What FOG is missing

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by Strategos69 » Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:39 pm

david53 wrote:
madaxeman wrote:I think we can close this thread as we now know the definitive answer.

"A printed set of rules."

!

LOL so true
hehehe so right

mbsparta
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:57 pm

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by mbsparta » Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:16 am

"The problem is that if we do too much to make the battles "historical" in that regard, we will risk reducing the playability of the game. Let's face it: a significant percentage (maybe most) of ancient battles were of the line-'em-up-and-go-forward variety. And that, however historical, is not a fun game. At least not more than a couple times.

Which is one significant reason why there is a tendency in FoG for players to run drilled and cavalry armies. They get to do more."

Marc

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If we are playing a historic ancient wargame and if the battles tended to be line-em-up-go-forward battles then shouldn't that be what the rules encourage? And I strongly disagree that these games are not fun. I find the strengths of FoG to be just that. (1) Deloyment is critical ... a good plan ... gaining the best matchups given the army you have (2) Maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses (3) Advance to combat (4) Drawn-out combats (5) Exploitation of breakthroughs (6) When and how to commit your generals (7) When to take risks (8) When to pray to the dice gods (9) Clear cut victory contitions. What more could you ask from a wargame? WAB, Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Hail Caesar... games like that offer a ton of manuvering and free wheeling. I prefer the linier feel to FoG.

And we're talking about restricting drilled troops and making undrilled troops more manuverable. You have got to be kidding me ... talk about counter intuative. Its crazy. The FoG world has gone made.

My favorite part of FoG-Am is right after deloyment is over. The game looks stunning. 28mm models, a 6x4 table, those "boring" line-em-up battle lines deployed. It is, bar none, the best looking game ever.

As for the orginal post ... we often add some historical interest to the game. If Caesar is fighting Pompey ... maybe Caesar is an IC and Pomey a TC ... or maybe we add a few "extra points" to the Germans that are lined up across the field from the Principate army. Alexander has to fight at the front of a Companion BG ... The idea of some random event cards is very interesting ... but in the end FoG, for us, comes down to knowing your army, understanding your opponent and getting the best our of your deloyment. Dice and luck are the fates that disrupt the best of plans.

Mike B

edb1815
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by edb1815 » Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:16 pm

Well said Mike!

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2992
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by grahambriggs » Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:54 am

mbsparta wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If we are playing a historic ancient wargame and if the battles tended to be line-em-up-go-forward battles then shouldn't that be what the rules encourage? And I strongly disagree that these games are not fun. I find the strengths of FoG to be just that. (1) Deloyment is critical ... a good plan ... gaining the best matchups given the army you have (2) Maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses (3) Advance to combat (4) Drawn-out combats (5) Exploitation of breakthroughs (6) When and how to commit your generals (7) When to take risks (8) When to pray to the dice gods (9) Clear cut victory contitions. What more could you ask from a wargame? WAB, Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Hail Caesar... games like that offer a ton of manuvering and free wheeling. I prefer the linier feel to FoG.

And we're talking about restricting drilled troops and making undrilled troops more manuverable. You have got to be kidding me ... talk about counter intuative. Its crazy. The FoG world has gone made.
Mike B
Hi Mike,

I hear 28mm on a 6 foot table make linear tactics viable. Hence your first para is correct for those games.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case with 15mm on a 6 foot table, where manouvre troops dominate in wide open spaces and undrilled battle troops can be very badly off. The changes to manouverability of drilled/undrilled is, I believe, at least partly intended to bring a more linear feel to the 15mm game.

Eques
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:50 am

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by Eques » Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:29 pm

hazelbark wrote:Undrilled foot troops

These clearly need some serious help to be relevant. There was talk about making drilled foot less manuverable. Regardless lets allow undrilled foot the same manuver options as undrilled foot beyond 6 MU. This would make the marginally more able to get into the fight. There is still an issue of 3 MU speed, but at least a spear wall isn't completely crippled once one BG fails.
Rather than homogenizing all the troop types surely the answer is to amend the army list point values, or the maxima and minima. A lot of the attraction of ancient wargaming is precisely the diversity of the troop types on offer.

