Intro
I attended the FoG competition at BritCon this year. Despite being a beta-tester only event there were a healthy 28 competitors. Much to the surprise of everyone this was my first BritCon - it has always clashed with other commitments. So I was looking forward to the event for lots of reasons.
Although I have played a lot of games of FoG, I'd only played a couple of times since Leeds. So I wanted an army that was easy for me to play and yet an army that had not been tried before. So I opted for something similar to the Ottomans + Serbs I took to Leeds, but with a twist. I opted for a Later Hungarian clone (imaginatively called Middle Hungarian) that was unplayed in competition (or very probably ever under FoG).
OB,Name,Type,Quality,Training,Armour,Missile,Impact,Melee,Points Per Element,Elements in BG,BG Cost
IC General,80,1,80
TC General,35,1,35
TC General,35,1,35
1,Hungarian Horse Archers,Light Horse,Average,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,-,8,4,32
2,Hungarian Horse Archers,Light Horse,Average,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,-,8,4,32
3,Hungarian Horse Archers,Light Horse,Average,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,-,8,4,32
4,Hungarian Horse Archers,Light Horse,Average,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,-,8,4,32
5,Foot Archers,Light Foot,Poor,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,-,3,6,18
6,Foot Archers,Light Foot,Poor,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,-,3,6,18
7,Szeklers,Cavalry,Superior,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,Swordsmen,12,4,48
8,Szeklers,Cavalry,Superior,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,Swordsmen,12,4,48
9,Foot Archers,Light Foot,Poor,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,-,3,6,18
10,Szeklers,Cavalry,Superior,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,Swordsmen,12,4,48
11,Szeklers,Cavalry,Superior,Undrilled,Unprotected,Bow,-,Swordsmen,12,4,48
12,Hungarian Nobles,Knights,Superior,Undrilled,Heavily Armoured,-,Lancers,Swordsmen,23,4,92
13,Hungarian Nobles,Knights,Superior,Undrilled,Heavily Armoured,-,Lancers,Swordsmen,23,4,92
14,Hungarian Nobles,Knights,Superior,Undrilled,Heavily Armoured,-,Lancers,Swordsmen,23,4,92
Total,800
Total Units,14
Total Scouting,32
Initiative,4
The theory with this army was to use the light horse and cavalry to clear a path for the knights. The light horse are quite weak even when compared with other skirmishers (chosen to be as cheap as possible and do one job only – shoot and scoot), so I needed to use the unprotected cavalry to protect them. But the cavalry are quite vulnerable (again chosen to be cheap as possible and also disprove my comments that unprotected cavalry are useless) I would use the knights to protect them and also provide punch when required. In other words, everything needed to work together to make the army work at all. Not forgetting the poor infantry whose role was to bulk out the army and provide annoying support fire when there was little danger of anyone shooting back.
The biggest problem would be dealing with terrain and making sure no one realised just how weak the army was if you isolated the knights.
Would this classic DBM pin and punch army work in FoG?
BritCon Battle Report
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
BritCon Battle Report
Last edited by bddbrown on Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Game 1 - Alan Cutner - Dynastic Bedouin
It was Friday night, I'd had about 3 pints and what else would I be doing but sitting down for my first game of the weekend? Personally I hate evening games - which is ironic as club games are normally on an evening.
Anyway, Alan was unfortunate to draw me in the first game and probably thinking something unpleasant about evening games as well. He had only played one game of FoG before and this was after he had to submit his army. Give all of this his deployment was spot on - a little scary given his lack of experience but also reassuring that sensible generalship is reflected in the game even if you don't know the rules very well. I noticed this with other new starters as well.
Alan's army full of lancer protected cavalry and Dailami infantry. It was also significantly wider than mine, especially as he deployed his cavalry in a single rank. This left me wanting to deploy another 4-5 BGs and worrying about my left flank!
In the middle my army was split by a piece of rough going that was being eagerly faced by 3 BGs of Dailami and Ghazis. If they could make it there before my knights hit them then things could get interesting. The first test of rough terrain.
On the right one BG of knights, cavalry and light horse drove towards the end BG of Dailami supported by lancer cavalry. In the end I was able to arrange it so I hit both the cavalry and the Dailami. Alan had to stop short of the rough going or leave the cavalry completely unsupported. I would have done the same and it was a surprisingly good call for someone playing his second game. The knights made quick work of the cavalry and then slowly chewed up the Dailami.
In the middle my 2 BGs of knights tried the same trick. Unfortunately for the middle BG of knights, when they charged in the Ghazis rolled 8 out of 10 hits (needing 5s) which resulted in them disrupting and losing 2 (ouch) bases. They reeled from this hit and broke off asking if anyone got the license plate of that hit and run 40 ton truck!
Fortunately their friends performed better and hit cavalry, breaking them and then charging into the Dailami. It took a while and the middle BG of knights with only 2 bases left had to help before the Dailami broke. It was a little sweaty at points - those death rolls kept coming but I kept passing them.
Eventually I killed enough stuff to break the army. I cannot remember what happened on the far left where I was outnumbered. I suspect I annoying refused to fight against overwhelming odds - seems like something I would do – and ran away.
Result was a 32-0 win. In the end Alan made very few mistakes, none at a tactical level. He was only let down by not using his cavalry's mobility to get out the way of the knights and attack my softer targets. Sacrificing the Dailami might have been the cost of this but probably well worth paying given the rest of my army is vulnerable to the lancer cavalry. I still think protected and unprotected lancer cavalry are next to useless (seems like I have chosen my next army type then).
It was Friday night, I'd had about 3 pints and what else would I be doing but sitting down for my first game of the weekend? Personally I hate evening games - which is ironic as club games are normally on an evening.
Anyway, Alan was unfortunate to draw me in the first game and probably thinking something unpleasant about evening games as well. He had only played one game of FoG before and this was after he had to submit his army. Give all of this his deployment was spot on - a little scary given his lack of experience but also reassuring that sensible generalship is reflected in the game even if you don't know the rules very well. I noticed this with other new starters as well.
Alan's army full of lancer protected cavalry and Dailami infantry. It was also significantly wider than mine, especially as he deployed his cavalry in a single rank. This left me wanting to deploy another 4-5 BGs and worrying about my left flank!
In the middle my army was split by a piece of rough going that was being eagerly faced by 3 BGs of Dailami and Ghazis. If they could make it there before my knights hit them then things could get interesting. The first test of rough terrain.
On the right one BG of knights, cavalry and light horse drove towards the end BG of Dailami supported by lancer cavalry. In the end I was able to arrange it so I hit both the cavalry and the Dailami. Alan had to stop short of the rough going or leave the cavalry completely unsupported. I would have done the same and it was a surprisingly good call for someone playing his second game. The knights made quick work of the cavalry and then slowly chewed up the Dailami.
In the middle my 2 BGs of knights tried the same trick. Unfortunately for the middle BG of knights, when they charged in the Ghazis rolled 8 out of 10 hits (needing 5s) which resulted in them disrupting and losing 2 (ouch) bases. They reeled from this hit and broke off asking if anyone got the license plate of that hit and run 40 ton truck!
Fortunately their friends performed better and hit cavalry, breaking them and then charging into the Dailami. It took a while and the middle BG of knights with only 2 bases left had to help before the Dailami broke. It was a little sweaty at points - those death rolls kept coming but I kept passing them.
