Comparisons of FoG to other rulesets.

[MHO]

Hi

New to this forum. I am very interested in the ruleset but before spending my hard earned cash I would be grateful if someone could give a little help.

It would be very helpful if someone could post a comparison between FoG and the other main ancient rulesets out there (I would suggest DBM(M), Ancientmaster, WRG 6th/7th (perhaps not played as much but people are familiar with them)), with especial reference to complexity, length of game, how armies feel etc.

I personally used to play DBM but do not have time to play regularly enough to fully inderstand all the ins and outs of the rules. They do give a good game but are too much like hard work. What I need is a set of rules which give a good feel for the armies and period involved but which flow easily and can be picked up and played.

I am also aware that games should last around 3 hours for FoG - is this achievable?

Hope I am not covering old ground, but I really need a good set on Ancients rules to re-ignite my enthusiasm for this era of gaming. I was going to use warmaster but it's perhaps a little too generic for my liking.

Thanks for any help.

Mark

[rogerg]

I suspect that comments you get on this site will be a bit biased. I have played through WRG 5th, 6th and 7th editions and over 400 games of DBM. I played in the first competition play test of DBMM and followed, and contributed to, the discussions during its development. My opinion now is that FoG plays faster, is easier to learn and is what I want to be playing in the future. The latest recruit at Halifax was playing competitively by his third game. That said, after a couple of dozen games, I am finding that there is a lot of tactical depth in FoG. Easy to learn does not mean easy to win.

FoG uses many mechanisms from other rule sets. Rolling to hit and testing morale are back again. However, these items have been implemented in a straight forward way. There are reference sheets, but I am finding that after relatively few games I need them very little.

There are some nice touches that have not been commented on often. For example, for years no-one has made deployment maps work. You could never really be sure people stuck to what they wrote. FoG concedes that this is a pointless fight and dispenses with the maps in favour of a quick alternating deployment system.

There is something of an 'emotional change' from playing DBM. In the latter losses are by elements whereas in FoG losses are by whole battle groups. In DBM you lose gradually, although the rot often starts with a single bad dice result. In FoG things tend to happen a lot more quickly.

In DBM half the army causes a loss. This usually means taking out one third of one command plus a few more elements. Quite often this can be done without a lot of the army fighting. In FoG you need to take down half the army by taking out half the battle groups. This requires a lot more action.

Well those are some of my opinions, but I am biased.

[babyshark]

I think that a lot of biases will come out in answers to this question, especially since very few people have had the chance to play a lot of FoG so far. Having said that . . . .

I am a DBM player, and I still very much enjoy DBM, so this evaluation will come from that standpoint. I think that a lot of the good points that I like about DBM also come up in FoG. For instance, DBM is justly famous for its paper-scissors-rock setup that mitigates against there being only a limited number of viable strategies. I also like the fact that DBM creates a large number of significant decision points for the players once the battle gets going (possibly too many for historical realism, but that is another discussion). The downside to DBM is the unnecessarily obscure language in which the rules are written.

The few games of FoG that I have had the chance to play have been quite enjoyable. I can see that there are potential subtleties to FoG that will be a lot of fun to explore. AFAICT, there is no killer army, troop type, or technique in FoG that will automatically dominate most or all games, which will offer a chance for real variety in strategies and armies represented. There are also a large number of decision points for the players, although they are different ones to DBM, and thus take some getting used to for those with a DBM mindset. One real upside to FoG is that, because of the thorough playtesting process, FoG is written in plain language that does not require referring to the rules of statutory construction to parse.

Although I still have great fun playing DBM I am looking forward to February when FoG comes out.

Marc

[jdm]

Hi Marc

We were wondering about getting a USA translation done, know anyone with the skills:-)

JDM

[madaxeman]

Compared to WmA, FoG has:

1. No dice-based command and control system & no (real) multiple moves - troops lumber forwards steadily and wheel slowly rather than teleporting around vast ditances and getting placed exactly wherever you want, in whatever formation you want.

2. A more complex combat resolution with a Paper-scissors-stone interaction - the basic mechanic is not that much more complex than WmA's "I roll 12 dice, you roll 6, we both hit on 4's", but most importantly the paper-scissors-stone element means there are no super-against-everything-troops (in WmA thats elephants and shock cavalry) - each unit is good against some types of opponents, but less good/rubbish against others. But its still basically roll-to-hit, roll-to-save

3. There are many types and grades of troop definition ("these are my Elite Impact Sword & light spear armed undrilled armoured heavy foot" rather than the "are those blokes the 3 attacks or 2 attacks ones?"). There are also (I think - although I havent seen the lists) no special rules for specific armies - its all done in the troop types. It gives each army a lot more flavour and individuality in the way it plays than WmA.

4. There is morale, and all units count it - no expendable skirmishers in your army design, and troops will probably be affected by their neighbours being evaporated.

tim
www.madaxeman.com

[babyshark]

Hi Marc

We were wondering about getting a USA translation done, know anyone with the skills:-)

JDM

I'll step up, JD. I bill at my usual hourly rate.

[nikgaukroger]

There are also (I think - although I havent seen the lists) no special rules for specific armies - its all done in the troop types.