Drilled foot were a lot more deadly than undrilled - just look at Romans vs. Britons or Macedonians versus Persians.

Alternatively how about differing "Tournament" and "Friendly" versions of the rules?

That way you could have a version of the rules for just tournament players, who are chiefly interested in a win and nothing else. But for people like me, who like FoG because we like military history, that view of the game seems rather sterile.
Last edited by Eques on Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by hazelbark » Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:47 pm

grahambriggs wrote: I hear 28mm on a 6 foot table make linear tactics viable. Hence your first para is correct for those games.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case with 15mm on a 6 foot table, where manouvre troops dominate in wide open spaces and undrilled battle troops can be very badly off.
I was pleasantly surprised on the 650 pt, 15mm, 5x3 as having a good feel.

zoltan
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:40 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by zoltan » Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:56 pm

hazelbark wrote:
grahambriggs wrote: I hear 28mm on a 6 foot table make linear tactics viable. Hence your first para is correct for those games.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case with 15mm on a 6 foot table, where manouvre troops dominate in wide open spaces and undrilled battle troops can be very badly off.
I was pleasantly surprised on the 650 pt, 15mm, 5x3 as having a good feel.
I think the Aussies and Kiwis are sold on the merits of 650points on a smaller table. Quite a different game to 800points on 8x4. Lot's if foot armies get a new lease of life.

800 points on a 5x3.5 ft table at Britcon was ideal for my 14 BGs on superior offensive spear. I had plenty of time in 3.5 hours to chase some of Phil Powell's Hungarian LH & cav off his table edge! ;->)

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by philqw78 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:28 am

If only I was more soberer
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

zocco
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:42 am

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by zocco » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:15 am

One of my thoughts on what FOG is 'lacking' is that there is something wrong (?) with the terrain balance (especially in the 'central zone') or perhaps that MF have it too easy in some terrain types (Uneven comes to mind here) which can leave to MF dominating some games because it is too risky for an opponent to enter to contest the terrain and hence we end up with a mexican standoff. This is especially concerning when one considers that some MF are rated as such purely because they are vulnerable to mounted in open going and not to any inherent ability in non-open terrain. I've had games which were non-contests due to a mass of uneven going dropping into the middle of the table and not having the troops to shift the opposition MF out of it.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this - are MF too dominant ? I admit I've thought of some possible alternatives but hesitate to mention them before hearing of others thoughts/ experiences on the subject.

cheers

Z.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by hazelbark » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:05 pm

zocco wrote:Does anyone have any thoughts on this - are MF too dominant ? I admit I've thought of some possible alternatives but hesitate to mention them before hearing of others thoughts/ experiences on the subject.
Agreed in general. At one point in 2.0 beta there was an effort to make Uneven less damaging to HF. I think they more normal but got disordered.

In v 1 Uneven had the big effect of basically meaning once HF went in, they would never get out. Also unevn having no effect on LH basically made it a way to amries without MF and LH.

But your point about masses of bad terrain in the middle was not terribly common. Cynocephale i think being an obvious exception. It all comes down to is the battlefield the whole board or is the historical battlefiled the 1x2 area where the fighting occures.

So I think it gets a mild adjustment for the better in v2 but not a complete re-do.

Caliph
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:30 am
Location: Oldham

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by Caliph » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:24 pm

I've read these posts with interest, particularly those about the size of the table used. I agree with everyone who thinks it's too big. Overall, and as a standard size, 72"x48" is far too big.

Generally speaking I think the width of the table should be reduced, the amount depending on the size of the armies (points) and scale of the toy soldiers. 800points of 15mm figures on a 60"x40" table gives quite a good game. 72"x48" with 25mm figures at 650 points (which I've played on at Britcon), does not give such a good game. The reason - 25mm bases are bigger but there is no change to the deployment area or movement, so infantry take an age to get into contact. The flanks are also still wide open. If the depth of the table was reduced games would be better, heavy infantry would then become much more effective. (Incidentally, I've no idea why the table size for all the FoG A/M wasn't reduced to the same as for the "early" 800 point 15mm games - it should have been.) I can imagine those who like to spend endless hours manoeuvering their small units all over creation and winning by boring opponents to death would complain about reducing the table size and would see it as designed specifically to hinder their armies. It's not of course, but it would make those sort of armies a little bit more difficult to win with and perhaps a bit easier to beat.