Eventually I killed enough stuff to break the army. I cannot remember what happened on the far left where I was outnumbered. I suspect I annoying refused to fight against overwhelming odds - seems like something I would do – and ran away.
Result was a 32-0 win. In the end Alan made very few mistakes, none at a tactical level. He was only let down by not using his cavalry's mobility to get out the way of the knights and attack my softer targets. Sacrificing the Dailami might have been the cost of this but probably well worth paying given the rest of my army is vulnerable to the lancer cavalry. I still think protected and unprotected lancer cavalry are next to useless (seems like I have chosen my next army type then).
Game 2 - Stephen Clarke - Alexandrian Macedonian
I was fully prepared for the morning game after being woken up at 6.45am by a fire alarm at the hotel. Just what you need before 3 consecutive games and a late night drinking ahead. Yay.
There was lots of terrain in this game, although the most important were a steep hill in my opponent’s deployment zone on the right, a massive open field on the right in my deployment zone and a gully in the middle of the table.
My opponent put his camp to the left of the steep hill, but then fearful of shooty cavalry decided to deploy nearly his entire army to the right of the steep hill - in about a foot next to the table edge. This was basically a line of pike, elephants and light foot. No was I going to dent the paintwork on that lot. He also deployed a BG of MF offensive spearmen on the steep hill just for safe measure, a BG of light horse out on the left and companion lancer cavalry in the middle.
I declined the offer of deploying my knights in the open field opposite the pikes and instead deployed them in the middle hoping this would not turn into the draw it was looking like.
On the left I pushed cavalry and light horse in a sweeping move to attack the baggage and then hopefully into the flanks or rear. In the middle I ran the knights around and through the gully to try and a) avoid the pikes and elephants and b) tempt the companions into a fight. Unfortunately Stephen did not take the bait and he ran his companions away. On the right he swept his battle line through a majestic arc, pushing light horse, light foot and a BG of cavalry in front of him. This formed the interesting part of the game where I tried to catch unwary skirmishers without being nailed by nasty pike.
In fairness to my opponent his plan was to sweep with the pike and push me into the terrain. It was just never going to happen and I knew that from the outset. There were no combats and the only loss was my opponent’s camp. I briefly toyed with charging three BGs of knights into a BG of pikes that had turned to face my outflanking sweep. But what was the point in risking 3 BGs to gain 1.
Result was 18-14 to me. Personally I quite like the Alex Macedonian and think it is a great well balanced army. I would have had a crack at pushing my army off the table and forcing me to fight with the knights against pike/elephant. I've done it a couple of times with Alex Macedonian against similar opposition. I think as people play more games they will be more confident against shooty armies. Sweeping or holding back just plays into their hands. It's a risk but a smaller one than people think and reaps rewards more often than not.
I was fully prepared for the morning game after being woken up at 6.45am by a fire alarm at the hotel. Just what you need before 3 consecutive games and a late night drinking ahead. Yay.
There was lots of terrain in this game, although the most important were a steep hill in my opponent’s deployment zone on the right, a massive open field on the right in my deployment zone and a gully in the middle of the table.
My opponent put his camp to the left of the steep hill, but then fearful of shooty cavalry decided to deploy nearly his entire army to the right of the steep hill - in about a foot next to the table edge. This was basically a line of pike, elephants and light foot. No was I going to dent the paintwork on that lot. He also deployed a BG of MF offensive spearmen on the steep hill just for safe measure, a BG of light horse out on the left and companion lancer cavalry in the middle.
I declined the offer of deploying my knights in the open field opposite the pikes and instead deployed them in the middle hoping this would not turn into the draw it was looking like.
On the left I pushed cavalry and light horse in a sweeping move to attack the baggage and then hopefully into the flanks or rear. In the middle I ran the knights around and through the gully to try and a) avoid the pikes and elephants and b) tempt the companions into a fight. Unfortunately Stephen did not take the bait and he ran his companions away. On the right he swept his battle line through a majestic arc, pushing light horse, light foot and a BG of cavalry in front of him. This formed the interesting part of the game where I tried to catch unwary skirmishers without being nailed by nasty pike.
In fairness to my opponent his plan was to sweep with the pike and push me into the terrain. It was just never going to happen and I knew that from the outset. There were no combats and the only loss was my opponent’s camp. I briefly toyed with charging three BGs of knights into a BG of pikes that had turned to face my outflanking sweep. But what was the point in risking 3 BGs to gain 1.
Result was 18-14 to me. Personally I quite like the Alex Macedonian and think it is a great well balanced army. I would have had a crack at pushing my army off the table and forcing me to fight with the knights against pike/elephant. I've done it a couple of times with Alex Macedonian against similar opposition. I think as people play more games they will be more confident against shooty armies. Sweeping or holding back just plays into their hands. It's a risk but a smaller one than people think and reaps rewards more often than not.
Game 3 - John Munroe - Medieval Portuguese
The table was populated by a piece of enclosed field on my opponent’s base edge to the left and a village near the middle of the table (closer to my opponent) on the left. He decided to deploy his infantry line between the two of these, a mixture of English longbow, dismounted knights and spear on the end. His left was secured by a BG of medium foot bow in the field. He deployed his 3 BGs of knights behind the line and some light horse in front of the village supported by a BG of light foot javelinmen.
I raced skirmishers and cavalry to the left to attack and outshoot the MF in the field. I pushed my knights into the centre to attack the Longbowmen and dismounted knights. And on the right I push forward with skirmishers and cavalry to chase off the light horse and bottle up the knights - as well as shoot the end BG of spearmen. In the end I had 8 bases shooting them!
The knights crashed into the infantry and did the business. The right hand BG though suffered due to overlaps and eventually broke due to loses. In fact I ended up losing 12 bases due to rolling 1s on my death rolls! My left BG of knights ended up charging the MF in the enclosed field. Combined with disruption from overwhelming fire from 2 BGs of Light Horse and 1 BG of cavalry, they could not stand the pressure and routed. On the left I bottled up the knights and even broke the BG of spearmen, charging home with my cavalry.
All was looking rosy. I looted the camp with some light horse and two more BG for the game. Unfortunately this is when things went wrong. Victorious, my cavalry pursued the spearmen into the flank of two BGs of his knights. On the face of it this was good, and in the end I even routed a BG. But the other BG held, rallied, turned and took full vengeance.
On the left my knights who had broken through got charged by a BG of knights and after brief resistance death rolled themselves to an autobreak. Doh! I moved up a BG of cavalry to attack the flank of the knights as they pursued, but timed it wrong and my opponent just charged them. I couldn't evade (not in a single rank). They routed almost instantly as you would expect. I moved up a BG of cavalry to attack the flank of the knights as they pursued, but timed it wrong and my opponent just charged them. I couldn't evade (not in a single rank). They routed almost instantly as you would expect.
Yup, that was not a typo I made the same mistake twice. Doh! Doh! Just to compound it I got my other BG of cavalry on the right caught as well. I then spent the rest of the game running away various BGs from pursuing knights. In the end I was 1.5 BGs away from army breaking.
