cheesy terrain?

[philqw78]

Ostrogoth and Lombard are also cavalry armies, quite happy on steppe terrain.

But are not at all happy against shooty armies, or Dom Roman in any decent amount of terrain. And neither get steppe. So neither are designed to fight the main enemies you mention. As dave ruddock said on the Britcon thread he smashed my Ostrogoths 23-2 four days before Britcon. If they get good terrain, for them, and are driven well they may not loose too badly and can even win though.

But as you said scissors, paper, stone. I prefer to take the stone. But since this thread started on the topic of cheesy terrain I don't see that it made any real difference to the result. 9 different armies in the top 10 early period. If the amount of terrain is increased the number of MF armies will increase disproportionately, the number of lancers massively decrease, I would take picts instead, and dominate roman would rule the world. HF armies would come off just as badly, if not worse, against the MF swarms.

[madaxeman]

Ostrogoth and Lombard are also cavalry armies, quite happy on steppe terrain.

But are not at all happy against shooty armies, or Dom Roman in any decent amount of terrain. And neither get steppe. So neither are designed to fight the main enemies you mention. As dave ruddock said on the Britcon thread he smashed my Ostrogoths 23-2 four days before Britcon. If they get good terrain, for them, and are driven well they may not loose too badly and can even win though.

But as you said scissors, paper, stone. I prefer to take the stone. But since this thread started on the topic of cheesy terrain I don't see that it made any real difference to the result. 9 different armies in the top 10 early period. If the amount of terrain is increased the number of MF armies will increase disproportionately, the number of lancers massively decrease, I would take picts instead, and dominate roman would rule the world. HF armies would come off just as badly, if not worse, against the MF swarms.

To re-iterate, I'm not suggesting that Road+River will lead to a blanket of LH and anti-LH armies in all competitions, far from it.

I just think its a shame that roads have been largely denied their only possible "real" role in the game ("a quick way through delaying terrain"), rivers roles ("I'm a stodgy foot army who needs to anchor my flank") appears to have been similarly compromised, and instead both may end up being used primarily by steppe/LH armies purely as a game mechanic to help reduce the amount of terrain on table.

Tim

[rbodleyscott]

I just think its a shame that roads have been largely denied their only possible "real" role in the game ("a quick way through delaying terrain")

Actually, a more historical "only possible real role" for roads in battles of this period is as something to be ambushed on when marching along.

[lawrenceg]

Ostrogoth and Lombard are also cavalry armies, quite happy on steppe terrain.

But are not at all happy against shooty armies, or Dom Roman in any decent amount of terrain. And neither get steppe. So neither are designed to fight the main enemies you mention. As dave ruddock said on the Britcon thread he smashed my Ostrogoths 23-2 four days before Britcon. If they get good terrain, for them, and are driven well they may not loose too badly and can even win though.

But as you said scissors, paper, stone. I prefer to take the stone. But since this thread started on the topic of cheesy terrain I don't see that it made any real difference to the result. 9 different armies in the top 10 early period. If the amount of terrain is increased the number of MF armies will increase disproportionately, the number of lancers massively decrease, I would take picts instead, and dominate roman would rule the world. HF armies would come off just as badly, if not worse, against the MF swarms.

Well your army beat the shooty Nubians and Samanids and had the upper hand agaist two Dom Roms, so in practice it was designed to cope with these opponents, even if unintentionally. Plus the point is that open terrain is good for lancers and these armies can still fight on steppe if it is in the opponent's list. If it is not, you can minimise terrain with the river/road stratagem.

[lawrenceg]

To re-iterate, I'm not suggesting that Road+River will lead to a blanket of LH and anti-LH armies in all competitions, far from it.

I just think its a shame that roads have been largely denied their only possible "real" role in the game ("a quick way through delaying terrain"), rivers roles ("I'm a stodgy foot army who needs to anchor my flank") appears to have been similarly compromised, and instead both may end up being used primarily by steppe/LH armies purely as a game mechanic to help reduce the amount of terrain on table.

