What I hate about FOG, and hope will be fixed in new FOGs

[mbsparta]

When FoG was in development I had concerns that a game written by tournament players for tournament players would be lacking the flavor and fun of good old historical gaming. I have to admit that I was totaly wrong. The vast majority of our games are not tournament games. We have played even-point games, small point-games, large multi-player games, unequal points-games, games that tie into a narrative campaign and a few attempts at historical battles. There is nothing in the tournament make-up of the rules that limits the style and variety of games that we can play.

What I have found is that the style of battle is most often dictated by the tactics of your opponent. I have a certain Gallic opponent, for example, that takes the whole "impetuous" warband thing to an art form. He lines his warriors up and sends them headlong into the ranks of the legions. Behaving like a good barbarian is as important to him as winning. We have another often-Roman, sometimes Successor player that avoids contact unless he feels he has some sort of advantage in the combat. He likes skirmishing and turning flanks as opposed to straight forward attacks. This games are nothing like line-'em-up battles. Try flank marches and hidden deployment. If pulled off on an unsuspecting opponent, they can sure create some some tense situations. If the flank march fails, well, now we'll see how really good you are.

The rules never hold you back from creating interesting gaming options or battles.

Mike B

[peteratjet]

Campaigns and sieges are the things most obviously skimped at present.

There is a suggestion in the rulebook that the writers intended to cover them later, although the next big thing I am aware of is extending the basic mechanics forwards to Rennaissance and even horse-and-musket era battles.

[Polkovnik]

I agree with the OP, the game lacks variety and that is a flaw in design that should not have to fixed by individual players.

Can you tell us how many games of FOG you've played to arrive at the conclusion that it lacks variety ? You have made 12 posts on here, and on another thread you mention that you are returning to wargaming after some time away. Both of which tend imply you don't have much experience to base that statement on.

[grahambriggs]

I agree with the OP, the game lacks variety and that is a flaw in design that should not have to fixed by individual players.

Can you tell us how many games of FOG you've played to arrive at the conclusion that it lacks variety ? You have made 12 posts on here, and on another thread you mention that you are returning to wargaming after some time away. Both of which tend imply you don't have much experience to base that statement on.

Very few I would imagine. And the OP did not actually say that. He said that he would like scenarios to be provided. I've seen better trolling, but then I should know...

[BeansNFranks]

I agree with the OP, the game lacks variety and that is a flaw in design that should not have to fixed by individual players.

Can you tell us how many games of FOG you've played to arrive at the conclusion that it lacks variety ? You have made 12 posts on here, and on another thread you mention that you are returning to wargaming after some time away. Both of which tend imply you don't have much experience to base that statement on.

First off it's retarded to assume that since someone doesn't post thousands of posts on an internet forum that they have no experience. I did have another log in at one time, but I had nuked that email addy and have no clue what my log in was so I started a new one.

As far as # of games I'm not sure, over 50 under 100 would be my guess.

Dealing directly with my statement that it lacks variety, you really only have to read the rulebook to discover that. The game, AS WRITTEN, has one game mode. Most other games I have played have many different "scenarios."

Take WAB for example. The standard FoG game would be a WAB "Pitched Battle," but you also have ambush scenario's, last stands, break throughs, etc. There are a VARIETY of ways to play the game, in FoG there is only ONE, hence me saying that FoG lacks variety.

Now I'm not saying I don't like FoG. When my life calmed down and I was looking to get back into gaming it was the system I chose to pursue. That does not mean the damn thing is perfect though, and one of the areas it is sorely lacking is IN FREAKING VARIETY.

You can like a game, but still have issues with certain points of it. I think for a first edition of a game that FoG has done pretty well, but the game is hardly complete, lacks variety, and has many areas that need to be clarified when the 2nd edition rulebook is printed.

In closing, I love you and hope we can eat cheese together someday. May your buttocks be forever shiny!

[nikgaukroger]

Dealing directly with my statement that it lacks variety, you really only have to read the rulebook to discover that. The game, AS WRITTEN, has one game mode. Most other games I have played have many different "scenarios."

Take WAB for example. The standard FoG game would be a WAB "Pitched Battle," but you also have ambush scenario's, last stands, break throughs, etc. There are a VARIETY of ways to play the game, in FoG there is only ONE, hence me saying that FoG lacks variety.