Result 20-12 to me. I rallied a BG of cavalry at the end with an IC to give me just enough difference to claim this as a victory. My opponent played well, took his initial loses on the chin and counter-punched with a mean right hook. Always a good lesson – never give up until the end has really arrived – you’re only 14 6-1s away from victory was my old DBM mantra. In FoG initial set-backs can be turned into opportunities if you have reserves - FoG does not allow for undrilled troops who win to turn around very easily, so reserves at the point of a break or rout are vital to take advantage or minimise damage. I don't really have any right to comment on my opponents mistakes, given the magnitude and frequency of my own. Needless to say gave myself a good mental kicking after the game, learnt my lesson and did not make any more repeat mistakes.
The table was populated by a piece of enclosed field on my opponent’s base edge to the left and a village near the middle of the table (closer to my opponent) on the left. He decided to deploy his infantry line between the two of these, a mixture of English longbow, dismounted knights and spear on the end. His left was secured by a BG of medium foot bow in the field. He deployed his 3 BGs of knights behind the line and some light horse in front of the village supported by a BG of light foot javelinmen.
I raced skirmishers and cavalry to the left to attack and outshoot the MF in the field. I pushed my knights into the centre to attack the Longbowmen and dismounted knights. And on the right I push forward with skirmishers and cavalry to chase off the light horse and bottle up the knights - as well as shoot the end BG of spearmen. In the end I had 8 bases shooting them!
The knights crashed into the infantry and did the business. The right hand BG though suffered due to overlaps and eventually broke due to loses. In fact I ended up losing 12 bases due to rolling 1s on my death rolls! My left BG of knights ended up charging the MF in the enclosed field. Combined with disruption from overwhelming fire from 2 BGs of Light Horse and 1 BG of cavalry, they could not stand the pressure and routed. On the left I bottled up the knights and even broke the BG of spearmen, charging home with my cavalry.
All was looking rosy. I looted the camp with some light horse and two more BG for the game. Unfortunately this is when things went wrong. Victorious, my cavalry pursued the spearmen into the flank of two BGs of his knights. On the face of it this was good, and in the end I even routed a BG. But the other BG held, rallied, turned and took full vengeance.
On the left my knights who had broken through got charged by a BG of knights and after brief resistance death rolled themselves to an autobreak. Doh! I moved up a BG of cavalry to attack the flank of the knights as they pursued, but timed it wrong and my opponent just charged them. I couldn't evade (not in a single rank). They routed almost instantly as you would expect. I moved up a BG of cavalry to attack the flank of the knights as they pursued, but timed it wrong and my opponent just charged them. I couldn't evade (not in a single rank). They routed almost instantly as you would expect.
Yup, that was not a typo I made the same mistake twice. Doh! Doh! Just to compound it I got my other BG of cavalry on the right caught as well. I then spent the rest of the game running away various BGs from pursuing knights. In the end I was 1.5 BGs away from army breaking.
Result 20-12 to me. I rallied a BG of cavalry at the end with an IC to give me just enough difference to claim this as a victory. My opponent played well, took his initial loses on the chin and counter-punched with a mean right hook. Always a good lesson – never give up until the end has really arrived – you’re only 14 6-1s away from victory was my old DBM mantra. In FoG initial set-backs can be turned into opportunities if you have reserves - FoG does not allow for undrilled troops who win to turn around very easily, so reserves at the point of a break or rout are vital to take advantage or minimise damage. I don't really have any right to comment on my opponents mistakes, given the magnitude and frequency of my own. Needless to say gave myself a good mental kicking after the game, learnt my lesson and did not make any more repeat mistakes.
Game 4 - Thomas Bodley-Scott - Ghaznavid
I had designed this army to be quite good against shooty armies - figuring with all the chatter on the forums (complaints that they are too good) there would be a few around. Thomas had a purists version - no infantry, lots of elephants and shooty cavalry. This was a rematch of the Usk final, except I was using Middle Hungarian and not Ghaznavids!
He deployed his elephants (with skirmish line protecting them) to the right of the table with cavalry behind and light horse to the far left. I deployed light horse, cavalry and knights to the left, skirmishers and cavalry (in skirmish mode) in a bit of open field in the middle and knights, cavalry and light horse to the right. The idea was to drive off the skirmishers on the left, attack the cavalry on the right and left and avoid the elephants. Ideally he would drive the elephants forward getting them isolated and shot up by massed archery.
On the left I drove off the skirmishers with light horse and cavalry. Eventually forcing them to turn and fight or be driven off the table. Thomas moved cavalry to support but I shoved a BG of knights and cavalry at them and forced them to run away.
The elephants in the middle pressed forward with cavalry support on both sides and skirmishers to the front protecting them. I faced them with my skirmishers and two BGs of cavalry in a single line to aid shooting. I held on, whittling away at his skirmishers and staying out of reach.
On the right I drove off his cavalry supports with a combination of knight, cavalry and light horse. Unfortunately one BG of knights got caught by a BG of elephants, but the other unit pressed on and eventually caught the cavalry.
Result 30-2 to me. In the end the combination of knights, cavalry and light horse was just too strong for the Turkish Ghulams to resist. The knights are just too heavily armed and armoured for them and the cavalry and light horse too quick for them to evade successfully. The elephants are scary, but fragile and hard to manoeuvre. Sometimes it is better just to ignore them, let them break a BG and press on elsewhere. Fortunately this is just a game as this attitude is a little hard on the troops!
I had designed this army to be quite good against shooty armies - figuring with all the chatter on the forums (complaints that they are too good) there would be a few around. Thomas had a purists version - no infantry, lots of elephants and shooty cavalry. This was a rematch of the Usk final, except I was using Middle Hungarian and not Ghaznavids!
He deployed his elephants (with skirmish line protecting them) to the right of the table with cavalry behind and light horse to the far left. I deployed light horse, cavalry and knights to the left, skirmishers and cavalry (in skirmish mode) in a bit of open field in the middle and knights, cavalry and light horse to the right. The idea was to drive off the skirmishers on the left, attack the cavalry on the right and left and avoid the elephants. Ideally he would drive the elephants forward getting them isolated and shot up by massed archery.
On the left I drove off the skirmishers with light horse and cavalry. Eventually forcing them to turn and fight or be driven off the table. Thomas moved cavalry to support but I shoved a BG of knights and cavalry at them and forced them to run away.
The elephants in the middle pressed forward with cavalry support on both sides and skirmishers to the front protecting them. I faced them with my skirmishers and two BGs of cavalry in a single line to aid shooting. I held on, whittling away at his skirmishers and staying out of reach.
On the right I drove off his cavalry supports with a combination of knight, cavalry and light horse. Unfortunately one BG of knights got caught by a BG of elephants, but the other unit pressed on and eventually caught the cavalry.
Result 30-2 to me. In the end the combination of knights, cavalry and light horse was just too strong for the Turkish Ghulams to resist. The knights are just too heavily armed and armoured for them and the cavalry and light horse too quick for them to evade successfully. The elephants are scary, but fragile and hard to manoeuvre. Sometimes it is better just to ignore them, let them break a BG and press on elsewhere. Fortunately this is just a game as this attitude is a little hard on the troops!
Game 5 - Olivier Joucla - Neo-Assyrian
Both Olivier and Jerome were doing exceptionally well at this point. Jerome's Scot's army was a nightmare to face for me and I breathed a sigh of relief when I was drawn against Olivier. Every figure in Olivier’s army could shoot which made it the ultimate shooty army with a combination of medium foot, heavy foot, cavalry, skirmishers and heavy chariots. Used well it could give anything a good kicking.
