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

[AlanYork]

I don't think it's inevitable, Impetus is a unit based system and doesn't have this problem. To be fair though I have only read Impetus and have yet to play a game, when I do they might be brilliant but then again they might be awful.

Despite the complexity of some combats I feel that FoG bringing units back into Ancients games is overall a good thing.

Impetus from memory essentially does away with conforming and it averages out the combat strenght of all units to pretty much a single number.

I have finally managed to fight my way through the rules (it took a lot of attempts) and am happy to try them out but would like to play someone who knows them as I have found what I think may be a number of rather 'interesting' situations from reading the rules and I want to see if other are aware of them or if I have misread the rules.

It definitely seems more like a DBA plus than a DBM minus. Each 'unit' is effectively just a big element which has strength points which may gradually or very rapidly erode.

Still not sure about it. I was quite interested, to the point of persuading a company to stock the rules to sell so I could buy them from them but now having struggled so much to digest them I am less sure I want to play.

I
If I am up in York sometime I will look you up Alan.

Yes please do Hammy, I'd be happy to give you a game at our club and you would be most welcome.

As for Impetus I have had the opposite experience to you. FoG I found hard to digest and and whilst I think they are an absolutely OK set now that I've had many games with them, I don't "love" them and if I don't "love" them after two years or so, then it looks like I'm never going to. Frankly sometimes it just feels like hard work, particularly with those multiple complex impacts and melees I spoke about earlier. That in particular puts me off the game big style.

Impetus however were a nice easy read and on reading alone they look fresh, dynamic and interesting. A good read does NOT however make a good game. They could be an absolutely abysmal set when I actually play them (my first game is later this month). There's every possibility I might end up thinking to myself "£25 for a copy of Impetus, what a waste of money, didn't know how lucky I was with FoG". I go back to WRG 6th so I've seen rulesets come and go and have been around long enough to know that "all that glisters is not gold".

We will see and even if Impetus is the most perfect set ever written there's no law that says if I play Impetus one week I can't play FoG the next.

[azrael86]

I certainly don't dispute you Julian, but I have to say the game is played very differently along the Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas circuit. I have run my army as Alan (LH heavy list), Cimmerian, Skythian and Saka and only about 1/3 of the games were indecisive. there was a mismatch with LH versus heavy foot which were deployed defensively.

So essentially, it sounds like you are playing as a LH/Cav shooty army, who relies on your opponent coming to get you. However you dismiss 'heavy foot deployed defensively' - implying that you won't go after them. This is the problem, that foot armies have to chase mounted (not just LH, heavy cavalry) around the battlefield trying to force them to fight. Not impossible, depending upon the terrain, if you have good MF or a lot of shooters, however it isn't much fun and it only takes a little bad luck for you to incur a heavy loss.

[david53]

So essentially, it sounds like you are playing as a LH/Cav shooty army, who relies on your opponent coming to get you. However you dismiss 'heavy foot deployed defensively' - implying that you won't go after them. This is the problem, that foot armies have to chase mounted (not just LH, heavy cavalry) around the battlefield trying to force them to fight. Not impossible, depending upon the terrain, if you have good MF or a lot of shooters, however it isn't much fun and it only takes a little bad luck for you to incur a heavy loss.

Unless you limit the Cavalry to HF movement how would you get HF to catch Cav or LH?

[dave_r]

I certainly don't dispute you Julian, but I have to say the game is played very differently along the Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas circuit. I have run my army as Alan (LH heavy list), Cimmerian, Skythian and Saka and only about 1/3 of the games were indecisive. there was a mismatch with LH versus heavy foot which were deployed defensively.

So essentially, it sounds like you are playing as a LH/Cav shooty army, who relies on your opponent coming to get you. However you dismiss 'heavy foot deployed defensively' - implying that you won't go after them. This is the problem, that foot armies have to chase mounted (not just LH, heavy cavalry) around the battlefield trying to force them to fight. Not impossible, depending upon the terrain, if you have good MF or a lot of shooters, however it isn't much fun and it only takes a little bad luck for you to incur a heavy loss.

It is very possible for HF to catch Cavalry. HF armies will have a mounted wing (and if they don't why not?), you use the HF to pin the Cavalry frontally whilst your mounted goes behind and stops the Cavalry evading.

HF can't normally catch LH. But then again, they didn't historically either.

[Skullzgrinda]

So essentially, it sounds like you are playing as a LH/Cav shooty army, who relies on your opponent coming to get you. However you dismiss 'heavy foot deployed defensively' - implying that you won't go after them. This is the problem, that foot armies have to chase mounted (not just LH, heavy cavalry) around the battlefield trying to force them to fight. Not impossible, depending upon the terrain, if you have good MF or a lot of shooters, however it isn't much fun and it only takes a little bad luck for you to incur a heavy loss.

