So cav armies just default to the Magic Terrain. It's a no brainer for Loose Cav. Screws close foot and close horse.
Is it too broken? Too boring?
That it is called 'Magic Terrain' in the community is a sign?
Personally, I think it balances out cavalry. Close foot/horse are too good otherwise. It also balances flexibles (who can be loose in the terrain and close outside it).
I don't see it as broken; without it I would see the game as being more broken.
Richard
I hate it - cynically use it all the time with cavalry armies to screw up foot, game would be better without it IMO.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 16, 2019, 02:27:33 PM
I hate it - cynically use it all the time with cavalry armies to screw up foot, game would be better without it IMO.
I love it. It's too easy to stuff too much anti cav terrain on the board. This way you can block heavier terrain and get something useful down.
Mind you if Jason roles 5 sixes consecutively in terrain set up, it really doesn't matter.
"Let it go Ray, let it go!"
It does seem odd that we have terrain where cavalry is better than infantry.
Not aware of any other set of rules that has something like it.
Martin
Quote from: rayfredjohn on March 16, 2019, 05:00:31 PM
I love it. It's too easy to stuff too much anti cav terrain on the board. This way you can block heavier terrain and get something useful down.
If its too easy to block cavalry (IMO debatable) with terrain, then a plain open ground piece would, IMO, be better than the "magic cavalry terrain".
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 16, 2019, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on March 16, 2019, 05:00:31 PM
I love it. It's too easy to stuff too much anti cav terrain on the board. This way you can block heavier terrain and get something useful down.
If its too easy to block cavalry (IMO debatable) with terrain, then a plain open ground piece would, IMO, be better than the "magic cavalry terrain".
Agreed.
Quote from: rayfredjohn on March 16, 2019, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 16, 2019, 02:27:33 PM
I hate it - cynically use it all the time with cavalry armies to screw up foot, game would be better without it IMO.
I love it. It's too easy to stuff too much anti cav terrain on the board. This way you can block heavier terrain and get something useful down.
Mind you if Jasmine roles 5 sixes consecutively it really doesn't matter.
"Let it go Ray, let it go!"
Although I question what this actually represents (how do foot spearmen standing still suddenly become useless against cavalry?) I'm with Ray and RJC, without it cavalry armies will be hard up against it if they lose the terrain roll. Either keep it or replace it with an 'open space' of the same size as a terrain pick.
I like the idea of it becoming open ground that takes the same space as a standard terrain pick.
Once terrain is all done, just remove it.
I haven't played cav heavy armies yet though, so don't fix it until I get to exploit it too. ta. ;)
Dru
I love cavalry armies but yes, uneven ground messing with close foot but not worrying cavalry is an anomaly. The fact that it is the go to terrain choice for any cavalry army indicates a problem.
Perhaps it should, like rivers, be a 'scenario only' terrain type? Or there could be a 'maximum of 1 selection' imposed. I'm aware of no historical example of a mounted army seeking out the broken ground for a fight with foot.
Martin
Quote from: Dru on March 16, 2019, 09:04:14 AM
So cav armies just default to the Magic Terrain. It's a no brainer for Loose Cav. Screws close foot and close horse.
Is it too broken? Too boring?
That it is called 'Magic Terrain' in the community is a sign?
Dru, when you start using cavalry armies you'll see why people choose it. If there is something that is broken it's river/coast, probably chosen by even more foot armies than uneven ground is by cavalry :P If we take away uneven ground, maybe we should take away river/coast? How many battles were fought alongside a coast or impassable river?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - let's not take away terrain that benefits mounted and leave in terrain that every man and his dog chooses if he has a foot army. Talk about boring!!
In my game vs Jason at Stockport, the whole table was covered in the stuff, and my whole army was close order troops vs his mounted.
Would not have made a difference to the result, but it hurt!
Quote from: craig.w on March 17, 2019, 07:11:49 AM
Quote from: Dru on March 16, 2019, 09:04:14 AM
So cav armies just default to the Magic Terrain. It's a no brainer for Loose Cav. Screws close foot and close horse.
Is it too broken? Too boring?