Olivier skilfully placed terrain around the table, although the main points were an enclosed field on the left in his table edge and a massive piece of open field in the middle of my deployment zone. Olivier deployed 2 BGs of cavalry and 1 of chariots on the left, 3 BGs infantry in the middle and 1 BG of cavalry, 1 of knights and 1 of infantry on the right. I deployed knights and cavalry in two lines (knights to the front) on the left, my light foot on the far left and skirmishers to the right. I put a BG of cavalry in the big field to ensure my line had no gaps and act as a skirmishing reserve.
The game swung around as I pushed on the left and Olivier on the right. It was a tense opening period with both sides looking to gain advantage. Olivier was gaining the upper hand as his drilled chariots and infantry redeployed to the right out of the way of the advancing knights. In the end I managed to pin and nail a BG of cavalry on the left, but the other ran away. I charged a BG of light horse into their rear to pin them, hoping to move cavalry up to support before they broke. But Olivier prevented this with another redeployment of the chariots.
On the right I just ran away, sniping with shots and receiving them as I went. But to no effect – shooting too effective – not in this case
In the middle I tried to redeploy my knights, but in the end they were faced off with infantry and chariots threatening my flank. My cavalry in the open field could not cover the knight’s flank - there were just too weak to help. Olivier bravely placed some light foot in the way of my middle block of knights and when I charged to clear them out of the way he stood. This ensured that my right block of knights would be isolated, would break and expose the next BG in the line to a flank charge from the chariots. Skilfully done, sacrificing a BG to aid in a flank charge that threatened to roll up my entire line.
The game ebbed and flowed. I lost the skirmishers and the knight BG. Olivier lost the cavalry and skirmishers. I managed to shoot a BG of infantry and light horse to fragmented and my routing skirmishers managed to rout through a BG of cavalry twice (convoluted but possible if they evade from a pursuit) making them fragmented.
Result 18-14 to me. My bigger army size and extra AP (6-5) meant I just sneaked a winning draw. I had a lot of good games over the weekend, but without a doubt this was the best and most enjoyable. Olivier was an excellent opponent - polite, relaxed and skilful. The game deserved a draw.
Both Olivier and Jerome were doing exceptionally well at this point. Jerome's Scot's army was a nightmare to face for me and I breathed a sigh of relief when I was drawn against Olivier. Every figure in Olivier’s army could shoot which made it the ultimate shooty army with a combination of medium foot, heavy foot, cavalry, skirmishers and heavy chariots. Used well it could give anything a good kicking.
Olivier skilfully placed terrain around the table, although the main points were an enclosed field on the left in his table edge and a massive piece of open field in the middle of my deployment zone. Olivier deployed 2 BGs of cavalry and 1 of chariots on the left, 3 BGs infantry in the middle and 1 BG of cavalry, 1 of knights and 1 of infantry on the right. I deployed knights and cavalry in two lines (knights to the front) on the left, my light foot on the far left and skirmishers to the right. I put a BG of cavalry in the big field to ensure my line had no gaps and act as a skirmishing reserve.
The game swung around as I pushed on the left and Olivier on the right. It was a tense opening period with both sides looking to gain advantage. Olivier was gaining the upper hand as his drilled chariots and infantry redeployed to the right out of the way of the advancing knights. In the end I managed to pin and nail a BG of cavalry on the left, but the other ran away. I charged a BG of light horse into their rear to pin them, hoping to move cavalry up to support before they broke. But Olivier prevented this with another redeployment of the chariots.
On the right I just ran away, sniping with shots and receiving them as I went. But to no effect – shooting too effective – not in this case
In the middle I tried to redeploy my knights, but in the end they were faced off with infantry and chariots threatening my flank. My cavalry in the open field could not cover the knight’s flank - there were just too weak to help. Olivier bravely placed some light foot in the way of my middle block of knights and when I charged to clear them out of the way he stood. This ensured that my right block of knights would be isolated, would break and expose the next BG in the line to a flank charge from the chariots. Skilfully done, sacrificing a BG to aid in a flank charge that threatened to roll up my entire line.
The game ebbed and flowed. I lost the skirmishers and the knight BG. Olivier lost the cavalry and skirmishers. I managed to shoot a BG of infantry and light horse to fragmented and my routing skirmishers managed to rout through a BG of cavalry twice (convoluted but possible if they evade from a pursuit) making them fragmented.
Result 18-14 to me. My bigger army size and extra AP (6-5) meant I just sneaked a winning draw. I had a lot of good games over the weekend, but without a doubt this was the best and most enjoyable. Olivier was an excellent opponent - polite, relaxed and skilful. The game deserved a draw.
Game 6 - Richard Bodley-Scott - Sassanid Persian
Scandal and relief! I had not beaten Olivier by enough to knock him off 2nd place. So Olivier and Jerome played each other in the final round. Very harsh as they were regular sparring partners, but at the same time they were both 1st and 2nd. I did not have to face the walking nightmare of Jerome's army and instead got to play RBS (the man himself) for the first time.
Richard had an army almost identical to Thomas's Ghaznavid and spookily deployed it in almost the same manner (although mirror image). He deployed his 6 elephants on the left with cavalry behind and superior light horse on the right.
I deployed in a similar manner as game 4, with knights either side of the elephants, cavalry on the wings and in the middle and light horse on the far wings. I also had a similar game plan.
On the right I drove my light horse and cavalry at the light horse. But instead of retreating Richard peeled them off in sweeping wheels further to the right. At the same time he moved 2 BGs of armoured cavalry into support. This was not expected and he threatened to completely sweep away my right flank. I peeled off a BG of knights to support, but the cavalry were general powered (double moves) and easily made it. This side of the battle ended up in me chasing the cavalry and light horse with knights, cavalry and light horse. The whole mix gradually wheeling right / clockwise towards my table edge. Fortunately there was plenty of space and about 20 turns to my baggage!
In the middle the elephants rushed forward. I slipped knights to the right and left (I say slipped but knights do nothing so smoothly, lumbered might be a better description) pushing off the other 2 BGs of cavalry while shooting the elephants and their skirmish screen with light infantry, light horse and cavalry. It started to get tense but Richard commented he was stuffed. He had seen the game result at least 1-2 moves ahead of me.
He managed to charge a BG of cavalry with elephants and caught them! Ouch. They routed. On the left he wheeled some elephants and threatened the flank of my knights. Ouch, ouch, ouch. Then something happened. The skirmish screen finally collapsed and I started shooting the elephants properly. I exploded one BG of elephants in the middle and the remaining BG of elephants threatening my flank was reduced to fragmented in two bounds (luckily I think but Richard believes they are glass hammers and fully expected it). My much reduced nails are testament to how close I thought things were going.
In the end I had looted the camp, was a single BG off and about to charge fragmented skirmishers and cavalry that could not evade with knights. Richard called time on the game. But with a whiff of scandal in the air, Simon called us back to the table to finish the game. I duly charged in, slaughtered some cavalry and to add insult to injury managed to rally my broken cavalry to disrupted in two bounds with an IC (they had broken so quickly they had not lost a base which makes things a lot easier).
