PC FoG?

wilf12358 · Post by **wilf12358** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:12 pm

Hi All,

FoG Newb here - still working through the Rulebook, and still enjoying the experience

As I learn about PoAs, etc., I'm musing over the Slitherine aspect of the partnership and wondering if FoG would be developed as a PC-format game?
Given business experience to date? Would provide a means of solo-play, network/LAN/web remote gameplay, virtual army builder,etc.

Just a thought....
Cheers!
Wilf

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:02 pm

There is plenty out there already that is similar including Slitherine's own Legion.

Phaze_of_the_Moon · Post by **Phaze_of_the_Moon** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:59 pm

Vassal plus the De Bellis Vassalus module should be enough to play: http://www.vassalengine.org/community/index.php

wilf12358 · Post by **wilf12358** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:08 pm

You've also got DBA online.

Other slitherine software duly noted - must check them out (I've only dabbled in Rome-Total War)

The desire would be to play virtual FoG: to recreate the FoG rules & mechanics when actual tabletop gameplay is unavailable
i.e. don't have the resources/opponent/armies, etc., to hand.

Svejk1914 · Post by **Svejk1914** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:49 pm

Phaze_of_the_Moon wrote:Vassal plus the De Bellis Vassalus module should be enough to play: http://www.vassalengine.org/community/index.php

As the original designer of the VASSAL mod De Bellis Vassalus and one of two currently working on it, I would be more than happy to make the changes necessary to play FOG via VASSAL if there is any interest here.

Would mostly need a larger board size, most everything else should be usable as is. I have discussed doing up some nicer looking terrain pieces with the other chap that is working on the mod, those should be along eventually. I think FOG would require somewhat larger terrain pieces anyway.

So, let me know if there is any interest in such a thing.

randynovotny · Post by **randynovotny** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:10 am

Bardolph wrote:
Phaze_of_the_Moon wrote:Vassal plus the De Bellis Vassalus module should be enough to play: http://www.vassalengine.org/community/index.php
As the original designer of the VASSAL mod De Bellis Vassalus and one of two currently working on it, I would be more than happy to make the changes necessary to play FOG via VASSAL if there is any interest here.

Would mostly need a larger board size, most everything else should be usable as is. I have discussed doing up some nicer looking terrain pieces with the other chap that is working on the mod, those should be along eventually. I think FOG would require somewhat larger terrain pieces anyway.

So, let me know if there is any interest in such a thing.

I for one would be glad to play on my PC when not able to use the tabletop.

willb · Post by **willb** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:35 am

i have a whole bunch of files from an australian group that was playing dbm with cyberboard. cyberboard is play-by-email instead of direct online as vassel is.

Svejk1914 · Post by **Svejk1914** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:23 am

VASSAL is quite capable of PBEM as well as live online play. I was a fan of Cyberboard back before VASSAL, but it simply doesn't have the features VASSAL does these days.

I'll get a test version done up, and posted on the VASSAL forums. Shouldn't take too long as I can use most of the stuff I used in the DBA module.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:36 am

Just to avoid any confusion, any use of the Field of Glory name, rules, lists, game mechanics, logo and anything else related to the product requires the express written permission of Slitherine.

I'm sure you guys understand how much time and money has been invested in the project and that we need to protect our intellectual property and ensure we can go on to produce more games like this, helping to grow the hobby.

Atkins · Post by **Atkins** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:05 am

Hi

I would have thought the only problem with the copyright would be the name, and the inclusion of any Play Sheets.

Nathaniel · Post by **Nathaniel** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:05 pm

iainmcneil wrote:Just to avoid any confusion, any use of the Field of Glory name, rules, lists, game mechanics, logo and anything else related to the product requires the express written permission of Slitherine.

Actually, there's one inaccuracy in the above statement. Rules and game mechanics. They can't be copyrighted. Their exact wording as published certainly is copyrighted, but I could write my own set of ancient rules and use the exact same processes that FoG uses. That's the difference right there-- processes. Thus they are covered by patents and not copyright. That said, I couldn't use the same terms or any of the language from the rules. I'd have to talk about inches, units and whatnot rather than MUs and the like. Game mechanics are a process and thus can never be copyrighted. The actual wording and presentation of those mechanics most definitely can be copyrighted.

Don't worry though-- your fans are not out to get you. Slitherine should never become adversarial with it's customers. It creates a lot of bad blood. No one is going to make a rip-off rules set and if someone makes a fan based online game version, I'd recommend not sending lawyers after them and in effect, declaring war on your own fans. Just let them know they can't call it Field of Glory or use any of your imagery, terms, etc.,.

Please do not declare war on fan based projects. Just apprise them of your concerns and work with them. Avoid alienating your own customers with litigation against their peers. Please don't be that company.