Tim

So if you had a stodgy foot army that needed to anchor its flank, and your cav/LH opponent put a river down, are you saying that you would not use it to anchor your flank?

[madaxeman]

To re-iterate, I'm not suggesting that Road+River will lead to a blanket of LH and anti-LH armies in all competitions, far from it.

I just think its a shame that roads have been largely denied their only possible "real" role in the game ("a quick way through delaying terrain"), rivers roles ("I'm a stodgy foot army who needs to anchor my flank") appears to have been similarly compromised, and instead both may end up being used primarily by steppe/LH armies purely as a game mechanic to help reduce the amount of terrain on table.

Tim

So if you had a stodgy foot army that needed to anchor its flank, and your cav/LH opponent put a river down, are you saying that you would not use it to anchor your flank?

I'll take anything I'm given

However a situation where LH armies "want" to choose to fight by the edge of a river in order to give them ]more open terrain does strike me as being a bit odd.

[philqw78]

Surely horsey armies would want to fight by a river and in open terrain. Rivers bieng the roads of their day and source of water and good grazing.

[MarkSieber]

Rivers being the roads of their day and source of water and good grazing.

But more often than not associated at least with what the rules represent as gullies, if not some vegetation. All that wouldn't be terraformed to allow for a road a few hundred meters away.

[spikemesq]

After years of DBM in which "steppe armies" suffered for being too small in EE terms, I am not so upset if the pendulum has swung the other way. That said, I am not so convinced that it truly has.

I don't recall off-hand how road deployment works mechanically, but the changes to avoid its use as a terrain blocker make a lot of sense.

Building on the "roads are where the ambush happens" it seems to me that a road in a flank sector may be historically unreasonable. Armies encounter each en route (i.e., when travelling along the road), but roads are not likely to be a sideline feature. Perhaps road placement should be restricted to the center of the table, or at least 12 inches from any side edge, with opposing movement similarly restricted. That way, the road remains a focal point (e.g., the situs of the encounter). Lateral roads might be closer to the long edges, to represent an army setting up camp along the march.

Spike

PS - Dom Rom infantry BGs should have minimum of 6 stands. qtiyd

[grahambriggs]

To re-iterate, I'm not suggesting that Road+River will lead to a blanket of LH and anti-LH armies in all competitions, far from it.

I just think its a shame that roads have been largely denied their only possible "real" role in the game ("a quick way through delaying terrain"), rivers roles ("I'm a stodgy foot army who needs to anchor my flank") appears to have been similarly compromised, and instead both may end up being used primarily by steppe/LH armies purely as a game mechanic to help reduce the amount of terrain on table.

Tim

So if you had a stodgy foot army that needed to anchor its flank, and your cav/LH opponent put a river down, are you saying that you would not use it to anchor your flank?

I took an army with some stodge (32 protected undrilled IF) to Britcon, but also 20 light spear cavalry and 16 LH. My standard approach was to put the river down but not the road (so a crowd of terrain went on the other short edge). The stodge went in the centre with mounted on either flank (usually LH near the river). I found that the threat of the stodge marching up the river was sufficient to stop enemy deploying there. When I deployed it correctly it worked very well against the skirmish armies with the cavalry opening things up quickly while the stodge advanced solidly.

Regards

Graham

[david53]

To re-iterate, I'm not suggesting that Road+River will lead to a blanket of LH and anti-LH armies in all competitions, far from it.

I just think its a shame that roads have been largely denied their only possible "real" role in the game ("a quick way through delaying terrain"), rivers roles ("I'm a stodgy foot army who needs to anchor my flank") appears to have been similarly compromised, and instead both may end up being used primarily by steppe/LH armies purely as a game mechanic to help reduce the amount of terrain on table.

Tim

So if you had a stodgy foot army that needed to anchor its flank, and your cav/LH opponent put a river down, are you saying that you would not use it to anchor your flank?

