Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

Warning: this is an excursus on terrain and *sitting*

Let me return briefly to the original question concerning sitting behind a
minor water feature. This is NOT a very wise use of such terrain. First,
the odds of rolling a horizontal river in your forward zone are 1 (or 2 if
in home climate) in six. Even then, you would have to forced march to be
assured of defending the perimeter as an obstacle before an opponent with
open or loose order foot forced marched instead and forced a crossing
before you could man the obstacle. If you do forced march a sizeable
portion of your army to be assured of defending the river, then much of
your army is vulnerable to becoming quickly tired by missile fire
(everybody will already have 2 fp's), particularly artillery or bow.

Second, the odds of rolling a horizontal river in your 6" deep deployment
zone are also 1 in 6, and then the opponent will be on you within 2 to 3
bounds or 30-45 minutes, with the remaining time spent picking a place (a
ford or bridge for example) to knock you back off the board, even if
you're not broken.

Third, there is also a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a riover into your
OPPONENT'S forward zone, accomplishing nothing, or even worse.

There is always a one third chance of rolling the river as vertical in a
flank sector. Thus, the odds are 33% (50% in home climate) of making the
*horizontal barrier* strategy work. There is a 16.7% chance it will
backfire, and at least a 33% chance it will just help close down one
flank.

In my opinion therefore, the only justification for attempting to place a
minor water feature is that because it allows you to place marsh under any
part (or bend) of the river, it thus can almost always assure you of being
able to PLACE VERY ROUGH TERRAIN (A MARSH) IN THE CENTRAL SECTOR OF
FORWARD ZONES. You have a 5 in 6 chance of being able to place the river
in such a way as to *border on* the central forward sector/zone, so that
you can place the marsh (another 4 out of 6 roll, plus 1 if home climate)
just under it and extending out no more than 450 paces or so into the
forward central sector. It is actually BETTER if you roll the river
*vertical* because this both closes that flank and extends contiguous very
rough terrain into the forward central zone by another 450 paces or so AT
ANY POINT YOU WISH ALONG THE VERTICAL RIVER. For foot or counterpunching
armies, THESE ARE THE BEST ODDS IN THE GAME FOR CLOSING UP MAXIMUM FLANK
AREA.

Two Brush would provide better odds of success (only 16.7% discard, 0% in
hme climate), but only 33% (50% home climate) of extending out into the
middle of the board, and it is only mildly rough terrain, so less bang for
the buck, but actually in some cicumstances, with some armies, perhaps a
better choice.

You could try to shut down a whole flank with a village (600 paces
wide!!), but there's a much higher chance (50% unmodified) that you'll be
wasting the roll with a *discard.* thus more bang, but much less
probability of success.

As those who have played me know, I REGULARLY roll for minor rivers
followed by marsh. In 20+ years, I HAVE NEVER used this terrain choice to
*sit*, even with hoplites and peltasts. Not only would that not be fun, it
just doesn't work enough to be worth trying, die roll-wise (thanks to the
elegant mechanics of the game engine).


-Greek

[joncleaves]

I do agree with the use of a short end minor water feature to close table
laterally and get a marsh up front. Just don't want that idea confused with my
comments on getting and keeping a cross table mwf. Greek has some good stuff
here...

J

-----Original Message-----
From: hrisikos@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:21:04 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: When to 'Sit'



Warning: this is an excursus on terrain and *sitting*

Let me return briefly to the original question concerning sitting behind a
minor water feature. This is NOT a very wise use of such terrain. First,
the odds of rolling a horizontal river in your forward zone are 1 (or 2 if
in home climate) in six. Even then, you would have to forced march to be
assured of defending the perimeter as an obstacle before an opponent with
open or loose order foot forced marched instead and forced a crossing
before you could man the obstacle. If you do forced march a sizeable
portion of your army to be assured of defending the river, then much of
your army is vulnerable to becoming quickly tired by missile fire
(everybody will already have 2 fp's), particularly artillery or bow.

