Or the sides of the table are the end of the world.Jilu wrote: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
AM vs R, Table Size, Comp formats, MF, all in 1 post
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
Don't need lots of manoeuvre to make a good game.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.
Were as I feel in FOG AM and also with V2 unless there is something very different form the forum there will still be too much manoeuvre.
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
I fear so too.david53 wrote:Don't need lots of manoeuvre to make a good game.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.
Were as I feel in FOG AM and also with V2 unless there is something very different form the forum there will still be too much manoeuvre.
I ask to a game representing what you can see in an Osprey book: overall movements. What I get in FoG is a skirmish (and I have seen that it's what normally happens in almost all the AAR reports I have read). Some people enjoy that part of the game (like the DBx players that are looking for the smart way to get a corner in your retreat so that the eliminate one base), I don't.
In my opinion, representing those should not be the scope. The fun part would be if you put the reserves where they should be; if you commit them in the proper time; if your guys resist enough time for other troops to intervene; if you launched your attack in the wing you had an advantage and if you can recall those troops in time, etc. I guess there is an overemphasis on drilled movement because certainly there is a demand from players that prefer to have a big control on what goes on even if by the end the exercise of simulation is lost.
Re: AM vs R, Table Size, Comp formats, MF, all in 1 post
I too have had many enjoyable HF based games - unfortunately they are all against other HF (or undrilled MF). Against anything else it becomes very boring very quickly. For a points based system supposedly giving fair battles it is a major flaw.ShrubMiK wrote: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.
Walter
-
- Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am
Re:
That's true of a lot of armies, but it's also totally NOT true of a lot of other armies. Buccaneer spring to mind, and I'm sure there are other armies that have absolutely no capacity to deal with mounted... so might as well not be in the lists.rbodleyscott wrote:Cavalry are very manoeuvrable in FOGR, but cannot do much vs infantry when they get there if the infantry are properly handled.
Yes yes, I know 'if we play historical yadda yadda yadda' but that's not what Richard's post said. Cavalry can ride over SOME infantry like they aren't there. Others, they have a hard time with.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28294
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Re:
It is true that FOGR is specifically designed not to give the Lubba Lubba men of Wonga Wonga an equal chance against a western European army with a decent mounted arm. (Because that would be silly).ravenflight wrote:That's true of a lot of armies, but it's also totally NOT true of a lot of other armies. Buccaneer spring to mind, and I'm sure there are other armies that have absolutely no capacity to deal with mounted... so might as well not be in the lists.rbodleyscott wrote:Cavalry are very manoeuvrable in FOGR, but cannot do much vs infantry when they get there if the infantry are properly handled.
Yes yes, I know 'if we play historical yadda yadda yadda' but that's not what Richard's post said. Cavalry can ride over SOME infantry like they aren't there. Others, they have a hard time with.
My post was referring to mainstream European armies.
We have never claimed that FOGR gave all armies an equal chance against all others (that they never even met).
There is a common misconception that FOG (AM or R) is primarily designed for tournament play. It isn't, and certainly not for open tournament play. Moreover, we have always recommended themes for tournaments - that is why the army list books are organised as they are.
Re:
This is the nub of the issue. In FOG-R infantry can be less maneuverable and still have utility because it shoots, and therefore can influence the battle in an envelope of space that is larger than the unit itself. In FOG-AM most non-MF (and non-LF, which isn't the issue here) infantry doesn't shoot, and therefore can only influence the battle if it can get someplace where it can actually wade into melee. This is hard to do, and absent the drilled ability is often impossible to do against a mounted army.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.
The problem is that restricting infantry mobility in AM to bring it in line with R only increases the utility gap between mounted and foot. Instead of making undrilled heavy foot armies more competitive (they still suck against mounted), it only makes drilled foot armies less competitive (because now they suck more against mounted). In short, restricting drilled foot makes mounted armies more dominant in AM, and they don't need to be more dominant.
