so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

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

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

hannibal
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:38 am
Location: Belper, Derbyshire

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by hannibal » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:39 am

Seems to me that sorting out what to play down the club is the easy part - but tournaments are not going to be able to move wholesale onto 2.0 until there is pretty much concensus. Shame as some of the changes in v2 look as though they will improve the game? Maybe we will end up with some of these changes filtering through as "house rules" for particular tournaments? Maybe we will end up with v2 and v1 competions separately? Feels like a rocky road ahead with no consistency in the hobby. Bring back DBM I say - at least we all (mostly) played the same rules!
Marc Lunn
Derby Wargames Society

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8692
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by philqw78 » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:47 pm

hannibal wrote: Maybe we will end up with v2 and v1 competions separately? Feels like a rocky road ahead with no consistency in the hobby. !
I don't think this will be a problem if they bring out the printed version quickly enough
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

Robert241167
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by Robert241167 » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:01 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if the V2 rules come out soon that most of the tournaments next year would be V2.

A lot of V1 players have been hanging on for the much awaited changes and will want to compete with them as soon as they can.

Rob

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

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by david53 » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:17 pm

Robert241167 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the V2 rules come out soon that most of the tournaments next year would be V2.

A lot of V1 players have been hanging on for the much awaited changes and will want to compete with them as soon as they can.

Rob
true the majority are waiting for the printed rules

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:15 pm

david53 wrote:
Robert241167 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the V2 rules come out soon that most of the tournaments next year would be V2.

A lot of V1 players have been hanging on for the much awaited changes and will want to compete with them as soon as they can.

Rob
true the majority are waiting for the printed rules
I'd be surprised if there were a signficant difference between the digital and "printable" version release dates.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2989
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:30 pm

shadowdragon wrote: I'd be surprised if there were a signficant difference between the digital and "printable" version release dates.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a gap to be honest. They've been working on the software version for a while surely. For the printed version, they've just decided to do one. So unless the production cycle of that is quicker it seems to me there'll be a gap.

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:47 pm

grahambriggs wrote:
shadowdragon wrote: I'd be surprised if there were a signficant difference between the digital and "printable" version release dates.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a gap to be honest. They've been working on the software version for a while surely. For the printed version, they've just decided to do one. So unless the production cycle of that is quicker it seems to me there'll be a gap.
There will undoubtedly be some kind of gap....unless approval from Apple takes longer than expected, but I wouldn't think that the production time for "programming an app from scratch" should be compared with that for producing some type of pdf or printable equivalent product especially when a written document must already exist.

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3401
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by batesmotel » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:19 pm

From the Abannan site, it appears that one way to generate content for their app is to import PDFs so depending on how Slitherine is generating thei content, it may be quite straightforward to generate a paper or printable version.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:11 pm

batesmotel wrote:From the Abannan site, it appears that one way to generate content for their app is to import PDFs so depending on how Slitherine is generating thei content, it may be quite straightforward to generate a paper or printable version.

Chris
My speculative guess - but somewhat based on the Slitherine posts - is that the release timing for both the apps and the printable version is more procedural than technical at this stage - and I have no idea of how many ducks will need to be lined up for that. But hopefully we will hear something concrete before too long. Then we can quit speculating - including announcements of schisms and such. Patience, patience....we've waited this long....a little longer for a better product isn't so bad.

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:14 pm

To respond to the original post....

I like FoG a lot, but it's clear that FoG v1 needed some tweaks. From what I've experienced in the beta testing I like the v2 proposal as an incremental and necessary improvement. I will go with v2.

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3401
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by batesmotel » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:25 pm

shadowdragon wrote:
batesmotel wrote:From the Abannan site, it appears that one way to generate content for their app is to import PDFs so depending on how Slitherine is generating thei content, it may be quite straightforward to generate a paper or printable version.

Chris
My speculative guess - but somewhat based on the Slitherine posts - is that the release timing for both the apps and the printable version is more procedural than technical at this stage - and I have no idea of how many ducks will need to be lined up for that. But hopefully we will hear something concrete before too long. Then we can quit speculating - including announcements of schisms and such. Patience, patience....we've waited this long....a little longer for a better product isn't so bad.
The current gating factor for the app version at this point appears to be Apple's approval process for new Apps for the App Store. I expect the PC and MAC versions should appear essentially simultaneously given they are generated from the same source.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

zoltan
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:40 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by zoltan » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:35 am

grahambriggs wrote:
shadowdragon wrote: I'd be surprised if there were a signficant difference between the digital and "printable" version release dates.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a gap to be honest. They've been working on the software version for a while surely. For the printed version, they've just decided to do one. So unless the production cycle of that is quicker it seems to me there'll be a gap.
But surely there's nothing to stop event organisers using V1 with those changes documented in JD's "press release"? While the vague/cryptic changes can be ignored (until the proper v2 becomes available) there's surely no (copyright) reason why organisers can't stipulate, "lads it's three dice for jumbos, armoured knights move 5MU, etc etc". This is publicly available information.