That it is called 'Magic Terrain' in the community is a sign?
Dru, when you start using cavalry armies you'll see why people choose it. If there is something that is broken it's river/coast, probably chosen by even more foot armies than uneven ground is by cavalry :P If we take away uneven ground, maybe we should take away river/coast? How many battles were fought alongside a coast or impassable river?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - let's not take away terrain that benefits mounted and leave in terrain that every man and his dog chooses if he has a foot army. Talk about boring!!
Agreed, happy for uneven to be fixed up but yes, coast should be much harder to get. Everyone will be happyI think if that is the case.
Quote from: craig.w on March 17, 2019, 07:11:49 AM
Quote from: Dru on March 16, 2019, 09:04:14 AM
So cav armies just default to the Magic Terrain. It's a no brainer for Loose Cav. Screws close foot and close horse.
Is it too broken? Too boring?
That it is called 'Magic Terrain' in the community is a sign?
Dru, when you start using cavalry armies you'll see why people choose it. If there is something that is broken it's river/coast, probably chosen by even more foot armies than uneven ground is by cavalry :P If we take away uneven ground, maybe we should take away river/coast? How many battles were fought alongside a coast or impassable river?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - let's not take away terrain that benefits mounted and leave in terrain that every man and his dog chooses if he has a foot army. Talk about boring!!
Coasts may be over-represented but are far from unknown to historical battles. Rough terrain that significantly favours mounted over foot is, as the name 'magic terrain' suggests, a fantasy.
Martin
I agree. I use cavalry armies all the time but avoid using it as I just consider it to be too silly (yes, even in competition..)
"potholes, small rises and dips in otherwise level ground"
Cavalry tend to break legs when pot holes are around - hence armies digging them. Conversely, you or I on foot can pretty easily navigate them no matter how close you stand to me.
Gees Marty & Dru, haven't you seen The Man from Snowy River - those horses were galloping up and down mountains where I dare say a phalanx wouldn't have been able to maintain its order ;)
Quote from: martymagnificent on March 17, 2019, 06:19:47 AM
I'm aware of no historical example of a mounted army seeking out the broken ground for a fight with foot.
Can't say that an example springs to my mind either (other than to use as an ambush which I'm pretty sure there are examples).
"Cavalry tend to break legs when pot holes are around...foot can pretty easily navigate them..."
Would like to see some evidence of this. If your point is true, then why didn't dismounted cowboys catch wild horses by herding them into broken ground? The answer is that they didn't. They rode other horses and used lassos.
I rode horses growing up. Never saw a horse break a leg by stepping in a pothole. Matter of fact, I would rather ride a horse through broken ground than walk through it myself. Horses, having four legs, can get through rough terrain faster. Humans walk on two legs because it is more efficient in terms of consuming calories, not safer.
Quote from: sppenn on March 18, 2019, 11:32:17 AM
"Cavalry tend to break legs when pot holes are around...foot can pretty easily navigate them..."
Would like to see some evidence of this. If your point is true, then why didn't dismounted cowboys catch wild horses by herding them into broken ground? The answer is that they didn't. They rode other horses and used lassos.
Well the infantry digging pot holes as a defense against cavalry seem to think it was a good idea - do we think they were wasting their time? A bit out of period but rabbit warrens causing issues for cavalry in the ECW is a reasonably common thing, got the Earl of Northampton killed at Hopton Heath IIRC.
As for the cowboys, ride horses because you can then keep up with the ones you are trying to catch I would suggest - I think chasing wild horses on foot is just a way to get shagged out for no return. It'd also probably be daft to herd horses you want to catch into terrain where they may get injured.
Quote
I rode horses growing up. Never saw a horse break a leg by stepping in a pothole. Matter of fact, I would rather ride a horse through broken ground than walk through it myself. Horses, having four legs, can get through rough terrain faster. Humans walk on two legs because it is more efficient in terms of consuming calories, not safer.
How about bodies of cavalry in combat situations? A bit different from individuals or small numbers in non-combat situations.
And back to the point made earlier - "I'm aware of no historical example of a mounted army seeking out the broken ground for a fight with foot." In MeG you positively do so, and commonly - is such an approach justified by history?
