Updates - where we are at

[nikgaukroger]

A quick post to say where I think we roughly are in this process.

But first I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed so far - it has been extremely valuable and is much appreciated.

Overall I think that we are probably at the point where over the next few days we will start to make the formal proposals as to what changes we are going to make (a couple have already been done, of course) and which topics we will suggest are dropped. This will mean drawing some lines in the sand and some may find that something close to their heart is passed over, or that an option being taken forward is not their preferred one. I'm not proposing to lock any of the topics to prevent posting, however, I'd be grateful if we could stick to what we are taking forward.

One big result of moving onto this stage will be that it means that we can get onto the points changes in earnest

[timmy1]

Go on, lock the topics that are not proceeding - what's the point of having the power if you are not going to abuse it now and then...?

Thanks for the update - good to know.

[ravenflight]

Go on, lock the topics that are not proceeding - what's the point of having the power if you are not going to abuse it now and then...?

Thanks for the update - good to know.

Tend to agree. I would be one who would bang on about my pet opinion in the vain hope it gets changed. Enforced 'drop it, we're not going with it' would help me focus on the matter at hand.

[hazelbark]

FYI. I think how you are managing this process is being done well.

Parameters, objectives and process all clearly stated.

Which begs the question, are you feeling ok?

[nikgaukroger]

FYI. I think how you are managing this process is being done well.

Parameters, objectives and process all clearly stated.

I like to think that FoG:R has usually been well managed

You may wish to draw conclusions from that

Which begs the question, are you feeling ok?

Its the new meds

[Vespasian28]

One thing I would like suggest is that it would be useful to disseminate these proposals further to more FOGR players. I suspect the people frequenting this forum represent a very small minority of the FOGR community. For instance, about a dozen or more of the Wessex club play FOGR but only two frequent this site so most are in blissful ignorance of the discussions going on and safe to say the vast majority are entirely unaware of any need to change the rules at all. Now whether this is because, maybe unusually, we play mostly historical matchups or on the whole are not competition players I don't know.

Anyway, this weekend I intend to amalgamate all the proposals to date and print them off for distribution to any FOGR players at the meeting to get some feedback either then or, more likely, at the next meeting two weeks hence. My own opinions I will keep to myself so not to add weight in one particular direction or another.

No idea if this will be a useful exercise or not but the more feedback the better I think.

[nikgaukroger]

One thing I would like suggest is that it would be useful to disseminate these proposals further to more FOGR players. I suspect the people frequenting this forum represent a very small minority of the FOGR community. For instance, about a dozen or more of the Wessex club play FOGR but only two frequent this site so most are in blissful ignorance of the discussions going on and safe to say the vast majority are entirely unaware of any need to change the rules at all. Now whether this is because, maybe unusually, we play mostly historical matchups or on the whole are not competition players I don't know.

Anyway, this weekend I intend to amalgamate all the proposals to date and print them off for distribution to any FOGR players at the meeting to get some feedback either then or, more likely, at the next meeting two weeks hence. My own opinions I will keep to myself so not to add weight in one particular direction or another.

No idea if this will be a useful exercise or not but the more feedback the better I think.

It would be a most excellent thing and very valuable.

We are rather reliant on those who use the forum to talk to those who don't, especially as they are often the non-comp players.

Many thanks.

[vexillia]

One thing I would like suggest is that it would be useful to disseminate these proposals further to more FOGR players. I suspect the people frequenting this forum represent a very small minority of the FOGR community. For instance, about a dozen or more of the Wessex club play FOGR but only two frequent this site so most are in blissful ignorance of the discussions going on and safe to say the vast majority are entirely unaware of any need to change the rules at all.

Good point. We need to avoid the perils of groupthink and ensure that the game develops for all players not just competition players or the most vocal.

[quackstheking]

Hi Nik,

What is the endgame planned regarding New rules availability?

The changes that are now proposed go well beyond a short Errata Sheet and with the new proposed points changes, our existing rule books will be redundant. I believe Slitherine have ended their "Deal" with Osprey, so in the light of what are quite numerous changes (and looking at the furore over FoG2 A&M), is it planned to release a new book/PDF etc or just an extensive list of amendments?

Don

[nikgaukroger]

I would expect a PDF of all the changes. New book is not on the cards.

[vexillia]

Will the V1.1 pdf be a free download or will it be a "commercial" publication?

[nikgaukroger]

Freebie.

[graym]

My experience starting DBM and watching in continually having print outs and addendums is that once a rule set can't be simply bought and played with a single book no one new will ever start playing it .

And FOGR is starting off a far lower base.

So without a new book you are pretty much dooming these rules anyway with a dwindling fanbase.

[Vespasian28]

Just got back from the club and managed to get a chat in with eight FOGR players; there were three actual FOGR games going on out of the dozen or so being played. Not enough time to have a proper discussion and I think people want to take the time to give the proposals more thought so this is vey much first impressions.

