Enjoyable II

[madaxeman]

I don't play FoG much nowadays, partly because it seems to have become quite a stereotyped game. When I do, it seldom involves either side using any sort of tournament tiger army. To be fair, I don't think even then I would try using an (almost) all HF army that often. But Successor armies appear a lot. Even things like Gepids. And there was a hard-gought Gauls vs. Carthaginians not that long ago.

I think the "tournament" thing is a bit of a red herring here. This is the only forum with competition players making up a large part of the membership, but on many other forums where almost all the posters will be "non-competition" gamers there is a recurring critique of
FoG:AM that it is disappointing due to it being somehow "dull", "boring" or "missing a certain something" - or "stereotyped" even !

Given your "non-competition" gamer is more likely to have Romans, Gauls, and Vikings in their collection rather than Bosporans, Santa Hermandad Nuevo Castillians or Dom Rom Swarms I strongly suspect there is some sort of link here. I don't think it's all about the HF rules, but I also don't think it's just a "competition player" issue either

[ravenflight]

This may be partly an "army that suits you" thing.

Agreed.

I'm not a person who 'has to win' to enjoy a game, and in fact I lost both of the games which have resulted in my creating threads titled 'Enjoyable' and 'Enjoyable II' - so that puts paid to that being a consideration.

I have been totally frustrated using HF armies and having the VAST majority of my army 'totally taken out of the game' due to faster moving more manouverable troops deploying and my army not being able to do a single thing about it. Yeah, it might be historical yadda yadda, but it was boring - so boring that I almost threw in FoG:A, and did at one stage for approximately a year. A friend of mine HAS thrown it in... and this after he half completed a new army. I'm sure he'll come back, but probably not until post V2.

Having said all that I believe that the "army that suits (me)" is one where I can have a game with a bit of excitement in it. Not a game of "well, I'm out manouvered, so in approximately 4 hours time I'll have a losing draw... in the mean time I'll be bored out of my skull".

[Strategos69]

I don't think it's all about the HF rules, but I also don't think it's just a "competition player" issue either

I agree: new rulesets are moving towards something very different and the You Go I Go sequence is getting outdated by different systems. I recenty read the Impetus rules and. whereas I don't like the combat and shooting mechanics (I think they are not as well tuned as FoG) and they are very unclear sometimes, they have a very interesting system of activation that makes that players have to be attentive the whole turn (many possibilities of reaction as in fantasy games like Infinity, that get players attention). Indeed, in Impetus there is only one fighting bound and one moving, not three fighting and only one move as in FoG, which makes that only fast troops can take part in more than one combat in a whole game. If you balance that, there are less boring games for the HF player.

In the other hand, the feel of a large skirmish rather than a battle is quite present in FoG. Many times I had that feeling of trying to catch the uncatchable. A single LH BG of 4 bases stopped my whole wing of cavalry in one game. I enjoyed it but I did not have the feel of a battle. It seemed more that every base represented as many men as in the stand, with some troops making gorgeus loops all around.

Something similar happens when I read AAR (and I have read many). Rarely either deployments or results ressemble to Ancient battles (maybe for Medieval warfare works better). For example I read this report of other rules, I look at the pictures and it seems more a battle and I do not get something similar even when playing scenarios

http://legio-wargames.com/#/zama-battle ... 4540338491

[hazelbark]

Something similar happens when I read AAR (and I have read many). Rarely either deployments or results ressemble to Ancient battles (maybe for Medieval warfare works better). For example I read this report of other rules, I look at the pictures and it seems more a battle and I do not get something similar even when playing scenarios

http://legio-wargames.com/#/zama-battle ... 4540338491

That game looks horrid. Those are counters not miniatures. No flavor. Might as well break out the old SPI games with hexes.

[philqw78]

new rulesets are moving towards

Rulesets appear to move in circles. Simultaneous movement was popular a few years ago. Its making a comeback.

And the game shown could be imagined in 15mm + scale, rather than 2mm scale. And it does look like the drawings of battles you get in history books. (if thats a reccomendation)

[grahambriggs]

new rulesets are moving towards

Rulesets appear to move in circles. Simultaneous movement was popular a few years ago. Its making a comeback.

