How are games won?

Mahatma · Post by **Mahatma** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:21 am

This is an intentionally vague question, because I'm not sure how to ask it.

What are the most important factors in determining which army will be successful in FoG?

Is it mobility? Terrain? Generalship? Army composition? Cheating?

Andy1972 · Post by **Andy1972** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:54 am

Depends on your style... One army you would not be good with.. The next person would kick ass with it... and vias versa .Just a generalization. Some armies you just play and tweek it, to get the right combo that works for you... Terrain can sometimes hurt you in a game.. But usually won't destroy you.

jre · Post by **jre** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:13 am

I know this may seem obvious, but battles are won by killing enough enemy troops without losing too many yourself.

That means that even before deployment, based on what you know about your enemy and your army, you have to be thinking: Which of his BGs will I destroy? How will I keep my losses down? Is the camp a target (either itself or by having weak guards)? Will I fight for my camp or leave it undefended? That will affect the choice of terrain and its placing, and one of the most delicate parts, the deployment.

Both of you will be trying to get your "killers" facing their intended "victims", whether it is Legionnaries facing weaker HF, knights against cavalry, or MF impact foot against bowmen. The opponent will try to do the same, considering that some of your "killers" may be his "victims".

Then we have both the character of the army and the player, which should be in synchrony. An aggresive, proactive player will probably have trouble with a reactive army like HYW English, and a reactive player may be unhappy with an undrilled army that has trouble redeploying and changing lines of approach.

The best way to check is trial and error. Unfortunately there are many armies I like historically that I just cannot make to work.

Then during the game remember what are your targets, and stick to them if possible, but react to opportunities or menaces. The nature of the game is that some of your "sure things" will fail or flounder, and your opponent will suffer similar misfortunes. Adapting to the changing situation is the difference between a loss and a win in a close fought game.

But first and foremost this is a killing game. You need to have a plan, when the deployment ends, on what units of the enemy will give you points, and what units of yours you can afford to lose. That again depends on your army. Unless you have several LH BGs do not count on killing LH except by enemy mistake (or deliberate sacrifice), and that should be a gift, not part of the plan. LF can be taken out also with missile troops, but only if they come out to fight, or if you outflank the enemy.

That also means that against certain armies your light troops are liabilities to be protected, rather than difficult to lose troops. Better do something about that on terrain set up and troop deployment, or you may get caught if you just do a "standard" set up.

But we get back to the bloodyness. It is important to hamper the enemy movements, make sure you have rear support, rout lines and secure flanks. But it is more important to kill/break some enemies, and to do that reliably you need lots of projectiles in the right places or advantageous close combat.

Armies have a balance of their own, something like the BGs, that once they start losing, it is a downhill slope. Once you get a slight advantage and are pushing on the enemy, you have them downhill and slipping.

That mastery lies in getting there.

José

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:28 am

Jose (JRE). - That was a great answer!

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:06 pm

Now I know what I've been doing wrong!

Pete

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:11 pm

I liked the bits about killers and victims. Makes it sink in a bit more.

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:52 pm

I agree -- a great summation of what it takes to win. Think about your army's style and your own. I find it helpful to focus on what an army can do, and adjust accordingly but you have take your own temperament into account regardless. My friend Mark is known locally as "Old Pesky" because he excels using light troops in an effective harassing fashion. Me, I'm more about bringing force to bear at a particular point in the enemy line or a sweeping flanking maneuver.

Oh, and a good sense of humor will help keep you relaxed as you figure out how to kill the enemy

Dale

Omar · Post by **Omar** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:37 pm

That is an awesome post, very well written. Thank you for posting that.

Does anyone know of a "killer to victim" table? What units are the most useful to kill whatever other units.

Wish I was at home, would use a quote from Sun Tzu that I like. About using your best against his second best, second best against his third best, and third best against his best. You loose one, he looses two.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:04 pm

Omar wrote:Wish I was at home, would use a quote from Sun Tzu that I like. About using your best against his second best, second best against his third best, and third best against his best. You loose one, he looses two.

Always assuming that his third best aren't better than your best!

Omar · Post by **Omar** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:21 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Omar wrote:Wish I was at home, would use a quote from Sun Tzu that I like. About using your best against his second best, second best against his third best, and third best against his best. You loose one, he looses two.
Always assuming that his third best aren't better than your best!

If that is the case, I am playing the wrong army..

rtaylor · Post by **rtaylor** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:03 pm

philqw78 wrote:I liked the bits about killers and victims. Makes it sink in a bit more.

Ancient and medieval battle is essentially a race. Whose killers will do in the other guy's victims first? Causing the first rout can be decisive -- cohesion tests for nearby battlegroups, and a hole that might be exploited for overlaps or flank attacks. Skirmishing and harassing delays the evil hour when his killers start on your victims.

chubooga · Post by **chubooga** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:12 pm

nah! just take loads of small cheap BG's

swap one for one but roll the flanks!

jon

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:54 pm

rtaylor wrote:
philqw78 wrote:I liked the bits about killers and victims. Makes it sink in a bit more.
Ancient and medieval battle is essentially a race. Whose killers will do in the other guy's victims first? Causing the first rout can be decisive -- cohesion tests for nearby battlegroups, and a hole that might be exploited for overlaps or flank attacks. Skirmishing and harassing delays the evil hour when his killers start on your victims.

Glad my fiancee is not reading this forum she would think I was crazy playing FOG. Might even hide the kitchen knives at night.

Brian

jre · Post by **jre** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:18 pm

Thanks for the kind comments. I think it is a very valid question, because many people I play are really playing to avoid losing rather than playing to win, trusting in their opponent to make a big mistake before they do it. There is a clear satisfaction when you play someone who also aims to win, even if they beat you, even if the constant maneuvering for an advantage means you draw. At times it leaves a better taste than a win, such a loss or draw. Just like football.

Now if I only knew how to win in three hours...

José

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:46 pm

jre wrote:Thanks for the kind comments. I think it is a very valid question, because many people I play are really playing to avoid losing rather than playing to win, trusting in their opponent to make a big mistake before they do it. There is a clear satisfaction when you play someone who also aims to win, even if they beat you, even if the constant maneuvering for an advantage means you draw. At times it leaves a better taste than a win, such a loss or draw. Just like football.

Now if I only knew how to win in three hours...

José

Playing in non-tournament matches we don't seem to have that issue--though we still play to a self-imposed time limit (four hours usually).

I'm still working on the winning part...

Cheers,

Dale