Re: Re:
If drilled MF and cavalry are more manoeuvrable in the game than they were in life why not make HF as well? Rather than bring MF back to the sorry state of undrilled HF and allow mounted free rein over the battlefield, allow undrilled HF a bit more manoeuvrabililty - sauce for the goose and all that.miverson wrote:This is the nub of the issue. In FOG-R infantry can be less maneuverable and still have utility because it shoots, and therefore can influence the battle in an envelope of space that is larger than the unit itself. In FOG-AM most non-MF (and non-LF, which isn't the issue here) infantry doesn't shoot, and therefore can only influence the battle if it can get someplace where it can actually wade into melee. This is hard to do, and absent the drilled ability is often impossible to do against a mounted army.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.
The problem is that restricting infantry mobility in AM to bring it in line with R only increases the utility gap between mounted and foot. Instead of making undrilled heavy foot armies more competitive (they still suck against mounted), it only makes drilled foot armies less competitive (because now they suck more against mounted). In short, restricting drilled foot makes mounted armies more dominant in AM, and they don't need to be more dominant.
Walter
Re: Re:
Its not really a question of whether cavalry or infantry "are more manoeuvrable in the game than they were in life." I actually think, based upon my research on how napoleonic cavalry and infantry maneuvered on the battlefield, that cavalry and (to a lesser degree) formed infantry are LESS manoeuverable on the AM table than they were historically. But I can't prove that, and nobody else can prove me wrong. Its more a question of what improves the gaming experience, and changing the rules in a fashion that decreases the variety of armies that are fun to play doesn't do that IMHO.waldo wrote: If drilled MF and cavalry are more manoeuvrable in the game than they were in life why not make HF as well? Rather than bring MF back to the sorry state of undrilled HF and allow mounted free rein over the battlefield, allow undrilled HF a bit more manoeuvrabililty - sauce for the goose and all that.
Walter
Re: Re:
Perhaps less manoeuvrable than real life (although having seen the feats of HYW archers in a fair few games I'm not so sure) but certainly more telepathic - they can and do react to threats they certainly couldn't have reacted to in a battle.miverson wrote:Its not really a question of whether cavalry or infantry "are more manoeuvrable in the game than they were in life." I actually think, based upon my research on how napoleonic cavalry and infantry maneuvered on the battlefield, that cavalry and (to a lesser degree) formed infantry are LESS manoeuverable on the AM table than they were historically. But I can't prove that, and nobody else can prove me wrong. Its more a question of what improves the gaming experience, and changing the rules in a fashion that decreases the variety of armies that are fun to play doesn't do that IMHO.waldo wrote: If drilled MF and cavalry are more manoeuvrable in the game than they were in life why not make HF as well? Rather than bring MF back to the sorry state of undrilled HF and allow mounted free rein over the battlefield, allow undrilled HF a bit more manoeuvrabililty - sauce for the goose and all that.
Walter
I'm not suggesting to neuter drilled MF to make the HF more competitive but surely when one troop type is so bad something has to be done - and if, as some have suggested, points aren't being changed then undrilled HF need some sort of boost. Or the authors just accept the death of those armies.
Walter
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Re:
miverson wrote: Its not really a question of whether cavalry or infantry "are more manoeuvrable in the game than they were in life." I actually think, based upon my research on how napoleonic cavalry and infantry maneuvered on the battlefield, that cavalry and (to a lesser degree) formed infantry are LESS manoeuverable on the AM table than they were historically. But I can't prove that, and nobody else can prove me wrong.
They would, however, quite rightly ask you for evidence from the period covered by FoG:AM and not the Napoleonic period which is quite different

Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28294
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Re:
Especially as the major innovation of Napoleonic tactics was that they allowed troops to be more manoeuvrable than in the preceding period.nikgaukroger wrote:miverson wrote: Its not really a question of whether cavalry or infantry "are more manoeuvrable in the game than they were in life." I actually think, based upon my research on how napoleonic cavalry and infantry maneuvered on the battlefield, that cavalry and (to a lesser degree) formed infantry are LESS manoeuverable on the AM table than they were historically. But I can't prove that, and nobody else can prove me wrong.