And the game shown could be imagined in 15mm + scale, rather than 2mm scale. And it does look like the drawings of battles you get in history books. (if thats a reccomendation)

I notice the rules set are specifically aimed at 'classical' battles. If you limt a set of rules to that then you'll be able to build in a lot more period feel. However, the rules are unlikely then to work for all pre 1500AD battle types.

Rulke sets may or may not be moving to simultaneous move again. FOG can't, as all of it's mechanisms are IGOUGO based.

[nikgaukroger]

Rulke sets may or may not be moving to simultaneous move again. FOG can't, as all of it's mechanisms are IGOUGO based.

You would have thought, however, I did read somewhere (may have been TMP) of somebody who was playing FoG with simultaneous moves and claimed it worked pretty well - but he did have to do something different with Intercepts, but I can't recall what. No doubt there were other tweaks as well.

[madaxeman]

Rulke sets may or may not be moving to simultaneous move again. FOG can't, as all of it's mechanisms are IGOUGO based.

I'd probably say "initiative based" or "variance in movement linked to command and control" rather than simultaneous. But anyway, I agree.

[Three]

It doesn't have to be a case of either/or - a mixture in the turn could work just as well.

I've come back to Ancients from Napoleonics at 1:20 figure scale using General de Brigade rules. The movement/fighting rules combine simultaneous and alternative movement. Both sides charge/intercept and move alternatively, then both fire, then both fight, then both take morale etc in the same turn.

It is the order each player does these first in each turn that can vary with an Initiative throw prior to each turn, the winner gets the option of moving first or second. I've played FoG only once using the GdeB turn sequence, it didn't throw up anything that caused any problem; having said that it was with 2 armies that had very little in the way of shooting. I suspect that it would cause shooting to be (possibly considerably) less effective.

[grahambriggs]

That sounds interesting.

However, too late. The experimentation phase of developing v2 is over. The authors will have a list of ideas that weren't discarded and will no doubt be trying to sort those out and write them clearly. Not to take on board major new changes.

[shadowdragon]

That sounds interesting.

However, too late. The experimentation phase of developing v2 is over. The authors will have a list of ideas that weren't discarded and will no doubt be trying to sort those out and write them clearly. Not to take on board major new changes.

There has been a desire to make close combat "more decisive" (i.e., close combat ends quicker). This hurts undrilled HF armies since they need extra time the to coordinate their forces.

BTW - I've played IGO-UGO, simultaneous movement and a mixture (IGO-a-little-bit-UGO-a-little-bit-and-repeat-until-the-turn-is-done). Each has it's pluses and minuses, but one difference with FoG compared to many IGO-UGO is the I-fight-even-when-UGO mechanism which results in multiple rounds of combat/shooting per turn of movement. You can combine things but some matchups (knights vs longbow) are currently calibrated to get the right balance.

[gozerius]

The problem with this and any other point based game is that people tend to min/max their armies so that the best troop types are over-represented and the worst are under represented. Couple this with a movement system that favors fast, drilled troops over slow, undrilled to an astonishing degree and you have what you have. If the differences between the movement capabilities between drilled and undrilled were reduced and there wasn't such disparity of speed between light, medium and heavy foot, we would have a different game and then we would be hearing people complaining about how slow and stodgy the game is.
The current game was designed to cater to the fast play tournament crowd, and as all such rulesets it will continue to evolve to meet their demands.
We could make a game based on siege warfare, but nobody is going to hold siege tournaments anytime soon, so there is no market.

[ravenflight]

The problem with this and any other point based game is that people tend to min/max their armies so that the best troop types are over-represented and the worst are under represented. Couple this with a movement system that favors fast, drilled troops over slow, undrilled to an astonishing degree and you have what you have. If the differences between the movement capabilities between drilled and undrilled were reduced and there wasn't such disparity of speed between light, medium and heavy foot, we would have a different game and then we would be hearing people complaining about how slow and stodgy the game is.
The current game was designed to cater to the fast play tournament crowd, and as all such rulesets it will continue to evolve to meet their demands.
We could make a game based on siege warfare, but nobody is going to hold siege tournaments anytime soon, so there is no market.

