Too Little Terrain

Anything else related to the TRIUMPH! rules
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Too Little Terrain

Post by David Kuijt » Sat Dec 11, 2021 1:46 pm

As an aside (related to my answer just now), when we were working on the design of the terrain system we spent some time on the analysis of the strategic maneuver phase that preceded battles, often for weeks or months of maneuver. It could be very complex. In essence, it could be boiled down to a series of "battle offers" where one side would offer battle on a given terrain, and the other side would look at the terrain and go "yes" or "no". And then maneuver for another few days and try it again. Battles mostly only happened when both sides agreed to fight. Motivations that had an impact on that decision were extremely varied and complex -- are you under pressure from the Senate back in Rome? How is your food supply (Or water supply, at the Horns of Hattin 1187 AD)? Are you under internal political pressure to fight, or divided command, such as at the Nicopolis Crusade (1399 AD)? Are you really stupid or deceived, as at Kephisos (1311 AD)? Has the enemy been super clever and prepared in advance, as at Mohi (1241 AD)? What about rampant diarrhea in your army, as at Agincourt (1415 AD)? Betrayal, as at Ankara (1402 AD)?

Almost all these strategic motivations are impossible to represent in tactical battles in a systematic and fair way. We love asymmetric battles -- they are tremendously interesting. But there is a very good reason why symmetric battles are the engine that drives the bus for every wargame not based on a direct simulation of a particular battle. Creating a system for generating impromptu asymmetric battles is very, very complex. We examined that path while we were designing Triumph, and eventually decided to abandon its pursuit.
DK
User avatar
Bill Hupp
Sergeant
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Too Little Terrain

Post by Bill Hupp » Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:00 pm

First, I really like the terrain creation system. It seems a significant improvement over others I have used. It also ties into the improved rectangular shape and well thought out size of the playing area.

Second, people in our group don’t like those systems. Any of them. They don’t like the time it takes to set up (cutting into gaming or visiting time). Also, our group has gotten used to really nice looking terrain, and as suggested, often terrain that is critical to the battlefield situation.

So our group’s solution is to use historical battles, maybe out of the period, so different armies across time. Seems to work for us and we get more iconic streams and hills (often just decorations and not critical terrain) on our battlefields. It is amazing how just a +1 uphill bonus can change an attack.

David, I think your last post about the wider context for analysis is spot on. We’ve used a couple of Old School approach march ‘rules’ in a couple of our multi-player games. Always an issue that that part of the game becomes the game and the tactical battle is not much fun.
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Too Little Terrain

Post by David Kuijt » Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:32 pm

Bill Hupp wrote:
Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:00 pm
David, I think your last post about the wider context for analysis is spot on. We’ve used a couple of Old School approach march ‘rules’ in a couple of our multi-player games. Always an issue that that part of the game becomes the game and the tactical battle is not much fun.
Exactly so. Playing a 20minute (or longer!) "pre-game" about the maneuvering before the battle ends up being a major distraction from the actual battle, and sometimes the battle itself is spoiled by the result of the pre-game maneuvering. Which is very historical -- but not very fun.
DK
RogerCooper
Squire
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Too Little Terrain

Post by RogerCooper » Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:34 pm

Small streams and gentle hills are common enough, that there should be some chance of their being on the center of the battlefield. A little bad going in the center adds some tactical options. The always clear center also tends to favor some armies.
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Too Little Terrain

Post by David Kuijt » Sun Dec 12, 2021 10:36 pm

RogerCooper wrote:
Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:34 pm
Small streams and gentle hills are common enough, that there should be some chance of their being on the center of the battlefield.
Small streams are not "terrain" sufficient for representation. Almost every mapboard has small streams on it -- if it doesn't slow down cavalry and have enough vegetation to give infantry a place to hide against them, it doesn't deserve representation.

There is some chance of any non-Stream terrain being in the center. There are terrain cards with terrain in the center.
RogerCooper wrote:
Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:34 pm
A little bad going in the center adds some tactical options. The always clear center also tends to favor some armies.
If we are changing from arguing based on history to arguing based upon common army choices by wargamers, that's a totally different argument. And note that some of the armies you are thinking of (armies with lots of open order foot and very little close-order foot or mounted) have the ability to place terrain in the center (or anywhere else they like) by using the Prepared Defenses battle card. Independently of all terrain cards, mind you.
DK
User avatar
Brummbär
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:06 am

Re: Too Little Terrain

Post by Brummbär » Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:33 am

I do not really get the point of the discussion - in my view the existing system gives a very good, fast and elegant method to define terrain for "competitive" gaming.
If you want a setup with more terrain or a more centralized terrain setup, why not just go ahead and do it.
What stops you from setting up scenarios/terrain in the way you want?

As stated - I like the system a lot and so far had quite interesting setups.
User avatar
Rod
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Too Little Terrain

Post by Rod » Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:50 pm

Brummbär wrote:
Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:33 am
I do not really get the point of the discussion - in my view the existing system gives a very good, fast and elegant method to define terrain for "competitive" gaming.
If you want a setup with more terrain or a more centralized terrain setup, why not just go ahead and do it.
What stops you from setting up scenarios/terrain in the way you want?

As stated - I like the system a lot and so far had quite interesting setups.
Actually from your comments you do get it :)

The issue is the random setup tends to setup "mostly clear" battlefields, they are not specific to any particular battle but set up battlefields that are generically representative to the majority of historical battles where armies would seek to meet in terrain that allowed them to deploy and did not offer a significant advantage to one side or the other.

You can always setup a specific scenario or even modify the random system to your own tastes.

For example run a tournament with a minimum number of 4 terrain pieces mandatory or add +? to the terrain roll....
JonathanJ
Squire
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:48 pm

Re: Too Little Terrain

Post by JonathanJ » Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:16 pm

Brummbär wrote:
Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:33 am
I do not really get the point of the discussion....
The OP played in an open tournament where his army was at a huge disadvantage without terrain (loaner army so not really his fault...). He wondered if game play would be improved if there was a way to have more terrain in those circumstances.

I've enjoyed the discussion just for the insights into some of the design decisions made while developing the game.

As an interesting aside, the army OP played was Vikings which have access to the Mounted Infantry and Prepared Defenses battle cards. With those battle cards, I've found Vikings to be quite competitive, but since OP was playing a loaner army, he didn't have access to those...
Post Reply