My army is mostly Iranian/Scythian style horsearchers. I have run them as: Alans, Cimmerians, Scythians, Saka - all average for the LH, but with ample numbers and equipped w/ sword.

I have most often begun the fight on the opponent's side of the board. My defeats have typically been due to any combination of 7 causes: 1) placing available shock troops too far forward with inadequate support 2) in reaction to the first error, placing availbale shock troops too far back and them not getting in the game quickly or at all 3) too much dispersal of firepower 4) mismatches of morale and/or weight 5) failed CMTs 6) appalling shooting die rolls which even my opponents have found disgusting 7) failing to timely recognize or exploit enemy gaps, weak points or disorders.

Obviously, the principal problems are operator error and learning curve - although the last tournament was an abject fiasco so I can't say I am improving. I also think - despite how much I love the Scythians historically and culturally - that I need to replace them with an army of superior morale. I suppose a generic defense of my weaksauce game would be to call it "a work in progress".

My main point originally though, is that few of my opponents have sat back while the game timed out. They have advanced on a broad front and pushed me off the board. With regard to Julian's experiences, I have to wonder if in my area we just play a more aggressive game. Julian has found many of the games at his tournament circuit to be evasive and inconclusive, and I just don't see that much here - on any of the tables.

[david53]

Obviously, the principal problems are operator error and learning curve - although the last tournament was an abject fiasco so I can't say I am improving. I also think - despite how much I love the Scythians historically and culturally - that I need to replace them with an army of superior morale. I suppose a generic defense of my weaksauce game would be to call it "a work in progress".

My main point originally though, is that few of my opponents have sat back while the game timed out. They have advanced on a broad front and pushed me off the board. With regard to Julian's experiences, I have to wonder if in my area we just play a more aggressive game. Julian has found many of the games at his tournament circuit to be evasive and inconclusive, and I just don't see that much here - on any of the tables.

I too learned firstly with Skythians and have taken them to many UK events.

I find with them you must have patience, you are depending on Bow fire more than the 3 BG of Armoured Lancers that I used as the proper troops.

I remember getting pushed back by a HF Roman army to 12 inchs from my base edge before I managed to shoot a gap in their line.

Its all a matter of time a bit of skill picking on the end unit and a bit off luck with the dice, but the skythians are a fun army to take.

Sadly I have moved on too an army with a few more Lancer BGs.

Dave

[Skullzgrinda]

Its all a matter of time a bit of skill picking on the end unit and a bit off luck with the dice, but the skythians are a fun army to take.

Sadly I have moved on too an army with a few more Lancer BGs.

Dave

An eagerly anticipated order of Sarmatian lancers arrived just this day from Strategia e Tattica.

[philqw78]

An eagerly anticipated order of Sarmatian lancers arrived just this day from Strategia e Tattica.

A proper army. Now you can have 8 BG of lancers.

[azrael86]

My army is mostly Iranian/Scythian style horsearchers. I have run them as: Alans, Cimmerians, Scythians, Saka - all average for the LH, but with ample numbers and equipped w/ sword.

I have most often begun the fight on the opponent's side of the board. My defeats have typically been due to any combination of 7 causes: 1) placing available shock troops too far forward with inadequate support 2) in reaction to the first error, placing availbale shock troops too far back and them not getting in the game quickly or at all 3) too much dispersal of firepower 4) mismatches of morale and/or weight 5) failed CMTs 6) appalling shooting die rolls which even my opponents have found disgusting 7) failing to timely recognize or exploit enemy gaps, weak points or disorders.

1 and 2 are usual problems, though not so much for your sort of army. The easiest solution is to simplify and have shock troops that can never be too far forward (Swiss or Legionaries, say).
3 shouldn't really be an issue for a LH army - you should try using undrilled foot bow!
5 is odd. LH are pretty immune to this, though undrilled cav can have a problem.
6 - again, a bad round or two of shooting is not that detrimental to LH, but to MF or even LF it is often terminal.

Obviously, the principal problems are operator error and learning curve - although the last tournament was an abject fiasco so I can't say I am improving. I also think - despite how much I love the Scythians historically and culturally - that I need to replace them with an army of superior morale. I suppose a generic defense of my weaksauce game would be to call it "a work in progress".

