Page 1 of 4

Shifting from DBM

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:59 am
by Fluffy
I'm in South Africa and most people are still stuck on DBM.

Does anyone have advice for shifting from DBM to FoG?
Both in terms of playing and "converting" people?

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 2:13 am
by babyshark
As far as playing goes the most serious difference (as opposed to the most obvious, that being BGs instead of elements) is the different tempo of the game. Learning how long it takes to get from point A to point B was the main source of confusion for me. And when I shifted back to DBM I was all at sea, having adapted to the FoG tempo.

Marc

Re: Shifting from DBM

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:22 am
by nikgaukroger
Fluffy wrote:I'm in South Africa and most people are still stuck on DBM.

Does anyone have advice for shifting from DBM to FoG?

Tricky if people are still enjoying DBM. Is Colin still dead set against it?

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:51 am
by hammy
Colin does seem to be fairly dead set against FoG for some reason.

That said I believe there are a growing number FoG players in RSA so you may be able to find some near you. Duane Havenga and Eugene Burger both play FoG and should have some idea who else does so.

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:15 pm
by Fluffy
Last I asked Colin said FoG isn't ready to be played.

I play Duane often, Eugene lives 6 hours away.
There are 4 of us playing FoG in Pretoria, as far as I know.

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:46 pm
by nikgaukroger
Fluffy wrote:Last I asked Colin said FoG isn't ready to be played.

My mind boggles at what he means by that :shock:

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:32 pm
by hammy
nikgaukroger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:Last I asked Colin said FoG isn't ready to be played.

My mind boggles at what he means by that :shock:
Indeed....

Sometimes I wonder what goes on in his head.

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:39 pm
by Strategos69
Well, it might depend on the period you are playing. If you have anyone interested in Romans, it can be very quick. In my group of friends, we ceased to play DBM after watching how badly it represented the battles between Romans and Carthaginians. Have you tried to do exhibition games with a very reduced set of type troops so that people can get into it? With all its problems, and they are many, I find FoG far better than DBM or DBMM.

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:02 pm
by Fluffy
The legions did impress me when I started out with the starter armies in the rule book, I was on the receiving side though.:cry:

I do find that DBM is over complicated and over simplified in the wrong places (movement and troop classification respectively) and FoG is the opposite in comparison, I'll try to use that.

What frustrates me is relearning things that I was good at and micro tactics became my bread and butter and that's out the window.

Less "cheese" may be something to draw attention to?

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:12 pm
by Strategos69
If people are really into the historical part of wargaming, it usually works for me watching that the game, not being overcomplicated, produces nice results. You can start also preparing a historical battle and "prove" that FoG will represent it not only more quickly but usually better. I have also prepared battles where people are not taught the rules but what they can do and I "play" as referee, doing or correcting the movements players do. It is all about making the people have the flavour of the game.

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:26 pm
by footslogger
Fluffy wrote:The legions did impress me when I started out with the starter armies in the rule book, I was on the receiving side though.:cry:

I do find that DBM is over complicated and over simplified in the wrong places (movement and troop classification respectively) and FoG is the opposite in comparison, I'll try to use that.

What frustrates me is relearning things that I was good at and micro tactics became my bread and butter and that's out the window.

Less "cheese" may be something to draw attention to?
The thing I like most about FoG is that it's so clean (which is what I would mean if I said less "cheese"). I've realized though that there are gamers who thrive on playing "cheese" - or relish finding obscure rules they can take advantage of when others don't know them. I'm happy not to have that experience any more but we lost some gamers because of it. YMMV.

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm
by hammy
footslogger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:Less "cheese" may be something to draw attention to?
The thing I like most about FoG is that it's so clean (which is what I would mean if I said less "cheese"). I've realized though that there are gamers who thrive on playing "cheese" - or relish finding obscure rules they can take advantage of when others don't know them. I'm happy not to have that experience any more but we lost some gamers because of it. YMMV.
I agree, you need to focus on very different skills to do well at FoG. It is not about learning the 'tricks' which is I think a very good thing.

