Campers

[76mm]

there's another solution which I intend to implement into the wargame I'm working on: auto-generated terrain. the game will generate terrain features around the movement of the troops (if they are moving outside the initial map boundary)

Yeah, but people already complain about chasing the other army around the map. Your solution solves the "map edge" problem but creates an "infinite retreat" problem.

[deeter]

On the TT, it's a -1 for being within 6 inches of the map side edge. There's also a -1 for having someone in a position to execute a flank attack. Another consderation is flank marches. When they arrive, everyone on that side edge tests (or routes, I forget) making it dangerous to loiter along the edge.

Deeter

[cothyso]

there's another solution which I intend to implement into the wargame I'm working on: auto-generated terrain. the game will generate terrain features around the movement of the troops (if they are moving outside the initial map boundary)

Yeah, but people already complain about chasing the other army around the map. Your solution solves the "map edge" problem but creates an "infinite retreat" problem.

no it won't, there are other simpler way to solve this infinite retreat problem too.

[ericdoman1]

First things first that is what will happen in nearly every ancient wargame, cav, lh or lf evaded and will continue to do so. You can either have troops to round them up and then chase them off table or evn catch them, ie no chance to evade or you ignore them. You are not going to win a game solely with LH or LF, they are there just to casue a bit of damage, enable your troops to reach terrain befoer opponents and contact routing units so thay have no chance of returning.

In the TT game all evders and chargers roll a six sided dice. a 1 = -2 inches from move, a 2 = -1 inch from move, a 5 = +1 inch to move and a 6 = +2 inches to move. That is to some extent inc into the pc game. We have all either caught or been caught by an enemy unit when charging or evading.

Also in the TT game you can stand with troops eg I think LF can stand if being charged by mounted when theya re in rough or difficult. Even in the open they can take a test to stand, eg facing a LH unit that is very badly beaten up. I think some of these things are being considered or being inc in patch 1.36.

Thing is Cothyso you won your game and lost 10/40 bps. My goodness man I'd be ecstatic with that result. The other thing I can remember playing you with Thracians against your Alex Macs and I was chasing your LF across the table until I caught up with the pikes. It is part of the game at the moment. Again, I think some changes may be occurring in the 1.36 patch but best to keep a look out on that.

[cothyso]

exactly! I won a game against a greater army (with 20% more troops than me 49 vs 40), which was also fortified on a hill at the edge of the map. so, it can be done.

[Stilicho]

It's not gamey to use the edges. You can see that as up against terrain unsuitable for troops. Most ancient battles were anchored on some features. Or you could see it as the positions both armies have taken up. Rarely was one army's forces sent skittling over and around the other's flank like is possible in the game.

In the end, some positions and movements in FoG PC will give a 'good game' (entirely dependent upon your own preferences and biases) and some won't. The TT sees less of this because the troops tend to be able to cover most (but not always) of the ground and the distance between the front lines is only 2-4 turns, where in FoG PC it can take forever to get to the opponent. (Am seeing this in the latest Beta tournament round...the map is huge and we will spend most of the game just walking around.)

Well..you are entitled to your opinion certainly, I still think it's gamey. Every strategy I've played I've never liked the consistent camper type. As I said it really isn't too big of a deal because the MP population here is pretty good. That being said I still think if it is penalized in TT it should be penalized here too.

[Xiggy]

A solution used in WRG 5th and 6th edition in the late 1970's was flank marches. You could flank march a percentage of your troops and come in anywhere along a flank or a rear edge outside of the initial deployment area. The problem with it for the playing sending the flank march was you never knew if and when it would show up. Also, it required a sub general, or ally general to be with it. I think 20 percent of your force could flank march at most. (Not sure it that is correct, it has been a few decades since I played it)

Definitely made things interesting for the gambling player.

[TheGrayMouser]

I really like the idea of flank marches , I just dont know how in practice they would be executed....

The poblem as i see it is a 500 ap army will have maybe 40-50 units total... 20% of those troops would be "flankers" (and it would really need to be a sizable portion with a minimum of 20% up to maybe 35%)

That means aproximately 10-20 units might be considered flankers and with larger bp armies , even more...

When thes units "arrive" on a map edge, how exactly are they going to arrive? Will a deployment zone "appear" that is x hexes wide and deep that the flank player then depolys? does he then move thses troops immedielty, or have to wait a turn?

This will matter as maps arent that deep and there is a very good chance the opposing player will have units very close or maybe even IN the hexes the flankers are to be arriving in....
Just curious on how thes things would be resolved, i mean you cant force players to stay away from map edges (many maps arent big enough anyways)

[Xiggy]

There is some flexibility where you came in. They might have to change the deployment zone to be 5 to 10 hexes from the board edge. So it would be hard.

[Skanvak]

I love the auto generate map!

As for camping : This is a normal tactics. Actually this is a common tactics for Romans (a battle between Pompei vs Caesar is discribe in the book writen by the latter). Beside, if I have overly good terrain in my deploiemnt zone and/or I bought fixed defence then I won't move.

In our campaign, the problem is solve by a simple and realistic way : Defender win draw. So camping is a valid tactics for the defender only as it is a guarantee loss for the attacker.

The use of the map edge as impassable terrain seems a bit gamey thought (but making LF or LH flee outside the edge of the map is gamey too if you go this way...). Personnaly I prefer a map with infinite retreat to map edge (though actually you always reach impassable terrain sooner or later). As someone say, the deploying distance is a bit too far for one stand game (less a problem in campaign as you know why you fight). Making army start closer will make retreat suicidal.

[little]

I have only tried the camping tactic once or twice when my Germans were heavily outnumbered by the med. Irish. Ended up as a disaster both times as my troops were pulled out of formation by Anarchy or follow up and swamped (also leaving nice big holes in my defence).

But as pointed out above chasing light units off the table is gamey, as is carefully selecting which order your troops attack in to protect weaker units, or having a "god like" vision of the terrain and most of the enemy (aka hovering the marker over them to see the quality and odds). Maybe that is because this is a game and gamesmanship will always be part of it. On the bright side, unlike with the Table Top, at least we don't suffer from rule lawyers banging on about some minor interpretation halfway through a game

[Morbio]

I have only tried the camping tactic once or twice when my Germans were heavily outnumbered by the med. Irish. Ended up as a disaster both times as my troops were pulled out of formation by Anarchy or follow up and swamped (also leaving nice big holes in my defence).

But as pointed out above chasing light units off the table is gamey, as is carefully selecting which order your troops attack in to protect weaker units, or having a "god like" vision of the terrain and most of the enemy (aka hovering the marker over them to see the quality and odds). Maybe that is because this is a game and gamesmanship will always be part of it. On the bright side, unlike with the Table Top, at least we don't suffer from rule lawyers banging on about some minor interpretation halfway through a game

What an insightful comment. Something we all tend to forget from time to time, this is a game and most people will treat it as such... and why not?

[Xiggy]

Thats why I don't play tabletop anymore. For better or for worse, the computer adjudicates the rules the same for everyone. Good rule or bad. It is consistent.