Fantasy Army

egimus · Post by **egimus** » Sat May 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Superior Penguin Pike !!! Please please and pretty please.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sat May 15, 2010 1:08 pm

If I might suggest a figures range for the icons in the fantasy game, RAFM has several fantasy ranges that were based on armies, so a nice selection of figs that would fit together somewhat like the historical armies. Some of the figures are fairly historical looking others are more pure fantasy type sculpts.
Just a suggestion
http://www.rafm.com/Merchant2/merchant. ... y_Code=RFM
This is the link to their fantasy page in their catalog.

Skanvak · Post by **Skanvak** » Sat May 15, 2010 5:10 pm

I am strongly in favor of a very powerful editor for fantasy army as a fixed setting will not reach consensus and will be subject to copyright (Warhammer and LOTR defenitely, may be the world of Elric will not be but there is nearly very few creatures and just editing existing army will fit most human army of elric world). I think we want to have elves and orcs even they are clones of LOTR or Warhammer or warcraft. Of course you can always build an original world or original inspiration of existing mithology (see Dominion II and III) but the permutation are really important. That why I think that we will need a powerful editor to fit every one. The official army would be only for competitive play.

Brigz · Post by **Brigz** » Sat May 15, 2010 6:08 pm

The more I read this thread the more I think that instead of an expansion to Field of Glory this should be done as a stand alone game, perhaps "Field of Fantasy." But the army files and graphics for both FoG and "FoF" should be compatable so that players would freely be able to use anyting in FoG with "FoF." That way those of us who have little interest in fantasy would still have a pure historical FoG game and those who want fantasy would have the best of both worlds at their command.

Again I want to strongly state that I'm not against a fantasy version of FoG, as it appears there is strong support for it. Heck, if it's done well enough, it might even sway an historical grognard like me to get into it. After all, I am a big fan of Lord of the Rings. I just don't want to see the historical FoG development compromised by a fantasy tangent when there are numerous problems with the original game yet to be cleared up. That's why I think a seperate but compatible fantasy game would be the best course.

MesaDon · Post by **MesaDon** » Sat May 15, 2010 7:26 pm

As for me let me be the one that doesn't agree with turning this into a fantasy game. but then as it would be an expansion I wouldn't have to buy it. If a fantasy game should be in the future at least not take development time away from the more unique real armies not covered (oriental, the americas). Also the term "realistic fantasy" seems a bit oxymoron. but then that is just me

lpgamble · Post by **lpgamble** » Sun May 16, 2010 5:03 am

I really do not like Oriental armies. I would prefer if that was a seperate game, maybe Fields of the Orient. I don't want dagger axes mixing with my traditional spear armies. It can be made compatible and you can just import the armies and go through 4 or 5 manual steps to get a game of mixed armies.

Why is it some historical players feel they can be rude just because it is a fantasy setting? I'm sure more people are interested in fantasy armies than the ancient american armies. Why this need to force them not to be a part of the game? I'm sure when you started reading this you were a bit upset that someone would single out one set of armies and try to exclude it from the game, so why try to force that on people who want to run elves vs romans?

Skanvak · Post by **Skanvak** » Sun May 16, 2010 6:33 am

Mesadon is right, no one s to buy an expansion, and the actual system already allow to exclude other army. What will be needed is an option in the multi DAG army to say : only historical army or allow fantasy army and this is it.

As for "realistic-fantasy" the term is veri-similitude. For those with difficulty with it, that mean that a human cavalry charging a line of elite pikes orks should be punished for doing it and not succeeded just because they are higher level or the story say so. this mean realistic result once you accept the fantasy aspect. Of course wome point will be subject to debate.

Brigz · Post by **Brigz** » Sun May 16, 2010 7:23 pm

lpgamble wrote:I really do not like Oriental armies. I would prefer if that was a seperate game, maybe Fields of the Orient. I don't want dagger axes mixing with my traditional spear armies. It can be made compatible and you can just import the armies and go through 4 or 5 manual steps to get a game of mixed armies.

Why is it some historical players feel they can be rude just because it is a fantasy setting? I'm sure more people are interested in fantasy armies than the ancient american armies. Why this need to force them not to be a part of the game? I'm sure when you started reading this you were a bit upset that someone would single out one set of armies and try to exclude it from the game, so why try to force that on people who want to run elves vs romans?