Result 32-0. Elephants are scary, but can tend to get isolated unless supported by decent infantry. At one point I had 9 bases shooting at the BG that auto-broke. A good game that ended up being a bit one sided due to a mis-match. Plus I had a dry run from Game 4 which helped a lot.
Scandal and relief! I had not beaten Olivier by enough to knock him off 2nd place. So Olivier and Jerome played each other in the final round. Very harsh as they were regular sparring partners, but at the same time they were both 1st and 2nd. I did not have to face the walking nightmare of Jerome's army and instead got to play RBS (the man himself) for the first time.
Richard had an army almost identical to Thomas's Ghaznavid and spookily deployed it in almost the same manner (although mirror image). He deployed his 6 elephants on the left with cavalry behind and superior light horse on the right.
I deployed in a similar manner as game 4, with knights either side of the elephants, cavalry on the wings and in the middle and light horse on the far wings. I also had a similar game plan.
On the right I drove my light horse and cavalry at the light horse. But instead of retreating Richard peeled them off in sweeping wheels further to the right. At the same time he moved 2 BGs of armoured cavalry into support. This was not expected and he threatened to completely sweep away my right flank. I peeled off a BG of knights to support, but the cavalry were general powered (double moves) and easily made it. This side of the battle ended up in me chasing the cavalry and light horse with knights, cavalry and light horse. The whole mix gradually wheeling right / clockwise towards my table edge. Fortunately there was plenty of space and about 20 turns to my baggage!
In the middle the elephants rushed forward. I slipped knights to the right and left (I say slipped but knights do nothing so smoothly, lumbered might be a better description) pushing off the other 2 BGs of cavalry while shooting the elephants and their skirmish screen with light infantry, light horse and cavalry. It started to get tense but Richard commented he was stuffed. He had seen the game result at least 1-2 moves ahead of me.
He managed to charge a BG of cavalry with elephants and caught them! Ouch. They routed. On the left he wheeled some elephants and threatened the flank of my knights. Ouch, ouch, ouch. Then something happened. The skirmish screen finally collapsed and I started shooting the elephants properly. I exploded one BG of elephants in the middle and the remaining BG of elephants threatening my flank was reduced to fragmented in two bounds (luckily I think but Richard believes they are glass hammers and fully expected it). My much reduced nails are testament to how close I thought things were going.
In the end I had looted the camp, was a single BG off and about to charge fragmented skirmishers and cavalry that could not evade with knights. Richard called time on the game. But with a whiff of scandal in the air, Simon called us back to the table to finish the game. I duly charged in, slaughtered some cavalry and to add insult to injury managed to rally my broken cavalry to disrupted in two bounds with an IC (they had broken so quickly they had not lost a base which makes things a lot easier).
Result 32-0. Elephants are scary, but can tend to get isolated unless supported by decent infantry. At one point I had 9 bases shooting at the BG that auto-broke. A good game that ended up being a bit one sided due to a mis-match. Plus I had a dry run from Game 4 which helped a lot.
Summary
I had a great time, probably helped by wining the competition. The army worked well, but was hairy at times. If the knights fail then there is nothing left in the army to be worried about. In general I was lucky that no one really tried to bully it. I am sure that if I had played Jerome he would have done exactly that and won. Whether I could have held him off or lucked out some combats with the knights to get some points would have been the only question mark. Jerome's army was truly scary, lots of spearmen infantry, 2 BGs of French knights and some impact foot highlander allies. Used aggressively it could beat anything in the competition. Olivier and Jerome were unlucky to have to play each other in the final round, but such is the price of success.
There has been a feeling that FoG is too dominated by luck and lacks a little depth. I don't agree. It requires a different set of tactics to DBM. People are still learning the rules – what works and does not work. Luck tends to creep in at these times, regardless of the rules. For me the skill is about making sure that you don't fight too many evens or losing combats. When I did I lost BGs. In fact only one BG was lost due to bad luck (knights auto-breaking due to base losses). But in the grand scheme of things they were isolated and unsupported so it was not an unexpected result.
I've played about 40 games of FoG now and I am still on a steep learning curve. I made plenty of mistakes (sometimes more than once). I also learnt a lot over the course of the weekend and I am sure there is even more still to come. My gut feeling is that we have not even scratched the surface of the subtleties of the rules. The use of reserves, feints and calculated routs are all possibilities I am only just beginning to appreciate.
A big thank you to the organisers for putting together such a great competition and to my opponents who were all courteous and provided fun relaxed games. I haven't had so much fun since the early days of DBM and I am looking forward to February when FoG finally gets released!
I had a great time, probably helped by wining the competition. The army worked well, but was hairy at times. If the knights fail then there is nothing left in the army to be worried about. In general I was lucky that no one really tried to bully it. I am sure that if I had played Jerome he would have done exactly that and won. Whether I could have held him off or lucked out some combats with the knights to get some points would have been the only question mark. Jerome's army was truly scary, lots of spearmen infantry, 2 BGs of French knights and some impact foot highlander allies. Used aggressively it could beat anything in the competition. Olivier and Jerome were unlucky to have to play each other in the final round, but such is the price of success.
There has been a feeling that FoG is too dominated by luck and lacks a little depth. I don't agree. It requires a different set of tactics to DBM. People are still learning the rules – what works and does not work. Luck tends to creep in at these times, regardless of the rules. For me the skill is about making sure that you don't fight too many evens or losing combats. When I did I lost BGs. In fact only one BG was lost due to bad luck (knights auto-breaking due to base losses). But in the grand scheme of things they were isolated and unsupported so it was not an unexpected result.
I've played about 40 games of FoG now and I am still on a steep learning curve. I made plenty of mistakes (sometimes more than once). I also learnt a lot over the course of the weekend and I am sure there is even more still to come. My gut feeling is that we have not even scratched the surface of the subtleties of the rules. The use of reserves, feints and calculated routs are all possibilities I am only just beginning to appreciate.
A big thank you to the organisers for putting together such a great competition and to my opponents who were all courteous and provided fun relaxed games. I haven't had so much fun since the early days of DBM and I am looking forward to February when FoG finally gets released!
-
babyshark
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 1336
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
- Location: Government; and I'm here to help.
Thanks for the reports. I am glad to read that you think there is a lot of unexplored depth to the rules. That was my feeling as well, but I have only played two games so far and thus could be easily fooled.
Your games sounded as though they were full of maneuver, with a lot of move-countermove stuff going on to seek an advantage. Especially the game against Olivier. That is the fun part of wargaming, for my money, and I am very pleased to see that as one gets more games under one's belt one can do more of it.
Congratulations on the win.
Marc
Your games sounded as though they were full of maneuver, with a lot of move-countermove stuff going on to seek an advantage. Especially the game against Olivier. That is the fun part of wargaming, for my money, and I am very pleased to see that as one gets more games under one's belt one can do more of it.
Congratulations on the win.
Marc
-
joeymiller
- Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:09 am
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
but we could at least have joined in 
Hi,
Hammy made the reasonable point that saying FOG looked like 6th Edition on the DBMM forum wasn't the place for it, so here goes. I've no particular beef with FOG, though I haven't seen the rules, but it has struck me as slightly incongruous that it's possible to criticise fine points of DBMM, while that is not possible to do so for FOG.
My take on the great battle reports I've seen so far: Anyone who starts off a competition with 3 pints deserves admiration. I trieed it at the (6th edition) Devizes doubles one year and we faced a pair of teetotal army guys - just not in the spirit!
