Field of Glory Ancients version 2

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

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

Post Reply
jdm
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 1139
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:41 am

Field of Glory Ancients version 2

Post by jdm » Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:09 pm

Field of Glory has now been in circulation for more than two years, and you the players have completed literally tens of thousands of games. The feedback you have given us is immense and despite the most rigorous beta testing that has ever been conducted on a set of table top rules you have found a number of points that we would like to fix and expand upon. We listen carefully to everything that you say in this forum and we have built up a dossier of data that will help us take the rules to a new level.


Not all of the points raised will make the final cut but we invite you to contribute further by setting out your problems and suggested solutions, in this thread. We guarantee that we will listen carefully to you all. It will not be possible to respond to all of the points raised but I can assure you we are listening.

We intend to incorporating further clarifications and improvements to the realism and game play, and we may possibly conduct a new beta test programme to test the new ideas. We welcome your feedback and comments on any aspect of how this should be done

Best regards
JDM

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Post by petedalby » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:07 pm

Lots of material / issues / suggestions in the FAQ Sticky in the Rules section JD.
Pete

jdm
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 1139
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:41 am

Post by jdm » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:41 pm

Yep we have that
JDM

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:19 am

JD. From my experience with the FoG:R Beta I know that some of the ideas there (but very much not all) will present good solutions to some of the problems here. However by the terms of the NDA I am bound not to go into detail about which are applicable to FoG:R and which would need changing. Once free from the contraints of the NDA I would willingly contribute.

Some of the things not covered by the NDA are just tightening up the words (the Rule of Dave) but some like the teleporting Elephant and the "move the point where you overlap a BG by a Gnats and 'Hey-Presto' you are out the other side" really do need fixing - I like Hammy's suggestions but some might object to them for the very reason that they are Hammy's suggestions :).
Last edited by timmy1 on Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:21 am

***MODERATOR COMMENT***

As this is a rather important development topic I will be deleting irrelevant posts - no matter how amusing they may be - in order that the rules team do not have to wade through off topic stuff.

Please avoid "me too" postings as well. if somebody has mentioned something you agree with, please do not just post your agreement.
Last edited by nikgaukroger on Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Post by kevinj » Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:14 am

Just to get this kicked off here's a few that bug me:

1) Charging without orders - a BG (Knights for example) will not risk a charge if there's the slightest risk of putting a toe in rough going, but will ignore the enemy a micron from their flank.

2) Using roads to block the placement of other terrain. I'm hoping changing placement of roads to last will fix that.

3) Conforming. Much hot air is generated on this. People can get hung up on the mechanics of pivot and slide, al for something that is in essence aesthetic.

To be honest, apart from 1, most of my gripes are with the way that people try to exploit the rules rather than the game itself and it's more a case of tidying up than widespread fixing of inherent problems.

Kevin

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Post by petedalby » Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:12 am

Field fortifications might be worth a look? Insist that they have to be taken in multiples of say 3 to avoid players pacing the odd one here and there?

Are firearms too powerful? Should the extra -1 on a CT only apply if the firearms actually hit?

I've always thought Elephants should seriously disorder Knights, rater than just disordering them?

But for me the game plays well - please don't change too much!
Pete

peterrjohnston
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Post by peterrjohnston » Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:13 am

Perhaps you'd be better off dividing this is two.

The first being fixes, errata and clarifications to the rules as they stand now.

For example, I agree with Kevin about the roads. I would also add the terrain placement on side edges should be amended to say "Touching a side edge, river, or coast".

The second should be proposals that would result in the rules changing, eg the way foot work as Nik and myself mentioned in a recent thread, and Simon looked at before FoG1 was published.

pcelella
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:56 pm
Location: West Hartford, CT USA

Post by pcelella » Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:19 am

I pretty much like the rules just the way that they are, and I hope that there won't be any changes more than small adjustments. I would love to see something done to make protected impact foot barbarian armies more competitive though, but I don't know what. In addition, I'd like to see a bit more variety in the lists so that the armies aren't quite as bland or so many of them that are really exactly the same. I used to play Warrior for a bit and it has a few list rules that give a select number of units special abilities - maybe something like that would help.

So basically, I don't think the rules need much changing but the lists could use a bit of work.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5873
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Post by Blathergut » Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:38 am

Mostly clarifications, like "conform by moving minimum distance" and is the minimum the new minimum if you can't conform to the original minimum. :shock:

:)

expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

restrictions on generals moving individually

Post by expendablecinc » Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:34 pm

Possibly limit generals swanning about near enemy with no protection:

Something along the lines of;
generals can move indivvidually by:
- leaving a BG and joining another BG in the same move
or
- ending their move 6" away from all enemy BGs

At least prevent them from ending thier move where they can be shot at.

Alternatively have them automatically evade of die if contacted by moving enemy (forced them to stay out of charge range)

expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

make complex move tests a decision point

Post by expendablecinc » Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:37 pm

This was suggested to me the other day and thought I'd repost:

a failed complex move test results in not test possible at all unless a general is with the BG.
(ie - a fancy plan carries more risk)

this is a roundabout way of giving undrilled and slow moving armies a bit of a boost (assuming they dont rely on a fancy plan either.

spike
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: Category 2

Teleporting troops by interpenetration

Post by spike » Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:44 pm

Amendments to interpenetration, to reduce the ability of troops to move much further than their movement allowance would normally allow.

spike
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: Category 2

Evading from charges

Post by spike » Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:48 pm

Tighter interpretation to the direction that light troops and cavalry evade from charges.

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:17 pm

Something to give a reason to take Unprotected or Protected non-missle MF/HF. For example, greater movement than armoured MF/HF even is just something like +1 to the VMD roll. Currently the points difference does not seem enough of an economic incentive to take Protected troops when Armoured are available.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3792
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:05 pm

Drilled troops are currently a no-brainer - the additional one point (for the majority of troops) is not enough.

I suggest making drilled troops two points and four points more than their undrilled brethren instead of the one and three at the moment.
Evaluator of Supremacy

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:31 pm

Drilled troops currently pass CMTs more easily than Undrilled and can do more - a double benefit. IMO either all troops have the same manoeuvre options but Drilled pass CMTs more easily or all should pass the CMT on the same score (and I'd say that in this case it would be 8 ).
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

stecal
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:21 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Contact:

Post by stecal » Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:43 pm

Make artillery worth taking. Shouldn't a ballista outrange a bow!

Protected armor needs an upgrade, or perhaps armored is just too cheap. Currently if you can you ALWAYS take armored if it is an option over protectred. The +1 POA for better armor is just too important. Maybe make better armor a tie breaker like Lt Spear mounted if all other POAs zero out?

Drop skilled swordsmen POA, or just make it a tie breaker like Lt Spear.
Last edited by stecal on Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Clear the battlefield and let me see
All the profit from our victory.

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

Post by david53 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:02 pm

Drop the movement for medium foot to the same as heavy foot ie three mu, drop Light foot to four mu drop LH to six mu, keep Cav at five MU

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:04 pm

Change maximum wheel to 90 degrees a la FoG:R.

Have a look at the break points of Superior BGs to try and avoid 4 base Superior's essentially fighting to the last man - may provide an incentive for some types of mounted to be fielded as 6 base BGs which are hardly seen currently.
Last edited by nikgaukroger on Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Post Reply

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