Second, the odds of rolling a horizontal river in your 6" deep deployment
zone are also 1 in 6, and then the opponent will be on you within 2 to 3
bounds or 30-45 minutes, with the remaining time spent picking a place (a
ford or bridge for example) to knock you back off the board, even if
you're not broken.

Third, there is also a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a riover into your
OPPONENT'S forward zone, accomplishing nothing, or even worse.

There is always a one third chance of rolling the river as vertical in a
flank sector. Thus, the odds are 33% (50% in home climate) of making the
*horizontal barrier* strategy work. There is a 16.7% chance it will
backfire, and at least a 33% chance it will just help close down one
flank.

In my opinion therefore, the only justification for attempting to place a
minor water feature is that because it allows you to place marsh under any
part (or bend) of the river, it thus can almost always assure you of being
able to PLACE VERY ROUGH TERRAIN (A MARSH) IN THE CENTRAL SECTOR OF
FORWARD ZONES. You have a 5 in 6 chance of being able to place the river
in such a way as to *border on* the central forward sector/zone, so that
you can place the marsh (another 4 out of 6 roll, plus 1 if home climate)
just under it and extending out no more than 450 paces or so into the
forward central sector. It is actually BETTER if you roll the river
*vertical* because this both closes that flank and extends contiguous very
rough terrain into the forward central zone by another 450 paces or so AT
ANY POINT YOU WISH ALONG THE VERTICAL RIVER. For foot or counterpunching
armies, THESE ARE THE BEST ODDS IN THE GAME FOR CLOSING UP MAXIMUM FLANK
AREA.

Two Brush would provide better odds of success (only 16.7% discard, 0% in
hme climate), but only 33% (50% home climate) of extending out into the
middle of the board, and it is only mildly rough terrain, so less bang for
the buck, but actually in some cicumstances, with some armies, perhaps a
better choice.

You could try to shut down a whole flank with a village (600 paces
wide!!), but there's a much higher chance (50% unmodified) that you'll be
wasting the roll with a *discard.* thus more bang, but much less
probability of success.

As those who have played me know, I REGULARLY roll for minor rivers
followed by marsh. In 20+ years, I HAVE NEVER used this terrain choice to
*sit*, even with hoplites and peltasts. Not only would that not be fun, it
just doesn't work enough to be worth trying, die roll-wise (thanks to the
elegant mechanics of the game engine).


-Greek




Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Murphy]

But beyond Mark Sonte's suggestion to sit way back off the feature to
encourage the person placing it to cross and rally from their disorder
(potentially problematic if you give up too much table _depth_ in
doing so however)...

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to defeat such a (optimum or not)
placement strategy when faced with it? Or with a reasonably complete
line of TF's etc?

I think that it is these sort of conversations that are the reason
we have pre-set terrain at tournaments in Australia.