My major concern about this set, not having seen the rules, is how you avoid it end up being 6th Edition with saving throws?.
So far, the mechanics look very similar - impact troops - read impetuous, elephants in on the end of lines, pursuing into enemy units, evading charges with LH - (can they really only evade if in 2 ranks?)
As I said on the DBMM site - I won some smaller competitions locally playing 6th, and have never got near it in DBx, so a move back to that style of play may suit me, but it doesn't seem very original.
I was also highly concerned with the massed bow. This was always a problem with 6th, that looks like it's being repeated with FOG. You'll end up with arcs of fire being laid down that no-one will advance into. (In the 6th Edition games towards the end, and now, it got very predictable, massed longbow especially).
When people want a game that won't happen, but there is a real danger if bowfire is too effective, as appears the case. (Otherwise why did good players choose entirely bow armies?)
I'm only going on what I've seen so far from the reports. There isn't much detail in them, i.e. step-by-step guides as to what happened when the Dailami charged - do they test reaction to go in, take shooting off as they come in, is it a minus on the factors, or are bases removed - if a Kn unit is down to 2 bases, what is the effect etc. Do you dice for each base in a unit a la Warhammer or per unit x number of bases. What is a death throw?
Don't get me wrong, a change is as good as a rest, but I don't want what could become the biggest set of Ancients (my favourite period) rules, being a throwback to 20 years ago.
Steve
Hammy made the reasonable point that saying FOG looked like 6th Edition on the DBMM forum wasn't the place for it, so here goes. I've no particular beef with FOG, though I haven't seen the rules, but it has struck me as slightly incongruous that it's possible to criticise fine points of DBMM, while that is not possible to do so for FOG.
My take on the great battle reports I've seen so far: Anyone who starts off a competition with 3 pints deserves admiration. I trieed it at the (6th edition) Devizes doubles one year and we faced a pair of teetotal army guys - just not in the spirit!
My major concern about this set, not having seen the rules, is how you avoid it end up being 6th Edition with saving throws?.
So far, the mechanics look very similar - impact troops - read impetuous, elephants in on the end of lines, pursuing into enemy units, evading charges with LH - (can they really only evade if in 2 ranks?)
As I said on the DBMM site - I won some smaller competitions locally playing 6th, and have never got near it in DBx, so a move back to that style of play may suit me, but it doesn't seem very original.
I was also highly concerned with the massed bow. This was always a problem with 6th, that looks like it's being repeated with FOG. You'll end up with arcs of fire being laid down that no-one will advance into. (In the 6th Edition games towards the end, and now, it got very predictable, massed longbow especially).
When people want a game that won't happen, but there is a real danger if bowfire is too effective, as appears the case. (Otherwise why did good players choose entirely bow armies?)
I'm only going on what I've seen so far from the reports. There isn't much detail in them, i.e. step-by-step guides as to what happened when the Dailami charged - do they test reaction to go in, take shooting off as they come in, is it a minus on the factors, or are bases removed - if a Kn unit is down to 2 bases, what is the effect etc. Do you dice for each base in a unit a la Warhammer or per unit x number of bases. What is a death throw?
Don't get me wrong, a change is as good as a rest, but I don't want what could become the biggest set of Ancients (my favourite period) rules, being a throwback to 20 years ago.
Steve
Hi Steve,
This is a much better place to discuss FoG.
The way I see it various people are reading snippets about FoG and then bending them to fit something they already know.
FoG does have some sililarities to 6th and 7th but then any ancients game where groups of bases move around together has those sililarities.
For me where FoG wins over older rules is that it is quick and clean in terms of mechanics but there are some really subtle skills needed to do well. So far I can hack the mechanics but I am still well short of the mark on the subtle skills side of things.
Impact troops are nothing like 6th edition impetuous. In 6th you wanted every charge to be impetuous to get the +2. You acheived this by having loads of different factors fed into a morale test and my memories of 6th are of reading down lists of factors over and over again. FoG has a mechnism that could be considered a morale test, it's called the cohesion test and it does have a list of modifiers. I would however expect that pretty much everyone at Britcon by their 4th game (assuming only a couple of games beforehand) knew all the factors and rarely looked at the table.
FoG has split combat into three parts, shooting, impact and melee. Impact is the intial crunch when a charge hits and it is all about fighting style so for example Roman legionaries are impact foot as are Gallic warband and incidentally Dailami foot. Some troops that are particularly good at impact (known as shock troops in the rules) may take things into their own hands and charge to contact without orders (so that is 6th edition impetuous or DBx spontaneous if you like). There is a simple test to see if you will charge or not and the same test is used for determining if a group of troops (which you can call a unit if you insist) are able perform a complex maneuver, this test is a complex maneuver test (CMT). There are only two types of test Cohesion and CMT and neither have more than a handfull of modifiers. They all have the same pass numbers so you aren't constantly looking at tables which is another memory of 6th.
Unlike 6th and 7th there is no record keeping. Granted you need either markers or ofset bases to show the cohesion state of your troops but there are no sheets to record shooting fatigue, normal fatigue etc.
Combat is done using a mechnism called points of advantage (POAs). When two groups of identical troops fight neither is going to have an advantage. Some troops gain advantages aganist other troops in certain situations. Offensive spearmen have a POA if they charge or are chrged by foot (the rules assume sensible behaviour so there is no measuring charges and splitting the difference). Roman legionaries get a double POA if they charge foot so Romans charging hoplites end up with a nett POA to the Romans. Combat is driven by rolling multiple dice and the number you need to hit is determined by the nett POA. Taking our Romans and Greeks each side will get 2 dice per front rank base at impact, the Romans will need 4's to hit and the Greeks (on a - POA) will need 5's. The Romans likely to be superior quality troops also reroll initial dice of 1. The odds are the Romans will win the impact and the Greeks will have to take a cohesion test. If they fail their formation will be disrupted and the Romans will have good chance to cut them up with their swords. If the Greeks pass their cohesion test then the swords of the Romans will be of less use against a steady shieldwall.
The key for me to FoG is that even after a few games I rarely had to refer to the reference sheets, never mind read the rules or get a flowchart so I could underdstand how (S) grade works.
Light horse can evade but can definitely be caught. The army I am curently using in FoG has some cavalry that I try to use against enemy light troops. My cavalry may not be tough enough to stand in the main line of battle but they are more than capable of massacering incautious light horse. Evade moves vary in lenght as do charges that fail to contact. Even in a simple charge and direct evade away with nothing blocking the evade cavalry can catch light horse and lancer light horse are reasonably likely to catch evaders. I have on many occasions had my light troops fail to evade either through a poor evade roll or more likely due to my evade routes being compromised.
Trying to expand on Dailami vs defensive spear in Tim's report.
Dailami foot are Superior, Drilled, Armoured, Medium foot, Impact foot, Swordsmen (similar to Romans but not as good with swords and looser formation)
Crusader spear are Average, Undrilled, Heavy Foot, Defensive spear, Spearmen
As the Dailami are shock troops each turn that they are in charge reach they must either charge or take a test not to. This is a CMT and as they are drilled they need a 7 or better to pass. A general nearby will add 1 or 2 to the roll and if the general is actually with them he will add another 1. From Tim's report I assume they rolled low and had to charge.
