Thoughts so far.........

[lanceflint]

Unfortunately I haven’t had much time to post recently, although the practise games have continued. Time therefore to put some thoughts together. I apologise in advance if some points have been covered before but please take this as a personal summation.

The Big Picture
Revised layout of FOG is much improved and flows far better when actually playing a game. Repetition of a particular ruling is wasteful, but cross-referencing is very helpful, and in some cases could be more concise.

I have no doubt that the artwork will be superb – please include shots that include mouth watering scenery. It is a much neglected aspect of the hobby and in particular the competition lobby.

The battlefield seems very large and scary for some types of army. The reduction in open spaces has helped, is this a Pike thing? We haven’t fought with Romans recently but do they have the same problem with the Superior Leg` being 14 points per base?

Conforming, this above all other rules allows the greatest space to introduce cheese. Impact rules for contact work so do reforming so why ever conform? It seems to create more problems than it solves, this applies to DB etc as well!

Still cant get around the appalling lack of discipline of say, elite legionaries having to charge some barbarian LF armed with pointed sticks ( P 32). Could we have Drilled Shock troops retaining the option to charge, but undrilled having to take the test?

Generalship ruling is basically sound although I doubt the ability of an average TC type to cavort around the battlefield, expertly reacting to every problem the instant that it arises? Command range reflects ability, so what about movement of the General doing the same? I.e. IC as now, FC moves as Cavalry, TC moves as HF? Too complicated, well maybe but it does reflect the unique energy of the IC type and the frequent reluctance/inability/skill level of the TC to get about his troops.

Good old LH remain a dominant troop type and are a compulsory choice for most budding Generals. They can slow down infantry far too easily and are all too often all but impossible to catch. How many turns do HF need to get to the enemy baggage?

A specially designed movement/measuring tool would be a useful addition to the rule system.

The lists. Please let us have more Poor troops as compulsories for many of the barbarian type armies, those levies, poorly trained volunteers and generally innocent but incompetent types that were there to do their bit! Of course the average wargamer wants an army full of heroes, but please include some of the dross (cannon fodder) as well!

Having used UP Foot quite a lot recently it would seem that MF (and HF?) types are generally overpriced and require nerves of steel to operate in the `van of any army. Either that or a very robust sense of humour?


Small Picture
P 19 and P21 Charts, place the text over the actual colour coding that explains the type of disorder and the Simple/Complex/ Impossible part of the charts.

P 69 Autobreak , make this into a chart cross referencing Quality and BG size to show how many bases must be lost to cause Autobreak.

P61 Mounted Breaking Off, why is this compulsory? Frequently mounted will be on a ++ against foot during the melee phase (especially against bows) and knocking huge chunks out of them, so why must the mounted break off?

P 72 Portable obstacles, once stakes are dug in then they shouldn’t be moved around the battlefield ad infinitum, please?

Orbs – so when an Orb is hit in a flank, that is on the side edges of the BG, how many bases of the Orb fight back?


I hope that all this makes sense and that it may promote some further positive changes.

Lance.

[lawrenceg]

Generalship ruling is basically sound although I doubt the ability of an average TC type to cavort around the battlefield, expertly reacting to every problem the instant that it arises? Command range reflects ability, so what about movement of the General doing the same? I.e. IC as now, FC moves as Cavalry, TC moves as HF? Too complicated, well maybe but it does reflect the unique energy of the IC type and the frequent reluctance/inability/skill level of the TC to get about his troops.

I think this is a good point.

Historical figures regarded as IC's were known for being where the critical action was, regardless of where it was. In fact I would say they were more known for this than for influencing events at a distance (which suggests that command ranges are too large).

As things stand, a TC is as good as an FC once units get into contact and they have to be with the BG to influence it. They can (nearly) always move to the BG that needs them.

The trouble with reducing commander's movement distance is that a TC would not then be able to keep up with, say, a LH BG that he was with. One could get around this by always allowing a commander to keep up with the BG to which he is attached.

I think I'd be inclined to try something like:

TC: Command range zero, must score 5+ on 1 dice to leave a BG, moves as LH.
Able to command the troops around him, but often does not consider the bigger picture.

FC: Command range 4, moves as LH
A competent commander, able to command a whole army and focus on different areas of action.

IC: Command range 6, moves as LH plus 3 MU extra.
An exceptionally dynamic and influential commander.

To count as in a BL, the BG must be within the command range of the BG that the commander is with.


It may be necessary to change the points costs.