A few days ago I fielded my 28mm Picts against Early Imperial Romans. Given my flexible and loose army I decided on lots of terrain. In our post battle debrief, while ensuring some rather good wine was not wasted, we felt that given the size of the Picts 9x9 base + 2x6 base infantry and 2 chariot TUGs my best option would have been bare terrain so I could move rapidly onto the Roman flanks while holding back my centre. I know we are fairly ignorant of actual Picts but it does seem strange that the rules would encourage a barbarian army to fight Romans in the open. Were we missing something? (We've both been playing ancients since the early 80s ) so have a bit of experience and dare I say it - expertise.
Given that the Romans are Flexible the terrain is not really an issue for either side unless one has a significant advantage in mounted troops when more open terrain will probably be to their benefit. Open terrain can be to the Roman's benefit against Loose infantry as they can be Close formation and thus potentially get Shove against the Loose.
QuoteGiven my flexible and loose army I decided on lots of terrain.
Don't: In MeG Romans are better in terrain than "barbarians". /facepalm
The problem is that Flexibles are a nice idea that is poorly implemented. To switch takes an entire turn, which is an age in MeG, and if Tribal Flexible you are subject to the whims of the cards and your opponent's ability to manipulate the deck by retaining as many reds and yellows as possible which (magically) then impairs the ability of your troops to make basic, low-level tactical decisions. Flexibles should be re-worked to correspond with something like Cantabrian, i.e. a movement reduction to switch wit some movement still possible.
Thus Infantry could deduct 1 BW movement, switch from Loose to Close Order (or vice versa) and then units could still move the reduced amount based on their current order. Flex Cavalry deduct 2 BW to go from Skirmisher to Loose (or vice versa), and then the units could still move the reduced amount based on their current order. Now you would have a rule that makes sense, adds utility and speeds up play whereas now flexible units, particularly Tribal Flexibles - aren't.
It won't happen, so Tribal Flexibles in particular will remain largely pointless.
CdlT
Quote from: Chevalier de la Terre on August 17, 2022, 01:49:07 PM
It won't happen, so Tribal Flexibles in particular will remain largely pointless.
CdlT
What about Tribal loose and Tribal close? Is there any point to them?
QuoteWhat about Tribal loose and Tribal close? Is there any point to them?
They don't have to remain stationary for a full turn and pay a high-value card to be in optimal formation, thus you will use them differently and re not paying for a Flexible grading.
Besides, Flexibles are not available to every army: only some "warband" types are graded Tribal Flexible, generally those thought capable of operating more...flexibly.
CdlT
Quote from: Chevalier de la Terre on August 17, 2022, 11:37:13 PM
They don't have to remain stationary for a full turn and pay a high-value card to be in optimal formation, thus you will use them differently and re not paying for a Flexible grading.
Besides, Flexibles are not available to every army: only some "warband" types are graded Tribal Flexible, generally those thought capable of operating more...flexibly.
CdlT
So you are saying the ability to change into optimal formation by remaining stationary for a full turn and paying a high-value card is worse than
never being able to change into optimal formation?
I note the costs are:
Cost for Average INFANTRY
Drilled Close 70
Drilled Loose 65
Drilled Flexible 75
Formed Close 65
Formed Loose 60
Formed Flexible 70
Tribal Close 55
Tribal Loose 50
Tribal Flexible 60
Skirmisher 30
which means Tribal are paying the largest cost multiplying factor for flexibility when it is hardest for them to use it during the game (might be worth revisiting that for next year's army builder). But they can still use it at deployment, so it is not entirely pointless.
Interesting point Lawrence...I hadn't even thought of that. However, (Devil's advocate) I will also point out that in the absence of concrete balance informatin you could also use that data to argue that perhaps Tribal Close and Tribal Loos should be a bit more expensive ;)
Given the power of the online-only points system, it does seem like an early approximation to have base points values all neatly aligned on 5-point boundaries!
Anyway, back to the point...yes, work out what formation the plan requires the troops to be in and deploy them as such. That could include deploying in terrain in close formation, knowing that the troops are about to advance into the open. If the plan really does require a change of formation in the future, try to stockpile the cards, and perhaps make sure a general is handy to help.
If the plan requires multiple formation changes in quick succession, I would argue that the C-in-C is doing it wrong :)
I'm also tempted to suggest that the availability of flexible tribals
Quotemakes the army list allow for more interesting and different combinations/configurations within both a historical context and game context.
Going back to the OP, it seems to me:
If you have some loose infantry then they will benefit if there is enough terrain to fit them all in, as it denies the Romans their "shove" for being close versus loose in the open.
If you only have flexible infantry, then terrain doesn't matter unless you are planning on using ambushes.
In any case, if your infantry is inferior (which barbarians normally are), it may be worth putting some difficult terrain down to slow down the Roman approach.
If you have mounted, you want enough open space for them to operate in, ideally on one or both flanks.
The issue that I have is that it seems better for my tribal troops to close up and fight Romans in the open rather than fighting in rough terrain. Counter intuitive to my mind. I like the automating of changing - it's not like troops would need an order to spread out in a wood or that tribal wouldn't rush together in the open.