What about the actual changes?

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

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

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

What about the actual changes?

Post by marty » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:32 am

While I share the belief that an unprintable, electronic only version of FOGA would be the end I also have faith that in the end this could not be the case (just too silly to be believed).

With that said I'm a little surprised their hasn't been more discussion of:
CHANGEs in Version 2
Many clarifications made to wording.

Skirmishers less slippery, with reduced ability to slow enemy movement and less ability to concentrate shooting without risk.
Shooting range reduced to 3 MU for LH (and single-ranked cavalry) with bow.
Effective range reduced to 3 MU for LF with bow, longbow, crossbow or sling.
Evaders cannot turn at any table edge to avoid evading off the table.
Second moves can go to just beyond 4 MUs of enemy skirmishers.
Turn and move and expand and move – distance reduced by 2 MUs.

Drilled troops less manoeuvrable and undrilled troops less unmanoeuvrable:
Move with 90 degree turn or expansion reduced by 2 MUs.
Turn, retired and turn again move reduced to 2 MU, but also possible for single ranked non-shock cavalry, camelry, chariots.
No wheel or double wheel can exceed a total of 90 degrees.
Wheeling/short-moving by Other Undrilled without a commander only complex within 4 MUs of any enemy skirmishers or 6 MUs of any other enemy (including the enemy camp but not an enemy commander’s base).
Undrilled other troops with a general can make a stationary 90 or 180 degree turn without taking a CMT.

Move Distances:
Movement distances of HF increased in Uneven and Difficult.
Armoured Knights move distances increased to same as Cavalry.
Elephants move increased in Difficult.
Heavy Artillery can pivot.
Bonus movement distances for columns in terrain removed.
FRAGMENTED troops have their maximum movement distance reduced by 1 MU (after any other deductions). However, they do not need to take a CMT to move.

Very large (“swarm”) armies easier to break:
Break point of army cannot exceed the total points value of the army divided by 50, rounded up. (e.g. 16 in the case of an 800 point army).
Battle troops (i.e. Cavalry, Camelry, Light Chariots) which evade of table count as 2 attrition points.

Commanders limited in how many battle groups they can command as a battle line – making Field Commanders more worthwhile:
A Troop Commander cannot command a battle line of more than 2 battle groups.
A Field Commander cannot command a battle line of more than 4 battle groups.
An Inspired Commander cannot command a battle line of more than 6 battle groups.
Commanders cannot affect the re-rolls of scythed chariots and artillery.
Only commanders depicted on elephants (and so specified in the special instructions to their army list) can affect the re-rolls of elephants.
Commanders depicted on elephants cannot affect the re-rolls of other mounted troops.

Interpenetration anomalies prevented:
Leapfrogging prevented.
“Teleport” interpenetrations prevented.

Elephants improved:
Get 3 dice per base in impact combat.

Shooting:
Ranges changed as above.
Non-single-ranked Protected and Unprotected cavalry less vulnerable to shooting.
Crossbows (and longbows) get + POA vs non-single-ranked Protected and Armoured cavalry.
Support shooting no longer on a - POA.

Close combat effects of superior armour reduced:
A single level of armour advantage does not give a + POA if this would result in an overall ++ POA.
This means that Barbarian foot are no longer a walkover for Romans.

Changes to rules for rear support and routing make historical multi-line formations more viable:
Rear Support:
Bases from other BGs do not have to all be directly behind the supported BG – bases in edge contact with such bases also count.
After the initial rout, routers can
Shift up to 2 base widths to avoid friends etc.
Pass through friendly drilled troops as a permitted interpenetration. [Hence they don’t drop cohesion].

Ability of high quality troops to keep fighting despite heavy losses reduced:
CT modifier of -1 for each 25% of original strength lost.
Broken battle groups at or below 50% of their original strength cannot be rallied, and are removed at the end of the JAP.

Restricted area:
Any battle group capable of doing so can move straight back perpendicular to its own rear. A battle group in the restricted area of enemy even partly behind it rear can move straight forwards. These moves are permitted even if the battle group ends its move no longer in front of the enemy battle group.
Moves by pinned battle groups can include contraction of files that are not in any restricted area.