In addition to improving the games, smaller tables would also make terrain more effective. Admittedly the terrain generation system is very poor and this is exploited by players to maintain the wide open spaces needed for unrealistic manoeuvering. This is not so easy for them when the table is smaller. On the smaller tables there is still plenty of open space in the "centre" but even the pathetic gamesmans "minimum sized pieces of felt taken to stop opponents getting any benefit" can have an effect on proceedings.

As for generating the terrain - I have no bright ideas. However, I would like the rules to at least allow me to have some terrain if I wanted it. What I do not like is what happened to me this weekend on a couple of occasions. All my terrain, which I needed to close off at least one flank, went on my opponents side of the table and left me with an army of armoured heavy foot, flanks wide open, plodding slowly across the table at 3" a turn because they were too scared of a handful of loincloth & a smile clad skirmishers. In all honesty, do you think that given the choice would I have fought in this situation? No, not a chance.

david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by david53 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:12 pm

The main problem is that any terrain will stop HF.

Maybe allowing bigger movement rates for HF in terrain but keeping the disruption would help.

Dave

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by hazelbark » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:04 pm

Caliph wrote:800points of 15mm figures on a 60"x40" table gives quite a good game.
yes that is a small reduction but not severe. I think you are right.
the terrain generation system is very poor and this is exploited by players to maintain the wide open spaces needed for unrealistic manoeuvering.
IIRC in the beta there were 1 or 2 things to make this slightly less open to exploitation. I don't remember them now, but I think it invovled makingthe stream and road less of a blocker.
As for generating the terrain - I have no bright ideas.
The FOG N terrain is better. partially because you don't get the assymetric armies you do in ancients. But also the simple act of each playerr alternating the placement of their optional terrain. So its not like one side puts it out then the other.

zocco
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:42 am

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by zocco » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:39 am

It has been interesting to read the various replies to my initial comment on terrain balance' and I certainly empathise with many of them. No one (including myself) like facing Steppe armies with HF on an almost terrain-less board !

For what its worth I'd like to put up my own thoughts on one aspect notably Uneven Terrain. After giving it some thought (really !) I've come up with the following suggestions (which I'll probably mention again when its time to look at FOG v2.1 or 3.0 etc).

My suggestions are;
1. FOGAM introduces a new type of terrain disorder 'SLIGHTLY DISORDERED'.

2. Those troops in Uneven going that are currently 'DISORDERED' instead become 'SLIGHTLY DISORDERED'. Also MF in Rough going become 'SLIGHTLY DISORDERED'.

3. The effect of being 'SLIGHTLY DISORDERED' is that the troops do not count as STEADY. (Note there is no effect on CMTs or loss of combat bases).

What' s the effect of these changes? In a nutshell MF will lose much of its advantage over other types in Uneven or to put it another way MF will have to contest uneven if it wants to stop other troop types moving through it. MF will no longer be able to sit in Uneven and say to other troop types come and get me but if you do you'll most likely become disordered and lose 1 per 3 bases etc.

To my mind although MF would lose somewhat the game wins - it is about making a contest not as at moment a non-contest were many troop types shy away from contesting Uneven containing opposing MF.

So would it be all bad for MF - well not really - just a bit more balanced than now. In Uneven MF would still fight on equal or better terms with HF (and move quicker) and as Uneven is not Open going MF would not suffer the -1 Cohesion modifier when losing to HF or the various POA's in impact (eg Lancer, mounted vs MF). There are also a number of other subtle effects for example Spearmen and Pikemen would not count as STEADY so they would be less effective in melee in Uneven (and if MF in rough going, which I think is exactly correct) - both these troop types rely on a high amount of cohesion compared to more individual fighters using sword or heavy weapon for example. It would also end the dubious situation where MF spearmen can somehow(?) form an organised shieldwall in rough going (so Almughavars might actually be taken as Impact Foot rather than the dodgy Offensive Spearmen we usually see).