Yes, but it is a myth that mounted move faster than foot.

A horse CANNOT maintain faster than walking speed for long periods of time. A walking horse is about the same speed as a walking man.

Cavalry should move at Medium Foot speed. Knights and Cataphracts at Heavy foot speed. Everyone should march move at the same speed. The differences not to do with capability of movement, but formation held. Turning and moving is HARD. Combat troops generally wanted the same troops in the front rank no matter what, so have to do a MASSIVE formation change to make this happen.

All of that makes the game more 'stodgie' as you said, so unlikely to be implimented, so I'll happily play the rules as written and enjoy using unrealistically ahistorical Drilled troops because I find the more historical Undrilled boring and frustrating (especially when compared to others using troops who I've now joined the ranks of).

[madaxeman]

Yes, but it is a myth that mounted move faster than foot.

Its not true in FoG.

http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/roll_call_2009_4.php

Well, drilled MF anyway

[Strategos69]

Something similar happens when I read AAR (and I have read many). Rarely either deployments or results ressemble to Ancient battles (maybe for Medieval warfare works better). For example I read this report of other rules, I look at the pictures and it seems more a battle and I do not get something similar even when playing scenarios

http://legio-wargames.com/#/zama-battle ... 4540338491

That game looks horrid. Those are counters not miniatures. No flavor. Might as well break out the old SPI games with hexes.

Leaving aside the fact of gaming with 2mm (and I share that it is way too little for me, but I am not that certain for 6 and 10mm) what I meant is that units are deployed as a whole, thus giving collective movement but at a certain point they split, therefore giving, in my opinion, a better look as a battle.

If you want to represent an overall battle, I think that watching how the HF or Cv move to chase LF or LH is way too detailed for the scale of representation. Indded, that game provided a better look as a battle and that is done with 100 stands per side. In my opinion that is interesting because 100 stands are somethig feasible in larger and more appealing scales.

[Strategos69]

new rulesets are moving towards

Rulesets appear to move in circles. Simultaneous movement was popular a few years ago. Its making a comeback.

And the game shown could be imagined in 15mm + scale, rather than 2mm scale. And it does look like the drawings of battles you get in history books. (if thats a reccomendation)

I notice the rules set are specifically aimed at 'classical' battles. If you limt a set of rules to that then you'll be able to build in a lot more period feel. However, the rules are unlikely then to work for all pre 1500AD battle types.

It depends on how you conceive the rulesets/army lists. I have seen that in Baccus they are creating a 6mm ruleset that has a core of rules that repeats and then additions for some periods. Instead of selling army lists they sell rulesets that are basically updates of periods. It would be the example of FoG: R, splitting AM period into four or five subperiod rules. That way you target more a period with proper specifications and sell a closed product, which usually pleases more people looking only for rules for a specific historical period. You can still have tournaments, but just in period. Some compatibility rules could be thought too, though, aiming only at the common parts and their specific rules.

In my opinion, most rulesets aimed to cover 2500 years make me read many parts that I will never be using, instead of having a core of rules and then adding period specific rules (ex. cataphracts, elephants, camels, chariots, knights). Basically that makes that readers get overwhelmed when basic rules are simple and they give up before starting.

Rulke sets may or may not be moving to simultaneous move again. FOG can't, as all of it's mechanisms are IGOUGO based.

Regarding simultaneous turns, it should be in FoG in the form of initiative roll each turn and the winner deciding. He makes his charges, the other players charges, then resolve impact combats. The winner of the initiative would decide the order of combats and pursuits and so on. I think it is feasible with some tweaks andit would be beneficial for the game. I might give it a try and see how it works.

[hazelbark]

We could make a game based on siege warfare, but nobody is going to hold siege tournaments anytime soon, so there is no market.

I have often thought about turning the old SPI "Art of Siege Warfare" into a miniatures game.

It had a nice mechansim for the Siege of Vauban's fortress of Lille by Marlborough.

