Osprey army list price cut.

[Ferb]

Hi all,

As Osprey have seen the light and cut the price on all the FoG A&M army list books from £12.99 to £6.49 http://www.ospreypublishing.com/section ... ctionID=28
are we going to see similar cuts on the overpriced Slitherine army lists?

Ferb

[TheGrayMouser]

I really dont see the connection between Opreys FOG AM TT lists (which are several years old and possibly will be made less than current, rules wise, once FOG AM 2 arrives) vs the PC game expansions....

[Ferb]

Ospreys FoG rules were released less than three years ago not 'several'. As for the connection, the PC version lists are just a reworking of the figure game lists into PC format with the addition of the DAG (which can be argued should have been included in the basic game). But if you're happy paying £19.19 inc VAT for a product that can be bought in a full colour book with extra information for £6.49 who am I to agrue with you.

[TheGrayMouser]

Less than 3 years ago and several are equally un-precise

Anyways i guess i dont think the TT rulebooks are going to effect in any way the PC expansions. I also dont undertsnd what you mean by rather paying 20 eur for a PC expansion vs 6 for a rulebook with pictures.... I play the PC game and i think 20 bucks is worth it for each expansion ( i dont owe nobody VAT)

Sorry if my ist post seemed snarky, wasnt intended to.

[CheerfullyInsane]

First of all, let me make it abundantly clear that I know sod-all about the publishing business *LOL*

However, having said that I doubt you'll see a price-cut on the PC expansions anytime soon.
I would assume that the rebate on the TT lists are there because the rules have been in circulation for a while, and sales have dropped off since most players have by now acquired the books they want/need.
I would also assume that there's a very slow, if any, increase in the number of *new* TT players.
It does after all take some commitment to buy, paint, base and flock a FoG TT army. Not to mention the 6'x4' table needed.

Contrary, the PC version is growing by leaps and bounds (or at least moderately hopping) since it lends itself easier to new players.
Which in turn means a growing customer-base, since new players keep turning up in here.
And that's not even counting the players that never make it to the forums, which from what I can gather is the vast majority.
So if the game and expansions are selling well with the current price-tag, why on earth would Osprey/Slitherine lower the price?!?
I still think that offering the same discount for new expansions to those who have already bought the game that they offer on the package deals is pretty good re. customer-loyalty, and not something you'll find in very many companies.
(I'm assuming they'll keep doing that)

As for whether they're over-priced....
Well, that's a subjective verdict.
Personally, when I think of all the hours I've spent on this game I have absolutely no regrets that I bought the base-game and all 4 expansions, even if I am growing less and less enamored with it.
Hell, the challenge-system alone is worth the entry-fee.

So I suppose the simple answer is that if you think they're over-priced, then don't buy them.
But don't expect a company to willingly lower their profits without good reason.

Lars

[Ironclad]

Ospreys FoG rules were released less than three years ago not 'several'. As for the connection, the PC version lists are just a reworking of the figure game lists into PC format with the addition of the DAG (which can be argued should have been included in the basic game). But if you're happy paying £19.19 inc VAT for a product that can be bought in a full colour book with extra information for £6.49 who am I to agrue with you.

For a true comparison you will need to include the cost of buying and painting up the figures that are needed to form the armies set out in in the booklets. On that basis the FOG PC expansions are more than reasonably priced.

[claymore58]

[quote="CheerfullyInsane"
Personally, when I think of all the hours I've spent on this game I have absolutely no regrets that I bought the base-game and all 4 expansions, even if I am growing less and less enamored with it.

My I ask what is making you less enamored with FOG. I still like it and I lose even more games than you!
Cheers

The opposite was happening for me .... until my wife hit me with a rolling pin

Yes, I know - not very PC (but written using one)

[CheerfullyInsane]

My I ask what is making you less enamored with FOG. I still like it and I lose even more games than you!
Cheers

Oh, I don't mind losing.....Well, I do, but that's not the point. *LOL*

There are several issues but the three major ones are:
1. The wild swings in the combat results. This is the primary reason for my lessened enthusiasm.
I've written quite a bit on this on other threads, so I won't belabor the point further. Suffice it to say that I've started to consider it a game where the dice are more influential than the player. You can agree or disagree, but that's just how I feel.

