Slitherine

I agree, you need to focus on very different skills to do well at FoG

Which skills would you say I should focus on?

Fluffy wrote:

I agree, you need to focus on very different skills to do well at FoG

Which skills would you say I should focus on?

FoG is a game which rewards planning and timing rather than clever tricks.

Fundamental things like identifying where you should reinforce an attack and not commiting too much to a losing cause.

In game terms the two most important things are:
* To be aware of where your troops will evade and where they will rout if they break. FoG is very precise on where things go and once you get the hang of the evade rules you should be able to avoid the problems caused by your own evaders or routers breaking through your second line troops.
* Remember that you can move commanders in both Joint Action Phases. Make sure that your commanders are where they need to be when they need to be there. This links in with the planning and timing comments above.

All these skills were useful in DBM but a lot of players spent too much time focusing on the tricks and not enough on the more abstract layers of the game. IMO the best DBM players were the ones who knew the tricks and traps so well that they could spend the bulk of their effort working on just this.

Fluffy wrote:

I agree, you need to focus on very different skills to do well at FoG

Which skills would you say I should focus on?

In addition to Hammy's list I'd add the following difference:

In DBM, a lot of time one can be desperately trying to extricate a command that has taken heavy damage, as a bit more damage will take the command out and it's bye bye army.

FoG plays differently. You have to decide a couple of moves earlier whether you want to commit or not - DBM timing is too late! On the other hand, if a flank is going pear shaped in FoG you are often better getting stuck in before it gets worse: combats can move quickly enough that you can break through in time.

When moving from DBM to FoG I found it quite hard to get the right attitude to strike troops (eg proper knights). In DBM, one the strike troops in a command died that was often a third of my army reduced to doing not much (because the remaining troops were weaker and I needed to preserve the command). In FoG, all that's happened is that one of many battle groups has died, and has often done some damage.

Timing is a knack that comes with practice. In an early game I could see that some front line troops of mine were going to break so i cleverly positioned reserves to take the pursuers in flank. Too late I realised that my troops were going to break in my bound, and the pursuers were able to react to my reserves and chop them up too!

PaulByzan wrote:Wow, now I'm really intrigued. So there's this guy Colin (note just one name and all the English guys know him) in RSA who has such dominance over all the other gamers there that they use DBM over FoG despite their personal preference or have to play in huddled secret groups? So what's the story behind that?

Colin has been a huge positive factor in the growth in south africa and world wide miniature wargaming. He ranks as a founder in amny regards. But the critcial challenge to any founder is when to step aside and let things develop without your control.

The second big difference, is compared to nearly every other country, what we call wargaming receives state support and sanction in south africa. So you pick any country and add tax dollars and bureaucracy and things change.

Neither of the above are spot on, but you can see from something that approximates that, a lot of different issues flow.

Comparing FoG to DBA may be more of a parallel.

In DBM you had 55-65 units each could make a huge variety of moves with in PIP limitations.

DBA and FOG you are focusing on 12-16. The moves are more limited which increases planning. Knowing what you plan to do 2 turns in advance.

having a sound strategy to bring the weight of your army into action is critical in FoG. In DBM you could deploy and often slaughter an opponent with rules and a key fast moving group of elements.

In FoG a good strategy often makes up for a lack of rule knowledge. A good strategy by mid level player can beat the lack of a plan by a better player. The opposite is DBM.

hazelbark wrote:

PaulByzan wrote:Wow, now I'm really intrigued. So there's this guy Colin (note just one name and all the English guys know him) in RSA who has such dominance over all the other gamers there that they use DBM over FoG despite their personal preference or have to play in huddled secret groups? So what's the story behind that?

Colin has been a huge positive factor in the growth in south africa and world wide miniature wargaming. He ranks as a founder in amny regards. But the critcial challenge to any founder is when to step aside and let things develop without your control.

The second big difference, is compared to nearly every other country, what we call wargaming receives state support and sanction in south africa. So you pick any country and add tax dollars and bureaucracy and things change.

Neither of the above are spot on, but you can see from something that approximates that, a lot of different issues flow.

All very true but when I get personal mails from various players in RSA who really want to play FoG and organise their own FoG tournaments but are told that they cannot do so without sanction from MSSA something is a little wrong.

When members of MSSA cannot enter tournaments in other countries without clearance from MSSA to allow them to pay their own money to play a game in the country that they are living in then something is very wrong indeed.

hazelbark wrote:In FoG a good strategy often makes up for a lack of rule knowledge. A good strategy by mid level player can beat the lack of a plan by a better player. The opposite is DBM.

