Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
robertthebruce wrote: I agree, but I think that the lists should be reviewed after the new version were finished, and only a few list needs review. Maybe the army lists team could make a Black list with the armies that should be reviewed, but we need to know the changes in the rules before.
But certain discusions about the lists are somewhat hidden in the discusion about the rules. For example, when dealing with skilled swordsmen, I do not think that it is the rule itself we discuss (we can all agree that more skilled sowrdsmen would be advantaged over less skilled ones) but the troops it is going to be applied. That is why I think that both are simultaneous discussions.bahdahbum wrote:I did propose it for the Nikephorian army but without succes . Changes were vital ( IMO ) , but easy . But that can be discussed latter , when V2 is in our hands
I saw it, and I have to say that I´m not surprised, the most of the army list works fine to me, but there is a few of them that could be reviewed to avoid the abuse of players, and other ones that could be more deeply studied from the view of the historical research.nikgaukroger wrote:robertthebruce wrote: I agree, but I think that the lists should be reviewed after the new version were finished, and only a few list needs review. Maybe the army lists team could make a Black list with the armies that should be reviewed, but we need to know the changes in the rules before.
There is a topic in the Army Design forum where Dave R asked which lists people thought could be revised in a v2 - surprisingly few suggestions I thought.
Rekila wrote:We have been playing Fog Renaissance for the last mouth. Even having play the same game twice (Fornovo) using both FoG A/M and FoGR and we were surprised how a few changes of some basic rules made Fog Renaissance an improved version of it. I hope that V2.0 goes that way.
For those of us that have not followed FoG:R, is there a thread or post that breaks down the non-period changes? Knowing those would short circuit some of the theorycrafting in this sub forum.nikgaukroger wrote:
I believe that those FoG:R changes that were made due to lessons learnt from FoG:AM are being considered, those introduced because of period reasons are unlikely.
Really. I thought all the lessons learned would be ignored and all the changes that shouldn't be made will be made.nikgaukroger wrote: I believe that those FoG:R changes that were made due to lessons learnt from FoG:AM are being considered, those introduced because of period reasons are unlikely.
It's exactly what did happen when an army legs it and the other army degenerates into an unco-ordinated pursuit.Strategos69 wrote:My last game yesterday made me think about the game overall balance. I played Syracusan against Carthaginians. My plan was beating quickly in the left flank with two BG of superior cavalry and then turning to help to the left and center next to my cavalry to get the necessary attrition points. It started perfectly and I killed the oposing BG of cavalry in 1 turn. They fled and I pursued, in the case of one BG two times I pursued. By the time my cavalry combat was over, there were no infantry combats. They started next turn to my cavalry victory. In one impact and three melees phases my whole center was over, due to firing or combat, which makes me think that the combat mechanism might be too quick for infantry combats. In fact, what starts quite well as a battle line, ends up after this initial clash as individual BG turning and turning around trying to catch each other. A Swiss cheese is the image that comes to my mind. The combat looked like it degenerated from a battle to a skirmish and I wonder if that is what the game should look like.
This is something a number of people have also remarked upon, however it is attributable to a deliberate choice made on the part of the design team to "speed up" the resolution of combats. With any rule system designers need to make a number of decisions around getting the balance right between it being a decent "game" and a decent "simulation" - here they erred on the side of game-speed combat resolution rather than simulation-speed resolution.Strategos69 wrote:My last game yesterday made me think about the game overall balance. I played Syracusan against Carthaginians. My plan was beating quickly in the left flank with two BG of superior cavalry and then turning to help to the left and center next to my cavalry to get the necessary attrition points. It started perfectly and I killed the oposing BG of cavalry in 1 turn. They fled and I pursued, in the case of one BG two times I pursued. By the time my cavalry combat was over, there were no infantry combats. They started next turn to my cavalry victory. In one impact and three melees phases my whole center was over, due to firing or combat, which makes me think that the combat mechanism might be too quick for infantry combats. In fact, what starts quite well as a battle line, ends up after this initial clash as individual BG turning and turning around trying to catch each other. A Swiss cheese is the image that comes to my mind. The combat looked like it degenerated from a battle to a skirmish and I wonder if that is what the game should look like.
Thanks! I need to try next time the rear support (the +1 can count a lot in certain situations), although, as we play 700 points, I will have to discard almost half of the battlefield in my deployment. The problem I had in this case if delaying too much in the center was that a hole might have appeared between my left flank and the infantry so that a BG of the main line could have turned threatening my cavalry flank. 2 out of the 3 BG that fled had a general with them. I dropped 3 levels in 4 rounds of combat, which means that I was not especially unlucky (I was badly beaten in one combat against superior armoured spearmen with a general where my numbers did not count and in the other 3 to 1 in average per combat; just unlucky at impact, and the remainder as expected because of the first loss of cohesion). I wonder if an extra level of cohesion for medium and heavy infantry would slow down the game that much, but in the other hand provide a better chance of one alae helping to the others.madaxeman wrote:
This is something a number of people have also remarked upon, however it is attributable to a deliberate choice made on the part of the design team to "speed up" the resolution of combats. With any rule system designers need to make a number of decisions around getting the balance right between it being a decent "game" and a decent "simulation" - here they erred on the side of game-speed combat resolution rather than simulation-speed resolution.
