This game is just like .........

[miffedofreading]

The most common comment I get from people who don't play these rules is "isn't FoG just like ....." Usually followed by WRG 6th edition!

HGaving read these rules over and over and hassled everyone on this forum, I would reluctantly have to say....

These rules are not very much like any other rules I have played or heard of at all!

Movement is a little different, melee and shooting are very different, Morale is different from other rules sets and I have never even heard of a set of rules that has a distinct impact phase where combat is resolved.

How can we get this message out to unbelievers?

Andy

[pyruse]

6th edition (and 7th IIRC) had impact factors which were somethimes different from those in sustained melee.
Not much other similarity, though.

[willb]

shock of impact by table top games also had impact and melee.

[tors]

its like.....its like....its like a real wargame....

Kingo

[shall]

well that was the idea so gad you think so

Si

[PELAGIUS]

It "looks" like 6th Edition because of the unit-based system...
It "looks" like Shattered Lances...
It "looks" like WAB...
etc etc etc

But what does it play like is the question?

Yours disgracefully

Pelagius

[nikgaukroger]

It plays like FoG

[PELAGIUS]

It plays like FoG

*Which is apparently a "real" wargame

*Unlike?

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

[goofaholix]

Compared with DBx, FOG is more like 6th edition, and 7th edition.

But then so is just about every other set of wargames rules ever written.

People just compare it with what they know.

DBx was quite unique, FOG is a step back into the mainsteam, hopefully it does things better than other sets available in the mainstream.

[PELAGIUS]

Compared with DBx, FOG is more like 6th edition, and 7th edition.

But then so is just about every other set of wargames rules ever written.

People just compare it with what they know.

DBx was quite unique, FOG is a step back into the mainsteam, hopefully it does things better than other sets available in the mainstream.

*Dear goofaholix that is a pretty amazing opinion if I may say so. Does that mean that in the decade and a half of DBX we have been enjoying an "alternative" to the mainstream?

*FoG is reactionary? People want the same games as prior to 1992(ish)? Maybe I had better get into the loft and see if I have my old WRG 4th Edition rules [Hostile Huns in the rear sir!!!] I could be onto a fortune...

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

[thefrenchjester]

Hi ,

Field of Glory rules have her own life to live and I hope that I will have another 15 years of pleasure in Wargaming with FOG and my friends all around the world ;

regards

thefrenchjester " carpe diem "

[ars_belli]

Does that mean that in the decade and a half of DBX we have been enjoying an "alternative" to the mainstream?

In terms of having units consisting of single bases/"elements," yes. Most other sets of ancients miniatures rules (and the overwhelming majority of rules sets in other historical periods) use units comprised of several bases, not just one. In fact, DBM and a handful of other "clones" are the only rule sets of which I am aware that take this "element-based" approach. And while I understand the use of single-base units in DBM as a logical development of the rules mechanics used in DBA, it frankly never made any sense to me in terms of representing the organization of most ancient armies.

*FoG is reactionary? People want the same games as prior to 1992(ish)?

Not "reactionary," just reflecting well-attested historical practice, as have many other rule sets created before, during, and after the heyday of DBM. Ten years from now, we may very well find that the "element-based" approach turned out to be a developmental "dead end" in historical miniatures gaming.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[hazelbark]

In terms of having units consisting of single bases/"elements," yes. Most other sets of ancients miniatures rules (and the overwhelming majority of rules sets in other historical periods) use units comprised of several bases, not just one. In fact, DBM and a handful of other "clones" are the only rule sets of which I am aware that take this "element-based" approach. And while I understand the use of single-base units in DBM as a logical development of the rules mechanics used in DBA, it frankly never made any sense to me in terms of representing the organization of most ancient armies.

I don't mean to be defending DBx here, but I think what you describe is both a feature and a PR weakeness of DBx elements based systems. The element is not intended to be organizational. What the argue is that the various coehesion status of units in say a FoG game are represented by the elements position. And where FoG has feed more bases into combat the DBx structure has Pips to put them in.

My view is part of the PR damage that DBx suffered was to not make it clear enough that PiPs weren't just command and control but also a morale abstraction and that elements were also a gage of morale status. Many did not understand it. Some did not like it.

Hence the preference by some for more explicit status.

Even in FoG speak I think in say a gallic army that 4 BGs of MF/impact foot are not 4 distinct units in the way napoleonic regiments had distinct units. But to group the 4 BGs into one large clump removes the ability to model various effects occuring across the battlefield. In our period some armies had units, some had groupings and some had everyone. Each rule set chooses to model this differently. Viva la difference.

[shall]

Even in FoG speak I think in say a gallic army that 4 BGs of MF/impact foot are not 4 distinct units in the way napoleonic regiments had distinct units. But to group the 4 BGs into one large clump removes the ability to model various effects occuring across the battlefield. In our period some armies had units, some had groupings and some had everyone. Each rule set chooses to model this differently. Viva la difference.