Three of the eight were aware of the revisions being proposed and six of the eight were unaware any change was needed. Not all club games use the no artillery firing into flanks amendment some of us use and one was a die hard "artillery should hit mounted on 4 and be able to fire into the flanks as well".
A couple of comments were made about whether these revisions were driven by competition play which can often be ahistorical.

In no particualr order:

The new Autobreak levels had a mixed reception but only one person was completely averse to the idea which happened to be me.

The Armour proposal I had copied from the forum was amended yet again so we did not discuss that but universally people thought armour should reduce the number of potential hits on the better armoured troops not increase their chances of doing more to the opposition.

There was no perception of any problem with dragoons as written so no change was required.

Commanded shot changes were met with broad approval although some people didn't use them and were indifferent.
One comment was why does a BG lose CS when pursuing? That player has far more extensive knowledge of the TYW than me and he recalled an instance of horse with CS routing the enemy, then reforming to tackle the enemy second line with their CS which the current proposal does not allow. I have asked him to check his sources.

With one exception, noted above, the Artillery changes were welcomed.

List changes drew no bones of contention except the " 6 bases of foot per base of artillery" restriction, especially in reference to eastern armies and the Turks in particular.

The fact that any revisions would be available as a free download was met with universal approval.
The other question asked was how long would be devoted to play testing?

I decided to try out the changes in todays game which we booked to play before Christmas so no Dragoons or Commanded Shot involved and we didn't worry about armour as that was not a definite proposal as of last night.

Artillery hitting mounted on 5+ was very good as even when in the centre they were not the artillery magnet they usually are.

The new Autobreaks meant that some combats went on a bit longer than before as an Average Sipahi unit took an extra couple of bounds to break. I also had the feeling that getting the opposition to lose the CT is now preferred to death rolls as a way of breaking units quickly. Games will take longer I think especially in the earlier period with 16 element Keils and Early Tercios.

My suspicion is we will end up with three types of FOGR player:

Competition/Tournament players who will adopt all official revisions as published

Casual club players who will carry on with FOGR as written

Club players who will cherry pick the amendments both they and their opponent agree with.

[nikgaukroger]

Just got back from the club and managed to get a chat in with eight FOGR players; there were three actual FOGR games going on out of the dozen or so being played. Not enough time to have a proper discussion and I think people want to take the time to give the proposals more thought so this is vey much first impressions.

Really appreciate this. Please pass on our thanks.

The new Autobreak levels had a mixed reception but only one person was completely averse to the idea which happened to be me.

Anything specific in the mix, or just not sure it is really needed?

The Armour proposal I had copied from the forum was amended yet again so we did not discuss that but universally people thought armour should reduce the number of potential hits on the better armoured troops not increase their chances of doing more to the opposition.

It is instinctively logical.

There was no perception of any problem with dragoons as written so no change was required.

OK.

Commanded shot changes were met with broad approval although some people didn't use them and were indifferent.
One comment was why does a BG lose CS when pursuing? That player has far more extensive knowledge of the TYW than me and he recalled an instance of horse with CS routing the enemy, then reforming to tackle the enemy second line with their CS which the current proposal does not allow. I have asked him to check his sources.

That would be great. Thanks.

With one exception, noted above, the Artillery changes were welcomed.

List changes drew no bones of contention except the " 6 bases of foot per base of artillery" restriction, especially in reference to eastern armies and the Turks in particular.

We are pondering that one as it is clear people have a concern. Hopefully we will post up on it shortly.

The fact that any revisions would be available as a free download was met with universal approval.

Phew Reality is that a new publication, even if we wanted it, isn't really a viable option for FoG:R.

The other question asked was how long would be devoted to play testing?

To be frank I do not expect there to be very much play testing at all. My previous experience of updates is that players just don't - different when the rules are in development as everything is new and shiny, updates just aren't as sexy.

What I will say is that some time after we release the update I am happy to review the impact and, should it be necessary, tweak things.

Artillery hitting mounted on 5+ was very good as even when in the centre they were not the artillery magnet they usually are.

Good to know.

The new Autobreaks meant that some combats went on a bit longer than before as an Average Sipahi unit took an extra couple of bounds to break. I also had the feeling that getting the opposition to lose the CT is now preferred to death rolls as a way of breaking units quickly. Games will take longer I think especially in the earlier period with 16 element Keils and Early Tercios.

By chance I have been thinking about the games with large BGs so I will feed this comment into that.

My suspicion is we will end up with three types of FOGR player:

Competition/Tournament players who will adopt all official revisions as published

Casual club players who will carry on with FOGR as written

Club players who will cherry pick the amendments both they and their opponent agree with.

Exactly what I would expect as well.

[ravenflight]

Commanded shot changes were met with broad approval although some people didn't use them and were indifferent.
One comment was why does a BG lose CS when pursuing? That player has far more extensive knowledge of the TYW than me and he recalled an instance of horse with CS routing the enemy, then reforming to tackle the enemy second line with their CS which the current proposal does not allow.

Just thinking a little outside the box, but can we rate mounted with commanded shot as 'foot'?