Quote from: sppenn on March 18, 2019, 11:32:17 AM
"Cavalry tend to break legs when pot holes are around...foot can pretty easily navigate them..."
I rode horses growing up. Never saw a horse break a leg by stepping in a pothole.
William III might disagree with you there...
i think the descriptio6 with Uneven ground is very poor. Potholes would be very dangerous for cavalry. There are however areas of ground that probably are easier for cavalry to negotiate than formed infantry.
I have argued in the past that armies should be allowed to buy one pre-prepared terrain piece representing either Rough (pits etc.) that they would get to place in their own deployment area after outscouted troops have been deployed , or Open (smoothed ground) that they get to place before compulsory terrain pieces. I have tried this in a friendly scenario game and it worked okay.
Richard
"...infantry digging pot holes as a defense against cavalry seem to think it was a good idea.."
True. Good point. Broken ground slows down cavalry. And my reference to my childhood horseback riding days is anecdotal.
But, I'm still not convinced that uneven ground affects close order infantry, close order cavalry, and loose order cavalry. The rule in the terrain sheet says that "potholes, small rises and dips in otherwise level ground" is to be taken as "rough for close" order troops. I'm OK with that for reasons already stated. I'm not sure why potholes would affect loose order cav more than loose order infantry.
Not trying to sound as closed minded here as I suspect that I am.
This particular piece of of terrain has always seemed odd in its effect and I have long tried to suggest it be changed.
So, what about if this terrain type was turned on its head?
Why not change it to unusually flat/level ground, leave infantry factors as is but give cavalry a plus one in impact?
Generals sometimes, time permitting, prepared or specifically chose areas of ground to suit full cavalry charges. This would still make this terrain choice viable for mounted without reducing the cohesion of foot.
Just a thought.....
Lance.
I quite like lance's idea. Of course it probably has a few balance implications, but then all terrain does.
Certainly I think it makes more sense than the current rule does.
Quote from: Lanceflint on March 18, 2019, 04:25:23 PM
This particular piece of of terrain has always seemed odd in its effect and I have long tried to suggest it be changed.
So, what about if this terrain type was turned on its head?
Why not change it to unusually flat/level ground, leave infantry factors as is but give cavalry a plus one in impact?
Generals sometimes, time permitting, prepared or specifically chose areas of ground to suit full cavalry charges. This would still make this terrain choice viable for mounted without reducing the cohesion of foot.
Just a thought.....
Lance.
I don't really see the need for such a terrain type, or at least an Open Space would cover it nicely.
Open space would make more sence
Quote from: martymagnificent on March 16, 2019, 08:55:44 PM
It does seem odd that we have terrain where cavalry is better than infantry.
Not aware of any other set of rules that has something like it.
Martin
No it was a deliberate invention after talking to lots of riders.
As they are four legged and don't work in formation, minor folds in ground don't affect them at all.
Bit they do make holding close formations difficult.
So the idea came from there and is indeed new but I think correct.
Solid infantry armies sought out nice flat plains where keeping formation was easy.
When in Russia a lot of the steppes was actually quite bumpy and would be hard to hold a line of hoplites together.
The description is probably not my best work ...
So there you have the rationale exposed at least.
Perhaps it should be limited to certain territory types?
But I did think you could find that mid ground between flat and rough in most places.
S
I like the idea of being able to put down an 'open space' where terrain is excluded.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on March 19, 2019, 04:48:36 PM
No it was a deliberate invention after talking to lots of riders.
But we must remember that modern riders do not participate in unit sized combat situations where, I suggest, the dynamics would be different.
Quote
As they are four legged and don't work in formation, minor folds in ground don't affect them at all.
I don't think that the idea that they don't work in formation is not tenable. Just look, for example, at the emphasis on keeping formation in the Byzantine manuals, or the crusader desire to keep their formations intact so as to deliver the most effective charge against the moslems.
Quote
Solid infantry armies sought out nice flat plains where keeping formation was easy.
When in Russia a lot of the steppes was actually quite bumpy and would be hard to hold a line of hoplites together.