The initial impact will see the Dailami with a double plus POA in just the same way as in the Roman / Greek example. I assume from Tim's comments that his spearmen passed their cohesion test and remained steady.
Once the impact has passed the Dailami would get a POA for being swordsmen but as they are fighting steady spears this is negated. The spearmen get a POA as long as they are two ranks deep and steady or disrupted. In this case the Spear have a POA but the Dailami don't. The side with the better armour also gets a POA and from Tim's report both sides are armoured so there is no armour POA leaving a nett advantage to the spear.
If the spear had become disrupted then the Dailami swords would get a POA bringing things back to even on the POA front but disrupted troops roll less dice i.e. they lose 1 dice for every three they would be rolling.
It sounds a little complex writing it down but it is very quick and clean on the table. You roll perhaps a few more dice than you would in DBx type games but not that many. Luck plays a part but it already seems that some people have figured out how to win at FoG. Bruce has now won two comps in a row.
Overall looking at the comp at Britcon there were a lot of different types of army in evidence and the top three armies were highly dissimilar (Ghaznavid, Scots Common and Assyrian).
I for one am really looking forward to plenty of games of FoG over the next year or so. After that it really depends on how much depth there is to the game. So far I have definitley not found the bottom and feel there is a lot of digging to go.
Hammy
This is a much better place to discuss FoG.
The way I see it various people are reading snippets about FoG and then bending them to fit something they already know.
FoG does have some sililarities to 6th and 7th but then any ancients game where groups of bases move around together has those sililarities.
For me where FoG wins over older rules is that it is quick and clean in terms of mechanics but there are some really subtle skills needed to do well. So far I can hack the mechanics but I am still well short of the mark on the subtle skills side of things.
Impact troops are nothing like 6th edition impetuous. In 6th you wanted every charge to be impetuous to get the +2. You acheived this by having loads of different factors fed into a morale test and my memories of 6th are of reading down lists of factors over and over again. FoG has a mechnism that could be considered a morale test, it's called the cohesion test and it does have a list of modifiers. I would however expect that pretty much everyone at Britcon by their 4th game (assuming only a couple of games beforehand) knew all the factors and rarely looked at the table.
FoG has split combat into three parts, shooting, impact and melee. Impact is the intial crunch when a charge hits and it is all about fighting style so for example Roman legionaries are impact foot as are Gallic warband and incidentally Dailami foot. Some troops that are particularly good at impact (known as shock troops in the rules) may take things into their own hands and charge to contact without orders (so that is 6th edition impetuous or DBx spontaneous if you like). There is a simple test to see if you will charge or not and the same test is used for determining if a group of troops (which you can call a unit if you insist) are able perform a complex maneuver, this test is a complex maneuver test (CMT). There are only two types of test Cohesion and CMT and neither have more than a handfull of modifiers. They all have the same pass numbers so you aren't constantly looking at tables which is another memory of 6th.
Unlike 6th and 7th there is no record keeping. Granted you need either markers or ofset bases to show the cohesion state of your troops but there are no sheets to record shooting fatigue, normal fatigue etc.
Combat is done using a mechnism called points of advantage (POAs). When two groups of identical troops fight neither is going to have an advantage. Some troops gain advantages aganist other troops in certain situations. Offensive spearmen have a POA if they charge or are chrged by foot (the rules assume sensible behaviour so there is no measuring charges and splitting the difference). Roman legionaries get a double POA if they charge foot so Romans charging hoplites end up with a nett POA to the Romans. Combat is driven by rolling multiple dice and the number you need to hit is determined by the nett POA. Taking our Romans and Greeks each side will get 2 dice per front rank base at impact, the Romans will need 4's to hit and the Greeks (on a - POA) will need 5's. The Romans likely to be superior quality troops also reroll initial dice of 1. The odds are the Romans will win the impact and the Greeks will have to take a cohesion test. If they fail their formation will be disrupted and the Romans will have good chance to cut them up with their swords. If the Greeks pass their cohesion test then the swords of the Romans will be of less use against a steady shieldwall.
The key for me to FoG is that even after a few games I rarely had to refer to the reference sheets, never mind read the rules or get a flowchart so I could underdstand how (S) grade works.
Light horse can evade but can definitely be caught. The army I am curently using in FoG has some cavalry that I try to use against enemy light troops. My cavalry may not be tough enough to stand in the main line of battle but they are more than capable of massacering incautious light horse. Evade moves vary in lenght as do charges that fail to contact. Even in a simple charge and direct evade away with nothing blocking the evade cavalry can catch light horse and lancer light horse are reasonably likely to catch evaders. I have on many occasions had my light troops fail to evade either through a poor evade roll or more likely due to my evade routes being compromised.
Trying to expand on Dailami vs defensive spear in Tim's report.
Dailami foot are Superior, Drilled, Armoured, Medium foot, Impact foot, Swordsmen (similar to Romans but not as good with swords and looser formation)
Crusader spear are Average, Undrilled, Heavy Foot, Defensive spear, Spearmen
As the Dailami are shock troops each turn that they are in charge reach they must either charge or take a test not to. This is a CMT and as they are drilled they need a 7 or better to pass. A general nearby will add 1 or 2 to the roll and if the general is actually with them he will add another 1. From Tim's report I assume they rolled low and had to charge.
The initial impact will see the Dailami with a double plus POA in just the same way as in the Roman / Greek example. I assume from Tim's comments that his spearmen passed their cohesion test and remained steady.
Once the impact has passed the Dailami would get a POA for being swordsmen but as they are fighting steady spears this is negated. The spearmen get a POA as long as they are two ranks deep and steady or disrupted. In this case the Spear have a POA but the Dailami don't. The side with the better armour also gets a POA and from Tim's report both sides are armoured so there is no armour POA leaving a nett advantage to the spear.
If the spear had become disrupted then the Dailami swords would get a POA bringing things back to even on the POA front but disrupted troops roll less dice i.e. they lose 1 dice for every three they would be rolling.
It sounds a little complex writing it down but it is very quick and clean on the table. You roll perhaps a few more dice than you would in DBx type games but not that many. Luck plays a part but it already seems that some people have figured out how to win at FoG. Bruce has now won two comps in a row.
Overall looking at the comp at Britcon there were a lot of different types of army in evidence and the top three armies were highly dissimilar (Ghaznavid, Scots Common and Assyrian).
I for one am really looking forward to plenty of games of FoG over the next year or so. After that it really depends on how much depth there is to the game. So far I have definitley not found the bottom and feel there is a lot of digging to go.
Hammy
-
hazelbark
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Well first off there are not saving throws. Although it can appear that way.stev1485 wrote:Hi,
My major concern about this set, not having seen the rules, is how you avoid it end up being 6th Edition with saving throws?.
I think you have to look at them as different games and viva la difference. "Originial" well that is the eye of the beholder. I am not sure i need "original" to be a good game. I think how any rule mechanisms interact is what defines good. There are some very novel rule sets around, but that does not automatically make them good for my enjoyment.As I said on the DBMM site - I won some smaller competitions locally playing 6th, and have never got near it in DBx, so a move back to that style of play may suit me, but it doesn't seem very original.
