Rules?

[jdbleed]

Hi - Just read through a discussion from some time ago regarding an actual manual detailing the rules for FOG. As in, something other than that quote-unquote Help that comes with the game. Has anything become available since then?

I was trying to determine how troop quality plays a role in combat resolution, for example. I mean, do Superior or Elite troops get an advantage in combat over average or poor troops? I see they can rerole dice. Is that it?

Also, what role does armor play in all this? It isnt mentioned in the combat explainer thing in the "help" that comes with the game and the appropriate links in the index are broken. They just lead to a Page Not Available screen. (Nice product, Slitherine.)

One last one: How does the strength of a battlegroup play role? As in, a depleted battlegroup is less effective than it was when at full strength, right?

Thanks in advance, I think this forum may be the best part of the whole FOG.

[TheGrayMouser]

No there is no additional documentation but all of the ?'s you are asking are in there (use the index, although you are right the armour section leads to a dead link)

Quality: yep rerolls is the big thing (this is actually quite huge) rerolls for testing cohesion and combat (not for anarchy or complex move testst though) elites reroll 1's, 2's, superior 1's poor 6's
if a leader is with the unit it bumps up the rerolls a step, elites getting to reroll 1, 2 and 3's
also the better morale the more causalties they can take before autorouting: average autobreak at 55% superiors 45% etc

Armour is simple: having better armour gives you a POA in the melee phase also missle weapons are effected by armour values (as well as other things like troop type terrain etc)
fighting certain troops negates armour though like elephants scythed chariots war wagons(dont really matter if yur naked or wearing plate harness when getting stepped on by pac )
Also heavy weapons negates any poa from better armour for the enemy bg

Strength: yup, units degrade when taking caualties this can be from losing POA's (pikes spears ) , losing combat dice (all units except knights who dont lose any until at 50%), units below 75% suffer a penalty on cohesion tests/rallies

[Brigz]

Also, something new-comers to the game don't usually know, is that the strength number of the battle-group has no affect on the game. That number is purely decorative. It is percentage losses that count. So it will make more sense to check the "Show losses as percentages" box in the Preferences. It makes the game easier to understand since 75%, 50% and 25% total losses are key to game events.

[jdbleed]

Thanks for the response. I guess I understand some of this, though a single manual would be nice.

As far as armor goes - basically, if I understand it, a protected unit will have the exact same advantage against an unarmored unit as a unit that is armored or heavily armored?

Also - am I reading it correctly that regular bows have the same range as longbows?

[CheerfullyInsane]

As far as armor goes - basically, if I understand it, a protected unit will have the exact same advantage against an unarmored unit as a unit that is armored or heavily armored?

Yep. You get an advantage for having better armor in melee. How much better is irrelevant.
Though it should be noted that heavier armor does count when defending against missiles.

Also - am I reading it correctly that regular bows have the same range as longbows?

Yes.
Longbows have the same range, but are more effective against armor.

Lars

[Skanvak]

I can only support the idea of a really updated manual...

[jdbleed]

Wow. "How much better is irrelevant." I assume this statement is made is from the perspective of the rules and not simply history?

I am enjoying the game but have to admit these rules are, well, rather hard to accept. To make no allowance for longbows - a weapon famous enough to give use the name Storm of Arrows - other than some level of advantage over some types of troops, an advantage that, from the perspective of gameplay, is hardly apparent. ...to put unarmored troops at the same disadvantage whether they're facing "protected" troops or armored, heavily armored, or, heck, sherman tanks....honestly, these rules seem...well..rather lazy.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, the ingame advantage for having better armour is actually pretty significant, also longbows are better than regular bows and x-bows in most circumstances (check the poa charts for missle combat.)

I hear ya on the relative advantage but this is a conversion over from a TT game.. Also , at the scale the game represents (and the fact that not every man in a unit is consider to be equal in his protection, armour level is the "average") I feel simply being "better protected" works petty well.

[CheerfullyInsane]

Wow. "How much better is irrelevant." I assume this statement is made is from the perspective of the rules and not simply history?

Errmm.....You did ask about the rules for the game, did you not?

I am enjoying the game but have to admit these rules are, well, rather hard to accept. To make no allowance for longbows - a weapon famous enough to give use the name Storm of Arrows - other than some level of advantage over some types of troops, an advantage that, from the perspective of gameplay, is hardly apparent. ...to put unarmored troops at the same disadvantage whether they're facing "protected" troops or armored, heavily armored, or, heck, sherman tanks....honestly, these rules seem...well..rather lazy.