There are a number of things that the tabletop general can do to fix the situation you describe - getting the timing right of when the cavalry wings and infantry center engage so a flank victory has opportunity to turn inwards takes a lot of practice in FoG, as due to this design decision it's not as intuitive as it might be in other games. Also working to provide rear support, and applying generals at the critical points can also make your infantry units last far longer in combat.
tim
700 AP is probably a little small to achieve decent amounts of rear support across a 6' table - if you assume a textbook 12BG army of which 3 are skirmishers, that leaves just 6 front-line units being supported by 3 others. With an average width of 3 bases, your army then only covers 18 elements out of a 44 element wide table - so even if you reduce the amount of rear support you will still struggle to cover half the table. IMO (and others) 900AP would be better for 6' games.Strategos69 wrote:Thanks! I need to try next time the rear support (the +1 can count a lot in certain situations), although, as we play 700 points, I will have to discard almost half of the battlefield in my deployment. The problem I had in this case if delaying too much in the center was that a hole might have appeared between my left flank and the infantry so that a BG of the main line could have turned threatening my cavalry flank. 2 out of the 3 BG that fled had a general with them. I dropped 3 levels in 4 rounds of combat, which means that I was not especially unlucky (I was badly beaten in one combat against superior armoured spearmen with a general where my numbers did not count and in the other 3 to 1 in average per combat; just unlucky at impact, and the remainder as expected because of the first loss of cohesion). I wonder if an extra level of cohesion for medium and heavy infantry would slow down the game that much, but in the other hand provide a better chance of one alae helping to the others.madaxeman wrote:
This is something a number of people have also remarked upon, however it is attributable to a deliberate choice made on the part of the design team to "speed up" the resolution of combats. With any rule system designers need to make a number of decisions around getting the balance right between it being a decent "game" and a decent "simulation" - here they erred on the side of game-speed combat resolution rather than simulation-speed resolution.
There are a number of things that the tabletop general can do to fix the situation you describe - getting the timing right of when the cavalry wings and infantry center engage so a flank victory has opportunity to turn inwards takes a lot of practice in FoG, as due to this design decision it's not as intuitive as it might be in other games. Also working to provide rear support, and applying generals at the critical points can also make your infantry units last far longer in combat.
tim
The vast majority of battles in the classical period saw the sides lining up in formations that seem totally unimaginative to the wargamer. They generally formed up with an infantry centre, often comprised of at least two lines, with mounted troops then deployed either side of the infantry. As a consequence most 'classical' period ancient battles were won on the wings, generally the right wing would overcome the enemies left wing and then the mounted assaulted the enemy infantry centre. We often forget that most ancient battles lasted a minimum of two hours long, many lasting from dawn to dusk. Most casualties were caused not during the actual battle itself, but by the victorious pursuing army.madaxeman wrote:700 AP is probably a little small to achieve decent amounts of rear support across a 6' table - if you assume a textbook 12BG army of which 3 are skirmishers, that leaves just 6 front-line units being supported by 3 others. With an average width of 3 bases, your army then only covers 18 elements out of a 44 element wide table - so even if you reduce the amount of rear support you will still struggle to cover half the table. IMO (and others) 900AP would be better for 6' games.Strategos69 wrote:Thanks! I need to try next time the rear support (the +1 can count a lot in certain situations), although, as we play 700 points, I will have to discard almost half of the battlefield in my deployment. The problem I had in this case if delaying too much in the center was that a hole might have appeared between my left flank and the infantry so that a BG of the main line could have turned threatening my cavalry flank. 2 out of the 3 BG that fled had a general with them. I dropped 3 levels in 4 rounds of combat, which means that I was not especially unlucky (I was badly beaten in one combat against superior armoured spearmen with a general where my numbers did not count and in the other 3 to 1 in average per combat; just unlucky at impact, and the remainder as expected because of the first loss of cohesion). I wonder if an extra level of cohesion for medium and heavy infantry would slow down the game that much, but in the other hand provide a better chance of one alae helping to the others.madaxeman wrote:
This is something a number of people have also remarked upon, however it is attributable to a deliberate choice made on the part of the design team to "speed up" the resolution of combats. With any rule system designers need to make a number of decisions around getting the balance right between it being a decent "game" and a decent "simulation" - here they erred on the side of game-speed combat resolution rather than simulation-speed resolution.
There are a number of things that the tabletop general can do to fix the situation you describe - getting the timing right of when the cavalry wings and infantry center engage so a flank victory has opportunity to turn inwards takes a lot of practice in FoG, as due to this design decision it's not as intuitive as it might be in other games. Also working to provide rear support, and applying generals at the critical points can also make your infantry units last far longer in combat.
tim
Thinking about what you describe here, in my experience infantry are more likely to be "average" quality than cavalry (most of whom seem to get the chance to be "superior") so it might well be that infantry/infantry combats will end up being decided more quickly than mounted/mounted combats (assuming that units break due to cohesion losses more often than they do to base losses).
I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the history, however this does also appear to be counter-intuitive so again it's something to watch for in your timings if you are trying to achieve a breakthrough on the wings to then turn in and crush the enemy center.
tim
The danger is that makes players want to maximize their mounted forces, beat the enemy and turn on the foot.Strategos69 wrote: One of the ways I have seen to fix that was giving beavy and medium infantry an extra cohesion level. Another way is letting heavy and medium foot to be bolstered any turn. I think that the speed of combats for cavalry are fine, but not for infantry, which in my opinion are too fast.
Our group in Austin, Texas extensively plays both FoG:A and FoG:R. IMHO, keeping a base set of rules as consistent as possible between the two would benefit others of our particular persuasion. In a perfect (future) world, perhaps FoG Basic Rules, with period addendums for Ancients, Medievals and Renaissance?nikgaukroger wrote:I believe that those FoG:R changes that were made due to lessons learnt from FoG:AM are being considered, those introduced because of period reasons are unlikely.Rekila wrote:We have been playing Fog Renaissance for the last mouth. Even having play the same game twice (Fornovo) using both FoG A/M and FoGR and we were surprised how a few changes of some basic rules made Fog Renaissance an improved version of it. I hope that V2.0 goes that way.
