FOGAM3

[grahambriggs]

Everyone can come up with dozens of interesting ideas, but a great set of war games rules needs an author with a comprehensive vision to integrate them all. Does this even exist anymore for FoGAM?

The team doing V3 is led by Terry Shaw, who was one of the V1 and V2 authors. One of the early stages was to sort out what the aims were, to avoid later mission creep. Of course, having aims and finding the right rules to deliver them are different things, but we seem to be making some progress.

[titanu]

Can one join up as a Beta tester?

[titanu]

MF should still be usable, but not as powerful as they are now.

I am not sure it is quite that simple. Many armies are powerful but armies like the Kofun Nara are powerful AND easy to play with. Other powerful armies need a good player to win.

I feel that it is also a function of the army lists. Armies we know about have a number of compulsory troops which can make them a less attractive option. Where as armies where little is know about their makeup often only have a couple of troop types, e.g. the Kofun Nara, 4 cavalry and the rest MF light spear and bow.

My other idea is that MF should take a cohesion test when charged by mounted (lancers, elephants types can vary). There could be minuses for poor and/or average and the enemy charging them.

You could also take away the automatic change in the flank for troops with bows so they have to pass a test as if there were charging enemy in the front.

The other way is to charge a point for a light spear and 2 points for a light spear and bow

Also can we go back to V1 for undrilled troops turning 90/180. I think it is rubbish that they can march up and if they do not like their position turn automatically with a general and march back again.

Oh got to go now matron says it is time for my Horlicks and bed

[titanu]

The team doing V3 is led by Terry Shaw, who was one of the V1 and V2 authors.

I thought that was Wernher von Braun

[hazelbark]

I don't think it's that MF is overpowered as such, it's more that perhaps their biggest natural predators, HF based armies are not as good as they should be, for a number of reasons. While some still use them, they are certainly rare in the UK. So some of the changes are looking to get HF back in the game: speed them up and penalise the "strike force and massed skirmisher" armies.

You sir are much more rational than Dave R.

[dave_r]

I don't think it's that MF is overpowered as such, it's more that perhaps their biggest natural predators, HF based armies are not as good as they should be, for a number of reasons. While some still use them, they are certainly rare in the UK. So some of the changes are looking to get HF back in the game: speed them up and penalise the "strike force and massed skirmisher" armies.

You sir are much more rational than Dave R.

This was the view I expressed during the initial discussions, but that was not the question you asked

[marty]

I would have thought the main "natural predator" of MF armies was shock mounted, not HF.

Most non-shooting MF armies are already pretty ordinary at best. Any general change that affects all MF will just make this worse.

I also would have thought the bigger balance issue for HF was the essentially indestructible shock mounted who can sit around in front of them all day, if they are unfortunate enough to have their charge fail. The good old "If I win I win, If I lose we draw" effect.

Martin

[dave_r]

I would have thought the main "natural predator" of MF armies was shock mounted, not HF.

Most non-shooting MF armies are already pretty ordinary at best. Any general change that affects all MF will just make this worse.

I also would have thought the bigger balance issue for HF was the essentially indestructible shock mounted who can sit around in front of them all day, if they are unfortunate enough to have their charge fail. The good old "If I win I win, If I lose we draw" effect.

Martin

Possibly why we don't really see any non-shooty MF. Although these troops _shouldn't_ be good against mounted in the open. That is what HF are for. If we can make HF usable we should be able to see MF where they are meant to be - i.e. in the terrain.

The current NoFun Kara with oodles of MF, Light Spear Bow and the Han Chinese with Armoured Crossbow PO's are not scared by shock mounted.

[marty]

Possibly why we don't really see any non-shooty MF.

Presumably not a desired design effect? Plenty of armies consist of little else

Although these troops _shouldn't_ be good against mounted in the open.

No Argument here

That is what HF are for.

Except they dont really work either. The mounted only fight if they want to and will rarely be destroyed in even a losing fight

If we can make HF usable we should be able to see MF where they are meant to be - i.e. in the terrain.

Perhaps, although the MF only armies will only see the table if they aren't total patsies in the open.