I'm not saying Slitherine is headed in that direction, but just warning it's one of the fastest ways of alienating your fan base.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:44 pm

This is the usual response but I think people miss the point. It's not about us alienating our existing players, it's about ensuring someone does not screw up the image of the game, and alienate any potential new players.

From our point of view we can only endorse things that meet a certain level of quality. A Vassals version of FoG is outside our control and if it looks and feels very clunky then it's unlikely we would want to be associated with it as this could damage our reputation. We've gone to extreme lengths to ensure everything about FoG is of the absolute highest quality possible and we don't want anything to bring that down.

Nathaniel · Post by **Nathaniel** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:32 pm

Oh, I completely agree. FoG is of the highest quality and I can see why you would want to keep inferior things being associated with it.

But as far as someone using some online table top or writing their own program using the processes present in Field of Glory, as long as they don't use Field of Glory imagery, text, logos, trademarks, names, etc., they are perfectly within their rights to make what they will. The second they try to pass it off as actually being Field of Glory though, they've crossed the line.

What I'm getting at though, is that it's bad form to be too aggressive in defending your rights. For example, if some fan makes a fan site with some home made army lists and house rules and what not, you don't want to have your lawyers send them a cease and decist letter because you feel the production value of their fan website isn't up to snuff and might "screw up the image of the game."

I'm not saying Slitherine would do anything of the sort, but simply offering a reminder that you probably don't want a reputation as a company that sues it's fans and customers.

If there were to be a FoG online game, I'd want one with the same high production values and imagery of Field of Glory itself. I applaud any actions you take to make sure this is the case, short of denying others their own legal rights (such as their right to use non patented processes as they see fit).

jdm · Post by **jdm** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:21 pm

Hi Nathanial

I notice that you are a new visitor to the Slitherine forums, and this is an interesting and hypothetical debate but had you been around longer you would probably realise that we value the views and opinions of our customers highly and reach out to them as best as we are able. So we think that we have a pretty sound understand of how to avoid alienating our “fanbase”, but we do value your advice and so far as helping with fan sites, events and competitions go, we support these all over the world. However it seems to me that’s not what is being debated here. The situation changes when a thief tries to make a pecuniary gain from someone’s IP.

Slitherine has had eight successful years in the industry as an independent developer and recently we reached out through our Kameleon Project www.kameleon-project.com to help new and aspiring games developers to bring their games, all original IP, to market. Commanders Europe at war is the first release under this initiative and it has proved immensely successful.
All of the companies in the Kameleon Project and Slitherine work immensely hard over thousands of man hours to bring quality games to the market and these days that’s not cheap, so as you would suspect we vigorously protect both their and our rights, and in most cases, others respect and appreciate that in order to make decent games we need to make a living. Sure there are pirates but most reasonable people despise these thief’s and recognise the damage they do to hard working studios.

Now imagine a scene where some bandit thinks that they can simply pop up and steal your property. This may be a computer a printer or something far more important if you are a creator of original IP...you’ve got it! and I know from our mailbox and the support that we get from our visitors and customers what they think about plagiarism, nobody likes a sneak thief.

As I said, I know we are all talking hypothetically here and it is an interesting debate. I have seen this sort of discussion on various sites over the years and you would be surprised about the sort of rubbish that gets spouted about intellectual property law and copyright law. I know it makes me smile, but as its usually harmless banter like this, what’s the harm. I guess it would only get serious when someone thinks that they have found a loophole in the law. Believe me it is a multi faceted and complex aspect of legal systems worldwide, you only have to see the documents we get from our lawyers to understand this and we deal with this stuff all year round.

Interestingly, Osprey our publishers for FoG, also have some experience in this field, although their involvement and rights whilst similar, are different from ours. Mind you a joint actions in situations like you describe, by the injured parties are not uncommon as it halves the costs.

The only real consideration for would be thieves or pirates of intellectual property is, "will they catch me and if I get caught have the litigants got the bucks to sue my backside off, win lose or draw, and will the injunctions they slaps all over me whilst the legal’s get sorted out, last long enough to bury me”. In this sort of litigation, irrespective of which side you are on and who is right, it’s all about funding the litigation. The prime rule is if you can’t afford it , no matter how right you think you are don’t go there.

Anyway I’ve enjoyed the debate and if you want to continue this without boring the pants of the gamers PM me. If I picked up right you are involved in the industry, so why not drop us a line in connection with the Kameleon Project, we might be able to help you bring your games to the market.

Best regards
JDM

Atkins · Post by **Atkins** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:11 pm

Hi

As much as I would like to climb in here we are missing the point. Lets find a name like "Virtual Ancient Battle Field", provide terrain and element representations which are suitable for use in 7th, Warrior, all the DB??? indeed all the games which use the unofficial gaming standard for basing and put that on Vassal.

Unfortunately I doubt I could be of much help, though I have added "units" to an unofficial moduel.