Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Terrain Placement

Believe it or not, I have been thinking about how to codify terrain placement and it pretty much centers around trying to classify the match-up, along the lines of a previous blog entry.

Consider that a slow, heavy infantry-oriented force (eight or more Blades, Spears, or Pikes, but not Warbands) matched against a faster infantry army will probably want to concentrate the board, yet not make its flanks vulnerable to light infantry attacking from Bad Going, whereas the same force matched against a mounted force will probably want to anchor its flanks on Bad Going, which the mounted troops cannot safely attack through. (Against other heavy infantry it may not matter as much what the board is.)

So, I was thinking about a matrix where the top was the defending force type, the left was the attacking force type and the cell was the board type to go for. Then take the board type, look at the home topography and determine what should be placed. I have not thought about what to do for variations yet.

Here is a start for the matrix. I know it will eventually need more values, but I have to start somewhere.

Defending Army Type

The codes are as follows:

  • AF = Anchor Flanks: the Defender needs to set terrain such that he can anchor the flanks of the main battle line on terrain.
  • CF = Concentrate Forces: the Defender needs to set terrain such that he can concentrate his forces without necessarily exposing his flanks to attack by forces in Bad Going.
  • DF = Disrupt Forces: the Defender needs to set as much terrain as possible in order to disrupt the enemy's battle line and to make him vulnerable to attacks from the Defender's forces in Bad Going.
  • OA = Open Area: the Defender needs to place minimal terrain - in number, size, and disruptive effects - to keep maneuver to a maximum.
I've just finished and I can already think of another category I would like to call out: Light Horse (LH). Ah well, next time. This provides a starting point and context for discussion. I would like to hear your thoughts on this approach and whether you agree with the ratings. More later on why one option versus another for those with a "/".

UPDATE: Thanks to Jay (of the Solo Wargamer blog) for noting that the table values were transposed. The table above has been corrected. It is good to know that someone is reading this though. :)

No comments:

Post a Comment