The current NoFun Kara with oodles of MF, Light Spear Bow and the Han Chinese with Armoured Crossbow PO's are not scared by shock mounted.

I dont think anyone is disputing that some shooty MF are doing well at the moment. Doesn't do anything for more ordinary MF, including many shooters.

Martin

[dave_r]

Possibly why we don't really see any non-shooty MF.

Presumably not a desired design effect? Plenty of armies consist of little else

Exactly - all armies should potentially be viable. Although I doubt that will ever be achieved.

That is what HF are for.

Except they dont really work either. The mounted only fight if they want to and will rarely be destroyed in even a losing fight

Exactly - we are trying to make HF usable and as effective (but different) from MF. Both should have their weaknesses and strengths.

If we can make HF usable we should be able to see MF where they are meant to be - i.e. in the terrain.

Perhaps, although the MF only armies will only see the table if they aren't total patsies in the open.

If HF move as fast as MF you wouldn't take MF as that is their only advantage. The key thing is to try to make sure that armies that only consist of MF are not totally knackered by this. But most MF armies have something else in addition (heavy chariots / elephants) so that should not be a problem. Hopefully.

The current NoFun Kara with oodles of MF, Light Spear Bow and the Han Chinese with Armoured Crossbow PO's are not scared by shock mounted.

I dont think anyone is disputing that some shooty MF are doing well at the moment. Doesn't do anything for more ordinary MF, including many shooters.

Martin

True, but there aren't that much other MF to worry about? The other stuff is either Impact Foot or Offensive Spearmen, both of which are getting "upgraded".

[marty]

If HF move as fast as MF you wouldn't take MF as that is their only advantage. The key thing is to try to make sure that armies that only consist of MF are not totally knackered by this

Are you saying their movement rates will be the same in V3? If so I would suggest MF should probably cost less.

True, but there aren't that much other MF to worry about? The other stuff is either Impact Foot or Offensive Spearmen, both of which are getting "upgraded".

What about LS/SW or Heavy Weapon or more normal bowmen (ie no armour or free LS) or, God forbid, nothing but sword?

Martin

[grahambriggs]

Can one join up as a Beta tester?

Probably best to drop Terry Shaw a line or have a chat to him.

[grahambriggs]

I don't think it's that MF is overpowered as such, it's more that perhaps their biggest natural predators, HF based armies are not as good as they should be, for a number of reasons. While some still use them, they are certainly rare in the UK. So some of the changes are looking to get HF back in the game: speed them up and penalise the "strike force and massed skirmisher" armies.

You sir are much more rational than Dave R.

And you Sir, have damned me with faint praise...

[timmy1]

Graham

He did say 'much more'...

[ChrisTofalos]

Games taking too long was one of them, also skirmishers being too much a feature of the game. Allied to this was that the classic armies of antiquity - Greeks, Romans, warband, Byzantines and so on - were not strong enough. There was also a concern that only certain styles of battle groups were cost effective. So for example, in the ancient era, 4 bases of armoured superior lance, sword cavalry are very common. You don't see many battle groups of 6 average or poor protected Light spear cavalry.

Interesting replies, Graham. I have no doubt games taking too long is a fairly common reason for people dropping out and is certainly one I agree with. Personally, I'm not bothered by the 'power' of skirmishers. LF can't really do much other than delay or cause some nuisance. LH are more effective but, then, so they should be (in the right terrain). As for HF armies (hasn't everyone got one?), I think it's the terrain system which is at fault (I stopped playing DBM for the same reason). It's far too easy to clog up the battlefield with terrain pieces and that has allowed some MF armies (such as EA Persians) to become a lot more effective than they perhaps should be. Increasing the pace for HF is a good idea but cut down the clutter and there'll be less places for them to hide in. Maybe HF armies should get a plus one (or even two) to the terrain modifier throws?

All that said, speeding up play has got to be a good idea. Quicker resolution of combat (more dice; 'instant' breaks) and creating effective, realistic penalties for seeing friends break can only help. But care needs to be taken as 2-base elephant BGs could well become unusable.

Finally, whilst I think the basic combat system gives an excellent balance, I hope the writers reconsider those hapless horsemen carrying light spears. Unlike their foot equivalents, they hardly ever get the benefit of their weapon and that, on its own, is probably the reason we don't see many BGs (of any size) of them.

