What I hate about FOG, and hope will be fixed in new FOGs

[LambertSimnel]

Well here it is a translated (?) version of our adaptation:

For this system a Pack of 52 cards and three jokers is needed.

Red cards represent units. As: the better one. the 2 the worst in the list. Hearts: full strength units or better options. Diamonds depleted unit or worst options. So a list of 26 units should be made for each army. We make it on equal points for all countries (1800pts) without generals. In some cases, like with rare units, heart and diamonds of the same number could be different type of units. In other cases for some countries it will be necessary that diamonds represent one unit and hearts two, in order to reach the necessary point’s total. If you have two cards of the same number and only one such unit in your collection, the heart card should be change for the immediate superior diamond. The diamond for the following inferior heart.






Here as a sample are the armies of our last battle (the one on the photos)

Ordonnace French:

1x 4b Italian men-at-arms
1x8b franc archers
1x6b Mounted ordonnace archers
3x6b Gendarmes
1x2b heavy artillery (deploy as light)
1x8b Swiss pikemen
1x6b Ordonnace archers (upgrade to superior)
1x6b French polearmsmen (drilled, poor, upgrade to average)
1x8b French crossbowmen (drilled, poor)
Inspired Commander, Field commander, 2Troop Commanders
Milanese allied contingent:
Field Commander
4b Famiglia ducale
4b Mercenary men-at arms
4b Mounted crossbowmen.

Naples:
1x6b Feudal men-at-arms
1x4b Feudal me-a-arms
2x6b Mercenary men-at-arms
2x4b Mercenary men-at-arms
1x2b Organ guns
1x8b Handguners (deployed as two units)
1x6b Militia crossbow
1x6b Archers
Inspired commander. 2xField Commanders
Fortified camp
16FF (only 12 deployed)
Venetian allied contingent:
2x6b Stradiots (cavalry)
Troop commander.

Naples won the Initiative and placed most of the terrain also makes use of one ambush and outflanking march.

This sounds interesting. Can you post the list of what forces each red cards gave, that you used when creating this battle?

[gozerius]

Back in the day we used to run an ancients and medieval campaign with multiple players using the ubiquitous "Map of the classical world" type map. Each player bought troops and moved counters representing them on the campaign map. When two opposing forces met, a tabletop battle was played with armies based on the points allocated to the counters.

[Skullzgrinda]

What we did (not with FoG but with other points based system) when we were starting was creating a mini-campaign. In our case we set up a minimum of points for all players.

Sounds like fun and a fun way to play. I think more variations like this ought to exist, as the "equal points tournament style" is a totally differnent beast.

Both have advantages.

Both have advantages, and each is complementary to the other.

The sort of campaign system discussed in this thread has always attracted me. I have a UK government survey of England, Scotland and Wales at one inch to the mile. It is a survey as things were in the late 9th century. Fortified burhs, monasteries and royal mints are indicated.

Someday it will make one hell of a campaign game.

(Having just finished the last Cornell book in the Saxon series, I just ordered some Anglo-Danes from Khurasan! )

[Mehrunes]

@Rekila

Many thanks, I can't wait to give it a try. Maybe I have some more detailed questions then.

[Rekila]

This sounds interesting. Can you post the list of what forces each red cards gave, that you used when creating this battle?

The French:
Hearts:
A,K,Q: Gendarmes 6b
J. Italian men-at-arms 4b
10 heavy artillery 4b
9 Ordonnance archers 8b
8,7 Swiss pikemen8b
6 Mounted ordonnance archers 6b
5 Polearmsmen (poor,drilled) 6b
4, Crossbowmen (poor drilled) 8b
3 Swiss handgunners 8b
2 Franc archers.8b
Diamonds.
A,K,Q, gendarmes 4b
J,10 Swiss 8b
9 Ordonnance archers 6b
8 Polearsmen.6b
7 crossbowmen (average, drilled)8b
6. Mounted ordonnance archers 4b
5 French crossbowmen. 6b
4 Franc archers 8b
3 Light artillery 2b
2 Swiss handgunners 4b

Naples
Hearts.
As, Feudal men-at-arms 6b
K,Q,J,10,9 Mercenary men-at-arms6b
8 Crossbowmen (average,drilled)8b
7 Halberdiers 6b
6 mounted crossbowmen 6b
5 Guards 4b
4 Heavy artillery 2b
3 handgunners 8b
2 militia crossbowmen 8b
Diamonds
As Feudal men-at-arms 4b
R,K,Q,J,10,9 mercenary men at arms 4b
8 sword and buckler men 6b
7 Aragonese crossbowmen8b
6 Turks 4b
5 organ guns 2b
4 archers 6b
3 mounted crossbowmen 4b
2 Militia crossbowmen 6b.
Some compromises were needed not only to adjust some points but also because we don’t have, for example, Swiss units bigger than 8 bases. Units are arranged for point values to allow the substitution when two cards of the same unit were picked. The Milanese allied contingent was select on a dice roll (the French player got the 3 best units) For The venetian allies, as they make the outflanking march, few units were left so I picked directly the Stradiots.

