FOGAM3

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

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

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: FOGAM3

Post by madaxeman » Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:55 am

marty wrote:
All of the rulesets (DBM/DBX/ADLG/FOG) use the same basing scheme, and this has been essentially standard for all 15mm rulesets since the mid 80's ("7th Edition WRG"). To all intents and purposes therefore figures = bases, and in all DBx based systems (which Terry has played very successfully in the past...), bases = maneuver elements.
Except of course FOG which uses DBX basing but where bases do not equal maneuver elements. I'm starting to think you guys have had too much of the DBM/ADLG cool aid and now any term to describe a model or group of soldiers just means "maneuver element'!
Martin
..aaah - sorry - looking at this again I can see it maybe wasn't 100% clear. When I said "all DBx based systems" in my comment, I meant "all systems using the core DBx mechanism of having a unit represented by a single base", not "all systems using the uniform "40mm wide" base sizes established by WRG, commonly referred to as DBx basing".

So,bases=figures in all systems, but bases=units only in DBx-type systems.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

Onurbm
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:57 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by Onurbm » Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:12 am

Thanks to all for this entertaining Thread. My pinch about V3 :

Best evolution suggested for the game would be all things that contribute in
• having a game in a shorter time,
• a bit more lively with players thinking they can make decisions that might change the outcome.
• With more varied armies on the tables.
V2 FOG Is a fine enjoyable game with a flavour of history. It’s in no way near a simulation tool. As i play « social », ie : the games my friends around play, May i propose my pinch to thisend with minimal changes to the current concept?
• Commander’ loss is 1 point towards army morale breakpoint.
• C-C loss is an aditionnal 1 point.
• Player may have as many commanders as they want. As cost of a commander is about same as a BG, this will make lower army breakpoint easier to reach for same amount of points …
One more step might be to place more (highly unrealistic) abilities to take more risky ( maybe wrong ?) decisions in the player’s hands !
• Any time hits occur in the unit where a commander lounges around, have that commander’s loss test … as many tests as there were hits. (alternative is one test only with total hits taken as a bonus towards commander’s elimination).
• Any time player wants some unusual action, put a commander in, take a CMT, if it works you get the action, if not you get a commander’s loss test. Exemples : breaking off with infantry , staying in mele with mounted …. You name it, nothing unrealistic , just things risky.
• No need to make a slow test adding and substracting bonuses and maluses ; faster is to make several simple one’s : double six and the commander is down, anything else passes.
Those proposals do not alter game mechanics as they are in V2. They are likely to reduce number of BGs on the table and increase opportunities for a fast loss of morale points so to lead to faster conclusion of the game. Reluctant players may elect to go on with smaller number of commanders and keep those out of harm’s reach . Those tidbits also happen to give more flexibility to undrilled troops rich armies through the conveniance of more commanders in the lead. Maybe more Gauls and Britons might appear on tables.

Additional commanders’ ability , number of commanders, and subsequent potential loss of morale do not make for a more realistic simulation but they do make for a faster more enjoyable game in placing more opportunities for unwise decisions in the player’s hands.

With more commanders ‘ and less BGs, you see a lower army morale, a higher casualties rate, a game faster to conclusion.
No need to wait for version 3, you may just have a go at it in your next games. Please have a go and let us know. :mrgreen:
Bruno MASSON

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8646
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: FOGAM3

Post by philqw78 » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:28 am

Its rare that I use more than 2 generals now. I'd be laughing like a pirate if other people started using twice as many
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: FOGAM3

Post by ChrisTofalos » Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:20 pm

FOGAM is easily concluded in 3 hours - if both sides are interested in playing.
I think there might be more to it than both players being interested in playing (although that is an important factor). A foot army facing mounted is going to choose as much terrain as possible and that, in itself, is going to slow things down. I've only been playing for about three years but have concluded that 'early finish' comp games are usually the result of a total mismatch; either player ability, armies - or both. But when two players and their armies are closely matched then the time limit too often prevents a decisive finish. Perhaps what we should be looking at is a likely finish in two and a half hours, rather than three and a half?

With that in mind, what about:

(1) More dice is going to help on two counts. Firstly, there are going to be more casualties (which should speed things up) and, secondly, the more dice thrown the less chance of extreme results. So why not use more dice in melee, as well as impact?

(2) Increasing the HF move to 4MU will help certain armies but what's wrong with all troop types then getting an extra inch? It's hardly a dramatic increase, so shouldn't impact on the game balance, and it might mean that a general engagement starts a move early.