Foot don't need to pursue mounted that they beat etc.

It would mean another (minor) change to say 'mounted with commanded shot can deploy in the wings'

Thoughts?

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Just got back from the club and managed to get a chat in with eight FOGR players; there were three actual FOGR games going on out of the dozen or so being played. Not enough time to have a proper discussion and I think people want to take the time to give the proposals more thought so this is vey much first impressions.

As one of those eight (and the only one other than Vespasian who takes part in external competitions), I would add that about half of those players were new to FoGR in the past 4-6 months, whilst the rest were long-term players (ie two years or more).

Three of the eight were aware of the revisions being proposed and six of the eight were unaware any change was needed. Not all club games use the no artillery firing into flanks amendment some of us use and one was a die hard "artillery should hit mounted on 4 and be able to fire into the flanks as well".
A couple of comments were made about whether these revisions were driven by competition play which can often be ahistorical.

I was one of the latter; I mentioned that about a dozen people had made the vast majority of the comments on each of the proposals (and in most cases the proposals themselves), of which most are "regulars" on the UK tournament circuit (Kevin, the two Dons, the two Tims, Simon, Nik, Vespasian). Clubs tend to gravitate towards a certain theme within the 1500-1700 period covered by the rules - eg ECW and Eastern Europe at Wessex - so most club games tend to be "in period" with historical match-ups that don't reflect the "open" or "multi-book" games one finds in all but the most tightly-themed tournaments.

The new Autobreak levels had a mixed reception but only one person was completely averse to the idea which happened to be me.

I hadn't quite grasped the enormity of these, but once Vespasian explained the reduction in value of Superior troops compared to their greater cost, I was inclined to agree with him.

The Armour proposal I had copied from the forum was amended yet again so we did not discuss that but universally people thought armour should reduce the number of potential hits on the better armoured troops not increase their chances of doing more to the opposition.

Agreed. In fact, one could argue - based on the simple historical fact of the gradual shedding armour during this period - for recognising that lighter-armoured troops were more nimble and thus would achieve more hits, whilst equally suffering more from those inflicted by their opponents.

There was no perception of any problem with dragoons as written so no change was required.

Indeed, the "sniper" arguments elicited some more of the "not in my bloody armies they aren't" comments that I made in that thread.

List changes drew no bones of contention except the " 6 bases of foot per base of artillery" restriction, especially in reference to eastern armies and the Turks in particular.

I'd also like to know why my suggestions for altering the (lack of) infantry firearms, and (lack of) Border Horse crossbow, for the Early Henrician army in France in 1513 were ignored, despite the historical evidence for both, and the fact that Scottish Border Horse in the same book get crossbow/lt lance/sword with no problem.

Like Vespasian28, I'd be interested to know what sort of time-frame we're looking at for introducing these amendments (once agreed) as we have a Southern League round to organise for later in the year.

[nikgaukroger]

The new Autobreak levels had a mixed reception but only one person was completely averse to the idea which happened to be me.

I hadn't quite grasped the enormity of these, but once Vespasian explained the reduction in value of Superior troops compared to their greater cost, I was inclined to agree with him.

Well there is a whole topic on points revision - if you think Superior will be overpriced a suggestion there would be most useful.

I'd also like to know why my suggestions for altering the (lack of) infantry firearms, and (lack of) Border Horse crossbow, for the Early Henrician army in France in 1513 were ignored, despite the historical evidence for both, and the fact that Scottish Border Horse in the same book get crossbow/lt lance/sword with no problem.

I’d forgotten about it (as it was before this update started IIRC). I'll go back and have a look.

Like Vespasian28, I'd be interested to know what sort of time-frame we're looking at for introducing these amendments (once agreed) as we have a Southern League round to organise for later in the year.

No fixed time table, ready when they are ready - but given where we are now I'd hope to have them done in a couple of months.

[Vespasian28]

Vespasian28:

The new Autobreak levels had a mixed reception but only one person was completely averse to the idea which happened to be me.

Nik Gaukroger:

Anything specific in the mix, or just not sure it is really needed?

I just think expecting Poor and Average troops to take 50% or more losses is too extreme historically and, from yesterdays experience, will slow down the game. I also understand the desire to encourage more Average/Poor troops and give them the ability to hang around longer but the current proposal goes too far in my opinion.

I did post an alternate look at this in the "Autobreak" thread a couple of days ago but I suspect the lack of response indicates no interest in it.

I am hoping to get more feedback from the club on this issue as well once the proposals are fully digested.

[nikgaukroger]

I'd also like to know why my suggestions for altering the (lack of) infantry firearms, and (lack of) Border Horse crossbow, for the Early Henrician army in France in 1513 were ignored, despite the historical evidence for both, and the fact that Scottish Border Horse in the same book get crossbow/lt lance/sword with no problem.

I’d forgotten about it (as it was before this update started IIRC). I'll go back and have a look.

I concur that both of these were an omission - heck, I've even found a message I posted on the Lists forum about needing to make the LH the same (optionally) as the Scots list