They would, however, quite rightly ask you for evidence from the period covered by FoG:AM and not the Napoleonic period which is quite different
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
Re: Re:
I think that the point is not if they could, because there is some evidence of big flexibility in the Roman army (for example, Cynoscephalae). Livy also points how Romans could fight Celtiberians in small squads, sometimes even composed by two men when in rough going. In fact Vegetius states that, when retreating, you have to conceal those movements (turning back to the enemy) to your own troops so that panic does not spread. In the other hand it is not very advisable to make rules based on exceptions.nikgaukroger wrote:miverson wrote: Its not really a question of whether cavalry or infantry "are more manoeuvrable in the game than they were in life." I actually think, based upon my research on how napoleonic cavalry and infantry maneuvered on the battlefield, that cavalry and (to a lesser degree) formed infantry are LESS manoeuverable on the AM table than they were historically. But I can't prove that, and nobody else can prove me wrong.
They would, however, quite rightly ask you for evidence from the period covered by FoG:AM and not the Napoleonic period which is quite different
The point there is that there are certain movements that are forbiden whereas in real life those movements are not forbiden. A Gallic general could ask their men to turn 90º and move (as stupid as it might be). The problem is that the most likely outcome is that the formation would end up totally disordered and unable to fight. In FoG you simply can't try and I think that this is the most frustrating part.
The problemn is the nature of the CMT where failing has no negative effect except that you can't perform the movement. In fact you are even allowed to try a different movement. It does not seem very reasonable either that you can't break the formation when you are in the opposite side of the table with no enemies around and that the CMT is as difficult as if you had an enemy in front of you.
In my opinion all that would be better represented by CT alone (plus several types of modifiers) or that failing a CMT had any drawback. You try the movement, you fail, you perform it but end up disordered or disrupted. That would be a big boost for undrilled but would represent that drilled armies could perform better in battle precisely because of their drill, keeping thus the necessary gap.
Re: Re:
No, battlefield mobility was not a Napoleonic tactical innovation in the sense that Napoleon (or his contemporaries) first invented it. Increased battlefield mobility in the Napoleonic era was the result of factors (including conscription, nationalism, decentralization of command and control, increased professionalism in the officer and NCO corps) that happened to occur in the Napoleonic era. Those factors also occurred in numerous other eras of history.rbodleyscott wrote:
Especially as the major innovation of Napoleonic tactics was that they allowed troops to be more manoeuvrable than in the preceding period.
It could be that people were inherently dumber in those eras, and that therefore no one thought of exploiting the obvious advantages mobility lends to tactics.
Or it could be that the 18th century was the first time that literacy and printing had advanced to a stage that people who experienced warfare at the tactical level had the incentive and the ability to record their experiences with sufficient detail to make it obvious that such mobility existed.
I believe in the second theory -- mobility was always there, it just didn't get properly recorded.
And, as pointed out earlier, you can't prove me wrong any more that I can prove I'm right.
Re: Re:
They would. And I, in return, would ask for evidence that the tactical mobility displayed by Napoleonic troops was NOT displayed in the FOG:AM era. And we would each come back with the handful of anecdotal accounts (like Alexander drilling his phalangites before the Illyrians, etc.) that exist, all of which are vague and questionable.nikgaukroger wrote: They would, however, quite rightly ask you for evidence from the period covered by FoG:AM and not the Napoleonic period which is quite different
Because prior to the 18th century NO ONE wrote a detailed blow-by-blow tactical account of a battle. (Although some 17th centure ones come pretty close from what I understand. Not really my era).
As I wrote in another post, absence of evidence, particularly for something as obviously useful as tactical mobility, is not evidence of absence.
Oh, and I would also ask why the Napoleonic era was "quite different." In the Napoleonic era, men manuevered on foot and on horseback and communicated using written messengers, sound, and flags. The only thing really different from the AM period was the mass use of gun powder, whose smoke would have made controlling manuever harder rather than easier.
Re: Re:
miverson wrote: And, as pointed out earlier, you can't prove me wrong any more that I can prove I'm right.
True but no one will ever take notice of your arguement if you keep adding this to the bottom of your theory.
Re: Re:
miverson wrote:They would. And I, in return, would ask for evidence that the tactical mobility displayed by Napoleonic troops was NOT displayed in the FOG:AM era. And we would each come back with the handful of anecdotal accounts (like Alexander drilling his phalangites before the Illyrians, etc.) that exist, all of which are vague and questionable.nikgaukroger wrote: They would, however, quite rightly ask you for evidence from the period covered by FoG:AM and not the Napoleonic period which is quite different
Because prior to the 18th century NO ONE wrote a detailed blow-by-blow tactical account of a battle. (Although some 17th centure ones come pretty close from what I understand. Not really my era).
