Is the Magic Terrain broken and/or boring??

[craig.w]

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.

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.

[accard]

Possibly amend it so that negative effects are only applied to wheeled and (maybe) close formation horse?

[martymagnificent]

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.

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,

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

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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 

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Hunter]

I think your logic is sound Si.  My vote is to keep it as is.
Hunter

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[nikgaukroger]

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    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.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[craig.w]

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.