(3) The cohesion test is relatively easy going on an army when things start to go wrong. All you have to do is test. There isn't even a minus one for seeing friends break. Some extra factors and occasions for testing (such as testing whenever a friendly unit in rout passes near) might help bring a decisive result that bit closer.

There's been a lot of discussion about the merits of different rule sets and the number of pieces/units used. Personally, I'd had enough of the fireworks display of DBM when I recently got back into wargaming. I'd been used to unit (rather than single base) sized pieces from starting playing with WRG 3rd edition in the early 70s. I think PB made a major mistake when he scaled up DBA but chose to allow every base to operate independently. That sort of tactical flexibility is more suited to the modern periods or a skirmish game. Armies in set-piece battles right into the horse & musket period used units to manoeuvre, not sub-units.

With the single exception of game times, I think FOG-AM is the best set of ancient rules I've ever played with. The mechanisms are innovative and enjoyable to use. I hope the authors manage to come up with a V3 that will cure all the perceived problems and result in a set everyone will have to consider...

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

Re: FOGAM3

Post by hazelbark » Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:33 pm

berthier wrote: The 25-0 system does not penalize playing for a draw enough but that can be easily addressed by tournament organizers.

Some of the changes suggested so far have the potential to increase the speed of the games but it remains to be seen if viability of some armies will be significantly improved. Hairy barbarian armies fall into this lot but in my mind this is more a list problem than a rule problem.
So I think these points are pretty dead on. Except there tends to be convergence on scoring systems so it is harder to buck the "system" that is wandering around the glob. Gulf South as you point out, is probably the most defiant of other norms and I do mean that in a good way. You successfully experiment much more than anywhere else. It is hard to have a strictly scoring solution to this, but that needs to be in the mix as you say.

Now part of the reason, regardless of rules is there is a portion of players that don't want to lose. And ANY thing that is devised they will work against because that is who they are. So it is really the other players that are unfinished that scoring or rules need to tackle. Having a system that the heads I win, tails you lose army design is weaker is important. The so-called Benny Hill phase needs a solution.

Hairy barbarians are one of the groups of armies that need fixes and as you suggest not a slight tweak. List fixes could be an answer. I'd be curious what you have in mind. I think points honestly are part of the pathway.

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

Re: FOGAM3

Post by hazelbark » Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:38 pm

Onurbm wrote: • Player may have as many commanders as they want. As cost of a commander is about same as a BG, this will make lower army breakpoint easier to reach for same amount of points …
Additional commanders’ ability , number of commanders, and subsequent potential loss of morale do not make for a more realistic simulation but they do make for a faster more enjoyable game in placing more opportunities for unwise decisions in the player’s hands.

With more commanders ‘ and less BGs, you see a lower army morale, a higher casualties rate, a game faster to conclusion.
I think there is something of a point here. I think having more variety of options for commanders may be interesting at different point levels.
Champion -- no radius, only effects the unit attached to. Always fights. Possibly restrict he can't leave unit until it is routed.
Clever Leader -- no combat effects, only effects unit or battle line he is attached to.
I am sure there are other variations but a little more chrome here wouldn't be bad.

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4182
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by terrys » Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:38 pm

Now part of the reason, regardless of rules is there is a portion of players that don't want to lose. And ANY thing that is devised they will work against because that is who they are. So it is really the other players that are unfinished that scoring or rules need to tackle. Having a system that the heads I win, tails you lose army design is weaker is important. The so-called Benny Hill phase needs a solution.
Using the victory conditions on page 126 could solve this, giving say:
Decisive victory ............. 5 points
Major victory ................ 3 points
Moderate Victory ........... 2 points
Marginal Victory ............ 1 point
None of the above .......... 0 points
However, it then becomes quite possible (if not probable) for a substantial number of players to score 0 points during the entire competition.
Nothing puts player off more than going home from a competition with 0 points.
Organisers over the years have preferred a system with greater variation between levels of victory and defeat, so that there are less players on the same score, which makes the draw easier - AND there is less likelihood that the top players end on the same score - requiring tough decisions on who deserves the trophy.

No matter what you do - If you give players any score at all for not getting their army broken, then some players will play to avoid defeat - certainly after the first few combats have gone wrong.

