Slitherine

philqw78 wrote:What about Italian Ostrogoth. Is nobody going to copy that?

already used Normans down the club this week....

fredrik wrote:In my opinion, the best way to shake things up is to change the scenario. Most other tournament games have a mechanism whereby you roll for your scenario at the start of the game, why not a similar thing in FOG? For example, take and hold objectives would be a way to make HF viable again - rationalize it as the army needing take a hill to construct a new camp closer to a water source. Or, one side needs to break through the blocking enemy army to exit as many units as possible on the opposite long edge, a great scenario for a mounted attacker against a foot defender. Different types of scenarios benefit different troop types, the one scenario in the rules just happen to benefit mounted troops as the rules are written.

I am not sure that scenarios as such are appropriate to Ancient battles. The vast majority of battles (that aren't seiges) fall into only two types, the straight forwards line up and have at it (which make up most of the battles we have records of) and the attack on a moving force either by ambush or just riding round and shooting.

There were very few ammo dumps and vital crossroads or bridges in Ancient times so a lot of the ideas used in other periods don't work.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of different parameters to games and use them most of the time in the WWII games I play but I just don't see that they really fit into Ancients.

hammy wrote: I am not sure that scenarios as such are appropriate to Ancient battles. The vast majority of battles (that aren't seiges) fall into only two types, the straight forwards line up and have at it (which make up most of the battles we have records of) and the attack on a moving force either by ambush or just riding round and shooting.

There were very few ammo dumps and vital crossroads or bridges in Ancient times so a lot of the ideas used in other periods don't work.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of different parameters to games and use them most of the time in the WWII games I play but I just don't see that they really fit into Ancients.

I guess that partly depends on what level of combat we're modeling in FOG. What is an "army" in FOG terms? Given the tactical nature of the system I would have no problem accepting that a battle represented a lower level engagement than the set-piece battles we read about in history.

While I do agree with you that scenario writing for ancients would be trickier than for say WWII, there are plenty of descriptions of smaller scale engagements before the main battles of our period, to complete a circumvallation, jockeying for control of a fresh water source etc, that could be used as background for ancients scenarios. And while there are few recorded battles for ammo dumps in ancient times, I'd wager there are even fewer recorded battles between say medieval Scandinavians and Nubians, but we readily accept those in our tournaments don't we?

grahambriggs wrote:And finally a note about terrain: there really needs to be a change in mindset in the ancients community regarding the modeling of terrain. Personally, I find it quite heartbreaking spending half a year painstakingly researching and painting an army only to play it on a table littered with colored felt and cardboard. I played a high-profile international event this summer where my opponent actually put down a plain cardboard circle and wrote the terrain type on it with a marker! For shame!

Since I've been fogging I've made an effort to steer clear of felt terrain, useful and lightweight as it is, and at least put down modelled terrain even if it's not the best. It's light enough to travel with.

Excellent points. I am slowly wokring on this too.

I have to agree with the comments re terrain. Although I haven't played in tournaments for a good few years I still attend shows etc. and am always saddened to see a beautifully painted army slogging it out over painted chipboard and felt! I hate running my troops out over a bit of cloth! For me a big part of the game is the visual appeal and although at shows this is often on full display with excellent demo games I feel the dozen tables with poor terrain for the tournaments are always a let down.

Now I don't have an easy solution to this and I'm sure there are exceptions but it is something I think needs addressing...

Cheers

Andy

OT I know but...

Phil, those of us who play R*m*ns have a hard enough time already, don't give the Anti-R*m*n parties ideas... besides what will you do with that much molten lead?

'I even have a working volcano for my Romans'

CountBelisarius wrote:I have to agree with the comments re terrain. Although I haven't played in tournaments for a good few years I still attend shows etc. and am always saddened to see a beautifully painted army slogging it out over painted chipboard and felt! I hate running my troops out over a bit of cloth! For me a big part of the game is the visual appeal and although at shows this is often on full display with excellent demo games I feel the dozen tables with poor terrain for the tournaments are always a let down.

Now I don't have an easy solution to this and I'm sure there are exceptions but it is something I think needs addressing...

Cheers

Andy

True you can use nicely made up hills on a friendly club game. But try placing your troops on a slope in a tournement and watch them fall then try and measure from which base front in a BG with no stright front edge. To some people measurments do count I could see problums there. I am all for laying out terrain as FOW but I don't think that will ever happen.

I haven't been in the hobby long but bought some nice hills from Ebay and had the exact same problem. They may have looked the part but it was hard sometimes keeping 1 base in line never mind whole BG's.

It may not look as good but I now use thin layers of mdf as it is a lot more practical.

