Rivers

[david Crenshaw]

I was reading some discussion about rivers in another thread and decided to start a new thread to ask what people have tried. We have taken to just playing them as linear bad going here in Nashville, and have yet to have had a discouraging result using that system. It may slow play a bit, but the games proved to be quite interesting.



David C.

[broadsword]

I think people addressed that a while back: as BGo, rivers will tend to punish non BGo troops perhaps in inappropriate ways.

I like that they are neither GGo nor BGo. Have you tried narrower rivers? There is no official minimum width - mine are about 1/2 BW, and work great that way (if just treated like they are in HotT). A narrow river looks right in scale terms, and also has less impact. If most elements can wade it in a single bound, it forces the enemy to defend it or lose it.

[El' Jocko]

Here's the proposal that I made as part of the Pre-Beta discussion. It was generally well received, though a few modifications were suggested by a couple of the GMs. With or without modification, the biggest questions were:

(a) would it make rivers playable in a timed game, and
(b) would it still give too big an advantage to an army that wanted to just sit behind the river and wait?

We don't have answers to those questions yet. But I think they're worth exploring.

- Jack

******************

Historically, a river prevented an aggressor from attacking across a broad front. But it didn't prevent an attacker from massing his troops and forcing a narrow crossing. Attackers could also freely move upstream or downstream and cross unopposed, turning a defender's flank.

If we really want to include a river rule in v2.2+, here's my proposal:

1. A river move is any move where an element's front edge starts in, ends in, or moves through a river.
2. A river move may only be made by a single element or a single-element-wide column.
3. A river move costs +1 PIP (unless moving astride a road, when no +1 PIP applies).

There, that's it. Simple, no special mechanisms. No rolling for type of river. No rules for defending a river bank. No slowing movement except for the restriction on group moves. It's playable, possibly even in a tournament situation. And my guess is that it achieves the historical aims I described above.

[Redwilde]

I just eliminate type 6, and make the die roll: 1-3 = paltry, 4-6 = slows and defensible.

[ferrency]

Jack alluded to the criteria I use to determine whether or not to complain about a river idea:

Is there any tactically valid reason for a player to place a river with the intent of attacking across it, in a timed tournament game?

If a player defending a riverbank always gets an advantage (however small), and an attacker trying to cross the river is always at a disadvantage (however small), then the only tactical reason for placing a river is to delay a game, possibly leaving it unfinished.

This is not the case with bad going. Some troops (attacking or defending) suffer a penalty in bad going, and some troops (attacking or defending) do not. This allows terrain to be used both by attackers and defenders without penalizing one side unilaterally.

Campaigns are a completely different story. The strategic benefits of crossing a river may outweigh the tactical penalties of fighting at a disadvantage, so rivers that always penalize attacking across them are appropriate.

So feel free to call me "the river rule whiner," but I won't be happy until I see a good out-of-the-box solution that makes rivers worth placing as an attacker in a tournament game

Alan

[david Crenshaw]

Alan,

That is interesting. I had never thought of it as a tournament problem because the attacker would be the one placing it. We have always just used them in friendly games for a bit of variety (and play them as linear bad going only). Of course the defender always somehow manages to put them in a place where they are in my way! For a friendly game they are great, but I can see your point about tournament play.

David C.

[ferrency]

Originally Posted by david Crenshaw

That is interesting. I had never thought of it as a tournament problem because the attacker would be the one placing it. We have always just used them in friendly games for a bit of variety (and play them as linear bad going only). Of course the defender always somehow manages to put them in a place where they are in my way! For a friendly game they are great, but I can see your point about tournament play.

In friendly games and for variety, and in campaigns, the current river rules work fine, or you can agree on variant rules. I think this would be a great way to playtest new river rules.

In tournaments, the only time I've seen a river used was to "narrow" the board in a BBDBA game.

Alan

[DGove]

For what it's worth, here's my suggestion to ease the river issue.


"If a river is not crossed by a road, it must have at least one ford indicated.
Movement across a ford must be in a column, unless the river is paltry.
A ford over a non-paltry river is treated as a paltry river. (Normal movement rates, bank does not aid defence.)
A ford over a difficult river is treated as a non-paltry river. (100 paces / 2MU movement rate, bank aids defence.)"


I did playtest the idea a while ago, but I err... forgot exactly how it went. It certainly didn't make things worse.

What does everyone else think?

Derek

[johnpap]

Originally Posted by Redwilde

I just eliminate type 6, and make the die roll: 1-3 = paltry, 4-6 = slows and defensible.

A nice and simple solution. I would also add:

- Smaller maximum width, 1MU perhaps.
- Get rid of the unnecessary and cumbersome rules about confronting to the river, crossing it directly forward or bacward, or defending its banks, and instead just give a -1 modifier in battle if any part of the element is in the river. If both elements are, both get the -1.
- Movement rate of 3MU in rivers for lighter types: El, Cv, LH, Cm, Aux, Ps

Just my modest proposal.

[Skeptical Gamer]

Just out of curiosity...

Does anyone know why there is a die role to determine what type of river is on the battlefield? No one scouted the area? The defender didn't ask a local farmer about the river?

Are there any historical accounts of battles where rivers played a major role and neither side knew what the river was like before trying to march across it?