Onurbm
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:57 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by Onurbm » Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:41 am

FOGAM is easily concluded in 3 hours - if both sides are interested in playing. ... :lol: :P

Nope,
Just a quick very personnal glimpse at my last dozen of tournaments played in France, Belgium and Germany, over 2015 and 2016. Real tournamment games .... in 3,5 Hours game play about 20% to conclusion with an army roouting ... with motivated friendly opponents. I mean ready to play the next couple of rounds and see theyr armies rout as couple of additional turns would do the job. Unfortunately not workable due to other games around, in some cases we played nevertheless. Summary is :

FOGAM may be concluded within 4 hours - with motivated players. To get to conclusion in 3 hours requires experienced fast playing gentlemans players ... Still uncommon kind of species but fortunately in expension .... I met several more in Marksburg and Saumur this year

side note :in early 2015 was usually my army about to rout, now, early summer 2016 is usually the opponent army ...
Side note 2 : same comment for games played at the club but with a 80% conclusion rate in 4 hours in 2016 . I improved my speed to play and there are some quite skilled players around.

Possibly share a beer and a chat with you at the worlds. :mrgreen:
Bruno MASSON

Onurbm
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:57 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by Onurbm » Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:58 am

terrys wrote:
Now part of the reason, regardless of rules is there is a portion of players that don't want to lose.
No matter what you do - If you give players any score at all for not getting their army broken, then some players will play to avoid defeat - certainly after the first few combats have gone wrong.
basic management rule : you manage with a handfull of carrots and the shade of a Stick beating ...

Carrots : basic score x-x for unconclusive and add more and more bonuses for a conclusion. 25% of bonus to game looser 75% to game winner ... Bonus for any BG you rout in the opponent army, doesnt matter about victory. and additionnal bonus for conclusion of victory as in 25-0.

Stick : player are likely to take if should a bloody defeat of theyr army bring more points to them than an inconclusive draw .... thats not real life nor history but FOGAM is a game with a flavour of History, not a simulation.

Lets come down to earth a bit . .. who cares about victory with pewter lumbs ? who cares about enjoyable game ? :mrgreen:

I do, and a good beer too :arrow:
Bruno MASSON

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4182
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by terrys » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:50 am

Possibly share a beer and a chat with you at the worlds.
My favorite pastime - before, during and after games......

Mehrunes
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:21 pm

Re: FOGAM3

Post by Mehrunes » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:17 pm

2) Reduce the number and effectiveness of skirmishers (LF and LH) that are currently only used to bump up the army size with little risk of being lost.
Skirmishers will always have a role, we'll be trying to limit that role to something more historical.
What will happen to all-skirmisher armies? Like Numidians? How will they stay competitive without having to field the fake legions as a must?

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4182
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by terrys » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:24 pm

Code: Select all

What will happen to all-skirmisher armies? Like Numidians? How will they stay competitive without having to field the fake legions as a must?
We have identified a number of armies that will suffer disproportionately from the current proposed changes - Numidians being top of the list.
Our thoughts at the moment are to update some the lists, but make them available as a download - rather than add them at the back of the rules as per V2
I'm not saying that Numidians will be a 'good' army but they will at least be 'usable'.

PS...... Would you REALLY consider them 'competitive' under V2 ????

Saxonian
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:00 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by Saxonian » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:17 am

Hi Terry,
any chance you could have a quick look at the thread for the update for FOGN we've been discussing.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... &start=380

It's been a while since we had any news on its progress.
Thanks

pyruse
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:32 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by pyruse » Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:50 am

One thing which really slows down FoG (both v1 and v2) is what happens when units end up unaligned with each other in a big melee.
(I have bad memories of a Plataea refight where the Greeks and Persians were exactly one base out of alignment when they collided in a long line)
You have to work out all the hits by file, and keep track of who scored hits on which units.
It is tedious and error prone, and the worst bit of the rules as far as our group is concerned.
Other ancients rules such as Sword & Spear or To The Strongest mandate alignment, and have all units the same width and play much faster as a result.
I don't know whether it would be feasible to do such a thing for FoG; you could still have different numbers of elements in a unit but vary the depth rather than the width, perhaps.

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: FOGAM3 - Game Time...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:14 pm

There seems to be a recurring complaint in this thread: games take too long. And it's one I wholeheartedly agree with. Players using DBMM, ADLG & M&G all claim shorter game times. At my club, MAWS, our DBMM comp games finish in almost half the time for FOG ones - which also usually run out of time before a decisive decision is reached.

From what I've heard, there seems to be very little that's going to shorten game time in the proposed V3. HF moving 4MU; more dice at Impact (hopefully helping to shorten hand-to-hand combats) and less dice re-rolls when, say, superiors fight superiors (no re-rolls). Hardly going to make much of a difference, are they?

Perhaps the re-writers need to take a bit more dramatic action? Instant breaks, more dice for melee as well as impact, slightly longer move distances and some extra minusses and occasions for testing when a unit breaks might just do the trick. I'm sure some of you could come up with some interesting proposals, too.