I must be coming from a different wargaming background, however, I don't see why you need the rule book to tell you how to play games that are other than a "Pitched Battle" - a fairly basic knowledge of history shows a number of different scenarios and all you need to do is work somethging from that. I'd suggest anyone bright enough to play FoG must be bright enough to do that.

[BeansNFranks]

Dealing directly with my statement that it lacks variety, you really only have to read the rulebook to discover that. The game, AS WRITTEN, has one game mode. Most other games I have played have many different "scenarios."

Take WAB for example. The standard FoG game would be a WAB "Pitched Battle," but you also have ambush scenario's, last stands, break throughs, etc. There are a VARIETY of ways to play the game, in FoG there is only ONE, hence me saying that FoG lacks variety.

I must be coming from a different wargaming background, however, I don't see why you need the rule book to tell you how to play games that are other than a "Pitched Battle" - a fairly basic knowledge of history shows a number of different scenarios and all you need to do is work somethging from that. I'd suggest anyone bright enough to play FoG must be bright enough to do that.

It's not about intelligence, it's about getting gamers to agree on anything not in the rulebook. That is why people demand things be added to erratta and the like, as anything non-printed will be ignored.

I don't carry enough lithium in me to get the standard set of wargamers to agree on modifying the rule structure enough to deviate from the normal FoG template of how a game should be played.

[BeansNFranks]

Dealing directly with my statement that it lacks variety, you really only have to read the rulebook to discover that. The game, AS WRITTEN, has one game mode. Most other games I have played have many different "scenarios."

Take WAB for example. The standard FoG game would be a WAB "Pitched Battle," but you also have ambush scenario's, last stands, break throughs, etc. There are a VARIETY of ways to play the game, in FoG there is only ONE, hence me saying that FoG lacks variety.

I must be coming from a different wargaming background, however, I don't see why you need the rule book to tell you how to play games that are other than a "Pitched Battle" - a fairly basic knowledge of history shows a number of different scenarios and all you need to do is work somethging from that. I'd suggest anyone bright enough to play FoG must be bright enough to do that.

Also you really didn't disprove my point that the game is fairly limited and only has one gear. Telling players to fix inadequacies in a game is much like telling Toyota customers to do a Fred Flinstone to stop their Camry! YABBA DABBA DOO!!!

The simple release of a campaign and scenario product would solve allot of this.

Love ya Nik, you will always be my little Yorkshire pudding!

[nikgaukroger]

Love ya Nik, you will always be my little Yorkshire pudding!

Pity I'm not from Yorkshire, however, I am, alas, pudding shaped these days

[BeansNFranks]

Love ya Nik, you will always be my little Yorkshire pudding!

Pity I'm not from Yorkshire, however, I am, alas, pudding shaped these days

Haha, was just going from your quote. You could be my British Bombshell instead if you prefer.

[ShrubMiK]

>I don't carry enough lithium in me to get the standard set of wargamers to agree on modifying the rule structure enough to deviate from the normal FoG template of how a game should be played.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Earlier editions of WRG rules had fancy stuff for ambushes on marching forces, etc. IIRC. The problem was that the players got no choice - which may be historically realistic but if players weren't interested in having that sort of game forced on them (and in my experience overwhelmingly they weren't) they simply ignored that part of the rules and played the usual fixed points encounter battle.

So here's the problem - you are essentially complaining that your opponents are not interested in playing other types of game, and asking the rules to be extended in the hope it will pique their interest. Which suggests to me that these are an odd set of people if they would not be interested in playing a campaign put together by somebody they know, only if it is in the "official" rules.

More likely you mean that you can't be bothered to work out some campaing rules for yourself Which is fair enough, Every so often I have an idea for an extremely interesting (or so I like to believe) campaign but somehow never quite see any of them through to the point at which people can actually start playing them!

Now if somebody wnat sot produce official FoG campaign and scenario books I won't complain, and I'm sure I'd be parted from my money easily enough, but claiming the game is "incomplete" because something outside the basic game system has not been supplied is rather over-reacting I think. Especially when (as I have pointed out before, and provided links to) there have been plenty of other books over the years that deal with these things in a ruleset-agnostic manner.

