Defender/Attacker picking 24" or 30" board sizes

I do understand what you are saying Goragrad and Jim, but I think you may be missing the bigger picture.

All countries have varied terrain, no matter how forested or hilly they are, with some areas a bit more open than others.
Indeed, any society that relies on agriculture to grow the food to support their villages, towns and cities will have some open areas of farmland, even if they are medieval Swiss living in high Alpine valleys. Allowing the defender to choose all the terrain AND be able to choose the table size as well is effectively saying that the defender has complete control over exactly where the invader can invade.

To use a very crude example, when the Wehrmacht invaded in 1939, was it they or the Poles that decided exactly where the invasion of Poland took place? Likewise, in 1940 was it the French or the Germans that decided exactly what part of France was invaded?
(Perhaps not a good example, as the Wehrmacht did make their main thrust through the ‘impenetrable’ Ardennes...but that was the Germans choice, not the choice of the defending French)
Allowing the defender to choose both terrain and table size is like saying that had Operation Sea Lion (the invasion of Britain) gone ahead, it would have been the British telling the Germans where they could and could not land...”No, you can’t land on the flat open beaches, you have to land underneath the cliffs of Dover, because we the defending British say so”.
Does this not strike anybody as being absurd?

No, in reality, if the defenders have chosen a battlefield completely unsuitable for the invading army, then the invaders would simply refuse to attack and invade the more open land a few hours or days march to the west or east rather than bash their heads against a brick wall.

Allowing the defender to choose the terrain, but the invader to choose the table size, gives both sides a compromise, and a chance of each getting a battlefield they can fight on (unless every single invaded country is like Mordor, with only one possible way in or out of it!).



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018

But David, I prefer to try to recreate and simulate history, not just play artificial unrealistic games.

Still, each to their own...the artificial environment of the tournament, or the more realistic historical play in clubs and at home.
Each has it's attractions.




Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018

Ah but Goragrad, was it the defending Gallic/Ligurian tribes that chose the route the Carthaginians took across the Alps, or was it Hannibal that picked the least hostile path that best suited his army? He certainly didn’t lead his army up an inhospitable vertical cliff face, just because that was where the defenders had dug themselves in!
However, according to DBA, if the defenders choose to sit on the top of a mountain, then the invaders have no choice but to launch a full frontal uphill assault on that mountain, even though there may be a slightly easier path only a few hours or day’s march away.

Using that Operation Sea Lion analogy once more, when in 55 BC Caesar crossed the Rhine into forested Germania, and later that same year landed in Britain, and did so again in 54 BC, was it the defending barbarians that chose exactly where the Romans would invade, or did Caesar have some say in the matter and picked invasion points that best favoured his legionaries?
Likewise the Claudian invasion in 43 AD...did the Britons pick the most hostile defensive narrow cramped piece of coastline, or did the Romans choose which beaches to invade?

But let us not get carried away with all this.
All I am suggesting is that the invader, being the invader, has some say about where exactly he wishes to invade, that’s all.
Defending armies in hilly or forested regions still get to choose the amount of terrain, it’s type, it’s size, and it’s orientation...just let the invader choose the table size.

After all, if I was invading a country, I wouldn’t choose to do so up a narrow cul-de-sac where my good going army couldn’t fight.
Nor would ancient generals...they weren’t that stupid, even if DBA says they were.
I’m sure people would complain if all mounted moved at the same speed as foot.
Being able to move faster is one of the main characteristics of mounted troops.
But so is the ability of high aggression mounted armies to out scout and outmanoeuvre their opponents strategically.
Why is this well documented historical capability being denied them?

Allowing the invader to choose the table size is both more realistic and makes a better game.
Otherwise, what’s the point of having high aggression mounted armies such as the Scythians, Huns, Mongols, and the like?
They cannot enter bad going, and cannot use their excellent mobility and scouting capability to outmanoeuvre their opponents and pick where they want to give battle, like the ancient historians said they did.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018

I don't think the terrain system is broken (at least not yet; somebody may come up with the killer combo). I'm not convinced about the two board solution for practical reasons (I don't want to lug around multiple boards and multiple different sized terrain pieces). Besides, I don't have LH armies and I want may Thracians and Welsh to have a good chance at a win.

But I can see how you want to give the invader more say in the battlefield (they do get a very small say currently). So what about this for a house rule for you to try stevie?

After the defender has deployed the terrain, the invader gets to choose if they want to add one further piece of optional terrain (within the prescribed limits and not a BUA) or remove one piece of optional terrain (again exceptions will apply like BUA). To add a piece, simply follow the current process. To subtract a piece, roll the dice for the quadrant, 5 the defender chooses, 6 the invader chooses, then remove a piece of terrain from that quadrant if you want.

Cheers

Jim

Oh, I don’t know David...
...it seems a bit rich for defenders to pick a small table and fill it with as many large pieces of bad going as they can, then point the finger of blame at the invader when the battle degenerates into a stalemate.
If a defender can exploit the rules to give themselves every possible advantage, why can’t an invader do the same?

This is not so much a problem in competitions of course, where a draw is worse than a loss, so it rarely happens.
In those situations the following maxim applies: “Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight”...in other words, don’t bring a high aggression mounted mono army that can be easily frustrated by terrain to a tournament, and the same applies to high aggression auxiliary armies with no punch.
This does however limit the choice of troops, with up to ½ the armies in the lists never being used in competitions.

And Jim, yes there are many weird and wonderful ways of house ruling the terrain placement.
Using randomly generated terrain or this fanaticus.boards.net/post/10455/ for example.
But I am not advocating any rule changes, just determining who gets to choose the table size.
As has been mentioned several times already, Phil Barker allows two sizes of table, but forgets to tell us who gets to choose.
I say let the invader have the choice. It makes a better more balanced game, reduces stalemates, and is also more realistic.

(Oh, and there is no need to lug two tables around...each player just needs to bring one each.
Players with low aggression armies bring a small table, 15 BW square, and high aggression armies bring a large table, 20 BW square.
If you leave it up to your opponent to bring the table, then expect to fight on a battlefield of their choosing)



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018

Ahhh, but stevie, I think PB has (see my earlier post). Of course, as with much of DBA, it invokes Obi-wan Kenobi's "from a certain point of view" disclaimer.
Cheers
Jim