What's the point of yet another version which fails to deal with the real problem? I can't see the prospects of a resounding success for V3 being very much. And that will not tempt back former players - or bring in new ones (there are now quite a few decent alternatives)...

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4182
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by terrys » Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:39 am

There seems to be a recurring complaint in this thread: games take too long. And it's one I wholeheartedly agree with. Players using DBMM, ADLG & M&G all claim shorter game times. At my club, MAWS, our DBMM comp games finish in almost half the time for FOG ones - which also usually run out of time before a decisive decision is reached.
That may be true of a club game - but the results from competition games proves otherwise. Both DBMM and FOGAM have about 50% army broken 'results' in competitions
Whether or not a game completes is usually more dependent on the players than on the rules. However, it may be easier to play for a draw in some rules than others.
From what I've heard, there seems to be very little that's going to shorten game time in the proposed V3. HF moving 4MU; more dice at Impact (hopefully helping to shorten hand-to-hand combats) and less dice re-rolls when, say, superiors fight superiors (no re-rolls). Hardly going to make much of a difference, are they?
Perhaps the re-writers need to take a bit more dramatic action? Instant breaks, more dice for melee as well as impact, slightly longer move distances and some extra minuses and occasions for testing when a unit breaks might just do the trick. I'm sure some of you could come up with some interesting proposals, too.
Individual changes don't make the difference - It's the combination of changes that will. If we changed a single part of the rules to induce quicker results - say 'instant breaks' we'd upset more players - who'd quite rightly claim that the game is too dice dependent.
There are a lot of subtle changes being planned for V3 that on their own don't look to be significant, but add them together and the game does resolve much quicker.
My last test game was between Thematc Byzantines and Abbassid - which ended with a Byzantine 91-6 victory in 2 1/4 hours (Byzantines are much better than they were). 90% of V3 test games have resulted in an outright victory inside 3 hours, often in about 2 1/2.
A question that should be asked is: Do we actually want ALL games to conclude within a 3 hour window. There is a certain amount of skill in 'surviving' with your army after combat results have gone against you. What we don't want are those armies that can't be broken (more than 50% skirmishers) and which can run and hide (Benny Hill effect) once their battle troops have lost. We think the changes that we've made will stop that happening....although some players will always try!

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8646
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: FOGAM3

Post by philqw78 » Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:53 am

terrys wrote: which ended with a Byzantine 91-6 victory in 2 1/4 hours
A new scoring system to rewards big wins as well then
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4182
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: FOGAM3

Post by terrys » Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:00 am

terrys wrote:
which ended with a Byzantine 91-6 victory in 2 1/4 hours
A new scoring system to rewards big wins as well then
That's why I lost - I kept getting 1's in the wrong places
Obviously should be 19-6

Vishnu
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:36 pm

Re: FOGAM3

Post by Vishnu » Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:55 pm

i look forward to the new changes, i started ancients with FOG and do not like ADLG or DB*. FOG has a lot going for it and a unique system which is great.
Some changes to combat could be better quality troops give a -1 against lower quality for Cohesion.
If you win by more 2, each additional difference is a another -1 for cohesion.

kal

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

Re: FOGAM3

Post by hazelbark » Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:38 pm

terrys wrote: A question that should be asked is: Do we actually want ALL games to conclude within a 3 hour window. There is a certain amount of skill in 'surviving' with your army after combat results have gone against you. What we don't want are those armies that can't be broken (more than 50% skirmishers) and which can run and hide (Benny Hill effect) once their battle troops have lost. We think the changes that we've made will stop that happening....although some players will always try!
Short answer is YES. Now maybe there is a non-broken status that can apply. An awful lot of ancients battles were battles of annihilation, but the time argument comes in. In your FOGN rules you have a mechanism that could be described as induced strategic withdrawal. Something that defines a result without a rout ought to happen in many periods. The problem is any game that allows a player to stall out to not be defeated will be exploited.

This isn't what you are looking for, but Charles Grant had some scenarios where when units got across a certain line they had escaped or in another they didn't they are lost.

You could have a simple games that hit time limit then add lost cohesion levels to units in the following priority order until one side breaks. That side then suffers some victory point punishment that isn't as bad a rout but is still a defeat more so than the old DBM 18-16.
Priority would be all Fra'g units ove 50% casualties count as broken. Check for army break. All other frag break. check for army break. All units within 12 MU of own base edge, not in command range and not within 6 MU of baggage take a cohesion drop. check for army break. etc. Probably a bit clunky.

Post Reply

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