Most ground is not perfectly flat and has various lumops and bumps, its the reason they moved around in a more open formation that they fought in to ensure they kept in reasonable order - so I'd not overplay that rationale and to be honest I think there is an elemnt of overthinking here. Also, if receiving a cavalry charge the foot will be stationary and able to hold a nice compact formation - moving around is what causes most issues in broken ground, standing still isn't.
And we still get back to the the point made previously- "I'm aware of no historical example of a mounted army seeking out the broken ground for a fight with foot." In MeG you positively do so, and commonly - is such an approach justified by history?
If you take away uneven ground that would mean that chariots are pretty much the same as cavalry on the battlefield (haven't seen too many mounted units go into woods or marshes yet). Is that reasonable? I assumed that the uneven ground was not only to affect close infantry but to represent that things with wheels are more vulnerable to terrain than a man on a horse.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 19, 2019, 05:55:33 PM
Most ground is not perfectly flat and has various lumps and bumps, its the reason they moved around in a more open formation that they fought in to ensure they kept in reasonable order - so I'd not overplay that rationale and to be honest I think there is an elemnt of overthinking here. Also, if receiving a cavalry charge the foot will be stationary and able to hold a nice compact formation - moving around is what causes most issues in broken ground, standing still isn't.
And we still get back to the the point made previously- "I'm aware of no historical example of a mounted army seeking out the broken ground for a fight with foot." In MeG you positively do so, and commonly - is such an approach justified by history?
I think most people using mounted armies choose uneven ground so that they aren't forced to put down rough or difficult terrain, and to block the opponent putting down the same, rather than hide their mounted in it. You can't put an entire army in a couple of pieces of uneven ground, it's just a couple of patches on the battlefield, so I don't think it's a case of an army seeking out a massive patch of 'uneven ground' to fight in. Seems reasonable that most battlefields had some bits of ground that were rougher than others and that close order troops or chariots avoided it.
Possibly amend it so that negative effects are only applied to wheeled and (maybe) close formation horse?
MEG already has a system for avoiding having to place terrain. If you fail at that and end up in a terrain density that requires you to place some pieces you should have to. Not open spaces or, even worse, a faux open space that only affects your opponent.
QuoteI think most people using mounted armies choose uneven ground so that they aren't forced to put down rough or difficult terrain, and to block the opponent putting down the same, rather than hide their mounted in it. You can't put an entire army in a couple of pieces of uneven ground, it's just a couple of patches on the battlefield,
And this is a problem. It is essentially letting mounted armies have multiple swings at creating featureless tables ie 'stuck in dense or very dense, don't worry half the terrain will only effect the opponent'. I would assume they will select every one available and make it as large as possible. After all why not? If they find themselves opposed by something they don't want to face I have no doubt they will hide from it in the terrain. Then we are left with the unedifying, unhistorical spectacle of mounted hiding from foot in, ever so slightly, bad terrain.
Martin
Martin
Quote from: craig.w on March 20, 2019, 01:58:02 AM
I think most people using mounted armies choose uneven ground so that they aren't forced to put down rough or difficult terrain, and to block the opponent putting down the same, rather than hide their mounted in it.
I think it is a rare situation where people pick it to hide mounted in it - it is chosen because that gives them terrain where they have positive advanatges because they are unaffected by it, as well as blocking out terrain that could cause them issues.
Quote from: martymagnificent on March 20, 2019, 06:51:44 AM
And this is a problem. It is essentially letting mounted armies have multiple swings at creating featureless tables ie 'stuck in dense or very dense, don't worry half the terrain will only effect the opponent'. I would assume they will select every one available and make it as large as possible. After all why not? If they find themselves opposed by something they don't want to face I have no doubt they will hide from it in the terrain. Then we are left with the unedifying, unhistorical spectacle of mounted hiding from foot in, ever so slightly, bad terrain.
The way it affects terrain density is a very good point.