I was also highly concerned with the massed bow. This was always a problem with 6th, that looks like it's being repeated with FOG. You'll end up with arcs of fire being laid down that no-one will advance into. (In the 6th Edition games towards the end, and now, it got very predictable, massed longbow especially).
I would say you can't put out that firepower in FoG. The Burmese Elephant Chain guns of 6th edition (rumor tell me they were there, I left in 5th and came back to dbm) aren't here. Also I would say that it is very difficult to balance bow fire under any system that stretches acrosss regions and centuries. Here at least you don't have a PIP dice stalling your attack on top of the firepower effects. I actually like the PIP dice so I don't mean that as criticism of the DBx.
Preliminary post con analysis, seems to be that the massive advantage people hoped for bow fire was not the reality.When people want a game that won't happen, but there is a real danger if bowfire is too effective, as appears the case. (Otherwise why did good players choose entirely bow armies?)
Overall I think the hardest thing to do is to weigh FoG vs DBx on mechanism versus mechanism and say good bad. I think that is like comparing miniatures to an avalon hill hex board. They are very different and you can prefer one, but they really don't compare in a side-by-side analysis like Coke versus Pepsi on details. You just know that you perfer one over the other.
Thanks for that - I've got a clearer idea how the combats happened. It still looks very 6th like to me I'm afraid. It may be very sad, but I can still look at a 6th edition game, see the morale dice and know the reaction result - which tends to suggest it wasn't that complex. This is after not having played for 2.5 years.
The difference between Romans having higher factors than hoplites and therefore having an advantage on impact makes sense, so are hoplites cheaper in points? If so, will 2 ranks of hoplites cost more or less than 1 rank of legionaries, as they appear to need to be in 2 ranks to work effectively? If not, the points costs will need looking at.
(I’ve never liked Romans, so this is personal bias showing)
How easily do the hoplites fail their cohesion test? (i.e. will there be hoplite commanders appearing?)
Re the Dailami – they will charge on a 7 – on what dice? Impetuous Dailami seem a bit strange, but that is not an era I’m au fait with. Once troops are disordered, sorry disrupted, can they recover? Do they need to take a period of non combat to do so? If not, again, what’s the difference with 6th?
It does look overall relatively easy, although going on 6th experience, you’ll need markers for everything – something that is a bit annoying. Especially when playing the sort of opponent who forgets due to rushing and argues black is blue that they weren’t disrupted.
Steve
The difference between Romans having higher factors than hoplites and therefore having an advantage on impact makes sense, so are hoplites cheaper in points? If so, will 2 ranks of hoplites cost more or less than 1 rank of legionaries, as they appear to need to be in 2 ranks to work effectively? If not, the points costs will need looking at.
(I’ve never liked Romans, so this is personal bias showing)
How easily do the hoplites fail their cohesion test? (i.e. will there be hoplite commanders appearing?)
Re the Dailami – they will charge on a 7 – on what dice? Impetuous Dailami seem a bit strange, but that is not an era I’m au fait with. Once troops are disordered, sorry disrupted, can they recover? Do they need to take a period of non combat to do so? If not, again, what’s the difference with 6th?
It does look overall relatively easy, although going on 6th experience, you’ll need markers for everything – something that is a bit annoying. Especially when playing the sort of opponent who forgets due to rushing and argues black is blue that they weren’t disrupted.
Steve
If you want to say it is like 6th you can but believe me it isn't. Yes it has groups of troops of the same type so you can say units and there is a cohesion test which you could call a morale test but it is definitley not 6th.stev1485 wrote:Thanks for that - I've got a clearer idea how the combats happened. It still looks very 6th like to me I'm afraid. It may be very sad, but I can still look at a 6th edition game, see the morale dice and know the reaction result - which tends to suggest it wasn't that complex. This is after not having played for 2.5 years.
You can't for example know that if you charge Roman legionaries led by a general against warband on a frontage of 6 figures that you will inflict a minimum of 46 casualties or whatever it is.
The 6th edition tests had to me no end of modifiers. OK by the time I had played a bunch of games I knew them but you still had the mantra of friends advancing, enemy retiring, army standard, threatened flank etc. This is not the case in FoG.
Romans don't have higher factors, they have different factors. Against foot Romans are better at impact than hoplites but that is not the same as higher factors as such. The POA system means that where troops are equal the combats will tend to last similar amounts of time unlike say the DBM light horse lottery where equal troops die very quickly rather than legionaries against spear where the fight takes forever.
The difference between Romans having higher factors than hoplites and therefore having an advantage on impact makes sense, so are hoplites cheaper in points? If so, will 2 ranks of hoplites cost more or less than 1 rank of legionaries, as they appear to need to be in 2 ranks to work effectively? If not, the points costs will need looking at.
Pointswise it depends on a lot of factors. Troops are costed based on Armour, Quality, Drill and Capabilities (weapons if you want). Impact combat is fought with just the front ranks, for most troops melee combat needs 2 ranks for full effectiveness (Elephants, Chariots and Medieval knights are exceptions in that they fight fine in one rank and Pike really need to be 4 deep) .
The 'standard' Roman legionary is Superior, Drilled, Armoured, Heavy Foot, Impact foot, Skilled swordsman and costs 14 points per base
Standard late period hoplites would be Average, Undrilled, Protected, Heavy Foot, Offensive spear, Spearmen and cost 7 points per base
If you have superior drilled armoured spearmen, say early Spartans they would end up at 13 per base but be very effective with it.
The points have had a lot of work, the expectation is that a normal singles game will be 800 points so you could say that the Romans are just double the DBM points. That said Roman legionaries come in a lot of flavours and elite legionaries are 17 while poor quality ones that are only swordsmen rather then skilled swordmen are 8.
Cohesion (and CMT tests) are rolled on two dice. A final score of 7 is required to pass a cohesion test. A final score of 2 can be in the wrong circumstances a ver bad thing. A general with the hoplites will give them a +1 as will friendly troops to their rear but being beaten by 2 hits and suffering 1 hit for every three bases will inflict a -1, there are a few more occasional modifiers) . Worst case you need to roll a 9 to pass the test best case a 5 or if you win or draw the impact phase you don't need to test at all.
(I’ve never liked Romans, so this is personal bias showing)
How easily do the hoplites fail their cohesion test? (i.e. will there be hoplite commanders appearing?)
I think that hoplites are an interesting army in FoG and nowhere near as dull as the Jez wall'o'spear.
Two dice with modifiers for generals.
Re the Dailami – they will charge on a 7 – on what dice? Impetuous Dailami seem a bit strange, but that is not an era I’m au fait with. Once troops are disordered, sorry disrupted, can they recover? Do they need to take a period of non combat to do so? If not, again, what’s the difference with 6th?
Impetuous Dailami, Romans and Swiss seems sensible to me. They will only have to roll not to charge something they can hurt i.e. foot. They won't for example hare off into knights.
Once disrupted your generals can bolster troops but they need to be with them to do so. There are plenty of opportunities to move generals about.
You can't bolster troops if they have suffered a cohesion loss this turn.
Markers are a bit of a pain but there have not been any issues in my games.
It does look overall relatively easy, although going on 6th experience, you’ll need markers for everything – something that is a bit annoying. Especially when playing the sort of opponent who forgets due to rushing and argues black is blue that they weren’t disrupted.
Steve
I look at FoG as taking a step back from DBx and then two forwards in a dofferent direction.
Hammy