Adrian

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
>
> Warning: this is an excursus on terrain and *sitting*
>
> Let me return briefly to the original question concerning sitting
behind a
> minor water feature. This is NOT a very wise use of such terrain.
First,
> the odds of rolling a horizontal river in your forward zone are 1
(or 2 if
> in home climate) in six. Even then, you would have to forced march
to be
> assured of defending the perimeter as an obstacle before an
opponent with
> open or loose order foot forced marched instead and forced a
crossing
> before you could man the obstacle. If you do forced march a
sizeable
> portion of your army to be assured of defending the river, then
much of
> your army is vulnerable to becoming quickly tired by missile fire
> (everybody will already have 2 fp's), particularly artillery or
bow.
>
> Second, the odds of rolling a horizontal river in your 6" deep
deployment
> zone are also 1 in 6, and then the opponent will be on you within
2 to 3
> bounds or 30-45 minutes, with the remaining time spent picking a
place (a
> ford or bridge for example) to knock you back off the board, even
if
> you're not broken.
>
> Third, there is also a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a riover into your
> OPPONENT'S forward zone, accomplishing nothing, or even worse.
>
> There is always a one third chance of rolling the river as
vertical in a
> flank sector. Thus, the odds are 33% (50% in home climate) of
making the
> *horizontal barrier* strategy work. There is a 16.7% chance it will
> backfire, and at least a 33% chance it will just help close down
one
> flank.
>
> In my opinion therefore, the only justification for attempting to
place a
> minor water feature is that because it allows you to place marsh
under any
> part (or bend) of the river, it thus can almost always assure you
of being
> able to PLACE VERY ROUGH TERRAIN (A MARSH) IN THE CENTRAL SECTOR OF
> FORWARD ZONES. You have a 5 in 6 chance of being able to place
the river
> in such a way as to *border on* the central forward sector/zone,
so that
> you can place the marsh (another 4 out of 6 roll, plus 1 if home
climate)
> just under it and extending out no more than 450 paces or so into
the
> forward central sector. It is actually BETTER if you roll the river
> *vertical* because this both closes that flank and extends
contiguous very
> rough terrain into the forward central zone by another 450 paces
or so AT
> ANY POINT YOU WISH ALONG THE VERTICAL RIVER. For foot or
counterpunching
> armies, THESE ARE THE BEST ODDS IN THE GAME FOR CLOSING UP MAXIMUM
FLANK
> AREA.
>
> Two Brush would provide better odds of success (only 16.7%
discard, 0% in
> hme climate), but only 33% (50% home climate) of extending out
into the
> middle of the board, and it is only mildly rough terrain, so less
bang for
> the buck, but actually in some cicumstances, with some armies,
perhaps a
> better choice.
>
> You could try to shut down a whole flank with a village (600 paces
> wide!!), but there's a much higher chance (50% unmodified) that
you'll be
> wasting the roll with a *discard.* thus more bang, but much less
> probability of success.
>
> As those who have played me know, I REGULARLY roll for minor rivers
> followed by marsh. In 20+ years, I HAVE NEVER used this terrain
choice to
> *sit*, even with hoplites and peltasts. Not only would that not be
fun, it
> just doesn't work enough to be worth trying, die roll-wise (thanks
to the
> elegant mechanics of the game engine).
>
>
> -Greek

[Frank Gilson]

But pre-set terrain has its own flaws...
If it is too dense, you slow down games and favor armies with loose
and open order foot against mounted armies.

If it is too open, you heavily favor mounted armies against foot
armies.

Who decides exactly what is the correct terrain density and
placement? How is this fair and equitable for all comers? Is it
known beforehand?

Also, the Warrior terrain placement system adds a layer of decision
making and interaction to our games that's missing with preset
terrain.

If the terrain on a table is 'wrong' or 'right' for me, it shouldn't
be arbitrary or random, but rather the result of my opponent and I
struggling through a fair setup system.

Frank Gilson

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Williams"
<fredthebaddy@h...> wrote:
> I think that it is these sort of conversations that are the reason
> we have pre-set terrain at tournaments in Australia.
>
> Adrian
>

[joncleaves]

Frank, I am not here to state any preference with regards to preset or generated
terrain. But you *must* know that it is quite easy and very common to use
preset terrain in miniatures tourneys.

How is it fair and equitable to all when a guy rolls three ones and a two for
terrain choices?

How is it not a major tactical decision to choose an army construction able to
fight on multiple terrain types? A decision, by the way, that represents MORE
of a challenge than the Warrior terrain system.

Preset isn't inherently unfair or 'worse'. It is just different.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:31:17 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: When to 'Sit'


But pre-set terrain has its own flaws...
If it is too dense, you slow down games and favor armies with loose
and open order foot against mounted armies.

If it is too open, you heavily favor mounted armies against foot
armies.

Who decides exactly what is the correct terrain density and
placement? How is this fair and equitable for all comers? Is it
known beforehand?

Also, the Warrior terrain placement system adds a layer of decision
making and interaction to our games that's missing with preset
terrain.

If the terrain on a table is 'wrong' or 'right' for me, it shouldn't
be arbitrary or random, but rather the result of my opponent and I
struggling through a fair setup system.

Frank Gilson

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Williams"
<fredthebaddy@h...> wrote:
> I think that it is these sort of conversations that are the reason
> we have pre-set terrain at tournaments in Australia.
>
> Adrian
>






Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]