AM vs R, Table Size, Comp formats, MF, all in 1 post

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:16 pm

Here's a blog post I've just uploaded about my thoughts having played my first game of AM in over a year;

http://madaxemandotcom.blogspot.com/201 ... s-and.html

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:34 pm

I like FOGR better than FOGAM for the same reasons .

david53 · Post by **david53** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:42 pm

That’s very strange at Warfare I was talking to a top player who had started with FOG R while it was still being tested. Who now was complaining that Cavalry in FOG R was too manoeuvrable compared to Infantry and people were picking mounted armies to take advantage of the lack of mobility of Infantry units.

Mind you I don't feel like going on the FOG R site to say how bad a game it is if I thought that I'd keep it on my blog if i had one.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:30 pm

I like both FoG:R and FoG:AM. I prefer FoG:AM because of the increased maneuverability of the BGs. Taking Porter's suggestion to heart I have based up some TIE fighters for my next army. they are great troops, and the blasters hit on 3s.

Marc

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:43 am

As a GAME I like FOGAM, but the mobility of the units feels unrealistic . That's why I prefer FOGR . Now cavalry is mobile and I do not know enough to say how mobile it was in the 17th century . Swedish artillery seems -historicaly speaking - far more mobile than the others but as it is only a game still moves only 2 MU like any other artillery and it doesn't bother me

.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:38 am

Thanks Jacques, If its C17th its only a game.

If its ancients its much more serious

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:56 am

david53 wrote:That’s very strange at Warfare I was talking to a top player who had started with FOG R while it was still being tested. Who now was complaining that Cavalry in FOG R was too manoeuvrable compared to Infantry and people were picking mounted armies to take advantage of the lack of mobility of Infantry units.

"people" being Alasdair Harley (and pretty much only Alasdair Harley).

In other words, it is not true.

Alasdair always prefers cavalry under any rule set, and does well with them because he is a very good player.

Cavalry are very manoeuvrable in FOGR, but cannot do much vs infantry when they get there if the infantry are properly handled. (And the infantry can shoot the cavalry). We felt we had to make cavalry manoeuvrable in FOGR otherwise they would have had no role at all.

The situation isn't remotely comparable to the mounted vs foot issues in V1 FOGAM.

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:56 am

Taking Porter's suggestion to heart I have based up some TIE fighters for my next army. they are great troops, and the blasters hit on 3s.

Unfortunately, in Fog AM they are less manoeuvrable than Drilled MF...

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:07 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
The situation isn't remotely comparable to the mounted vs foot issues in V1 FOGAM.

In that case then maybe less allowences for mounted in AM would have been a wise move.

Jilu · Post by **Jilu** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:21 am

anyway i i hope the deployment system of FogR will be similar in Fogam2 and that the game is speed up.

i am tired of armies being set up in corners of the table as if the border of the table was the end of the world

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:29 am

me too ...

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:56 am

I agree. Indeed, if there were limits to the deployment near the side edges, you would see more outflanking movements and more ambushes to get those strategic places.

marty · Post by **marty** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:01 am

No problem with the idea of speeding things up. Restricting deployment in the style of FOG R would be further crippling the armies that already dont work (ie the unmanouverable foot ones). As RBS says the issues in ancients are very different.

Martin

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:05 am

The answer to this is very easy : adapt FOGR CMT to FOGAM . Drilled could pass on 7, undrilled on 8 .

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:37 am

Drilled already pass on a 7 and undrilled on an 8

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:54 am

I must admit I prefer Fog R, but the trouble is there are few if any tournaments for R compared to A&M in the USA. There are at best 3 I can think of Cold Wars, Historicon & Fall In compared to the larger number of A&M tourneys.

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:11 pm

berthier wrote:Drilled already pass on a 7 and undrilled on an 8

Yes but use the same CMT table that the one FOGR uses . The possibilities are very different .

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:25 pm

Part of the challenge the writers face is that if you don't allow lots of manoeuvres in FoGAM it potentially becomes a less engaging game for players using non-shooting infantry. Both sides will just amble towards each other, become locked in combat and one side will win - there would be very little dice rolling for either player to do before combat started.

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:41 pm

madaxeman wrote:Part of the challenge the writers face is that if you don't allow lots of manoeuvres in FoGAM it potentially becomes a less engaging game for players using non-shooting infantry. Both sides will just amble towards each other, become locked in combat and one side will win - there would be very little dice rolling for either player to do before combat started.

I agree and disagree . there might be 2 new challenges : good army placement and have reserves ! might be interesting .

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:07 pm

The lack of reserves is IMO the single biggest issue with FoG.

I also find the idea that the rules are broken because certain armies are too unmanoeuverable a bit extreme (funny how I have managed to have many games with lots of HF which seemed quite enjoyable to both sides), but the further idea that the only reasonable way to deal with this problem is not to fix the rules but to virtually force certain armies to deploy in the corner leavesme completely dumbfounded. I reaqlly don't know what the authors were (and are!) thinking on that one.