One of the topics that has arisen from the feedback I have received with regard to the SHAMBATTLE map/battlefields featured in some recent blog posts was the fact that the bridges were chokepoints that restricted the strategies the players could adopt. In my own play-test, the majority of the fighting took place within a couple of grid areas from one or more of the bridges.
As a result of this feedback, I looked at the original map/battlefield I had drawn to see if I could change it for the better.
My first variant saw the replacement of the river by a range of hills and the swamps by forests. The chokepoints were now passes through the hills, but troops from both sides were no longer restricted to using them to advance into enemy territory.
My second variant retained the river, but saw it narrowed so that troops could ford it at any point.
In the third variant I kept the narrow river, removed the swamps and central road, and added a traversing road in Redina from Red City to Redville.
This third variant seems to open up the centre of the map/battlefield and might make a significant difference to the amount of manoeuvering the armies can undertake.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteRather funny, since I also noticed the choke point aspect of bridges in my own recreation of Shambattle many years ago: https://snv-ttm.blogspot.com/p/shambattle_1.html
Phil Dutre,
DeleteThank you for the link. It made very interesting reading and confirmed that the bridges on the original map were choke points.
All the best,
Bob
In Shambattle, in the lieutenants game, the map was without the river. I do like your idea of passable terrain that is passable.
ReplyDeleteJhnptrqn,
DeleteI really ought to take a closer look at the Lieutenant’s map. The original Captain/General’s map feels very constricted, and making the terrain more open will hopefully lead to more enjoyable battles.
All the best,
Bob
All good options there Bob and hopefully will remove the rather limited, to my mind, options for manouevre and the choke points too. Are you planning in testing all 3 options?
ReplyDeleteSteve J.,
DeleteCheers! I’d like to try them … if I get the time!
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeletePerhaps a compromise for the border river is, for each section - grid square or otherwise, one dices for fordability. In your last map above the river spans 14 grid areas. Dice for each. If a '6' indicates a ford, then you might expect 2 fords to appear. If 5 or 6, then maybe 4 or 5 fords.
This dice roll might take place before the game starts (familiarity with the terrain) or whenever a unit stands adjacent to a river grid area (unfamiliarity).
I used a method like this to determine the fordable areas on my Kavkaz campaign, especially around Zugdidi town...
https://archdukepiccolo.blogspot.com/2023/01/kavkaz-campaign-surprise-attack.html
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteThat is an excellent suggestion! Interestingly, that might be something that the spy might know and pass on to their masters, thus giving them the possibility of a tactical advantage. It’s something for me to think about whilst I’m working on my model train layout.
All the best,
Bob
Bob-
DeleteAs I was playing the Kavkaz campaign solo, I adapted the 'Recon' rolls according. A roll of '6' denoting excellent reconnaissance, I figured that the Turcowaz had discovered all the fords (not all of which were known, on account of a dismal earlier recon, by the Izumrud-Zeleniyans).
It occurred to me that something of the sort might be doable with Shambattles: a poor recon roll: forget about it; a middle-of-the-road one, a '6' 'discovers', and a good recon, 5 or 6. That permits a number of permutations. The spy automatically improves the recon up a grade (say). A m of the r recon might well have overlooked fords to be discovered by the enemy.
I can imagine both sides finding and overlooking fords, which means river crossings available to one side or the other. It could lead to all sorts of surprises and alarums...
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteI’ve used something similar in some of my wargame campaigns, but your suggestion is much better than mine and I will probably copy it … if you don’t mind.
All the best,
Bob
I like all of them, perhaps one could roll randomly each time the game is played to determine which to use.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteCheers! Yet another excellent suggestion. I can see this being included in the next PW Compendium.
All the best,
Bob