2. The lack of historical differences.
The game spans some 3000 years of warfare, but playing a BC army feels exactly the same as playing a Hastings battle.
Aside from the different graphics, there isn't a whole helluva lot that differentiates the armies.
Add to that the lack of battle-groups, making untrained infantry capable of acting like Special Ops troopers, and I kinda lose the immersion factor.

3. The lack of an overlying strategic goal.
FoG is in essence a tactical engine, and admittedly it has never claimed to be otherwise.
But the game is designed for tournament/competition play, and any game that doesn't have a campaign option, or some kind of mechanism to enable you to fight a larger war will soon find my interest turning elsewhere.
This isn't just FoG, I have the same problem with Steel Panthers, JT's Campaign Series and other tactical games.
After a while the battles simply start to feel too generic.

Lars

[Blathergut]

This was one reason why those campaigns that were running (especially the one by Scar with the French, Burgundians, English, etc.) was so interesting. Added that extra dimension!

[Brigz]

@CheerfullyInsane:
I have to agree with a lot of what you say above. While I still like the game very much, I've become disenchanted with the game somewhat. Primarily the greatest fault is the nebulous nature of the "rules". It's very difficult to know what's going on because of the many un-documented and esoteric tweeks to the game mechanics and the very confusing relationships between troop types/weapons/terrain. I guess that's the boardgamer in me where decades of boardgaming has accustomed me to knowing exactly what's possible and what is not and the reason why. And then there is the difference between table-top gaming and boardgaming. It appears that TT gaming just doesn't transfer to the computer as well as boardgaming.

The other factors that muddy the game for me include the above mentioned extremes in combat results where troop type and experience are quite unpredictable factors. And I have to add the biggest gripe I have with the absurdly random Evasion/Anarchy routines. These desperately need to be incorporated into the BG properties fields instead of applying them equally to all units. There is just too much "anarchy" and randomness in the game.

Having said all that I'm still not totally disenchanted. The game just looks too damn good to give up on it. And I must admit that the play flow and user interface are excellent. Despite it's faults it still has a good feel to it and keeps me coming back.

I guess all being said, it boils down to the difference between table-top gaming and board gaming, where the former concentrates on looks, simplicity and fun and the later emphasizes simulation and historical precision.

But FoG suceeds on two counts....I still like it and will continue to buy the army extensions because it is definately one good looking game and despite it's faults is still fun.

[CharlesRobinson]

The main issue is that one set of rules covers all of the ancient period. So yes, all the armies do feel the same after awhile. I was struck recently at how much my opponents Hellenistic Achian (IF) mirrored my Jewish Army (ROR). That said, I think the FoG rules are a very good compromise.

I am also speaking as a miniature player. I have gotten all the books except one so far for FoG:A, and I have gotten the rules for FoG:R and one of the army books, I intend to get the remaining book (Storm of Arrows) and the new FoG army book within a few months. I will definetly buy their other two books coming out for FoG:R as well as everything they put out for FoG:N. Likewise I will get every related game/expansion for FoG for the PC version. I simply think that this is the best out there.

I actually love miniature gaming better and the collector in me loves building the armies, but I also love being able to play all the armies and the greater access to other players that the PC version gives me.

I agree that a campaign mode is needed - said that since the Beta days.

I also am frustrated with the anarchy rules. In one recent game I stated that it was a good thing that I was not manning a castle wall, my army would have jumped to it's death by now.


I do like the randomness though. It is not so random that you cannot predict on regular bases what will happen - such as armoured lancers versus protected horse archers, but there is enough randomness that it makes success uncertain and games interesting. I love reading history and part of many battles has been when a key unit breaks when the Commander did not expect it to. Being able to judge the battle field, the two armies facing each other, and being able to respond to the unexpected is the challenge of any Commander, and I think they got the right mix here. This is why I do not play Chess, it is a good game but not realistic, when the queen moves to take the pawn -she takes it, no issues, but from real world experience, I know that this is not always the way it happens, the queen moves to take the pawn, and the pawn kicks her but. I think that this is an important part of the game that adds to the realism, and makes it challenging.

Remember, no plan survives contact with the enemy.

