How much terrain on a tourney-sized board?

[John515]

My understanding is that tournaments use no terrain. It seems that at least a few planets or an asteroid field or two would help to make it more interesting and allow cunning captains to use it to their advantage. Your thoughts?

[Krellex]

I guess it depends on the matchups and balance. Tholians would be nigh invincible in asteroids, so I'm sure they would all *love* that terrain in their fights.

[Steve Cole]

We tried terrain in SFB tournaments, and it had no effect other than complicating the situation and annoying the players.

[Steve Cole]

John: interesting logo, is it a navy emblem? Some kind of mine warefare ship?

[John515]

My logo is the US Army's Psychological Operations crest. I am a reservist assigned to a PSYOP unit here in VA Beach. Our mission is to change the behaviors and attitudes of a given group of people to better support a commander's objective in a particular area. Simply put, it's applying marketing and advertising concepts coupled with face to face interactions in order to get people to do (or not do) stuff. We are known for using leaflets (airdropped and hand delivered), loudspeakers, and various other media such as radio, television, and so on. I just got back from Baghdad and Basra early this year and thought it would be a cool logo to use.

As far as terrain, I'm having a hard time picturing how a few bits of small terrain, such as a planet, each occupying 1-3 hexes apiece could really hurt. For example, a single piece is placed by organizers at the start of each round. Each player then gets to place one piece anywhere on the board not less than a given number of hexes from another piece of terrain or board edge (order decided by coin toss). Players then flip a coin to choose deployment zones.

Another option would be to announce that terrain would be used but would placed identically on each board by the organizers using preset coordinates. Terrain locations would remain hidden from players and not placed on the board until after forces have been deployed. Since forces must be deployed close to the edge anyway, it shouldn't make a big difference during deployment. This would allow for terrain to not be really in the way, but there to be used if you like. Perhaps it could be used during only one or two rounds, and only announced as such at the start of each round. Keep the players guessing!

I keep reading about all the different tactics being employed, but very little discussion regarding one of the single most important considerations of any military engagement: terrain. Regular use of terrain would force players to consider a whole new set of variables such as masking a downed shield (as well as restricting firing arcs) and take them a little outside their comfort zone a bit-like in a real combat engagement.

Your thoughts?

[DirkSJ]

Another option would be to announce that terrain would be used but would placed identically on each board by the organizers using preset coordinates. Terrain locations would remain hidden from players and not placed on the board until after forces have been deployed. Since forces must be deployed close to the edge anyway, it shouldn't make a big difference during deployment.

Hidden terrain doesn't seem like a good idea. Someone could argue that they lost the match because they deployed a certain way and they had no idea where the terrain was and it ruined their entire strategy. If there is terrain it should be visible before deployment imo.

[terryoc]

In a tournament, I'd be already managing 3-4 ships, keeping track of what my opponent is doing with his, trying to remember special rules for both sides etc etc... while under time pressure. Adding terrain would overwhelm me further I think.

[John515]

I would have a hard time believing that a piece of terrain "ruined" someone's strategy, even if it were placed after the fact. Terrain would a greater effect on one's approach and exit lanes in an engagement, but not so much as to be a spoiler of someone's "grand strategy"; the game just isn't quite that complex. However, I can see how some poor judge's day could be made miserable by player's complaints.

Terrain placed before deployment would simply give players more tactcal options. FEDCOM is simple enough that terrain would add no additional workload to the players, as long as simple qnd straightforward rules for said terrain are laid out simply and clearly. Uninhabitable planets would be ideal, as they would simply create obstacles for players to negotiate.

[dreamingbadger]

I would have a hard time believing that a piece of terrain "ruined" someone's strategy, even if it were placed after the fact. Terrain would a greater effect on one's approach and exit lanes in an engagement, but not so much as to be a spoiler of someone's "grand strategy"; the game just isn't quite that complex. However, I can see how some poor judge's day could be made miserable by player's complaints.

Terrain placed before deployment would simply give players more tactcal options. FEDCOM is simple enough that terrain would add no additional workload to the players, as long as simple qnd straightforward rules for said terrain are laid out simply and clearly. Uninhabitable planets would be ideal, as they would simply create obstacles for players to negotiate.

The goal of a tournament is to have a level playing field, so the initial assumption of "adding terrain" makes sense.

However, terrain changes the strategy of each player and each race according to the type of terrain in place, but, not all terrain effects all races equally(6B2c and 6F1 for an example) and in general they have a more negative effect on the races that rely upon seeking weapons, so a random choice would be out.

If you remove the terrain types that bias against seeking weapon users in effect leaving you , planets or maybe comets ... What would adding a planet to a tournament map do other than make it look pretty?

[terryoc]

Any terrain will be either insignificant (a single hex planet) and therefore irrelevant to play, or have so much effect as to change the entire character of the game.

I do like terrain. I'd love to fly a tournament squadron against another around a black hole, for example. That would be a blast IMO. But not in a tournament, that's all.

[John515]

I've read the posts and discussed the issue with my friendly local FEDCOM guru, who was kind enough to point out a few things about terrain in a tournament game, and I have formally conceded my point. I now stand on the "no terrain during tournament games" side of the fence. Terrain does put some races at a disadvantage, although the lack of terrain will, conversely, put others at a distinct advantage. Just out of curiosity, what races have finished in the top 3 at each national tournament? Would the inclusion of terrain have made it more or less likely that the result would've been the same? I suspect that those for whom terrain would put at a disadvantage are most represented in the top 3 or 4 at each tourney.

BTW, thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread - very informative to this FEDCOM newb......

[dreamingbadger]

I've read the posts and discussed the issue with my friendly local FEDCOM guru, who was kind enough to point out a few things about terrain in a tournament game, and I have formally conceded my point. I now stand on the "no terrain during tournament games" side of the fence. Terrain does put some races at a disadvantage, although the lack of terrain will, conversely, put others at a distinct advantage. Just out of curiosity, what races have finished in the top 3 at each national tournament? Would the inclusion of terrain have made it more or less likely that the result would've been the same? I suspect that those for whom terrain would put at a disadvantage are most represented in the top 3 or 4 at each tourney.

BTW, thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread - very informative to this FEDCOM newb......

Not sure about outcomes (if the terrain was nebula or asteriod field I would suggest the ouctomes of any Fed, Kzinti, Gorn, Romulan maybe orion depending on the options would have been changed), but the only race that is 'negatively' impacted by a lack of terrain is Tholian even then this could be argued if you play neo-Tholian as not being a serious factor. Bear in mind that most of the ships are balanced for play in open space to begin with, terrain is designed to be a deliberately complicating factor as a way of effecting play balance and or providing objectives.

[terryoc]

IDK, I don't see the Tholians being disadvantaged by terrain, they bring their own with webcasters.

The size of the map is part of the "terrain". A fixed map like the current tournament format tends to favour seeking weapon users like Kzintis & Gorns IMO. Seltorians should be weak (but then, they are optimised for fighting Tholians anyway). Empires which rely on sabre-dancing (Klingons for example, possibly Andromedans as well but time will tell) should be disadvantaged because you can chase them into a corner and mug them.

Edit: some forces are unbeatable on certain terrains. Asteroid fields for Tholians, nebulae for Hyran hellbore squadrons.