As I wrote in another post, absence of evidence, particularly for something as obviously useful as tactical mobility, is not evidence of absence.
Oh, and I would also ask why the Napoleonic era was "quite different." In the Napoleonic era, men manuevered on foot and on horseback and communicated using written messengers, sound, and flags. The only thing really different from the AM period was the mass use of gun powder, whose smoke would have made controlling manuever harder rather than easier.
Maybe also the distance in 19th century battle fields compared to ancient ones and therefore the size of armies and the easier command and control.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28294
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Re:
david53 wrote:miverson wrote: And, as pointed out earlier, you can't prove me wrong any more that I can prove I'm right.
True but no one will ever take notice of your arguement if you keep adding this to the bottom of your theory.
And it is utter balderdash anyway - you only have to read a few of the better documented ancient/medieval battle accounts to see that manoeuvre was very much the exception rather than the rule. Matt underestimates the detail in the accounts - a large number of accounts are sufficiently detailed that it is pretty clear that troops went straight forward and contacted the enemy troops deployed opposite them at the start of the battle.
I am afraid that this "theory" is on par with Intelligent Design. (You "can't prove it is wrong", because the overwhelming evidence against it is discounted).
(And I suspect that Matt is only pulling our legs anyway)
There can be no doubt that the rules allow more manoeuvre than was historically usual (leaving aside what was historically possible).
The only question is how much more manoeuvre than was historically usual is required in a wargame to make it an enjoyable game. We feel that it can be reined back a bit compared with V1 without spoiling the game.
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3002
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: Re:
Or whether there is anything else that could be substituted for giving the player more freedom of maneuver than was historically usual to make it enjoyable.rbodleyscott wrote: The only question is how much more manoeuvre than was historically usual is required in a wargame to make it an enjoyable game.
In FoGR I currently* believe that having to deal with the randomness caused by constant shooting & the resulting death rolls, plus the extra dice rolling required when both sides shoot more than compensates for less freedom of maneuver. I'm not sure what an equivalent "compensation" might look like in AM.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
Re: Re:
....... Enjoyable to whom? This discussion is now about how FoG-AM is a poorer game because Legionaries did not carry matchlocks. Allowing units/BGs to manuaver willy-nilly around the table is not a good ingredient for a game that claims to cover ancient warfare. If it is difficult to manuver then intial deployment and your first couple of turns of movement become critical to the outcome of the game. If Classical ancient battle was about long lines of heavy infantry closing to fight then what is not enjoyable about a game like that? The author has stated that FoG-Am was not written primarily for tournament gamers. But sadly, once again, the tournment dogs are driving the discussion.rbodleyscott wrote:david53 wrote:miverson wrote: And, as pointed out earlier, you can't prove me wrong any more that I can prove I'm right.
True but no one will ever take notice of your arguement if you keep adding this to the bottom of your theory.
And it is utter balderdash anyway - you only have to read a few of the better documented ancient/medieval battle accounts to see that manoeuvre was very much the exception rather than the rule. Matt underestimates the detail in the accounts - a large number of accounts are sufficiently detailed that it is pretty clear that troops went straight forward and contacted the enemy troops deployed opposite them at the start of the battle.
I am afraid that this "theory" is on par with Intelligent Design. (You "can't prove it is wrong", because the overwhelming evidence against it is discounted).
(And I suspect that Matt is only pulling our legs anyway)
There can be no doubt that the rules allow more manoeuvre than was historically usual (leaving aside what was historically possible).
The only question is how much more manoeuvre than was historically usual is required in a wargame to make it an enjoyable game. We feel that it can be reined back a bit compared with V1 without spoiling the game.
I, like most of you, love Madaxeman's battle reports. But I noticed a bit of a change in his latest tournament experience. It seems that (with his opponents) there was a relcutance to get into combat, a large amount of re-deployment of BGs and some table/corner hugging. Maybe it is just me, but why would you want to play a wargame with toy soldiers and avoid battle? Its like playing baseball without pitching and hitting. Zzzzzzzzzzzz
Mike B