[jamespcrowley]

There are several issues but the three major ones are:
1. The wild swings in the combat results. This is the primary reason for my lessened enthusiasm.
I've written quite a bit on this on other threads, so I won't belabor the point further. Suffice it to say that I've started to consider it a game where the dice are more influential than the player. You can agree or disagree, but that's just how I feel.

2. The lack of historical differences.
The game spans some 3000 years of warfare, but playing a BC army feels exactly the same as playing a Hastings battle.
Aside from the different graphics, there isn't a whole helluva lot that differentiates the armies.
Add to that the lack of battle-groups, making untrained infantry capable of acting like Special Ops troopers, and I kinda lose the immersion factor.

3. The lack of an overlying strategic goal.
FoG is in essence a tactical engine, and admittedly it has never claimed to be otherwise.
But the game is designed for tournament/competition play, and any game that doesn't have a campaign option, or some kind of mechanism to enable you to fight a larger war will soon find my interest turning elsewhere.
This isn't just FoG, I have the same problem with Steel Panthers, JT's Campaign Series and other tactical games.
After a while the battles simply start to feel too generic.

Lars

I totally agree with Lars on his first two points. I'm neutral on the third, as I like tactical level for its own sake, although a strategic or operational level wouldn't go amiss.

I also decry the lack of decent, up-to-date and comprehensive documentation.

[CheerfullyInsane]

Having said all that I'm still not totally disenchanted. The game just looks too damn good to give up on it. And I must admit that the play flow and user interface are excellent. Despite it's faults it still has a good feel to it and keeps me coming back.

I guess all being said, it boils down to the difference between table-top gaming and board gaming, where the former concentrates on looks, simplicity and fun and the later emphasizes simulation and historical precision.

But FoG suceeds on two counts....I still like it and will continue to buy the army extensions because it is definately one good looking game and despite it's faults is still fun.

I'd agree. Despite my somewhat lackluster comments, I doubt FoG will ever leave my HD permanently especially since Slitherine seems to listen (at least every once in a while) and are working on improvements, the terrain-selection in LT being a case in point.
And despite all my misgivings, the damn thing just looks too good to dispense with altogether. *LOL*
I'll probably scale back my involvement in the LoEG, and I probably won't be buying any new expansions until Wolves from the Sea, but I can't see myself stopping playing it completely.
While waiting for WftS there's still a bunch of miniatures awaiting paint, so it's not as if I'll get bored.

I do like the randomness though. It is not so random that you cannot predict on regular bases what will happen - such as armoured lancers versus protected horse archers, but there is enough randomness that it makes success uncertain and games interesting.

This is just where we differ.
I like randomness too, in fact I'd insist upon it in a wargame. 'Skill-only' games such as chess and Diplomacy leave me utterly cold.
However (and as 'howevers' go this is a big one), I disagree on the claim that in FoG you can regularly predict the combat-results.
I wouldn't mind that a skirmisher-unit turns back a charging cataphract......*if* it happened once very 5 games or so.
But as it is, this sort of thing crops up 5-6 times in every game, and given the low number of units, getting a unit taken out in what should've been a sure thing upsets the whole game.
I suppose it all boils down to how high a level of random one is comfortable with.
The current one is way too high for my taste, but as I said, that's just me.

Lars

[stockwellpete]

I think the game is very good value. Cinema is £10 a go, football can be £35+ a go and that is for just 90 minutes entertainment. I don't know how many hours entertainment I have had from FOG so far but I expect the cost to me is somewhere less than 10 pence a hour!

I agree with Lars on his points - all I would say is that these forums do permit an ongoing discussion between the players and developers and those of us who want changes have to keep patiently lobbying for them. The game is still quite early in its development (i.e. version 1) and new features usually come out with each expansion pack - so I feel that there is a really healthy dynamic at work right now.

[CharlesRobinson]

Cheerfully Insane Said

I wouldn't mind that a skirmisher-unit turns back a charging cataphract......*if* it happened once very 5 games or so.
But as it is, this sort of thing crops up 5-6 times in every game

Wow - that happens to you that much!? I rarely have it happen, when it does I take a double take, but laugh about it and adjust fire. Maybe you are just cursed.

Always fun to banter with you and play against you.