pezhetairoi
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:31 am
Location: Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by pezhetairoi » Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:16 am

From what I understand, there is very little that is actually copyright protected in a game -- at least not so much the part players are interested in.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
My Architectural Model Making Business
http://www.monolitham.com/

hannibal
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:38 am
Location: Belper, Derbyshire

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by hannibal » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:45 am

shadowdragon wrote:
But surely there's nothing to stop event organisers using V1 with those changes documented in JD's "press release"? While the vague/cryptic changes can be ignored (until the proper v2 becomes available) there's surely no (copyright) reason why organisers can't stipulate, "lads it's three dice for jumbos, armoured knights move 5MU, etc etc". This is publicly available information.
Until there is general acceptance I agree this is the only way to go - sort of "house rules" scenario. But even this is likely to be inconsistent comp-by-comp. The whole thing is a bit disappointing - since the demise of DBM there have been more scisms in the hobby & this situation will just make it worse. Sad times :cry:
Marc Lunn
Derby Wargames Society

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

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by jdm » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:56 pm

We expect all versions to be released in plenty of time for organisers to be able to announce their chosen rules for next years e vents. Things are moving apace in the background . Our intention is to release all digital versions at the same time, and possibly even the pr intend version. Certainly it will follow close on the heals of the digital if not at the same time. We are trying to find a printed version that maintains standards at a reasonable price.

Rsgards
JDM

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8692
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by philqw78 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:17 pm

Thank you JD
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

frederic
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:29 am

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by frederic » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:13 am

pezhetairoi wrote:From what I understand, there is very little that is actually copyright protected in a game -- at least not so much the part players are interested in.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
That's not a problem of Coyright but a problem of Licence, as for Music and Videos on the net.

From my understanding, Slitherine considered that going for a printed version was too expensive according to the amount of book they will sell and how much it will cost, so they thought about a digital version.
But as they are afraid that a classic PDF will be shared for free between players they thought about a protected non-printable PDF.
As a non-printable PDF for Mac of PC could easily be printed with the print screen button and a lot of time, they thought to notepad PDF only... and so started the current debate about V2.

I would honestly prefered that Slitherine thought about a black and white A4 ruleset for V2, it will have prevent me (and surely many other players) from getting the idea it's time to play to another set of rules.

So, to answer the first post, I still don't know if I will continue to play FOG V1, nor V2, as I only play in tournament.

pezhetairoi
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:31 am
Location: Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by pezhetairoi » Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:05 pm

My post was in response to someone's comment regarding the legality of passing notes to another person about the changes.
I posted the link to suggest that unless you copied the actual pages of the book/text/whatever, sharing information about mechanical changes would not be in violation of anyone's copyright.
People panic about it too much. :wink:
From what I understand the copyright protects the text/images, but not the ideas of playing the game. All games have stolen these ideas form other previous games. You can't own "to hit rolls", a matrix of values, or measurement distances.
That's all that I mean.
My Architectural Model Making Business
http://www.monolitham.com/

Eques
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:50 am

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by Eques » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:03 pm

V2 just improves the wording and attempts to level the playing field it seems. Though those troops that were p1ss poor are still p1ss poor for their points cost.
Don't know why there's any need to "level the playing field". Some ancient troops were better than others. Some ancient commanders had to work out how best to use shoddy troops.

I'm interested in wargames because I'm interested in history. If I am playing Ancient Britons against Romans winning is secondary to recreating the experience of being an Ancient British Commander facing a Roman invasion.

I find it a bit irritating when players say eg. "Can't you make the Kardakes a bit better?". Well, the Kardakes were crap in real life. That's part of the fun of ancient wargaming surely.

Othewise why not just have all troops as elite skilled swordsmen with longbow? Or play Draughts?

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

Re: so are some staying with FOG 1.0?

Post by hazelbark » Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:50 pm

Eques wrote:I'm interested in wargames because I'm interested in history. If I am playing Ancient Britons against Romans winning is secondary to recreating the experience of being an Ancient British Commander facing a Roman invasion.

I find it a bit irritating when players say eg. "Can't you make the Kardakes a bit better?". Well, the Kardakes were crap in real life. That's part of the fun of ancient wargaming surely.
i don't assume the absolute perfect historical balance was in version 1. Rather the opposite.
Personally I think the Romans did fear the barbarian attacks enough that if they Romans weren't careful they could have a problem. The Romans are likley still favored and radically so base for base. But the theory is version 2 is a shift toward more history not less.

Just as I think ligth chariots were under powered compared to history. Knights too were a greater fear to the islamic troops than in think they are in v1. Just as pike phalanx or flemish pike were not as drilled as the USC Marching band is today.

I would add appeals of can you make troop type X better so we can see them on the table were ususally rejected on that basis by the authors.

Post Reply

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