I'm inclined to agree.
The fact that the highest POA available is +2 makes the differentation of units and combat situations marginal.
Consider Impact Foot. They get a +2 when charging.
Everything else is of no importance. Doesn't matter if they charge skirmishers, armored troops, MF, charges from behind or anything else, since they're already at +2.
And yes, I know there are factors that can bring *down* that POA, but there are none that can increase it.
Also means that armored cav riding down fleeing skirmishers from behind can get beaten into disruption with annoying frequency.

Now, far as I can figure the POA system is kept deliberately simple so a TT game doesn't get bogged down in stat-counting, which is fine by itself. However, it also means that the game becomes more of a game than a simulation.
Not that there's anything wrong with that as such, but combine it with a D6 based combat-system, and you end up with a game that I find increasingly frustrating.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy it immensely, especially the server-based MP system.
I just have a hard time taking it for more than a beer'n'pretzel game.

Lars

[Xiggy]

The small difference in factors unfortunately does not jive with the point system. You pay a lot of points for super troopers (Some of them are mandatory as well). That is one of the reasons that horde armies work well. It really forces you to take a balanced force.

You can also drop only 1 moral level from missile fire and 2 levels from melee combat. (You can drop a third in melee if you are charged in rear) This makes LF a lot tougher if you catch them frontally than you would think. All things to consider when deciding who or what to attack.

[jdbleed]

Interesting...the point values are also kind of strange. Or at least the potency of high-point-value troops isn't justified by their generally crappy performance. Speaking of which - another question (and I dont intend to poke holes in the roles here, I am genuinely curious) - but what advantage does heavy infantry have over medium? Just had a battle group of foot knights, heavy weapon and heavy armor, get routed by a stand of welsh spearmen.....and I mean, it wasn't even close....

[deadtorius]

MF will take more - for cohesion tests for losing versus impact foot or lances for example, than heavy foot will.
Certain troop types like lancers get and extra POA+ for charging lights or mediums in open ground, does not apply to heavies.
MF can move through terrain faster and suffer less cohesion loss for being in ugly terrain than heavy foot. for example MF is standing in broken terrain, they are unaffected. HF in the same broken terrain moves slower and is disordered by it. They lose 1 die for combats, and will suffer -1 to any cohesion tests for being disordered. Once they move out of the broken terrain the disorder no longer applies.

Forest is difficult terrain. MF in forest is disordered, suffer same effects as the HF in the above example.
HF in forest is very disordered. they lose 1/2 of their combat dice, they will always get at least one die regardless though, and will suffer a -2 to their cohesion tests.
Both troop types will move slower in the difficult terrain.
I got this out of the FOG TT rules but it should still apply to the PC game.
Hope that helped clear it up for you a bit.

[jdbleed]

Thanks, much appreciated. Just to sum up:

Does Heavy Foot get an advantage over medium foot in combat?

[jdbleed]

Beer N Pretzels is about right. Im all for simplicity, especially in tabletop gaming. Nothing bogs down an evening like haggling over rules and spending four hours to resolve one "hour" of a game. Im all for keeping it simple. But...

We neednt accept an incomplete or unsatisfactory game on the grounds of simplicity alone. I can think of lots of wonderfully simply, clear and consistent rules sets out there that are still quite fair, quite complete and quite Fun. Terry Gore put out some rules a few years back - Medieval Warfare and Ancient Warfare - that blow these FOG rules out of the water. I think it's interesting that in some ways, the digital FOG is a simple Beer-N-Pretzels game (and for $40, I expected a whole lot more) but then adds lots of odd complexity. I mean, do we need TWO medieval lowland army lists, one run by some dude name Maximillian? How many HYW lists do we need to accurately represent the English (especially since all they are going to do is lose)? I looked at the depth and complexity of the army lists and jumped to the entirely reasonable and entirely incorrect assumption that these lists were accompanied by a correspondingly deep and complex set of rules. My bad. Also - these rules aren't exactly simple either.