Cohesion test:
First three Cohesion Test modifiers altered to:
Battle group suffered at least 1 HP2B from shooting or close combat -1
Battle group testing for losing impact phase combat -1
Battle group testing for losing melee phase combat in which it received at least 2 more hits than it inflicted -1
Modifier for losses is now -1 for each 25% lost.
Extra -1 modifier if testing for seeing C-in-C lost.
Heavy chariots inflict a -1 CT modifier on enemy they beat at impact. (Like lancers in V1)

Set-up rules:
Cataphract camels don’t count towards initiative modifiers.
The player winning the pre-battle initiative roll can choose whether to keep the initiative or pass it over to his opponent. (Thus getting to move first).
Player without initiative chooses his terrain pieces first.
Roads are placed last during terrain set-up so that they cannot be used to block other terrain placement.
1 extra Brush added to Steppe territory.
Terrain “touching side edge” can touch river instead.
Deployment area for non-skirmishers increased to 12 MUs from long table edge.
Flank Marches: Any battle groups that cannot fit onto the table on the turn of arrival will never arrive and count as straggling.
Dismounted heavily armoured knights have HW capability.

Other miscellaneous changes:
Wheel in a charge must be at the start of the charge and direction is declared before any charge responses are declared.
New rule prevents enemy from blocking turns.
VMD not taken into account when decided whether shock troops need to test not to charge.
Skirmishers MUST evade non-skirmishers in the open.
FRAGGed troopscharged in flank or rear which would drop a cohesion level on impact, instead break immediately without testing or waiting to be contacted.
A move into contact with the enemy camp is treated as a charge. As such, it can be intercepted.
Only foot battle troops can sack a fortified camp.
A battle group that did not charge this move is not required to conform if doing so will expose it to a flank or rear charge by an enemy battle group next turn (unless a flank or rear charge by that battle group is possible even if it does not conform).
Heavy weapon capability no longer cancelled by skilled swordsmen or skirmishers.
Foot defending field fortifications (but not portable defences) need not pursue broken enemy.
Field Fortifications:
If any are used, the army must have at least 4 base-widths of them.
Troops must have front or side edge touching FF to count defending.
Battle groups facing in more than one direction (including those in orb or in a “kinked” column) cannot claim rear support.
“Kinked” columns cannot intercept, evade or declare charges, but are not exempt from charging without orders.

Improvements to selected army lists included in rulebook.
2.
1.The following armies (but not ally contingents derived from them) can have up to 1/3 of their battle groups of the specified type upgraded to Superior, representing separately deployed picked warriors. Such battle groups cannot exceed 8 bases.
Early Nomad (Foot warriors)
Early Highland Raiders (Warriors)
Early Libyan (Swordsmen)
Illyrian (Warriors)
Ancient Spanish (Scutarii or heavy caetrati)
Early German (Warriors)
Early Scots-Irish (Warriors)
Caledonian (Warriors)
Early Visigothic or Early Vandal (Warriors)
Early Frankish, Alamanni, Burgundi, Limigantes, Quadi, Rugii, Suebi or Turcilingi (Warriors)
3.The minimum size of battle groups including auxiliary foot with Light Spear capability in Dominate and Foederate Roman lists is increased to 6.
4.Imitation legionaries in Pontic and Galatian (but not Numidian) armies gain the option to be Armoured.
5.All Byzantine Cavalry battle groups classified as ½ Lancers, Swordsmen, ½ Bow, Swordsmen, gain the option to have all bases classified as Bow*, Lancers, Swordsmen.
6.All Byzantine Cavalry battle groups with all bases classified as Bow, Swordsmen gain the option to have all bases classified as Light Horse (same armour class etc.).
7.Christian Nubian armies cannot have more than ½ of their Medium Foot archers battle groups as Superior.
8.All Drilled Average Knights specified as “mercenary” gain the option to be Undrilled Superior.
9.Later Ottoman Turkish armies cannot have more than ½ of their Timariots battle groups as Superior.
10.Late Heian to Muromachi Japanese can have up to ½ of their “Bushi and followers” battle groups as Superior.