That is correct - there are no changes or additions to the rule book rules in the lists.

[MHO]

Thanks for the comments everyone - looks like my Romans are going to get finished after all!

Mark

[shall]

And Romans fight like real Romans in FOG - you will want to lead with the legionarries and use the support troops as support troops.

I am on my way toa 25mm Early Imperial Roman army myself....

Si

[nikgaukroger]

Must admit I've resurrected my 28mm A&A figures C3rdAD Roman army project - cunningly allows me to do a late Principate or early Dominate army

The figures are quite different from most as well - mind you it'll take me an age to paint them

[neilhammond]

Comparing FOG to DBM:

- Complexity is similar, but the language of the rules is easier in FOG. Both have subtleties, and both have key decision points during the game (without being overwhealming).

- Length of game is similar (2-4hrs), although the initial FOG games are often longer if you're not familiar with the rules. It takes about 5 FOG games to get a reasonable feel for the mechanims. It takes longer to get to grips with the subtleties of the rules (similar to DBM)

- FOG is unit based, so you don't have the micro-flexibility of DBM.

- New players playing FOG seem to do okay in comps if they play from first principals. In DBM it was much more about getting the match-ups correct, which made it more difficult for a new player.

- FOG reintroduces some "older" mechanisms (as well as some new mechanisms), which have resulted in people commenting that FOG is really 7th Edition. This isn't true. Older mechanisms (e.g. evades, morale tests, charge declarations & charges) are there because they have value and work within the framework of the rules.

- Possibly the most "controversial" element in FOG is the removal of push backs / recoils. This is inherent within unit cohesion (e.g. a fragmented unit may become fragmented as a result of losing a combat, but the unit isn't physically moved on the table. Instead a marker is used to represent this. The authors feel (probably correctly) that introducing pushbacks takes up play time without generally adding much value.

- In my view, a big plus of FOG is to remove all the geometry issues around element alighment, kinked lines and ZOCs.

- In terms of comparing FOG to DBMM, my view is that whilst clearly DBMM isn't DBM 3.x, its a similar pedigree. So, by and large the same comments apply.

-In terms of comparing FOG to 6th/7th, it's much better than those sets because it's a more refined set of rules. 6th had all those tedious reaction tests. 7th had flaws which resulted in a few killer troop/army combos which dominated the game, plus some flawed mechanisms which were'nt fixed.

Neil

[pcelella]

I've played a bit of Warrior (the American descendant of WRG t7th), and I was wondering on what opinions people may have on how FoG compares to that ruleset.

Peter

[hazelbark]

I've played a bit of Warrior (the American descendant of WRG t7th), and I was wondering on what opinions people may have on how FoG compares to that ruleset.

I am not a current/recent Warrior player, but I would offer this observation. If you like Warrior but want it less complex I think you will like FoG. The board will feel familar. The Grand tactics are more similar so if you deploy in a Warrior way you will be decently served. Except some Warrior units should be spaced apart for reaction test purposes and that isn't needed in FoG.

This is different from say DBM deployment which I think is a less advantagous in FOG vis-a-vis Warrior.

[willb]

And Romans fight like real Romans in FOG - you will want to lead with the legionarries and use the support troops as support troops.
Si

quite a few of the battle accounts have the auxiliaries leading with the legionnaires in support
anyway, reading this thread has convinced me to pre-order the rules and several of the army list books.

[Redpossum]

Hi Marc

We were wondering about getting a USA translation done, know anyone with the skills:-)

JDM

This was an unkind comment. There's enough gratuitous bashing of America and Americans going around right now, we don't need to get it here, as well.

[winterbadger]

Comparing FOG to DBM:

- Possibly the most "controversial" element in FOG is the removal of push backs / recoils. This is inherent within unit cohesion (e.g. a fragmented unit may become fragmented as a result of losing a combat, but the unit isn't physically moved on the table. Instead a marker is used to represent this. The authors feel (probably correctly) that introducing pushbacks takes up play time without generally adding much value.

How does one then reflect battles like Cannae, where the retreat of the Carthaginian centre drew the Romans into a position where they were enveloped on both flanks?

[jdm]

More a private joke between Marc and I, we go back some way.

It most certainly was not meant to cause offence

JDM

[babyshark]

Hi Marc

We were wondering about getting a USA translation done, know anyone with the skills:-)

JDM

This was an unkind comment. There's enough gratuitous bashing of America and Americans going around right now, we don't need to get it here, as well.

I think JD was having a poke at me, more than anything else. He knows me to be a no-good American lawyer. I know him to be a no-good British judge.

[AlexandertheGreat]

This is my first post on this forum. I remember seeing/hearing about FOB about a half a year ago on the Osprey site. I have always wanted to start miniature gaming and now I find myself in a position where I have the time and money. Before I had look at the Warhammer series of books. What are the advantages of using FOB over WAB. I like periods such as Alexander and Successors, Punic Wars, HYW, WOTR, etc.

thanks

Edward

[thefrenchjester]

Hi Edward ,

welcome in the Bandwagon of Field of Glory !

take pleasure in games and painting ;

regards

thefrenchjester