RogerCooper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:57 am
The terrain placement rules in practice result a patch of bad going here and there but the center of the map is almost always open. I find this unrealistic.
We did a LOT of work surveying battlefields before making up the terrain cards. And I regret to inform you, we don't agree with your assessments below.
RogerCooper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:57 am
Terrain generally played an important role in Ancient & Medieval battles.
Nope. Frankly, more battles than not had no terrain mentioned at all in the battle descriptions. That doesn't mean no terrain -- it means that terrain had a small enough impact on the battle that the people writing it up didn't mention it. But it certainly means no terrain at all in the center.
More than that, almost NO battles had any terrain in the center of the board.
There were some battles where one side deployed with a major terrain feature and didn't move off it. The only times this ever resulted in a battle was when the "forted up" side was majorly outnumbered (as at Crecy) and the attacking side was sure of victory -- in other words, asymmetric battles. Asymmetric battles are very interesting -- but appear in Triumph only in scenarios, not in random battles using battle cards -- those are built for symmetric battles, where both sides have 48 pts.
RogerCooper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:57 am
3 out of 4 of the major battles of Alexander the Great involved a river crossing (which is not even a possibility with terrain cards).
That isn't really an accurate summation. Hydaspes the river crossing was before the actual battle, and the battle didn't get fought until both sides were on the same side of the river. Issus (across the Pinarus river) seems likely to be a case where the Pinarus was a seasonal creek -- both sides (Darius and Big Al) put mounted (not foot) down at the lowest part of the "river", nearest the sea, and those cavalry had no trouble fighting and moving back and forth during the battle, even as close as they could get to the sea (and therefore where the "river" would be at its widest). At the Granicus whether the river is involved depends upon which source you use.
Further, the terrain rules are meant to get playable battles. We deliberately did not create a pre-game (meta-game) where both sides maneuver each other trying to force the other side into a disadvantageous position. In almost every case where a river was between two armies, the armies did not fight each other, they continued the pre-battle maneuvering that occupied weeks and months at a time. So yes, we can point to a couple of battles (Granicus, possibly; Fornovo 1495, certainly) where a "blocking" river was involved -- and we deliberately did not include a card with that situation. Because if you include that sort of terrain, then one side turtles up. It doesn't get a battle.
RogerCooper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:57 am
Major battles such as Hastings & Crecy involved an army deployed on a hill.
Crecy one army deployed on a gentle hill, yes. And the other army attacked it uphill. And the English knights all dismounted. Why? Because they were so terribly outnumbered that they were willing to try anything. And the French attacked anyway. Why? Because they outnumbered the English so severely that they could not even conceive of the possibility of losing.
Crecy is a great battle, if you play it as an asymmetric battle -- one side having massive numbers, and the other side having a hill. And if you have special rules to force the French to attack (they lose if they don't).
Hastings same thing -- if you play Hastings on a flat field, the Normans win every single time. The English knew this. They also knew that they would win if the Normans didn't attack -- they had more forces coming, and the Normans had no allies and no supply train and couldn't disperse to ravage the countryside for forage. Rod Cain has a great Hastings scenario set up with Triumph -- a very interesting asymmetric battle.
But standard Triumph is not about asymmetric battles -- those are special scenarios, not pick-up games.
RogerCooper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:57 am
I don't have a formal survey but I think a majority of battles involved significant terrain.
We did a formal survey; our results were not what you believe.
RogerCooper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:57 am
The result of this lack of terrain is that tournaments are oriented towards Knight-heavy armies well suited for fighting in the open.
It depends upon how good a player you are. Beginning players certainly do best with that sort of army -- doesn't require any skill at maneuver, for example.
But you will find that good players win tournaments with all sorts of armies. To give you one example, I won a tournament with Neo Babylonians, with 14 or 16 Bow Levy. How did I win it? The most critical part of my army was my Light Foot. Another example -- playing an experienced player on Thursday I took the Marian Romans on the Epic Conflicts terrain board (a bog-standard terrain card without any terrain in the middle) and won twice, once against his Avars (Knights, Elite Cavalry, Horsebow) and once against his Early Russians (Knight General, Elite Cavalry, Horsebow).
RogerCooper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:57 am
Is some modification of the terrain cards desirable?
Not in my opinion.