Random factors make any judgement from a single tournament questionable. Things like initiative and terrain can make a colossal difference to many armies. Last tournament I had +1 PBI and won initiative 4 of 4! Also leader casualties esp 'against the tide, i.e. 12's, together with wild variance on CT's (the dreaded double 2, or conversely the unit that lost 5-3 to lancers at impact but then rolls an 11).

My main point originally though, is that few of my opponents have sat back while the game timed out. They have advanced on a broad front and pushed me off the board. With regard to Julian's experiences, I have to wonder if in my area we just play a more aggressive game.

how big are the fields in these comps? It seems to get more tactical if you have a lot of players.

[peterrjohnston]

It is very possible for HF to catch Cavalry. HF armies will have a mounted wing (and if they don't why not?), you use the HF to pin the Cavalry frontally whilst your mounted goes behind and stops the Cavalry evading.

HF can't normally catch LH. But then again, they didn't historically either.

Ah, that classical battle tactic, the "reverse Cannae". Your inferior mounted, because you were stupid enough to spend all those points on quality infantry rather than the cheap uncatchable skirmishers facing them, beat-up the opponents better mounted wings and swing round behind to catch... oh, nothing there, how odd.

Must try it some time. For sure it'll work, right?

[dave_r]

It is very possible for HF to catch Cavalry. HF armies will have a mounted wing (and if they don't why not?), you use the HF to pin the Cavalry frontally whilst your mounted goes behind and stops the Cavalry evading.

HF can't normally catch LH. But then again, they didn't historically either.

Ah, that classical battle tactic, the "reverse Cannae". Your inferior mounted, because you were stupid enough to spend all those points on quality infantry rather than the cheap uncatchable skirmishers facing them, beat-up the opponents better mounted wings and swing round behind to catch... oh, nothing there, how odd.

Must try it some time. For sure it'll work, right?

LH, Average, Bow, Sword costs 10 pts. There aren't that many infantry who cost that much. Undrilled, Average, Armoured, O/S are only 9 pts?

Yes - the tactic has worked for me. four BG's of 8 Armoured Foot can easily cover half the table costing 288 pts. Leaving plenty of pts to spend on good generals or a good mounted wing. You really should try it.

[shall]

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

This might be becuase the three authors are campaign and refight fans who happened to have turned into good tournament players who enjoyed that part of the hobby also. Se we certainly built the rules with all three in mind.

Si

[gelin]

What i would definately like to see in FoG is LH breaking off from slower mounted, even with a CMT (perhaps with an extra -1 or -2 on that CMT).
Likewise for LF against HF.

[david53]

What i would definately like to see in FoG is LH breaking off from slower mounted, even with a CMT (perhaps with an extra -1 or -2 on that CMT).
Likewise for LF against HF.

Breaking off?

[MatthewP]

What i would definately like to see in FoG is LH breaking off from slower mounted, even with a CMT (perhaps with an extra -1 or -2 on that CMT).
Likewise for LF against HF.

I think this would make skirmishers almost impossible to destroy and far to powerful. The fact that they must fight to the finish in melee forces players to use them as they were historically used. i.e to skirmish

[daveallen]

Dave Ruddock wrote:

Undrilled, Average, Armoured, O/S are only 9 pts?

Yes, they are only 9pts.

Dave is correct again.

Dave

[david53]

Dave Ruddock wrote:

Undrilled, Average, Armoured, O/S are only 9 pts?

Yes, they are only 9pts.

Dave is correct again.

Dave

Can't be thats twice now

[nikgaukroger]

Dave Ruddock wrote:

Undrilled, Average, Armoured, O/S are only 9 pts?

Yes, they are only 9pts.

Dave is correct again.

Dave

Can't be thats twice now

Some things are so simple that even Dave can get them right - or perhaps he asked the monkeys ...

[hazelbark]

My main point originally though, is that few of my opponents have sat back while the game timed out. They have advanced on a broad front and pushed me off the board. With regard to Julian's experiences, I have to wonder if in my area we just play a more aggressive game. Julian has found many of the games at his tournament circuit to be evasive and inconclusive, and I just don't see that much here - on any of the tables.

Having played on both continents, it is certainly true that US players play more aggressively. Also there is a common style in europe to gibbon surf and then play not to make mistakes against equally skilled players. It actually has a logic in longer # of rounds events. Part of it is the different national styles. Part of it is the # of games. In a 3 rounder, it is very likely that the perrson who wins 3 games wins. So you can't afford to not go for the win until the last game and then only if you know its between you and your opponent.

[philqw78]

Some things are so simple that even Dave can get them right - or perhaps he asked the monkeys ...

And out of an infinite number he picked the right one. But thats not getting it right, thats 'cos he's lucky