Field of Glory Version 2 Tabletop Rules

[jdm]

Field of Glory has now been in circulation for more than two years, and you the players have completed literally tens of thousands of games. The feedback you have given us is immense and despite the most rigorous beta testing that has ever been conducted on a set of table top rules you have found a number of points that we would like to fix and expand upon. We listen carefully to everything that you say in this forum and we have built up a dossier of data that will help us take the rules to a new level.


Not all of the points raised will make the final cut but we invite you to contribute further by setting out your problems and suggested solutions, in this thread. We guarantee that we will listen carefully to you all. It will not be possible to respond to all of the points raised but I can assure you we are listening.

We intend to incorporating further clarifications and improvements to the realism and game play, and we may possibly conduct a new beta test programme to test the new ideas. We welcome your feedback and comments on any aspect of how this should be done

Best regards
JDM

[TheGrayMouser]

Uhh, is this FOG 2 refering to the table top, or the PC ?? (i ask because you mention table top several times and although Fog pc came out in the end of 09, its only slightly over 1/2 of 2010 so really not "OVER" two years )

[jdm]

This refers to the tabletop rules

JDM

[TheGrayMouser]

This refers to the tabletop rules

JDM

Yes, its much clearer now (now that you have edited the header to reflect that )

[TheGrayMouser]

This refers to the tabletop rules

JDM

Hello, dont know how much info you can provide at this time but... As someone who is considering taking the plunge to the TT realm, is FOG TT 2 envisioned as a completely new game, or will version 2 be considered an "adendum" or an add on purchase to supplement the the original?

[jdm]

It will be updates, clarification and may even have a few new nuggets but a sound knowledge of the existing rules will not be wasted

JDM

[Blathergut]

Is in to help. (Is this only posted here in PC land? I didn't see mention of it on the TT side of the forum.)

[deadtorius]

As Blatherguts main opponent I too would be willing to give our opinion from across the almighty puddle.

[jrd]

One problem in FoG at the moment is the "better armour" + POA in melee.
This has a huge and unrealistic effect on the relative effectiveness of troops in combat, which I don't think is supported by examining the historical performance of troops.

What problems does this POA cause?

1) Creates unhistorical differences in the performance of troops based solely on equipment. This is particularly noticable with protected and armoured troops in the Classical period. I don't think there is any basis in historical research for thinking early (armoured) hoplites were significantly more effective in combat than later (protected) ones, or that Seleucid Cataphracts were more effective than Alexander's Companions.

2) Has a strong effect on the playability of troops in FoG. Players will almost always choose armoured offensive spearmen over protected offensive spearmen, as their game performance is so much better. There is a point cost difference, but it does not offset the huge difference the armour POA makes.

3) Causes troops' armour to be graded inaccurately in order to support their historical melee performance. A good example of this is Macedonian Companions. Troops wearing metal breastplate and helm, unshielded, riding unarmoured horses, and yet they are graded as "armoured" when clearly "protected" would better describe their equipment. However, if they were "protected" in the current rules they would no longer be effective against historical armoured opponents (e.g. Persian Saka heavy cavalry). Grading Companions as armoured makes them unrealistically resistant to enemy missile fire. Another example of this problem is the later Seleucid armoured pike-armed troops - because the armour POA is so important, these have to be graded as protected to avoid them being too effective against in-period opponents.

Proposal: replace the "Better armour" POA with the following:

Better armour: + : If net POA from all other factors is – or worse, unless enemy has Heavy Weapons.

[jrd]

The rules currently require pike-armed troops to be in three ranks in order to qualify for POA at impact or in melee. Spearmen receive the same POA for being in two ranks.

I can see no historical justification for pikemen 8 deep being less effective than spearmen of the same depth. Certainly, Alexander certainly deployed his pikes in this depth, for example against the Persian hoplites at Issus - a decision which would be near-suicidal in FoG.

Pike-armed troops should only need to be in two ranks to receive POA.

[jrd]

I am not convinced Medium Foot should ever be classed as Offensive Spear.

From the FoG definition of Offensive Spearmen (p130): "Spearmen accustomed to adopting an aggressive phalanx formation, with the aim of attacking and defeating enemy foot. For example, Greek hoplites."
I do not see this as compatible with the description of Medium Foot (p128): "Foot capable of fighting in close formation, but less reliant on formation for fighting style, and hence better suited than heavy foot to fighting in rough terrain."

I struggle with the idea of MF spearmen fighting as an "aggressive phalanx" without penalty in rough going (e.g. plantation, gully, brush). Also, is it reasonable that they also fight at equal factors against HF spearmen in the open?

Late Seleucid city militia are classed as poor MF Offensive Spear. Should these REALLY be shock troops?

[ianiow]

I would be happy to see all three suggestions implemented.

As for the MF offnesive spearmen, I was always puzzled by this classification. I am playing the MF Medieval Welsh at the moment and from a mechanical point of view their Offensive spear ability doesn't give them an advantage anywhere! If they liked getting 'stuck in' make them Impact foot. If they tended to skirmish and fence their enemy, make them LS/Sw, if they sometimes fought in phalanx to ward off cavalry give them the option to be HF Defensive Spear.

With spears, as with other things in life, its not the size that counts but how you use it!

[deadtorius]

I would like to see the complex move test chart wording changed. someone had suggested changing the word complex to difficult so it matched the difficult advances column, and the difficult advances needs to be broken up into 2 parts, one part moving without the leader the other should be trying a complex move within 6 MU of the enemy, that one always seems to get messed up.

Orb- can you move before forming or the turn you leave? Those questions need to be answered.

Field Fortifications- Someone posted the ultimate cheese move on the forums, they wanted to deploy an entire column behind a single one so they could get a jump on their opponent. Deployment restrictions need to be added and also can 2 bases fight while behind one, or is it single bases only?

Heavy Artillery, its immobile should be allowed to deploy out the same distance as light troops, artillery is pretty useless in the game anyway so making it deploy back and not able to move,:x it needs some incentive to use it.

[Demetrios]

Gentlemen,

the DAG needs some tweaks to array realistical army compositions of more than 700 pts.
For bigger armies, restriction of national core troops results in a handicap.
For example, limitation of Parthian Cataphracts to a maximum of 9.

Cheers, Klaus