I apologize if my post results OT or banal. I must admit I hadn't enough time to read all posts, and I know it's contrary to net etiquette to write a post in such conditions. Anyway, basing on contents of many posts I read, I think this idea is worth a look. Before to expose the idea, I want to describe quickly what is IMO the greatest problems with terrain rules, problems common with all other rulesets I know and which have as major effect to make unusable armies of many nations, because such armies are not competitive without the terrain where historically fought. First problem is many armies with a lot of MF/LF with difficulty will can choose the territory type. Second problem is such armies anyway have low chances to get a terrain which favour them even if they are fighting against an enemy which historically always was the invader (ask to Greek where Thracian fought them )

The following concepts are most taken from "Magna Graecia" by Rob Smith, a campaign system I still use with great satisfaction. At last, these ideas must be used in theme tournaments, because in open tournaments would be inapplicable.

1. You must prepare a certain numbers of different battlefield for each territory type (Agricultural, Hilly, etc.); each terrain should be a square with side of 8' (for games on a standard 6'x4' table) divided in sub squares with side of 2'
2. You must decide which side is invader (and we need a rule different from initiative; in theme tournaments could be a table to cross index, where some match up have always a side as invader and some others require a die roll)
3. defender chooses 2 adjacent sides as possible attacker rout, then invader chooses between these 2 his entry side
4. now defender chooses the strip where battle will be fought, this strip must be 2 sub squares wide (4')
5. invader chooses to take away a file of 1 sub square wide (rightmost or leftmost only)

Robert241167 wrote:I haven't been in the hobby long but bought some nice hills from Ebay and had the exact same problem. They may have looked the part but it was hard sometimes keeping 1 base in line never mind whole BG's.

It may not look as good but I now use thin layers of mdf as it is a lot more practical.

One solution I've seen is to put a tiny bit of blu-tak on the bottom of the bases. It creates just enough friction to stop them sliding down the hill.

Being still on holliday with the familly I react a bit late .

I loved the BBA ! ok I used a byzantine army

As for the quality of terrain, you must also bear in mind the difficulty of taking beautifull terrain when you take the plane ... so be good with people who use felt or cardboard..

david53 wrote:True you can use nicely made up hills on a friendly club game. But try placing your troops on a slope in a tournement and watch them fall then try and measure from which base front in a BG with no stright front edge. To some people measurments do count I could see problums there. I am all for laying out terrain as FOW but I don't think that will ever happen.

Yes, I agree about hills and slopes making it difficult for standing figures on but you can still use stepped terrain and make it look good. You can use nice looking fields and rough ground and woods without detriment to the 'game'. Anything to improve over the bits of felt.

I've been trying fields, woods and broken ground on thin mdf (some pics on by blog http://blog.belisarius.org.uk/search/label/terrain). Now I don't play tournaments at the moment so they may not work but I think they look better than felt.

Andy

http://blog.belisarius.org.uk/

My terrain consists of some nice foam hills that were done by a past master of hill construction. On an MDF base, the slopes are shallow enough (about %10) that the figures don't tip. I also have felt for the flat terrain, but use Woodand Scenics trees, lichen and bits of stone to model the exact terrain type. My village is depicted with nice resin buildings. I got some "tree bark" camoflage cloth once and use that to depict "broken ground". I trimmed along the pattern so the edge is very irregular. Would probably cause some peoples' heads to explode with accusations of cheesiness.
[/img]

Were was the picture taken if you don't mind me asking.
Dave

What about Italian Ostrogoth. Is nobody going to copy that?

Why not the byzantines , it did work rather well you know except for the 3 x 6 of a certain Ostrogoth . the way he squealed, must have been an eunuque

Sorry phil could not resist that one .

Hope to see some of you in Brussels for our tournament 6th-7th february 2010 . More info will follow .

bahdahbum wrote:
Hope to see some of you in Brussels for our tournament 6th-7th february 2010 . More info will follow .

A good time to get some Mussels. Roughly where in the city or outskirts?

Were was the picture taken if you don't mind me asking.
Dave

Coon Rapids, Minnesota, 27 June 2009, at the Minnesota Miniatures Gamers Association (MMGA) Recon. We run a game day about 2-4 times a year at the Coon Rapids MN VFW Post. The FoG contingient is growing. We had 6 participants at the last one out of 70+ gamers in attendence. The next one is 7 November 2009. The MMGA is a very loose association of mostly Twin Cities gamers who show up, pay their $7, and write their name and address down on the registration sheet. The Dictator for Life, George Hord, then rents the hall and sends out a newsletter once in a while. Somebody used to maintain a website, but I don't think it's been updated in 5 years, though we do have a Yahoo group.

A friend bought some rubber terrain at Britcon this year. The pieces are a step up from felt and looked very impressive for rough ground, marshes etc. There was even a rubber village! Impressive terrain which can also travel easily.

DavidT wrote:A friend bought some rubber terrain at Britcon this year. The pieces are a step up from felt and looked very impressive for rough ground, marshes etc. There was even a rubber village! Impressive terrain which can also travel easily.

Rubber always looks nice

Phil, are you really Jer in disguise?