Actually in the process of FOGsa development we came at it a bit differently.

We looked at lots of battles and how they seemed to be set up. While sizes of armies varied there was a very clear pattern of C&C pyramid that came through.

1 c-in-c
2-3 senior generals
8-15 junior generals with troops clustered under them

Then it also seemed pretty clear that similar troops were bundled in blocks larger than unit level. So for instance you woudl find all the 4 Thracians under Mr X or all the numidian light horse under y or 4 tribes under s senior cheif etc.

This is where the BG concept came from as it seemed to apply equally truly to most smallHYW armies as it did to massive persian armies. The pyramid was the same roughly and troops under the junior general groupings stayed there in battles. If you look at books with maps of battles in them they generally have 8-15 blocks of troops on them just like BGs.

Senior generals tended to commanda wing or centre as they do in practice in FOG. But is some battles they did in fact switch positions and leave the junior generals to command their BGs under standing orders. Thius we allow that flex alnbeit that in 19 out of 20 games it doesn't get utilised much.

Hope that helps.

Si

[captainjack75040]

Afternoon all,

I got the rules yesterday and read them last night. My impression are they remind me of 6th Ed. in some regard and to me, this is a good thing. 7th Ed. was a poor concept and sadly, DBA and DBM just lacked any real realizism in a wargame environment. Warrior is a good set of rules, but too busy with unnecessary march phases and some morale test. Now, I can say up front, FOG is the best I have seen come out in a long time and has the feel of getting back to your capital troops actually having to fight and getting to fight. Sadly, some current sets of rules allow light troops to have too much power and Cav/KNs seem to run over LMI at ease and in doing so, never challenge the main the main capital troops like the HI.

So, don't worry about the similaries between 6th Ed. and FOG for as I said, its a good thing. You have a good product and the wargaming community is a lot better off with our efforts.

Captainjack

[hazelbark]

has the feel of getting back to your capital troops actually having to fight and getting to fight.

Yep one of its good features. Plus the main battle troops are the good troops.

[PELAGIUS]

[quote="captainjack75040"]Afternoon all,

DBA and DBM just lacked any real realizism in a wargame environment.

*Hallo captainjack

*I just wondered what you are trying to say here?

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

[goofaholix]

Afternoon all,

I got the rules yesterday and read them last night. My impression are they remind me of 6th Ed. in some regard and to me, this is a good thing. 7th Ed. was a poor concept and sadly, DBA and DBM just lacked any real realizism in a wargame environment.

You hear this a lot and what I think people are saying here is that DBx lacks detail on the micro level, where you know unit x is armed with this and armoured with that and had porridge for breakfast. 6th edition and WAB fall into this category.

Some people want this level of detail but to me this lacks realism because if I'm the General commanding an army I shouldn't be interested in this level of detail.

I think DBx is more realistic because it's level of abstraction is appropriate to the commander of an army. I think a lot of people who say they don't like DBx on realism grounds failed to really understand it.

My feeling is that FOG may have hit a good compromise between those who want realism on the micro level and those who want it on the macro level, here's hoping.

[benny]

We looked at lots of battles and how they seemed to be set up. While sizes of armies varied there was a very clear pattern of C&C pyramid that came through.

1 c-in-c
2-3 senior generals
8-15 junior generals with troops clustered under them

Then it also seemed pretty clear that similar troops were bundled in blocks larger than unit level. So for instance you woudl find all the 4 Thracians under Mr X or all the numidian light horse under y or 4 tribes under s senior cheif etc.

This is where the BG concept came from as it seemed to apply equally truly to most smallHYW armies as it did to massive persian armies. The pyramid was the same roughly and troops under the junior general groupings stayed there in battles. If you look at books with maps of battles in them they generally have 8-15 blocks of troops on them just like BGs.

Hi Si

I'm wondering how this works if you want to scale FOG up to bigger, multiplayer games? I ask as looking at the 1000pt doubles lists from Godendag on Tim Porter's site, all seem to be 15-17 BG which is pushing past the upper end of the 8-15 BG design model.

Does this mean that you shouldn't play FOG above 1000pts or is there a maximum number of BGs that you are allowed and after reaching that you must simply just take bigger BG's?

cheers

Benny (who hopes to get into FOG at some stage, once the dust settles)

[shall]

While tha above is the origin of the BG concept I don't think one needs to limit an army size much. Up to 20 BGs is fine. I have played up to 1400 points a side in testing and the mechanisms are fine. In fact I am contemplating a 1200 points triples format for a comp where you play 3 a side with a wing/centre/wing set up and an overiding C-in-C. Might be fun.

Usually if an army has lots of Bg many of them are relatively minor BGs that play a limited part in a battle and wouldn;t show up much. E.g. I haev a Parthian army with 16 Bgs but several of these are poor LF troops who sit at the back pl;aying little or no part which porbably would have been nundled into the camp in any such diagram or historical report.

Si