I'll take anything I'm given

However a situation where LH armies "want" to choose to fight by the edge of a river in order to give them ]more open terrain does strike me as being a bit odd.

I fight with Skythian not cause I think they'll win anything its cause i like playing them or in fact any steppe army. I like the history and the culture and they are my army choice others like what they like. In a comp I will take an IC (unlike Dave R) chosing to spend 30 points to get a chance to fight in the Steppes thats my choice what is the problum with that its in the rules.
This could go on and on I don't think the authors will be doing a version two anytime soon, when they do I'll ask the shooting be made stronger against Armoured foot, and less BG's for armies and no medium battlegroups with four bases, no longbows and Scots armies get a plus 2 on any test.

[johno]

Whos perception is that then, those people who use HF armies maybe, who can't quite catch Light Horse. The shooting of LH is not excessive IMO so that just leaves movement and back to HF not catching them.

[JRO] Adverse comments on the power of light horse are the commonest complaint about FoG that I encounter, even from people that are really keen on the rules - a group that I'm not part of, regarding them as the lesser of several evils.

As I said in the post you quoted, the complaint does not match my experience so far, but I (and most of my opponents) do not use excessive numbers of light horse, even in all-mounted armies, so I may not have the full picture yet.

Having said that, one local player is causing a stir with a Parthian army that apparently features 15+ 32-point BGs of light horse archers, and people are finding it difficult to cope with. I haven't seen his list, nor had a chance to see him in action, but he is having a very successful run against a wide range of opponents. He is also a very competent player, which must be considered when listening to his opponents moaning about light horse...

However, off-topic discussion of the power of light horse does not detract from my original point: if the terrain system is designed to have the feature distribution set out in the table, and there is a simple exploit which breaks that distribution, there is cause for concern, regardless of what sort of armies are perceived to benefit!

johno

[hazelbark]

However, off-topic discussion of the power of light horse does not detract from my original point: if the terrain system is designed to have the feature distribution set out in the table, and there is a simple exploit which breaks that distribution, there is cause for concern, regardless of what sort of armies are perceived to benefit!

valid point.

[hazelbark]

Adverse comments on the power of light horse are the commonest complaint about FoG that I encounter, even from people that are really keen on the rules - a group that I'm not part of, regarding them as the lesser of several evils.

Having said that, one local player is causing a stir with a Parthian army that apparently features 15 plus 32 point BGs of light horse archers, and people are finding it difficult to cope with. I haven't seen his list, nor had a chance to see him in action, but he is having a very successful run against a wide range of opponents. He is also a very competent player, which must be considered when listening to his opponents moaning about light horse...

I think this stems from the fact that you can be really sloppy with LH and still have an effect. Combine that with people are often very loose on watching LH manuver but very precise when it comes to say undrilled Knights of foot.

So this is, I agree, a downside in the early stages of learning the game. Just like it is easier to learn how to spray machine gun fire than be a silent sniper.

15 Bgs of LH plus 140 generals leave room for about 6 stands of Cataphracts. That is a fun army but i can see a whole host of armies that could give it a rough time. But it is easier to whip the LH around as it takes little thougth or planning, until the opponent has designed counter measures.

[david53]

Combine that with people are often very loose on watching LH manuver but very precise when it comes to say undrilled Knights of foot.

Not got one of these armies have you.

[nikgaukroger]

15 Bgs of LH plus 140 generals

Thats nearly 10 generals per BG

[deadtorius]

lets hope those are cheap generals then

[timmy1]

Or a new take on one of Si's 5500 point a side games.

[hazelbark]

Combine that with people are often very loose on watching LH manuver but very precise when it comes to say undrilled Knights of foot.

Not got one of these armies have you.

In fact of have many of both.

[hazelbark]

lets hope those are cheap generals then

General Disaster
General Delivery
General Post
General Gaukroger (will roll dice for beer)
General Mess