Recommended army sizes and table sizes changed to encourage more variety in tournament formats.
11.
Personally I think it all sounds pretty good and I'm looking forward to playing it.

Sure it doesn't fix everything. Troop quality is still poorly priced (we will still see lots of superior battle troops and almost no poor ones) and I'm a little concerned that one undesirable impact of making poorer generals unable to control larger battle lines will be to slow the game down slightly. It is, however, a long list and I like pretty much everything else on it.

What do other people think?

Martin
Last edited by marty on Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by philqw78 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:43 am

There is little point in discussing something that will, as it stands, not be played. I haven't even bothered to read it properly
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by ravenflight » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:27 am

philqw78 wrote:There is little point in discussing something that will, as it stands, not be played. I haven't even bothered to read it properly
This is a moment in history.

Everyone pause to mark down this point in time.

I AGREE WITH PHIL

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

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by david53 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:14 am

I'm with Phil what is the point of looking at something that will not reach the table not via a PC by me at least.

berthier
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 694
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:01 am
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Contact:

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by berthier » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:49 am

Agreed.
Christopher Anders
2019-2020 GCC Coordinator
http://bloodsandsteel.blogspot.com

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

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by stecal » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:39 pm

I just wish they had made it more like FOGR. I hate having to learn 2 different, but very similar rules sets
Clear the battlefield and let me see
All the profit from our victory.

eugenemrodriguez
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by eugenemrodriguez » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:34 pm

I just read the changes last night and I like or can live with most of it. I still am a little iffy on the armor change but I am willing to give it a try.

I also think that Slings should still be a 4" range. I have experimented with both and as in previous rule sets I agree that Sling Max and Effective range is the same and that exceeds Self Bow Effective range but not extreme range.

I do have a question- Under shooting
Are we just going to add Crossbows to the list of missile weapons effective against "non-single-ranked Protected and Armored cavalry"? Or are we going to a the Crossbows and subtract the Bow, Javelin & Sling? And what about Armored Knights, shouldn't crossbow work just as well against them?

Finally why can't horse take a fortified camp? They have to roll a 6 to do it (I think that is to simulate them having to get off the mounts to do it.) What about Elephants, I think they would be able to break in to a palisade pretty easy.

Eugene Rodriguez
HMGS-PSW member

DrQuahog
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:02 pm

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by DrQuahog » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:01 pm

I would agree that the question 'are the changes worth the bother' should not be dismissed out of hand.

I very much like the fact hat undrilled foot are more maneuverable and drilled foot less so (relatively.)
When I showed up at a major tourney with Maya, everyone said 'That's dumb. You should use Azrtecs. Everyone knows that undrilled foot are a non-starter for serious tournament play.'
As the points system is supposed to be designed to create armies of equal chance on the field, doesn't that suggest that either the points system is off (undrilled MI/HI should be one point less), or the difference in maneuver should be made less draconian?

lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by lawrenceg » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:16 am

eugenemrodriguez wrote: I also think that Slings should still be a 4" range. I have experimented with both and as in previous rule sets I agree that Sling Max and Effective range is the same and that exceeds Self Bow Effective range but not extreme range.
Eugene Rodriguez
HMGS-PSW member
Have you published the detail of these experiments anywhere? On the web, perhaps?
Ranges are very dependent on projectile.

I've experimented with a sling and tennis ball and max range is under 100m and "effective" is zero (i.e. as yet I have no control over which direction it goes)
Lawrence Greaves

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by ravenflight » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:18 am

DrQuahog wrote:When I showed up at a major tourney with Maya, everyone said 'That's dumb. You should use Azrtecs. Everyone knows that undrilled foot are a non-starter for serious tournament play.'
Everyone said that? Verbatim?

Sorry, in a strange mood this morning :)

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by Jhykronos » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:57 am

marty wrote:While I share the belief that an unprintable, electronic only version of FOGA would be the end I also have faith that in the end this could not be the case (just too silly to be believed).

With that said I'm a little surprised their hasn't been more discussion of:

<SNIP>

Personally I think it all sounds pretty good and I'm looking forward to playing it.