I've certainly found that when using mainly mounted armies I can be very relaxed about what debnsity of terrain the battle ends up with as a few pieces of Uneven Ground effectively reduce the density. This then means you do not have to spend good cards in the PBS stage on trying to affect the terrain density but can keep them back for scouting. The advantages just pile up :P
AM pndering but further thoughts in bold ... not wedded to it but a good debate.
Willing to drop it from vs2 if convinced.
It does however change the game balance for mounted vs foot a lot so be carefulwhat you ask for...
Won't be rushing a decision.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 19, 2019, 05:55:33 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on March 19, 2019, 04:48:36 PM
No it was a deliberate invention after talking to lots of riders.
But we must remember that modern riders do not participate in unit sized combat situations where, I suggest, the dynamics would be different.
Household cavalry officer and Sealed Knot cavalry riders.
Quote
As they are four legged and don't work in formation, minor folds in ground don't affect them at all.
I don't think that the idea that they don't work in formation is not tenable. Just look, for example, at the emphasis on keeping formation in the Byzantine manuals, or the crusader desire to keep their formations intact so as to deliver the most effective charge against the moslems.
It was more about when they charge. Then they do not hold formation at all. As the terrain only matters then it is that which drove me to it. For sure they aim to keep formation on approach. But it is the moment of impact I was interested in.
Quote
Solid infantry armies sought out nice flat plains where keeping formation was easy.
When in Russia a lot of the steppes was actually quite bumpy and would be hard to hold a line of hoplites together.
Most ground is not perfectly flat and has various lumops and bumps, its the reason they moved around in a more open formation that they fought in to ensure they kept in reasonable order - so I'd not overplay that rationale and to be honest I think there is an elemnt of overthinking here. Also, if receiving a cavalry charge the foot will be stationary and able to hold a nice compact formation - moving around is what causes most issues in broken ground, standing still isn't.
So my thinking is at moment of impact flat terrain gives infantry in close formation and easy hold. But uneven terrain makes it easy to hold when alone but when hit by a horse the cohesion will collapse easily. Actually I think most heavy foot armies sought out very flat terrain with big folds in the ground. When I was in Russia and Japan one it struck me how you didn't get that but a sort of mildly rocky ground. But not so serious I would call it rough. So my thinking is about the cohesion on charging cavalry (no longer in formation) and tighy formation foot when hit (as against when moving about hence 3BW movement still).
And we still get back to the the point made previously- "I'm aware of no historical example of a mounted army seeking out the broken ground for a fight with foot." In MeG you positively do so, and commonly - is such an approach justified by history?
Not sure we would see it in any writing though. More to look for if you were inclined would be occasions where heavy infantry collapsed against mounted in the "open" and the terrain was a factor. Given then definitely wouldn't sit in rough going in game terms that would be the clue. I willingly bow to superior historical enquiry for evidence either way. Always interested.
So as I began willing to drop it, but FWIW that was my rationale for creating it.
Si
I think your logic is sound Si. My vote is to keep it as is.
Hunter
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on March 21, 2019, 08:23:29 AM
Quote
Quote
As they are four legged and don't work in formation, minor folds in ground don't affect them at all.
I don't think that the idea that they don't work in formation is not tenable. Just look, for example, at the emphasis on keeping formation in the Byzantine manuals, or the crusader desire to keep their formations intact so as to deliver the most effective charge against the moslems.
It was more about when they charge. Then they do not hold formation at all. As the terrain only matters then it is that which drove me to it. For sure they aim to keep formation on approach. But it is the moment of impact I was interested in.
Si
It is keeping formation in the charge that the Byzantine manuals mention.
But that is physically impossible so it must mean in the approach unless they never really charge.
So might apply to Kataphraktoi.
Depends what they consider a charge to be.
Usually will be a start at the walk, an approach at the trot in order, then a charge at the gallop where keeping order is impossible.
That hasn't changed with history - same thing today if you get a cavalry charge, or in Napoleonics etc.
So the impact point being at the gallop there is no order anymore.
Si
So I will keep pondering the realism...
What are peoples view on what would happe to the game balance.
I feel mts shooty cav vs foot is pretty balanced at present but need a lot of skill from the cav player.
Wouldn't this make that even more tricky?
