Within our yearly DBM tournament in the Spanish circuit, this year we will be holding FoG demonstration games. We have already published it in the Spanish sub-forum, but just in case some playtester could be close by and wanted to play against new opponents and see how the playing style changes from one team to another, all will be welcome.
The idea is to play a couple of games, but we have the space and the people to play more if other playtesters come. Non-playtesters will not play but are welcome to ask questions and watch.
I know it is a bit too close in time, but we are holding also a surprisingly succesful DBA tournament on Saturday and the DBM tournament is teamplay so we were not sure about space and people available till now.
Jose
Demonstration Games: Zaragoza 19-20 May
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
jre
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:17 pm
- Location: Zaragoza, Spain
The demonstration went quite well. I managed to lose two games to bystanders (the Thematic Byzantines were unable to win an impact phase against the Abbasids), with some advice and help getting the troops into the positions they wanted.
Most DBM players are aware and around half of them were waiting with more or less interest the rules (the main exception were those gone to the Dark Side of Flames of War). Over half the attendants still thought the name was Art of War, however. None of the Spanish DBA players showed interest in the game, while almost all of the French ones did. I suspect healthy gaming magazines have something to do with it.
We had some people travelling from 200 km away just to attend the demo
The Arab/crusader fight went quite well, with the crusaders winning mostly through good rolling (and keeping generals and rear support for the knights, so they weathered the Arab concentrated fire). Was a great example of Drilled vs Undrilled, comparing the limited choices of the knights compared to the mobility of the Ghilmen. Part of the fault was of the "Byzantine" advisor recommendations putting the spearmen out of the way of the knights, so the only way to stop those knights was with arrows.
People liked the handling in whole groups and the movement, but were a bit doubtful about the length of the combats, specially superior units with a general and rear support, as they tended to fight till the autobreak limit/last man.
Here are some actual comments from the lucky ones that got to move some BGs and the bystanders that picked up FoG over FoW.
Pros
- Easy to explain and get a tactical feeling without reading the rules. Sensible moves almost always get sensible results.
- Most people liked the idea of moving all the groups.
- The troops organization in BGs seems accurate and is kept the whole battle. That improves the emotional attachment, part of what makes games exciting and fun.
- Quite easy to deploy, without any arguments or doubts.
- Troops "feel" like they are supposed to. Specially Skirmishers and mounted.
Cons
- Deployment seems a bit slower, and is quite critical for some troop types so it is perceived it is something to spend time on.
- Rally is done only via commanders, with no mechanism for troops far away from the enemy to rally on thir own.
- Superior troops are too good, and quite plentiful (possibly a mistake in army selection on our part). Some fear it may get too similar to Warhammer.
- Combat, specially the impact phase, slows things down and at times gets too much like accounting.
- DBM techniques will get your soldiers killed. Time to change habits.
- (Another artifact of the simple tactics we played) Once combat is joined there is little more you can do but roll dice and hope for luck.
- Army lists and tables look abstruse and intimidating (though maybe the big RESTRICTED had something to do with it). Nobody got a peek of the rules so they speculated if they were in the same color code as the tables.
Split
- Dice. Some hate the plentiful rolling and tons of dice, some love it.
- Some consider the troops move too much while others miss moving reserves through half a board.
- Some were concerned about the cost of the game plus all the supplements, others looked forward to glossy paper and gorgeous colour illustrations.
I did show off some feats I had never done before. Form Byzantine spearmen in Orb. Sack a camp and almost get hit in the back because the BG did not stop looting. Lose half my Byzantine Lancers in undesired charges, to the glee of the opposite player.
José
Most DBM players are aware and around half of them were waiting with more or less interest the rules (the main exception were those gone to the Dark Side of Flames of War). Over half the attendants still thought the name was Art of War, however. None of the Spanish DBA players showed interest in the game, while almost all of the French ones did. I suspect healthy gaming magazines have something to do with it.
We had some people travelling from 200 km away just to attend the demo
The Arab/crusader fight went quite well, with the crusaders winning mostly through good rolling (and keeping generals and rear support for the knights, so they weathered the Arab concentrated fire). Was a great example of Drilled vs Undrilled, comparing the limited choices of the knights compared to the mobility of the Ghilmen. Part of the fault was of the "Byzantine" advisor recommendations putting the spearmen out of the way of the knights, so the only way to stop those knights was with arrows.
People liked the handling in whole groups and the movement, but were a bit doubtful about the length of the combats, specially superior units with a general and rear support, as they tended to fight till the autobreak limit/last man.
Here are some actual comments from the lucky ones that got to move some BGs and the bystanders that picked up FoG over FoW.
Pros
- Easy to explain and get a tactical feeling without reading the rules. Sensible moves almost always get sensible results.
- Most people liked the idea of moving all the groups.
- The troops organization in BGs seems accurate and is kept the whole battle. That improves the emotional attachment, part of what makes games exciting and fun.
- Quite easy to deploy, without any arguments or doubts.
- Troops "feel" like they are supposed to. Specially Skirmishers and mounted.
Cons
- Deployment seems a bit slower, and is quite critical for some troop types so it is perceived it is something to spend time on.
- Rally is done only via commanders, with no mechanism for troops far away from the enemy to rally on thir own.
- Superior troops are too good, and quite plentiful (possibly a mistake in army selection on our part). Some fear it may get too similar to Warhammer.
- Combat, specially the impact phase, slows things down and at times gets too much like accounting.
- DBM techniques will get your soldiers killed. Time to change habits.
- (Another artifact of the simple tactics we played) Once combat is joined there is little more you can do but roll dice and hope for luck.
- Army lists and tables look abstruse and intimidating (though maybe the big RESTRICTED had something to do with it). Nobody got a peek of the rules so they speculated if they were in the same color code as the tables.
Split
- Dice. Some hate the plentiful rolling and tons of dice, some love it.
- Some consider the troops move too much while others miss moving reserves through half a board.
- Some were concerned about the cost of the game plus all the supplements, others looked forward to glossy paper and gorgeous colour illustrations.
I did show off some feats I had never done before. Form Byzantine spearmen in Orb. Sack a camp and almost get hit in the back because the BG did not stop looting. Lose half my Byzantine Lancers in undesired charges, to the glee of the opposite player.
José