Most terrain is symmetrical in its effects on the battle, woods protect from and reduce the effect of shooting, rough going disrupts both sides equally.

There are some features that can give one side a distinct advantage for no penalty.  For example
•   The barricade protection offered by built-up areas
•   Vineyards offering cover to those inside with no impact on shooting out
•   Hills make very strong defensive positions, with the +1 for being uphill and the potential for overhead shooting.  Hills with extra bonus woods or rough going are even stronger.

As terrain placement does not define which sided (attacker or defender) that the terrain has to be placed, there is no risk in choosing a strong defensive piece of terrain as you can almost* guarantee it will not end up being in an advantageous position for your enemy.
This means that if you decide that you want to sit in very advantageous terrain, you can (yes, unless you have been forced to fight on an open plain etc etc).

The MeG score system normally works well to prevent this from being an issue as most players want to play, but there are times when this does not do the job.

Some possible solutions
Tournament terrain
This is down to the TO, and does not require any change in the rules as written.
TOs remove BUAs, vineyards and rough hills (I would be tempted to remove hills altogether, but that might be a move to far) from the terrain options available.
PBS changes
Two dice rolls, one for sector, one for side giving 6 or even 9 possible locations.  Then putting down a 10x10 rough hill has a 50/50 chance of giving the enemy the impenetrable defensive works.
Rule changes
Hills don't give a +1 for being uphill.  If there has to be an advantage, a 1BW move reduction moving uphill would probably do the job.
Vineyards don't give the asymmetrical advantages
BUAs, no barricade-type effects, or you have to pay for them from your army points (not an easy sell)
Similarly – barricades and other persistent defences should be a fixed cost rather than based on the troop cost.  It's too easy to shove out poor combat shy unskilled skirmishers with barricades, and then man them with superior heavy infantry.

*almost – you could conceivably have a situation where the only viable space in the sector rolled is on the opposite side of the table.  This can only occur if you choose to add the defensive position later in the sequence when the table is already cluttered.  But someone is going to point it out if I don't mention it.

This

'As terrain placement does not define which sided (attacker or defender) that the terrain has to be placed, there is no risk in choosing a strong defensive piece of terrain as you can almost* guarantee it will not end up being in an advantageous position for your enemy.'

A solution each person picks the terrain they want in each part of terrain deployment, compulsory or optional, and this creates a pool of terrain. a dice throw or a card pull to decide who picks the first piece to place down from the entire pool of selected terrain. then repeat for optional pieces. also allow  the terrain adjustment dice to gat an add +1 if you are throwing for a piece of terrain you selected but your opponent decided to place. That way defenders can still bring  their preferred terrain a bit more into the game. Might encourage smaller terrain pieces as well for more flexibility.

and this

'Similarly – barricades and other persistent defences should be a fixed cost rather than based on the troop cost.  It's too easy to shove out poor combat shy unskilled skirmishers with barricades, and then man them with superior heavy infantry.'

100% agree

A solution each person picks the terrain they want in each part of terrain deployment, compulsory or optional, and this creates a pool of terrain. a dice throw or a card pull to decide who picks the first piece to place down from the entire pool of selected terrain. then repeat for optional pieces. also allow  the terrain adjustment dice to gat an add +1 if you are throwing for a piece of terrain you selected but your opponent decided to place. That way defenders can still bring their preferred terrain a bit more into the game. Might encourage smaller terrain pieces as well for more flexibility.


wise words

On the last point, barricades etc should be a fixed cost rather than bases on troop cost has already been addressed for 2024.

Richard

I do not see any problems with terrains so do not understand the discussion!

If you are frustrated by the terrain, choose an army that can fight in any terrain ( Romans are quite good at it ) or devise a tactic to control that terrain !

It's part of the luck to place good terrain ...or not


Its part of the tactic to choose open terrain or not

So in the end what's the problem ? 

I agree. I don't think changes are required.

If dealing with unsuitable terrain is the issue - that is part of being a general. If the issue is people passively defending unassailable terrain, then they are not going to win if the opponent does not come in after them. I know that can be frustrating but I have very seldom seen such defensive play, especially by experienced players. Furthermore, what about the poor army of rubbish foot that needs some terrain to stand up to charging lancers and the like?

Quote from: SteveO on May 15, 2023, 01:21:23 PM
I agree. I don't think changes are required.

If dealing with unsuitable terrain is the issue - that is part of being a general. If the issue is people passively defending unassailable terrain, then they are not going to win if the opponent does not come in after them. I know that can be frustrating but I have very seldom seen such defensive play, especially by experienced players. Furthermore, what about the poor army of rubbish foot that needs some terrain to stand up to charging lancers and the like?

I may have misunderstood Paul but I thought his point was more that 'nasty' terrain provides advantages to those that want it along with having no real positioning consequences. A balancing issue rather than a broken issue maybe?

Well Generals did choose their terrain for a reason so why is it a problem ?

I understand the reasoning behind have more dice roil but then what about the reasoning behind the fact that I want to create a terrain that suits me but I know my fellow player can move that terrain and so I will loose the advantage I want ? Isn't it part of the game ?

There is something else that is not discussed but you also have the fact that you can put all the difficult terrain in you fellow player's deployment zone which can be annoying for him . I once saw a mounted army having to deploy un rough and difficult terrain ..so they could not avoid the fleet of foot massed infantry attack  It does not happen very often so why is it suddenly a problem ? rule fatigue ?

I think it is already difficult to get the terrain you want where you want it in MeG. It is generally much easier to get a pretty open table than not. I generally consider picking an army that relies on having terrain a pretty bad bet. I see no reason to push it further in this direction.

Martin

"If you're such a good general, come out and fight!"

"If you're such a good general, make me!"

Quote from: martymagnificent on May 15, 2023, 10:26:20 PM
I think it is already difficult to get the terrain you want where you want it in MeG. It is generally much easier to get a pretty open table than not. I generally consider picking an army that relies on having terrain a pretty bad bet. I see no reason to push it further in this direction.

Martin

That's maybe the problem ! Armies who have to rely heavily on terrain have no real fighting chance and so less interesting armies are played . I tried Spanish Lusitanian ..so I know and that's a problem in MEG !

I think it is unavoidable that armies who rely on terrain will not fare as well as others because MeG is about large-scale battles, events which many such fighting forces would avoid, rather relying on ambushes, skirmishes, and attrition.


This in my opinion is compounded by the fact that army lists in MeG are, generally, based on historical accounts (or semi-historical, like the Trojan War lists), and these accounts, such as they are and what there is of them, are much more detailed when it comes to:

• Victors, we all know about propaganda which began, at latest, with our dear friend Homer.
• Armies in service of a long-lasting state which had time, resources, and inclination to foster enough historical culture to pass on detailed accounts.
• Professional armies, especially standing ones.
• Armies whose accounts reached us.

The interpretation of those accounts thus means that some army lists are much more developed than others, which means:

• They have more tools at their disposal.
• They allow for much more variation.
• They appeal to our sense of history.

Consequently, these armies enjoy an important popularity. For examples: look at any tournament allowing Early Imperial Roman or Later French Ordonnance and count how many players bring that list.

That in itself is not a problem, but it means that those popular, professional, not-wanting-terrain armies are such a part of the game that being able to play them is a cornerstone of the system, a structuring element around which other parameters are built.

Therefore, there is a form of positive reinforcement loop between armies who do not care for terrain and the terrain system as it is.

Antoine