[pezhetairoi]

Yes, but it is a myth that mounted move faster than foot.

A horse CANNOT maintain faster than walking speed for long periods of time. A walking horse is about the same speed as a walking man.

Though I'm on-board with the concepts of your original posts, this statement is not at all true.
A horse can move much faster than a man, for a long enough period of time to make a big difference.
If they couldn't, we wouldn't ride them. What would be the point?
A horse's trot -- which they can maintain for hours before needing a break -- is around 13km/h. The gallop speed is about 40-48km/h but can only be maintained for 2-3 km before tiring. There is plenty of evidence of mounted-man overtaking men fleeing on foot.

I'm not a horse expert, but I've done a lot of reading about this (and a little riding).
Proper control of cavalry is proper control of their endurance. Horses vary widely in breed and individuals, as well as training and conditioning so it's always an unknown quantity. But essentially the more tired a horse is - the worse it's performance will be. As a cavalry commander you have to control the expenditure of energy vs the possible gains. When you push your horses they tire and perform poorly, but possibly you achieved what you needed to do. You can push them to pursue, and flee. You can push them to charge and reposition. However, every time you do so, you use up a little of that energy. Tired horses run slower and are less aggressive, so if you do too much ahead of time you can end up in the fight at a disadvantage -- and then you lose. Worse yet, your horse is too tired to flee when the rout occurs and you can no-longer out-pace your enemy. Hence the idea of fresh cavalry reserves...

I haven't seen a wargame that gets that in. They usually average the movement into a single "faster than men" speed. This does not take into account the tendency to maneuver slowly to conserve energy or the sudden dramatic bursts of speed used to overtake or escape from the enemy. Is there even a game that takes "spent" horses into account? I think there is evidence this played into ancient strategy more than contemporary wargames allow.

[ravenflight]

Though I'm on-board with the concepts of your original posts, this statement is not at all true.
A horse can move much faster than a man, for a long enough period of time to make a big difference.
If they couldn't, we wouldn't ride them. What would be the point?

Because the horse is doing the walking... not the man. We're inherently lazy.

A horse's trot -- which they can maintain for hours before needing a break

No - they can't.

The pony express averaged15km/h with a new horse being provided to the rider about every 15km which would spell the horse. In other words, every hour they were getting a new fresh horse. I admit that horsemen like the Mongols and Huns rode with spare mounts, but they were mounts that were only 'fresh' because they hadn't been lugging a human being around with them... they would hardly be as fresh as a Pony Express horse. In addition, the mounted troops had to 'get to the battle field'. They were hardly as 'fresh as a daisy' on the morning of the battle. They would have been rested - for sure - but not like a stabled, grain fed horse.

A man, in similar condition (having to jog, for only 1 hour and then having the rest of the day off) would easily clock 10km/h. I mean, I did 10km in 45 minutes regularly, and I'm hardly a top athlete. So, yes, the pony express is going faster than a human amateur jogger, but only by a few km/h.

The gallop speed is about 40-48km/h but can only be maintained for 2-3 km before tiring. There is plenty of evidence of mounted-man overtaking men fleeing on foot.

You're talking highest rated speed. A horse can move faster than a human when charging, evading and/or pursuing but not when it's just moving from one point to another. I'm talking about movement, not racing.

After a horse has galloped for 40-48km/h over quarter mile they are blown for a substantial amount of time. This is the charge to impact... not the run around the battle field for 4-8 hours.

I'm not a horse expert, but I've done a lot of reading about this (and a little riding).

I'm not a horse expert, but I've owned one and looked after others.

I haven't seen a wargame that gets that in.

Quite simply - (and I'm not trying to re-write the rules here - just observing) I would double the VMD and keep the distance they can charge. Other than that, everyone in the same formation moves the same. Close formation troops 2, loose 3, and light 4.

This is just an exercise in fun, I'm not advocating any changes because they would never come about anyway.

[philqw78]

But they could bring a lot of this to bear, though not this time around. Just make all move the same distance when outside 6MU.
Its inside of this 'tactical' range when the differences need to be shown anyway.