Personally if i fight a cav army with lots of uneven ground i tend to ignore it and block some enemy in there.
Eventually anything in there ands up flanked.
Si
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on March 22, 2019, 07:39:10 AM
But that is physically impossible so it must mean in the approach unless they never really charge.
So might apply to Kataphraktoi.
No clearly applies to all the cavalry - for example it is what is described in the Straegikon which is 350 years before the katafraktoi were introduced 8) FWIW the Strategikon does mention charging at the gallop, but only when in open order to pursue.
For a lot of history cavalry charges have emphasised control - for example as late as the TYW/ECW we have charges delivered at "a full trot " (to quote a Royalist about Roundway Down). A final spurring on to "full career" may have been used by some at the last minute for a burst of extra impetus at the point where the formation would not be disrupted by hitting a gallop.
Interesting.
So Byzantines probably didn't use a gallop cavalry charge. Shoot & Charge style I guess.
Any charge at the gallop will lose any tightness of formation, not possible to do otherwise.
You need 50m to get there from trot. In that distance it all breaks up from being anything tight-nit like a block of solid infantry which is what I am interested in being ablty to cope.
So not convinced any of that really helps the thinking much to be honest.
So let's switch to game impact.
Am ok to remove it or leave it so far, if the balance isn't over affected but concerned it will be rather heavily.
Si
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on March 22, 2019, 07:42:31 AM
What are peoples view on what would happe to the game balance.
I feel mts shooty cav vs foot is pretty balanced at present but need a lot of skill from the cav player.
Wouldn't this make that even more tricky?
This isn't just limited to shooty cavalry, it applies to all cavalry other than the few who are Close formation and get affected by Uneven. Lancers, for example, benefit from it just as much.
But yes, not having it would make shooty cavalry armies life a bit more difficult. How much I am not sure.
I would, however, suggest that if the game needs an (IMO) dubious terrain type to balance shooty cavalry (allowing for the design desire to have them tough to play) then the game has something a bit wrong with the way it represents shooty cavalry.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on March 22, 2019, 09:34:00 AM
So let's switch to game impact.
Am ok to remove it or leave it so far, if the balance isn't over affected but concerned it will be rather heavily.
Si
From competition results, it doesn't seem to me that mounted armies are the dominant army, or the go to choice as they were in other rules sets.
A couple of things work against them in my opinion:
- there are a lot of coast/river/mountain etc secure flanks chosen, and even with an all mounted army, it's not that easy to move it into the open, especially against a professional army. I use instinctive mounted armies a fair bit and I end up fighting a lot of games with a coast.
-flank marches are very hard to pull off unless you have an army with lots of flexibles. With only SUGs it's not that devastating, and if there are any loose formation TUGs it's very hard to get them on.
If you did remove this terrain type then:
- terrain would be on average denser for mounted armies but probably more open for close foot armies (as cavalry armies would not choose optional pieces but would be forced to choose compulsory rough instead of uneven ground)
- chariot armies would be better, relative to cavalry armies, than they were before.
In my (humble) opinion, it is fine as it is, I'm not sure how common the belief is that the terrain is 'wrong' or 'magic', but if you did change it I wouldn't be too upset if I could then choose an 'open space' as 'any piece' (although that would still make the compulsory terrain denser). I also think that coast is way over-represented but I guess not much can be done about that.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 22, 2019, 11:07:36 AM
But yes, not having it would make shooty cavalry armies life a bit more difficult. How much I am not sure.
I would, however, suggest that if the game needs an (IMO) dubious terrain type to balance shooty cavalry (allowing for the design desire to have them tough to play) then the game has something a bit wrong with the way it represents shooty cavalry.
I'm not sure there is a problem with shooty cavalry - but we are playing on a small board and they run away very easily. Also for the armies heavy with skirmishing cavalry, they lost half their cantabrian, so their firepower was reduced.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 22, 2019, 11:07:36 AM
But yes, not having it would make shooty cavalry armies life a bit more difficult. How much I am not sure.
I would, however, suggest that if the game needs an (IMO) dubious terrain type to balance shooty cavalry (allowing for the design desire to have them tough to play) then the game has something a bit wrong with the way it represents shooty cavalry.
