either a decent skirmisher list or good medium/massed archer options. One of the problems you face as the Galatians or earlier Greeks is your army is completely unsuited to fighting in forests or mountainous terrain. I think most of the Slitherine-organised tournaments have fielded armies with at least some skirmisher, medium, or massed range potential. View these not just as versatile parts of your tool kit, but as your trusty shell-openers too.

[nyczar]

How refreshing to see your return and yet another thoughtful contribution to the wisdom of FOGII. What I take from this is that is is incumbent on the player to chose a list that has versatility. With the allied feature I believe this is the case for most lists. Then it is knowledge of another players style that can help you choose the list to bring to the field. In the absence of knowledge, if a player lacks options on the field, given the list choosing options (in DL play), the preview of the map, and the preview of the opponent's list, then it is the players mistake.

[MikeC_81]

There seems to be some confusion about the reason my post. It is not about losing to these tactics. I won both games shown (another reason to take me up on my offer). The issue is the severe annoyance of hunting down someone while racing the clock since it took half the game to get to contact.

You are then usually presented with an awful choice of taking absurd risks to try and force a decision within time limits or accept the fact that you grinded out 24 turns for no reason

[nyczar]

Hi Mike,

I understand that. The reason for my post is for new players. It is incredibly frustrating to play against campers, especially when you have no idea how to overcome the obstacle. Knowledge I believe ought not be horded but shared so that the game is won by decisions and skill (and some manufactured fortune). It is decreasing as I play (read lose) more, but as I entered the higher levels, in many cases I lost to superior knowledge of quirks and space relationships. Things that i feel ought to be in the open for people to read. I know that is the purpose of the forum but c'mon, it is a free for all here. At the least, the manual ought to be updated to reflect all the coding updates.