The other point I'd make is that - DUDE....this isn't table top gaming. We aren't rolling six-siders in the basement or moving little lead guys around on an old army blanket. We dont have binders of rules to consult. It's a freaking computer game. So tell me again why we're sticking to an overly simplistic rules set when we have who-knows-how-many gigs of RAM to play with? I could care less if a process would take 10-15 minutes to work out on a table top if we can get a computer to knock it out in 3 seconds. Make it complex, make it whatever you want - this is directed at Slitherine, whose products I will not be purchasing any more of - but make it worth playing. Thanks, and I'll take my call off the air...

[TheGrayMouser]

Take care, "Dude"

[batesmotel]

Thanks, much appreciated. Just to sum up:

Does Heavy Foot get an advantage over medium foot in combat?

If the MF lose to HF, they get an additional -1 on the cohesion test which can be quite significant. They're fine against HF as long as they arfen't losing but tend to fall apart faster when they are losing.

Chris

[jdbleed]

so when it comes to dealing out punishment, to killing the other guys, Heavy Foot are no more effective than Medium?

Silliness.

[TheGrayMouser]

so when it comes to dealing out punishment, to killing the other guys, Heavy Foot are no more effective than Medium?

Silliness.

Please explain in a historical context why you come to this conclusion.

[deadtorius]

It actually depends more on equipment and armour than MF or HF. If you have better armour you get a +POA, even if you are MF armoured vs protected HF. It makes a difference to the after combat cohesion test rolls since MF have more minuses than the HF do for losing against more troop types.

In the case of Romans vs Gauls in impact they are even, if the Gauls don't disrupt the Romans in impact then its pretty much game over for the Gauls in melee as the Romans will most often be ++ to -- for the Gauls.

You have to get HF beats all out of your head as they can be no better than their MF counter parts depending on how they are equipped. I have had several successes with superior armoured MF Persians with bows and spears VS HF enemies. Especially since most of those HF were average protected, so I went up a POA in melee and got to re-roll 1's as well.

[jdbleed]

Historical context? How's this: You ever watched the scrum half in a rugby game? Big dudes, locked together into a tight, cohesive unit, slam into another, similarly structured unit from the opposing team. The aim is to get low and push the other squad off the ball. The team that is strongest and best able to act as a single unit is most likely going to win.

The same could be said for a Spartan Phalanx or a Spanish Tercio or whatever the Swiss called their blocks of heavy infantry.

From our friends at Wikipedia.......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_fo ... e_armament

"Several stages in hoplite combat can be defined:

Ephodos: The hoplites stop singing their paeanes (battle hymns) and move towards the enemy, gradually picking up pace and momentum. In the instants before impact war cries (alalagmoe, sing. alalagmos) would be made. Notable war cries were the Athenian (elelelelef! elelelelef!) and the Macedonian (alalalalai! alalalalai!) alalagmoe.

Krousis: The opposing phalanxes meet each other almost simultaneously along their front. The promachoe (the front-liners) had to be physically and psychologically fit to sustain and survive the clash.

Doratismos: Repeated, rapid spear thrusts in order to disrupt the enemy formation.

Othismos: Literally "pushing" after most spears have been broken, the hoplites begin to push with their large shields and use their secondary weapon, the sword. This could be the longest phase.

Pararrhexis: "Breaching" the opposing phalanx, the enemy formation shatters and the battle ends."

The contest becomes one of cohesion. The contest does not end with the thrusting of spears - that's merely a way to disrupt the enemy's formation. There is a very good reason why the Greeks had so many ranks in their units, so they had that many more strong people pushing. The point wasnt necessarily to skewer an opponent on your long spear - if you could do it, cool - but push him and his buddies into the ground and, while they are down there, run them through. The roman Gladius - short, thick, heavy, brutish - was rather handy at this.....

So now try to imagine would would happen if, say, a block of English foot knights - labeled Heavy foot - slams into a similarly sized unit of Welsh spearmen. But these welsh spearmen are labled "medium foot." And look - the little Atari 2600 style graphic of the unit portrays them as having just three little dudes, not the four portrayed in the graphic of the footknights. Four versus three equals.....? The knights hit the spearmen. You would think - based on the above - that the superior cohesion - nevermind the better armor and training - would give the heavy foot an advantage over the medium foot in combat. The tightly packed knights would push their way through and over the loosely packed Welshmen, atomizing their pathetic little formation and winning the combat. (What language do they speak in Cardiff, btw?)


There's my two cents. So now...please explain why you think heavy foot should not get an advantage in combat over medium foot.