[LambertSimnel]

Thanks. I think I get what you were doing now.

[Rekila]

@Rekila

Many thanks, I can't wait to give it a try. Maybe I have some more detailed questions then.

Good luck. I will be glad to hear about it. Also of any new ideas. (Still fighting with the scanner )

[BeansNFranks]

If you want to have your own special in-house rules for terrain selection and placement, why not just agree them among yourselves?

There are already books out there defining scenarios, with special rules and objectives. Not specifically for FoG, but that shouldn't stop you using them.

Tournament playing wargamers AGREE on something? Have you not seen 30 minute debates on a fraction of a mm charge?

I agree with the OP, the game lacks variety and that is a flaw in design that should not have to fixed by individual players.

Part of the problem is that everything seems to be focused on tournament play, and not enough on campaign/scenario play. I don't mind the game having a tournament focus, but not at the expense of other styles of play.

[gozerius]

The terrain placement rules are specifically for tournament play. If you are creating an historical scenario, you can define the terrain and its placement as whatever you require. Want to do Agincourt? There are maps of the battlefield.

[Cerberias]

Tournament playing wargamers AGREE on something? Have you not seen 30 minute debates on a fraction of a mm charge?

Sportsmanship is a good thing .

[dave_r]

Tournament playing wargamers AGREE on something? Have you not seen 30 minute debates on a fraction of a mm charge?

I have played in more tournaments than most and no I have never seen a 30 minute debate on a fraction of a mm charge.

I agree with the OP, the game lacks variety and that is a flaw in design that should not have to fixed by individual players.

I believe it to be a flaw in the individual player if they can't come up with a scenario that they themselves want to play. The rules in the appendices describe tournament deployment. Why would you need the rules to tell you how to deploy on a specific scenario? I presume you would like the rules to cater for how to deploy for every battle in history?

Part of the problem is that everything seems to be focused on tournament play, and not enough on campaign/scenario play. I don't mind the game having a tournament focus, but not at the expense of other styles of play.

Everything isn't focused on tournament play, but the standard encounter is the type of game most frequently played. It is easiest to setup between two players and doesn't take much preparation time. There is a sub-forum on this website detailing scenario's I believe, so if you only want to play scenario's you can really go to town.

But if you can only whine because the rules don't lead you by the hand for specific battles then you have nobody to blame but yourself for not doing some prep and doing it yourself.

[david53]

Tournament playing wargamers AGREE on something? Have you not seen 30 minute debates on a fraction of a mm charge?

I agree with the OP, the game lacks variety and that is a flaw in design that should not have to fixed by individual players.

Part of the problem is that everything seems to be focused on tournament play, and not enough on campaign/scenario play. I don't mind the game having a tournament focus, but not at the expense of other styles of play.

And how many tournament games have you played then? surely quite a few to have a solid impression about FOG and tournaments.

I have played quite a few games in tournaments with FOG over the last two years and , in all my games never had a thirty miunte debate over a mm maybe a few other things like you do. Maybe I'm not entering the same events as you.

What problum do you have with campaign/scenario I play with a friend who only does historical match ups we set up the battle with the terrain that was there and use the rules to play its not rocket science. The rules are'nt broken if you want to play a historical battle read about it and work armies out seems quite easy to me.

[madmike111]

I think one of the worst things in FOG is the terrain selection and placement.

Seems that whenever an army that is mostly medium foot fights against a cav army the MF end up fighting on the steppes. Also what terrain does end up on the table gets pushed to the sides. The player not wanting much terrain, picks the min terrain and what terrain they pick is open areas. The player needing the terrain ends up having it moved to the table edges when the other player rolls their terrain adjustment rolls. Assuming they can place the terrain at all after having to work around the open areas.

Selecting neutral terrain like a gentle hill is usually a bad idea, the initial placement is a random roll and then the other player gets to roll and adjust its placement to a spot that suits them. Either for their benefit or if that isn’t possible then to a side of the table where it plays little part in the game.

While I hate DBMM I do think the layout of terrain was much nicer in those rules. I am toying with the idea of using it with the group I regularly game with.