[grahambriggs]

Graham

He did say 'much more'...

even so...

[grahambriggs]

Games taking too long was one of them, also skirmishers being too much a feature of the game. Allied to this was that the classic armies of antiquity - Greeks, Romans, warband, Byzantines and so on - were not strong enough. There was also a concern that only certain styles of battle groups were cost effective. So for example, in the ancient era, 4 bases of armoured superior lance, sword cavalry are very common. You don't see many battle groups of 6 average or poor protected Light spear cavalry.

Interesting replies, Graham. I have no doubt games taking too long is a fairly common reason for people dropping out and is certainly one I agree with. Personally, I'm not bothered by the 'power' of skirmishers. LF can't really do much other than delay or cause some nuisance. LH are more effective but, then, so they should be (in the right terrain). As for HF armies (hasn't everyone got one?), I think it's the terrain system which is at fault (I stopped playing DBM for the same reason). It's far too easy to clog up the battlefield with terrain pieces and that has allowed some MF armies (such as EA Persians) to become a lot more effective than they perhaps should be. Increasing the pace for HF is a good idea but cut down the clutter and there'll be less places for them to hide in. Maybe HF armies should get a plus one (or even two) to the terrain modifier throws?

All that said, speeding up play has got to be a good idea. Quicker resolution of combat (more dice; 'instant' breaks) and creating effective, realistic penalties for seeing friends break can only help. But care needs to be taken as 2-base elephant BGs could well become unusable.

Finally, whilst I think the basic combat system gives an excellent balance, I hope the writers reconsider those hapless horsemen carrying light spears. Unlike their foot equivalents, they hardly ever get the benefit of their weapon and that, on its own, is probably the reason we don't see many BGs (of any size) of them.

There is a change being tested with the intention of ensuring that the centre of the battlefield is less cluttered by terrain.

[titanu]

Can one join up as a Beta tester?

Probably best to drop Terry Shaw a line or have a chat to him.

Terry I have sent you a PM. Bob

[ChrisTofalos]

Lots of interesting comments but, for most of us, V3 is an assortment of rumours. The players chosen to beta-test may well be the best qualified and, undoubtedly, are regular players - but they aren't the ones who have dropped out, for whatever reasons.

I don't think something as important as a set of wargames rules should be a money making exercise. It's all very well to have beautifully illustrated rules and army lists but that just pumps up the cost. If a player must have some colour then let's include some B&W illustrations and a set of pound shop crayons to colour them in. I'm serious! FOG, in its various forms, Bolton Action and Flames of War border on extortion to me. You've got to have this book or that (or all of them!) and, in the case of the latter two, MUST have them because of those absolutely silly special rules. Plain profiteering - I'm sure by the publishing companies, not the rule writers.

I would urge the writers to make the V3 beta openly available. That way there'll be much more feedback and the players who have dropped out are much less likely to hear about a single change which adversely affects their favourite army and say, "I'm not having that!" (as I believe happened with some players in the change from V1 to V2)

Do it for the common good, please, gentlemen. We need a set of rules which appeals to as many as possible and we need to bring back those lost sheep - or lose even more...

[titanu]

I don't think something as important as a set of wargames rules should be a money making exercise....

We see Terry and Graham drive up in their chauffer driven Bentley to most wargames shows.

I would be most surprised if anybody other than Flames of War make much profit from rules. If the writers were employed then they would be on much less than the minimum wage.

If they and the publishers make any money from the exercise then I say hurrah, especially the writers. Thanks also to the testers who hunt out most of the anomalies so even Dave R has difficulty finding them

Falling numbers is a problem, as the Northern League has found out. I am not sure it will attract many new folk but may help to keep those we already have. Every time new rules come along the hobby becomes a little bit more diluted. At the Derby club people play: 6th Edition, 7th Edition, FoGAM, FoGR a set of home spun ancient rules. There is also DBM and DBMM all have their followers.

So I say good luck Terry and I shall certainly buy the new set - if they do an OAP reduction

Ah well nearly time for Horlicks and bed