I second this and would add that it should also give games that can be interesting for both players.nikgaukroger wrote:
I will again say that this is actually irrelevant for a terrain system that is only there to facilitate artificail equal points games. What such a system needs to do is be able to generate a table on which a rnage of armies can have a chance on and if there is some sort of historical veneer than all the better. Who may or may not be the theoretical invader is not, IMO, an issue.
I would encourage people to report from actual experience what kinds of armies they have used against what other kinds, whether they felt they had a chance and whether it was an interesting game.
My early experience with mainly protected HF versus shooty cavalry was that I had no chance and it wasn't much fun. This may have been because I hadn't worked out what to do in that situation.
My recent experience with mainly protected MF and an IC versus shooty cavalry is that I felt I had a chance and the games were interesting. THis might mean I've worked out the correct tactics, or that MF is intrinsically better than HF for this match-up. I won't know until I try the HF again.
Nik's initial suggestion would have made things easier for the MF army. One should bear in mind, though, that super shooty cavalry is expensive, so steppe armies have effectively paid for whatever terrain advantage they get.