Well it doesn't need it so much as I have sought to balance them with it in.
So am a bit concerned at taking it out.
S
Thanks Craig.
Coasts and riverbank (its both) were pretty common anchor points for battles.
I guess it has risen a bit because we now have to stay in the C zone.
But it does mean we can put theose nice MeG costlines down .... :-)
The way to shift cav. infantry balance is really simple.
Its the deployment distances.
Make it 8MU from centre and cav a bit easier as more space, drop it to 4MU and tougher.
S
As the guy who raised the thread, I'd be cautious about removing it, actually, as the game works fairly well.
It's just that it's so boringly predictable that a cav army only chooses that same terrain, in the biggest size it can get.
And I have, to date, only played foot slogger armies - and that is my preferred armies - so even I don't want a change to the mechanics as due to the game design balancing it all out.
What I am really interested in, is considering down the track how to stop it being spammed. How do we get more variety of terrain and force the cav armies to be more invested in the PBS rather than by default not caring very much and just holding best cards for scouting. (Maybe max 1 'magic terrain' per person, or something). Definitely needs consideration before anything done.
If you want to force more variety you could perhaps choose your terrain type (eg rough) but then role a dice to see exactly which type of piece you receive.
But someone would have to design a number of tables for each territory type. It might be a bit complex to figure out.
We need to KISS to keep set up speed high.
I have to say I haven't found it a huge issue.
Maybe we can start to report back games where it is and then consider options.
S
Quote from: craig.w on March 22, 2019, 11:33:15 AM
Also for the armies heavy with skirmishing cavalry, they lost half their cantabrian, so their firepower was reduced.
This was the big 2019 change for me in terms of skirmisher firepower - not the terrain.
Loss of green dice is a big deal.
The oddness of this terrain piece is unique to this set of rules, so unless it's really necessary I would remove it as people will not understand what it means (hence this thread).
The basic cavalry 'known' in any age is that they don't fight well in terrain. Every wargamer knows this to be the case from many years of rules drilling that in to us.
There is another discussion about : should the knights be close cavalry ...if we go that way - and it should be discussed in the right discussion not here - that will change many things as close order cavalry will not like "uneven terrain" .
About magic terrain , just go real life, practice actual horse ridding and discover :
The training ground ( "le manege in french" ) is pretty fine place for the horses, but pretty nice opportunity, in wet weather, too to slip and end on one's ass ( infantry in trouble ) .... with dirty pants and boots ... just do it ... I did !
magic ground exists ... i practiced it :-)
Quote from: Onurbm on April 02, 2019, 07:48:17 PM
About magic terrain , just go real life, practice actual horse ridding and discover :
The training ground ( "le manege in french" ) is pretty fine place for the horses, but pretty nice opportunity, in wet weather, too to slip and end on one's ass ( infantry in trouble ) .... with dirty pants and boots ... just do it ... I did !
magic ground exists ... i practiced it :-)
Yes, there seems to be an idea that somehow horses can't cope in terrain that's not billiard table smooth. Sorry, but this isn't true. Like Onurbm, I've ridden horses and this idea that they can't handle terrain, fall over at the drop of a hat, break legs and riders die all the time is just not true. Horses are pretty sure footed in places where a pike phalanx wouldn't be too happy. Sure you occasionally come a cropper, but so do people running who pull hamstring or trip over. It just doesn't happen that often.
Quote from: craig.w on April 05, 2019, 12:26:46 PM
Yes, there seems to be an idea that somehow horses can't cope in terrain that's not billiard table smooth. Sorry, but this isn't true.
Same true of "close formation" infantry.
Question really is back to the issue of: can they hold the line ... within that Toto track is the answer somewhere.
Si
I think we must make a difference between a formed unit of a few hundred people and a lonesome cow boy ..
Keeping people in line is not easy and I practiced in mock battles oh hundreds of people, the biggest involving 5000 "players" .
Now I remember reading somewhere that even a phalanx could be pretty successfull in bad terrain as long as it went forward .
So all what we think we know might not be what really happened 8)