To the extent that there's very lilttle discussion on other parts of the Ancients & Medieval forum, I do think it's an avalanche. Yesterday, I think there were a couple of posts on varnish and 15mm Vikings on the English part of the forum plus a few more on the French and Italian areas of the forum, but the rest of the discussion is all here in FoG 2.0. Unfortunately, as discussion on what people think is wrong and needs changing is by nature a "negative" or "the glass is half empty" discussion; and, right now, on other parts of the forum we don't have 'positive" or "the glass is half full" discussions. For me that's what I mean by an "avalanche" - i.e., a large shift in discussion away from other topic areas.Ranimiro wrote:I don´t think there is an avalanche neither trolling. There have been several discussions about particular topics with more or less foundations maybe, and many about ideas to give some edge to the lower quality infantry to be more attractive. Either way i think that is unfair to say that people that like FoG enough to play it and share their thoughts about it, is trolling.
Nikgaukroger said he's suspicious of trolling. I understand his feelings about it since he's been very involved with FoG. When people have been very involved in something they are going to feel sensitive to a lot of suggestions about what's wrong with it. That's very understandable, but that's also why we have to learn not to take ourselves to seriously nor become too identified with what we have made. However, you're right, one should not ascribe intention or motive without evidence.
We've also had a snippet here and there such as a -2 to CT for losing an impact phase close combat to undrilled impact foot. I also like the use of commanders to move divisions where the BG are separated but I don't think we'll see that for FoGAM since it's the wrong look-and-feel. So, we're probably in the pre-grouse stage - so people should feel free to pre-grouse away. 
)
