marty wrote:

900AP on a 48 wide table might be enough

900 on a 4 foot wide table! I love infantry armies but this may be too great a troop density even for them

Martin

Oops. Meant 900 on 72 wide table, meant reduce the 48" depth.

900AP on a 48 wide table might be enough, but the table depth also IMO needs to be reduced. This both speeds up the game and reduces the scope for skirmishing and hiding.

I think bow are a little too good (foot bow at least). The simplest solution IMO would be to have the shoot like musket* types so only get 3 dice instead of 4 at close range. I also think there is a "bug" in the combat system that makes it very difficult to get a PoA charging, mostly this ...

How about Steady can break off from steady opponents in their own turn only? yeah i thought that might be an alternative to takinga CT. This would likely get your at least two charges and would have the option to break off and charge again more or less immediately. Probably a better solution than t...

RBS has posted before that it wasn't the intention that all DH should be portrayed as single rank as the idea was to allow them to continue to have 4 dice fighting on a 2 base frontage even after a base loss; grind down their opponents rather than sweep them away. This is something that tends to be...

Although we're specifically considering the Poles here, the same issues also apply to Swedish and French Impact mounted. Whilst the POA revision is a new consideration for Fog R, it was one of a number of options that were considered and tested to resolve similar issues in Fog AM and has emerged as...

Eques wrote:I feel that maybe the V2 Romans compromise this reflection of history on the altar of tournament players who do not like too much diversity in the game

Pretty much every tournament player I know wants more rather than less armies to be competitive....

For me personally the historical accuracy creates a lot of the enjoyment and a glaring inaccuracy would mar it. After all there are plenty of abstract/fantasy games on the market. I would have thought that yes if you are going to the trouble of painting up and using miniature men and scenery, with ...

The whole point of tabletop wargaming is to recreate as much as possible the conditions of an actual ancient battle. I disagree, first this is not possible and there is no uniform agreement that I am aware of on what actually happened in ancient battles. Second, I suspect such a simulation would be...

A contemporary opponent is Early Danish, and they get up to 24 bases of Sup HA Cuirassiers pistol/pistol from 1573. Good luck taking that on :roll: I believe there is some debate as to whether this makes sense for Danes to have 24 bases of these. OTOH, if you try to field 24 bases of them you are s...

So far they have not been worth the cost, better more units of Pancerni! How the Hussars got such a good reputation in History is a mystery! Well the two things I know of in FoG R are actually pretty easy. They would likely do quite well against Gustavian era swedes, who have pretty weak cavalry mo...

Three wrote:So in a nutshell - you've got to rely on your opponent throwning poorly in impact and in the CT all for the bargain price of 23 points a base.

Well yes, you have to rely on your opponent failing CT or death rolls after you win combats to be successful.

I am not sure they are THAT bad, but if you expect them to sweep everything before them you will be disappointed. It is certainly true that if they are facing a solid line of Hvy Armoured, Superior Kurassier it is a pretty risky charge. It could go well, but if it doesnt you have problems. But if on...

Eques wrote: As a final point I would just say that, having just drawn up a 750 pt LRR army list under version 1,

I find the game much more interesting at 900AP

I think the test is only a -3 actually.

-1 for hits per base
-1 for losing impact
-1 for losting to impact foot (which I believe is the same minus as losing to HF in the open)

On the face of it Romans are pretty big losers. The +1AP for SSw is really not worth it in V2. Most Armoured or better swords are mounted, which hasn't changed. Most other swords are protected and Romans get a PoA for being armoured. Many other armoured foot are either spears or HW. So basically Rom...

FoG 2.0 as it stands will be unworkable in a tournament situation. There will be at most a couple of copies of the rules available on iPads plus one for ref on a laptop. So I see the options being: - Go forward with 1.0 - Write up some US amendments that incorporate the 2.0 additions as a supplement...

If this is really a labor of love that is no longer commercially viable, release it onto the internet and go open source. That IMO is the future of something like this. Set-up a committee to oversee things and just make it free/donation-ware. Right now, this is going to be something that Slitherine ...

Finally, there is a lot of erroneous assumptions about various technical limitations being suggested in the forum which are largely inaccurate. Additionally there are not many gamers around without at least a PC, so I cannot accept that by our decision we have limited access to the rules. JD, you a...

Terrain rarely seems to have played a big roll in major battles. The problem in FoG is that, as RBS has stated, the tabletop is larger than the battlefield. So there needs to be enough terrain to create a viable smaller battlefield. While terrain doesn't seem to have played a big role, it also is t...