So there you have it - no doubt those who use MF will howl that the sky would fall in. But to me (and I've just finished basing up 24 bases of Chinese MF) we would end up with a more balanced, quicker and historical game.

PS the idea of placing terrain alternatley (as in FOGN) sounds promising. Was it ever tested in FOGAM ?

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by hazelbark » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:44 pm

zocco wrote:PS the idea of placing terrain alternatley (as in FOGN) sounds promising. Was it ever tested in FOGAM ?
I don't believe so. The authors did not appear to be interested in big terrain placing fixes.

The slightly disordered is unlikley to happen as it introduces one more thing. More likely they adjust when you get disordered and when you lose speed.

I think, but don't remember we tested HF in uneven a few different ways. Move 3 MU but disorder versus 2 MU and no disorderd. I think we settled on the former but not the later.

There were several things looked at to weaken MF's mobility. I don't remember them all but that was extensively debated and tinkered with.

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by Strategos69 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:42 am

I like Zocco's idea It is subtle but makes uneven a place to come in for heavy foot and I might adapt it for my games. If you look at real fields, uneven is what nature looks like most of the time and flat surfaces are less common. I would keep disorder for mounted as terrain was used by footmen to counter cavalry.

ShrubMiK
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:37 am

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by ShrubMiK » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:01 pm

>If you look at real fields, uneven is what nature looks like most of the time and flat surfaces are less common.

Surely that's just a quibble over terminology?

Tabletop with no terrain indicates what in real-life is not entirely flat/clear, but is enough so to not have any noticeable effect on troops of any sort moving or fighting over it.

"Uneven" terrain" indicates places where it is considerably more uneven than normal, and starts having an effect on some troops.

But I agree terrain choice and positioning has plenty of issues at the moment. I think "the other rule system that shall not be named" does it better - in particular a) the way that the nastier terrain is much more likley to appear around the edges of the table, encouraging the idea that the table represents the actual battlefield plus a bit more on either side, and that battles were not often fought in heavy terrain, but terrain did influence them by limiting lines of approach, providing flank guards, etc.; and b) making it worthwhle choosing hills, which you will see being fought on in many battle accounts.

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by Strategos69 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:27 am

ShrubMiK wrote:>If you look at real fields, uneven is what nature looks like most of the time and flat surfaces are less common.

Surely that's just a quibble over terminology?

Tabletop with no terrain indicates what in real-life is not entirely flat/clear, but is enough so to not have any noticeable effect on troops of any sort moving or fighting over it.
I meant that the subtility suggested reflected better the nature of uneven terrain, a place where you can fight effectively but with some problems. Indeed it would reflect very well what happened with pikemen and spearmen, who did fight in uneven terrain and who would not dare as it is defined right now. When visiting some countries you realize that flat surfaces are the exception and then you realize why cavalry was not that developped there.

Indeed I also agree that the current system has some issues providing some realistic battlefield.

zocco
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:42 am

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by zocco » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:57 am

Strategos69 wrote:

I meant that the subtility suggested reflected better the nature of uneven terrain, a place where you can fight effectively but with some problems. Indeed it would reflect very well what happened with pikemen and spearmen, who did fight in uneven terrain and who would not dare as it is defined right now. When visiting some countries you realize that flat surfaces are the exception and then you realize why cavalry was not that developped there.

Indeed I also agree that the current system has some issues providing some realistic battlefield.
My thoughts exactly Strategos69 and I hope you find time to give the idea a try :) . If so please let us know how it went.

cheers

Z.

Eques
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:50 am

Re: What FOG is missing

Post by Eques » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:27 pm

philqw78 wrote:I do like the option of allowing better manoeuver for undrilled outside 6MU. But maybe make it 6 from enemy lights and 10 from enemy battle troops. Then if you have a skirmish screen even on a shallower table you can do some shuffling prior to battle being joined.
I don't see why V2.0 should just serve to make the game easier.

I like having problems of logistics and control on the battlefield. Makes it more authentic and more pleasing if you surmount them.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”