Aside: Does RBS still make his "PBM Umpire" software available? I'm sure that could be used for FoG campaigns easily enough.

[BeansNFranks]

>I don't carry enough lithium in me to get the standard set of wargamers to agree on modifying the rule structure enough to deviate from the normal FoG template of how a game should be played.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Earlier editions of WRG rules had fancy stuff for ambushes on marching forces, etc. IIRC. The problem was that the players got no choice - which may be historically realistic but if players weren't interested in having that sort of game forced on them (and in my experience overwhelmingly they weren't) they simply ignored that part of the rules and played the usual fixed points encounter battle.

So here's the problem - you are essentially complaining that your opponents are not interested in playing other types of game, and asking the rules to be extended in the hope it will pique their interest. Which suggests to me that these are an odd set of people if they would not be interested in playing a campaign put together by somebody they know, only if it is in the "official" rules.

More likely you mean that you can't be bothered to work out some campaing rules for yourself Which is fair enough, Every so often I have an idea for an extremely interesting (or so I like to believe) campaign but somehow never quite see any of them through to the point at which people can actually start playing them!

Now if somebody wnat sot produce official FoG campaign and scenario books I won't complain, and I'm sure I'd be parted from my money easily enough, but claiming the game is "incomplete" because something outside the basic game system has not been supplied is rather over-reacting I think. Especially when (as I have pointed out before, and provided links to) there have been plenty of other books over the years that deal with these things in a ruleset-agnostic manner.

Aside: Does RBS still make his "PBM Umpire" software available? I'm sure that could be used for FoG campaigns easily enough.

The fact that a campaign supplement is being worked on is proof that the game is incomplete, else why make that supplement?

Making up rules and having people play by your made up rules is much more difficult than playing by what you would imagine are very carefully created and playtested rules by the developers. People often will not play the first, and oftentimes rightly so as without extensive testing there is no way to figure out what you are breaking by changing things.

There have been many people expressing an interest in more ways to play the game from scenario's, campaign rules and siege rules for quite a while. Not like I'm the turd in the punch bowl here.

Love you long time.

[dave_r]

I agree with the OP, the game lacks variety and that is a flaw in design that should not have to fixed by individual players.

Can you tell us how many games of FOG you've played to arrive at the conclusion that it lacks variety ? You have made 12 posts on here, and on another thread you mention that you are returning to wargaming after some time away. Both of which tend imply you don't have much experience to base that statement on.

Very few I would imagine. And the OP did not actually say that. He said that he would like scenarios to be provided. I've seen better trolling, but then I should know...

I'm not standing for that.... Your definitely not a troll......You're an Ogre.

[ShrubMiK]

I like to take pity on trolls and ensure they don't starve

>The fact that a campaign supplement is being worked on is proof that the game is incomplete, else why make that supplement?

Hmm. Very weak in general line of argument. And it raise the question: So the game WAS complete before they started work on a supplement, now it isn't? Let's not even bother considering the actual meaning of the word "supplement..."

The flip-side to your other paragraph is that is there were an official campaign ruleset, and an official set of scenarios and rules for how scenarios should be constructed, would that reduce variety by discouraging people from producing their own?

And, as has been pointed out, if you bother to look you will see that despite what you claim, many people have been producing their own "variant" play rules, for scenarios and campaigns, and many others have been playing them.

The wargaming hobby I know has always been full of knowledgeable and opinionated people who have their own ideas on how to do things, and are not scared to lash something together themselves and then refine it. If it doesn't work perfectly, as long as everybody has had fun then what's the problem?

Seems like your crowd wants to not have their cake and not eat it either. Standard play isn't fun enough, we'd like to play something else for a change. But wait, we can't do that, what if it isn't fun enough?

Or put another way: standard play is too balanced and artifical to be representative of the problems real generals faced. We could try something else...but no we can't do that, what if it turns out not to be fair and balanced?

[philqw78]

The wargaming hobby I know has always been full of knowledgeable and opinionated people

Normally the latter.

But a set of campaign rules would ease some people's suffering, whether they are to inexperienced, lazy or incompetent to produce their own, or have more money than time. It would be nice to see, even if only to encourage those who have the time to run a campaign.