I'm being rude? (As I shake my head in wonder and dismay

) Perhaps you should re-read my post with an open mind instead of immediately assuming a defensive stance. I was merely stating my opinion and thought that I made it quite clear that I did not object to the introduction of fantasy elements into this game system. Perhaps some of you think that alternative opinions are not welcome. If so then I'll gladly exclude my "rude" opinions from this thread.

lpgamble · Post by **lpgamble** » Sun May 16, 2010 9:39 pm

Yes Brigz you are beig rude

I quote " I can see that I'm definately in the minority here, but I have absolutely no interest in fantasy. I'm purely an historical guy."

From this and reading your posts it is quiet clear your only goal is to keep fantasy elements out of FOG. Perfectly acceptable to start a different thread and state why you would not like Fantasy elements in FOG. The problem is people who are interestd in Fantasy have to read your post in a thread you clearly do not care for and are only interested in being counter productive to the topic. I don't have a problem with your opinion just where you are putting and how it could effect discussion of the topic.

quoting again "Again I want to strongly state that I'm not against a fantasy version of FoG" does not excuse twice in the same post trying to exclude fantasy elements in FOG.

Anyway in trying to continue some fantasy discussion I would think some good unit interactions would be:

Warg Riders as Camels
Trolls as Heavy Infantry with Heavy Weapons

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Sun May 16, 2010 9:56 pm

lpgamble wrote:Yes Brigz you are beig rude

I quote " I can see that I'm definately in the minority here, but I have absolutely no interest in fantasy. I'm purely an historical guy."

From this and reading your posts it is quiet clear your only goal is to keep fantasy elements out of FOG. Perfectly acceptable to start a different thread and state why you would not like Fantasy elements in FOG. The problem is people who are interestd in Fantasy have to read your post in a thread you clearly do not care for and are only interested in being counter productive to the topic. I don't have a problem with your opinion just where you are putting and how it could effect discussion of the topic.

quoting again "Again I want to strongly state that I'm not against a fantasy version of FoG" does not excuse twice in the same post trying to exclude fantasy elements in FOG.

Anyway in trying to continue some fantasy discussion I would think some good unit interactions would be:

Warg Riders as Camels
Trolls as Heavy Infantry with Heavy Weapons

With the greatest of respect I'm going to defend Brigz. Being rude is normally accepted as the behaviour of being insulting or derogatory, yet in the instance you quote, i.e. " I can see that I'm definately in the minority here, but I have absolutely no interest in fantasy. I'm purely an historical guy." In every statement he is referring to himself and his opinions. At no point does he make reference to the original poster, nor does he denigrate the views of others.

Brigz merely states he has no interest in Fantasy elements being introduced into FoG, which is fine. Fantasy is not to everyone's taste, nor are ancients. Brigz specifically says that he has no intention of keeping others from having their fun and all he asks, quite rightly and reasonably, is that the any fantasy game is delivered as an expansion pack - which it probably would be anyway

If we are to get upset every time someone takes an opposing viewpoint then there is no hope for this forum.

Just for the record, I support the Fantasy concept and I hope it goes well.

lpgamble · Post by **lpgamble** » Sun May 16, 2010 10:06 pm

Ah but Morbio if he was just delegating it to an expansion I would have no quibble, He want it to be a seperate game.

Stated clearly in that post twice.
I think that instead of an expansion to Field of Glory this should be done as a stand alone game, perhaps "Field of Fantasy."
That's why I think a seperate but compatible fantasy game would be the best course.

Anyway perhaps rude was to strong and oppressive a word. What I ask myself is if he truely has no interest in fantasy why should this thread hold ANY interest to him.

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Sun May 16, 2010 10:29 pm

lpgamble wrote:Ah but Morbio if he was just delegating it to an expansion I would have no quibble, He want it to be a seperate game.

Stated clearly in that post twice.
I think that instead of an expansion to Field of Glory this should be done as a stand alone game, perhaps "Field of Fantasy."
That's why I think a seperate but compatible fantasy game would be the best course.

Anyway perhaps rude was to strong and oppressive a word. What I ask myself is if he truely has no interest in fantasy why should this thread hold ANY interest to him.