Sure it doesn't fix everything. Troop quality is still poorly priced (we will still see lots of superior battle troops and almost no poor ones) and I'm a little concerned that one undesirable impact of making poorer generals unable to control larger battle lines will be to slow the game down slightly. It is, however, a long list and I like pretty much everything else on it.

What do other people think?

Martin
Re-balance of the Superiors and Drilled/Undrilled is probably a "wait and see" from my perspective. I agree with you on poor troops, but unless we see a loosening up of the rear support criteria (a la FOG-R) or a change to the point costs (impossible prior to the digital distribution), I'm not sure what they can or even should do for them to make them worth taking.

Elephants are pretty interesting now, assuming the new maneuver rules make it possible for them to actually impact anything the other player is likely to take. Probably still too fragile to depend on in a competitive army.

The increase in the power of support shooting gives a nicely needed bonus to a number of troop types... plus an unnecessary bonus to longbowmen... we'll see how that pans out.

- JDF

As a side note, I'd like to point out the moderators are being pretty tolerant of some unhelpful replies in this thread... WE GET IT, YOU DON'T LIKE THE DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION SCHEME. There are about half dozen other threads where you have made this abundantly clear. Hijacking an unrelated thread to spam that opinion is pretty bad form, at least to my own sense of netiquette.

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

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by david53 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:35 am

Jhykronos wrote:
As a side note, I'd like to point out the moderators are being pretty tolerant of some unhelpful replies in this thread... WE GET IT, YOU DON'T LIKE THE DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION SCHEME. There are about half dozen other threads where you have made this abundantly clear. Hijacking an unrelated thread to spam that opinion is pretty bad form, at least to my own sense of netiquette.
Not sure were this is coming from, people have just stated on here why talk about something if its not coming out in hard copy. Since this forum is all about Table top Games


V2 changes were done over a 12 month period most people who wanted to be in the beta got in. So discussion is fine but coming up with changes seems strange since these changes have'nt yet themselves been brought out.

Maybe the moderators also agree with the posts.

Dave

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by Jhykronos » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:25 am

david53 wrote: Not sure were this is coming from, people have just stated on here why talk about something if its not coming out in hard copy. Since this forum is all about Table top Games
Umm... if you don't want to talk about the rule changes or don't care, why are you even posting in this thread?

Seriously, a guy asks what other people think about the rules changes and gets a bunch of "who cares, I didn't even bother to read it" posts. I'm not exactly thrilled at the limitations of their new distribution model myself (and have posted to this effect in threads where that was the topic), but that strikes me as a bit off in a thread titled "What about the actual changes?"

Maybe it's just me.

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by marty » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:06 am

Yes, I had been trying to get away from the "the end of days is here!" vibe on many threads. I have been a part of that too but thought the message has probably been communicated and it would be interesting to hear some thoughts on the actual changes (which will hopefully, eventually, be available in a practical format).

If nothing else, isn't it more likely we will get a helpful response by suggesting there is something there we would like to be able to use (which I certainly would) rather than by a sort of "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" sort of line.

Martin

thefrenchjester
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1376
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:23 pm
Location: the wilderness of mirrors

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by thefrenchjester » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:44 am

Jhykronos wrote:
david53 wrote: Not sure were this is coming from, people have just stated on here why talk about something if its not coming out in hard copy. Since this forum is all about Table top Games
Umm... if you don't want to talk about the rule changes or don't care, why are you even posting in this thread?

Seriously, a guy asks what other people think about the rules changes and gets a bunch of "who cares, I didn't even bother to read it" posts. I'm not exactly thrilled at the limitations of their new distribution model myself (and have posted to this effect in threads where that was the topic), but that strikes me as a bit off in a thread titled "What about the actual changes?"