The downside is indeed that some players that really don't like FoG because of that. I personally find that Flames of War scratches the 'tricksy' itch that was left when I stopped playing DBM.

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:40 pm
by PaulByzan
nikgaukroger wrote:
Fluffy wrote:Last I asked Colin said FoG isn't ready to be played.

My mind boggles at what he means by that :shock:
Wow, now I'm really intrigued. So there's this guy Colin (note just one name and all the English guys know him) in RSA who has such dominance over all the other gamers there that they use DBM over FoG despite their personal preference or have to play in huddled secret groups? So what's the story behind that? Must be quite a guy.

Paul

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:56 pm
by philqw78
PaulByzan wrote:So there's this guy Colin...........all the other gamers there that they use DBM over FoG .......or have to play in huddled secret groups? So what's the story behind that? Must be quite a guy.
Paul
He has a large presence. Heavy one might say? Or built like a Buffalo? A terrible one really :wink:

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:05 am
by Fluffy
So there's this guy Colin (note just one name and all the English guys know him) in RSA who has such dominance over all the other gamers there that they use DBM over FoG despite their personal preference or have to play in huddled secret groups? So what's the story behind that? Must be quite a guy.
Colin Webster is the president of the our wargaming association. He's good at mind games (probably really good at poker), so if you try to argue with him you either end up agreeing with him or achieve nothing.
For example, we've had some people who where interested in FoG till they had one talk with Colin.

Re: Shifting from DBM

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:42 pm
by grahambriggs
Fluffy wrote:I'm in South Africa and most people are still stuck on DBM.

Does anyone have advice for shifting from DBM to FoG?
Both in terms of playing and "converting" people?
My suggestion is deliberately don't use DBM tactics to play FOG. eg. if you have a regular army, forget all about giving big pips to your strike command to grab the initiative. That way you'll just get furstrated (in FoG, a double move is the best you'll get)

Start off with plain and simple tactics. For example, delay and harass with skirmishers, put the battle line foot in the open in a line facing the enemy. Medium foot (aka Ax) in or facing bad going.

In DBM, early armies can take on medieval ones - eg New Kingdom Egyptian vs. Knights. in FoG that's less the case, so it's better if medieval armies paly each other.

If you want to get people playing FoG then a good place to start, if you have the armies, is Rome vs historical opponents. This works better in FoG than in DBM (where most people find the Romans too weak), with the Romans being quite ferocious. Also, it gives a good game which brings out the flavour of the period well. The only problem you might find id that the romans are a little bit too good against warbands!

I think Colin's concern with the FoG rules was mostly around the exchange rate of the Rand. In that the rule set and books of lists would be expensive to purchase in South africa, particularly when you think there are a lot of young players in South Africa.

Re: Shifting from DBM

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:05 pm
by nikgaukroger
grahambriggs wrote: I think Colin's concern with the FoG rules was mostly around the exchange rate of the Rand. In that the rule set and books of lists would be expensive to purchase in South africa, particularly when you think there are a lot of young players in South Africa.

I expect this is indeed a factor for Colin, and I can see why as he wants a large and successful gaming community - even if he does wrap it up in a bureaucratic nightmare :lol:

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:01 pm
by dave_r
philqw78 wrote:
PaulByzan wrote:So there's this guy Colin...........all the other gamers there that they use DBM over FoG .......or have to play in huddled secret groups? So what's the story behind that? Must be quite a guy.
Paul
He has a large presence. Heavy one might say? Or built like a Buffalo? A terrible one really :wink:
That's a bit naughty. We will see how many people get that one.

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:12 pm
by philqw78
dave_r wrote:We will see how many people get that one.
Perm any one of 3.

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:09 am
by Fluffy
I think Colin's concern with the FoG rules was mostly around the exchange rate of the Rand. In that the rule set and books of lists would be expensive to purchase in South africa, particularly when you think there are a lot of young players in South Africa.
Lets just say we are not looking forward to FoG 2.0.
Figures are expensive for us too, which is why we don't have period themed competitions.

The counter argument is that if we're sending people to The World Championship they need to be up to date, because it is the only international event we attend.