Some of my losses make more sense now, I'm not used planning much with LH.

In terms of DBM vs FoG this is something that makes me like FoG more, I it just me or can I use it to get people playing FoG?

hammy wrote:All very true but when I get personal mails from various players in RSA who really want to play FoG and organise their own FoG tournaments but are told that they cannot do so without sanction from MSSA something is a little wrong.

When members of MSSA cannot enter tournaments in other countries without clearance from MSSA to allow them to pay their own money to play a game in the country that they are living in then something is very wrong indeed.

Perhaps the IWF should take a stance if a member state is only allowing a single set of rules. Has the president of the IWF got the balls to say anything? (a simple yes or no would do Hammy)

Not that it really matters, DBM is dieing as all orphaned rules before. Maybe in 20 years 20 people will still play.

philqw78 wrote:Perhaps the IWF should take a stance if a member state is only allowing a single set of rules. Has the president of the IWF got the balls to say anything? (a simple yes or no would do Hammy)

Fortunately the rules of the IWF don't allow the IWF to lett its members what to do. Be thankful that is the case otherwise you might find a number of large South Africans turning up at your place and enforcing the 'one true game'

hammy wrote:Fortunately the rules of the IWF don't allow the IWF to lett its members what to do. Be thankful that is the case otherwise you might find a number of large South Africans turning up at your place and enforcing the 'one true game'

If they're as big as Colin they may turn up but they won't catch me.

hammy wrote:All very true but when I get personal mails from various players in RSA who really want to play FoG and organise their own FoG tournaments but are told that they cannot do so without sanction from MSSA something is a little wrong.

When members of MSSA cannot enter tournaments in other countries without clearance from MSSA to allow them to pay their own money to play a game in the country that they are living in then something is very wrong indeed.

While I entirely agree with you and ahve first hand knowledge of what you say, this is not the forum for advocating regime change in the RSA or MSSA. I feel very badly for those who can play what they would like due to bureaucrats.

My post was merely to give people a background without too much guff for Colin.

hazelbark wrote:

hammy wrote:All very true but when I get personal mails from various players in RSA who really want to play FoG and organise their own FoG tournaments but are told that they cannot do so without sanction from MSSA something is a little wrong.

When members of MSSA cannot enter tournaments in other countries without clearance from MSSA to allow them to pay their own money to play a game in the country that they are living in then something is very wrong indeed.

While I entirely agree with you and ahve first hand knowledge of what you say, this is not the forum for advocating regime change in the RSA or MSSA. I feel very badly for those who can play what they would like due to bureaucrats.

My post was merely to give people a background without too much guff for Colin.

I had been going to enquire why 'Colin' has so much say - thanks for giving some background.
Getting geo political and serious for once I would have thought in a democracy an individual could do whatever they like as long as it does not hurt anyone else. Surely official sanction to play a game is outside of these bounds! But I suppose we do live in a different world.

Is there somewhere where we can all spam the miscreants upholding this?
By the way I not seeking political change.

bertalucci wrote:I had been going to enquire why 'Colin' has so much say - thanks for giving some background.
Getting geo political and serious for once I would have thought in a democracy an individual could do whatever they like as long as it does not hurt anyone else. Surely official sanction to play a game is outside of these bounds! But I suppose we do live in a different world.

The reason Colin has so much say is because he has done so much for South African wargaming and is more dedicated than most people would even think about.

He is one of the few people I respect, even though I disagree with him about one thing.

That looks like an oppertunity for Slitherine to sell FOG in SA at a price that reflects the consumer price index of the Rand, a kind of loss leader... to all those potential FOGers on board..........sshhh......just don't tell Colin

Colin always knows.

Requiring official sanction to run officially sanctioned tournaments is one thing...but surely that cannot extend into control over what people play in friendly games?

ShrubMiK wrote:Requiring official sanction to run officially sanctioned tournaments is one thing...but surely that cannot extend into control over what people play in friendly games?

True, but most people play what is played at tournaments in friendly games and if enough people play FoG we can switch to FoG in tournaments.

So what we need is to fly down to SA and hold a series of promotional and teaching events of FoG. I am sure Slitherine will sponsor.

Actually i remember reading a news article where Simon Hall was in SA and played 3 DBM games simultaneously and then awarded a painted army to the student that gave him the toughest time. Colin helped organize the event and press and is an example of the good promo work he has done.

Colin has lots to be disagreed on, but has contributed a heroic amount.

Heh. I beat a chess grandmaster who was playing 8 simultaneously. He never gave me a hand-painted chess set. The swine.