Regards the expansion pack vs stand alone game, I stand corrected, you are correct. I apologise

I think Brigz has an interest in this thread because he probably doesn't want resources that are delivering more ancients/medieval content being diverted into fantasy content and I can understand that.

lpgamble · Post by **lpgamble** » Sun May 16, 2010 10:33 pm

I too can understand that point and it is a good one. While I would like a fantasy supplement, I too believe he has a very good point that mechanical tweeks to the current product is more important at this juncture.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Sun May 16, 2010 11:00 pm

I think one thing to consider is that Slitherine (or is it going to be Slithertrix?

) is a business first and foremost

I doudt that if they made a stand alone fantasy game, it would be a replica of FOG, but something completely different , and they certainly wouldnt have the resources to add in historical armies, nor would they make it cross compatble with FOG graphics and why should they?

As for whether a fantasy pack ever is made? It wouldnt necasarily effect the historical packs by much time, but it could. Most projects worked on are devoted resources and time seperatley.. And just because they dont make a fantasy pack doesnt mean that MORE resources would be devoted to FOG. Considering the merger and the statement that they have a lot of games planned over the next few years means they are going to be quite busy..
Also consider Iains statement on the Wargamer where he advised that sales for FOG and ROR were where they just "broke even" on the engine, future expansions are where the profit will be..... As such, my own opinion is a fantasy pack would make a lot of sense as it certainly could draw in a crowd of folks that arnt interested in history, but fantasy, and maybe some of those could thus be converted over and buy all the historical packs as well

Now everyone take there diffences out of the forums and onto the Fields of Glory

Cheers!

Brigz · Post by **Brigz** » Mon May 17, 2010 12:07 am

Thanks guys, I appreciate your discussion of my comments. My suggestion that a fantasy version of FoG be a stand alone product was just that, a suggestion, and not a demand. It was certainly not meant to be derogatory. If the powers that be decide to make an fantasy expansion to FoG I will certainly not complain about it. I might even buy it since I am always open to new ideas. And Morbio and GrayMouser are correct, my main concern is the allocation of resources devoted to this game. I'd prefer to see those resources spent on further development of the initial game before branching off on different tangents.

And Ipgamble - I have no animosity toward you but would like to politely state that I like this game very much and am much interested in it's further development. That means that I am interested in all dicussion about it including topics that I might have reservations about. I have every right to read and make comments on any thread on this forum. I respect your right to do likewise and I only ask that you would return the same respect to me. I do understand that reading something another has written can be quite different than actually hearing them speak the words. That's why these -

- are used to denote emotional intent.

I hope this resolves any misunderstandings and that we can all continue to enjoy and discuss this excellent game.

CraigStevenson · Post by **CraigStevenson** » Mon May 17, 2010 11:42 am

I do not think Bribz was being rude, I feel he was simply stating his opinion in a fair and frank manner. Forums are for discussions and and at times presenting differing opinions. Ipgamble I feel that you are being overly sensitive in relation to his posts.

Personally I would not mind a fantasy version whether it is an expansion or a seperate game that allowed historical D.A.G armies to be used from the other rule sets. However I would definitely like to see a Rennaisance version released prior to a fantasy version.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Mon May 17, 2010 12:54 pm

Let's keep the discussion on topic and nice and friendly

Skanvak · Post by **Skanvak** » Mon May 17, 2010 4:12 pm

I think the real debate will be between an editor of fantasy army or a fix set of fantasy army.

(but can it be nice ork or friendly troll?)

CaptainHuge · Post by **CaptainHuge** » Tue May 18, 2010 11:38 am

It could be that a fantasy set, rather than just being a few tweaks and graphics changes, might require major updates to the rules and game mechanics. In order to create the best fantasy game possible, it might require a separate package and not just an add-on to Field of Glory. Either way, I think it would be great to have a fantasy version, but I wouldn't want it to interfere with the development of historical FoG.

As I see it, there are two ways to go. One would be adding fantasy armies to FoG which conform to the same constraints that the historical armies do i.e. Romans vs Orcs. The second would be to embrace the fantasy feel and have a separate game including dragons, flying units, undead, a full magic system etc.

What about having generals and heroes? Heroes might be added to a unit, or be a unit all on its own.

Larac · Post by **Larac** » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:34 am

I still think as an expansion, it would have a chance to bring in more players, and thus more money.

And if one could for the most part make a Lord of the Rings army, or warhammer one with the DAG, then it would have even more chance of selling well.

This Fall HBO is doing Game of Thrones, and the Hobbit (battle of 5 armies), is coming in a few years.

If it sells well, then there will be more money to make the Wargames, esp if FOG was a break even atm.

Lee