Maybe it's just me.
Hi,

so to speak about the changes, I throw the first rock in ;-)

at first sight I like many of this changes , just because it will give us a new influx to play FOG , new format of tables or new number of points and army sizes, new armies to play more and more new researchs on it to do;
- the drilled troops still be interesting and undrilled would be better, so more choice to play...
-mouvement distances improved for some troops like armoured knights, they will be played more than in the V1.0, I think.... and I hope;
-army break point changed and "evade counts " for cavalry , etc... ) seems a better thing, at least they stay and fight;
-reduced command range is also good , now it will be more important to place them on the field;
-end of leapfrogging and teleportations prevented are a good thing too, even it was only used by few "Star trek" fans;
-elephants .... I like them so no comment ;-)
- improving the balance in shooting , it will be good to see the protected cavalry coming back on tables and more medium foot only armed with crossbows or bow;
-close combat in general is better in my point of view,less super troops! more poor or average big groups on the field;
-changes done in the Army lists are good points for me in all the cases ( I'm egocentric sometimes;-) );

I hope I'll be able to have a try with them soon.....

Best regards

thefrenchjester " approximative reviews and subjectives tastes ;-) "

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

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by david53 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:06 pm

Jhykronos wrote:
david53 wrote: Not sure were this is coming from, people have just stated on here why talk about something if its not coming out in hard copy. Since this forum is all about Table top Games
Umm... if you don't want to talk about the rule changes or don't care, why are you even posting in this thread?

Seriously, a guy asks what other people think about the rules changes and gets a bunch of "who cares, I didn't even bother to read it" posts. I'm not exactly thrilled at the limitations of their new distribution model myself (and have posted to this effect in threads where that was the topic), but that strikes me as a bit off in a thread titled "What about the actual changes?"

Maybe it's just me.
As you seemed to miss of the end bit were I said these changes had been disscussed for the last 12 months in the Beta section.
Maybe those people that spent 12 months of their time doing that and playing beta games and adding to the changes might just be a little annoyed to now find no show on the hard copy, and that time wasted.

By the way I've been playing tournements since 2008 and loved playing V1, would have played V2 in book form.

Dave
Last edited by david53 on Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ono6
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 11:49 am
Location: Poitiers

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by Ono6 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:10 pm

thefrenchjester wrote: at first sight I like many of this changes , just because it will give us a new influx to play FOG , new format of tables or new number of points and army sizes, new armies to play more and more new researchs on it to do;
thefrenchjester " approximative reviews and subjectives tastes ;-) "
So do I !.. Maybe we'll see again these kind of hairy barbarian hordes !
Ono6
"La guerre est une chose trop sérieuse pour la laisser faire par des militaires" (Clémenceau)
http://ono6-figs.over-blog.com/

Polkovnik
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:16 pm

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by Polkovnik » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:32 pm

david53 wrote: As you seemed to miss of the end bit were I said these changes had been disscussed for the last 12 months in the Beta section.
Maybe those people that spent 12 months of their time doing that and playing beta games and adding to the changes might just be a little annoyed to now find no show on the hard copy, and that time wasted.
My feelings exactly.

Personally I don't think it is worth discussing the changes until we have :
(a) seen the exact wording
(b) know they are going to be released in a useable format.

Polkovnik
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:16 pm

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by Polkovnik » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:35 pm

Jhykronos wrote: As a side note, I'd like to point out the moderators are being pretty tolerant of some unhelpful replies in this thread... WE GET IT, YOU DON'T LIKE THE DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION SCHEME. There are about half dozen other threads where you have made this abundantly clear. Hijacking an unrelated thread to spam that opinion is pretty bad form, at least to my own sense of netiquette.
The moderators are pretty tolerant of most stuff on here, and only intervene when something is getting out of hand (and rightly so IMO) - they don't intervene just because a thread is not going the way someone would like it to.

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: What about the actual changes?

Post by Jhykronos » Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:39 am

marty wrote:Yes, I had been trying to get away from the "the end of days is here!" vibe on many threads. I have been a part of that too but thought the message has probably been communicated and it would be interesting to hear some thoughts on the actual changes (which will hopefully, eventually, be available in a practical format).
Well, I guess you got some of that. The signal to noise ratio around here quite frankly sucks, though. Apparantly it's too much to ask that people can hold an on-topic discussion about the contents of an official announcement from Slitherine on Slitherine's own message boards.

Post Reply

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