[expendablecinc]

...While I hate DBMM I do think the layout of terrain was much nicer in those rules. I am toying with the idea of using it with the group I regularly game with.

I feel the pain of the MF army player faced with Steppe mounted opponents but DBMM terrain placement was attrocious. Way too easy to engineer terrain exactly where you want it. I Loved it when playing with by latin Greeks with catalan allies as I could almost guarantee a protected flank or terrain bridge to advance with reg AxS.

The current predominance of MF romans in the high rankings must mean they arent entirely gyped by terrain placement rules.

[madmike111]

I am thinking more about the poor Dacians or similar irregular army with large battle groups than MF Romans. For all DBMM terrain placement faults I always thought that the end result was a table with much more pleasing, realistically evenly spaced terrain.

I play miniatures for the visual aspects of the game with the look of the table being an important factor. We try and use the best looking terrain available.

While the group I game with don’t subscribe to the school of using swarms of MF battle groups from what I have read on this forum this seems to be another area that might need to be addressed.

[chubooga]

Ive gotta say, Ive played a few tourneys, and found 99% of the players to be gents, very helpful explaining the rules and happy enough in winning and loosing to make the games a pleasure. No 30minute arguments in any game ever, over anything at all........... though some have played at a slower pace than me, and some wanted me to play at a faster or slower pace like them...........depending on army composition / strategy / match up etc its gonna happen...

There has been the odd .......... person...... who seemed to think the game was an indication of something important, rather than a game of toy soldiers, maybe theyre just overcomensating for something else? but these gamers arent limited to tourneys they can also be found at clubs or anywhere else....as well as other hobbies....


I do agree with madmike...in that the FOG terrain deployment doesnt seem to produce a nice looking table........... but then I thought maybe thats because of the laziness of gamers (like me) using peices of felt to be fields / hills / marshes etc rather than make some nice models?

Not sure why anyone should be accused on whining on here just because they have a different take on the game? it will soon become a closed forum if people are e-shouted down just for having a differing opinion.

For my own views, most armies with more than 14 BGs (generalisation) swings the balance of the rules away from a 3hr game and into boredom, and certainly IMHO, any army with more than 16BG's has been designed to not loose rather than enjoy...for me anyway, lol, while I am on 'whinging' I also think baggage should be a more than a single BG loss if captured...... for all armies....but mainly to encourage theose dasterdly LH types to make a fight of it

jon

[ShrubMiK]

>I feel the pain of the MF army player faced with Steppe mounted opponents but DBMM terrain placement was attrocious. Way too easy to engineer terrain >exactly where you want it. I Loved it when playing with by latin Greeks with catalan allies as I could almost guarantee a protected flank or terrain bridge to >advance with reg AxS.

And here we differ...if we intend the battle to be a reasonable analog of real-life, then allowing a commander who feels the need to secure a flank a reasonable chance of finding some suitable terrain and drawing up his army there would not seem unreasonable.

Perhaps opponents worried about this possibility should consider taking some troops capable of at least keeping any occupants of terrain at the flanks occupied for long enough to prosecute a frontal assault without interference? This is why I always like to have at least 2 half decent MF BGs if possible, even with something like Palmyrans!

I don't have a big problem with FoG terrain placement system myself, and there are a few sensible things you can do when placing to mitigate the pain if the opponent gets to shift it 6"...but I do think I prefer the DBMM system as tending to lead to more "interesting" battlefields.

[LambertSimnel]

I do agree with madmike...in that the FOG terrain deployment doesnt seem to produce a nice looking table........... but then I thought maybe thats because of the laziness of gamers (like me) using peices of felt to be fields / hills / marshes etc rather than make some nice models?

Not just laziness, there's the logistics of the matter. To be able to lay down mandatory features for any terrain type that your opponent chose you would need the following pieces: an open field, an enclosed field, a brush, a forest, a steep hill and a sand dune, most of which wouldn't be used in any given game, not to mention whatever terrain you actually want to use. It doesn't surprise me that the large variety of terrain you have to take to a tournament only for it to spend half the games sat in the box, results in players using felt-and-stuff terrain for its portability as well as for its ease of creation.

[mellis1644]

It's true that most Flames of War tourney's with the real nice terrain are fixes boards, which players play over.

Maybe a tournament like that would make for a more interesting game... Some real scenarios (at least options for them) may also make a difference.

[hazelbark]

I am thinking more about the poor Dacians or similar irregular army with large battle groups than MF Romans.

I've run the dacians a few times and the terrain is of mixed value. yea you can hide in against some folks but the strength is it wants to come to grips with most foes.

It seems good enough versus a lot of foes.