[berthier]

Quite a few of us have been running campaigns for a while now and the rules for a few are readily available on the web. It sounds more like some don't want to be bothered with working out the details themselves or looking up at the rules that a few have posted links to here in the forum. Me thinks these won't be happy with the "official" supplement when it comes out.

Christopher Anders

[kevinj]

It's not about intelligence, it's about getting gamers to agree on anything not in the rulebook. That is why people demand things be added to erratta and the like, as anything non-printed will be ignored.

In my experience there are two distinct styles of gaming system. There is the one where everything is dictated by the games company/rules writers, who normally also control the supply of figures and near enough everything else that is used within the game. With these systems you see players asking questions like "Is my opponent cheating if he uses figures from another manufacturer?"

FOG is not that kind of system. Many of us will remember (with varying degress of fondness) the times when a "game system" comprised a set of poorly printed rules that comprised the mechanics of play and a points system to allow armies to be constructed of nominally equal value. Even army lists were a later addition to this, and they were initially greeted with a great deal of scepticism and also resentment e.g. "How dare they try to tell me what I can and can't have in my army!"

FOG provides what 2 players need to play a game with little preparation other than posession of the raw materials. If I want a simple 3 hour game at my club I can quickly agree with my opponent the points value and list options, then turn up the next week, get the stuff out and play. It also provides tournament organisers with a standard set of rules whereby people who have never met can turn up and have a fair idea of what's going to happen. For those of us who like to spend weekends in Scout and Guide huts in obscure corners of the country that works fine.

There have been many people expressing an interest in more ways to play the game from scenario's, campaign rules and siege rules for quite a while. Not like I'm the turd in the punch bowl here.

There is a lot of interest in this. But it is normally for games where you have a bit more time, and a non-tournament setting. In that environment most players that I know, however competitive they are in a tournament, will be happy to play with whatever adaptions the person who organises the game feels are required to recreate a historical battle, a campaign or whatever. Some of those people are even good enough to post details of what they have done in the Historical Scenario or AAR sections of the forum so that others can use or adapt them as they wish.

The game system provides a framework. Consenting adults can use it however they like.

[madmike111]

I fall to see what is wrong with suggesting that FOG would benefit from having rules covering different scenarios. I dabble in FOW and they have an excellent scenario generator system which provides many gaming variations.

My group plays FOG to the exclusion of any other sets of ancients rules, we could best be described as relatively cash rich and time poor. The norm is to play once a fortnight, we don’t have the time to game more than that. If a new set of ancient rules came out that had most of the features of FOG BUT included scenario generators I don’t doubt we would move to the new set.

Alternatively if a second edition of FOG came out that included all the errata, better index AND scenario generation we would all buy a set. Actually I would buy a 2nd just for an improve index, hate having to look up photocopies then reference back to the book. To me FOG rules are the cost of one round of drinks.

[Polkovnik]

I dabble in FOW and they have an excellent scenario generator system which provides many gaming variations.

The difference is that in a WW2 game you really need to be playing a scenario to play a "realistic" battle, as WW2 battles did not consist of two armies lining up on an open plain and fighting to the death (or rout). So you play attack-defence games, typically fighting for some objective such as a village or hill. Or a river crossing, or rearguard action. These certainly don't need to be from a rulebook though - when I play Blitzkreig Commander, I would typically throw down some terrain, give one side more points but allow the other to set up halfway across the table. The side with more points is the attacker and has to take the key terrain feature.

In the scale FOG represents, most battles were just pitched battles, where two relatively evenly matched armies line up and fight. Most historical refights would look very similar to an even points battle using the terrain generation system in the book (although possibly this gives a little bit too much terrrain).
So scenarios are not really needed.

Obviously if you want more variety it should be quite easy to come up with other options for battles though. Or do a few refights of historical battles.

[Polkovnik]

I fall to see what is wrong with suggesting that FOG would benefit from having rules covering different scenarios.

Nothing wrong with a scenario or campaign book. But these would not be rules. What most players don't want (I think) is to turn up to a tournament and dice for which particular scenario you have to play out of the book, like you do with some other sets of rules.