Slitherine

As has been pointed out before, the main differnce between 15 and 25 mm is the frontage per base.
(depth is different too, but this has a less significant effect).

To get the frontage to table width right in 25 mm you must reduce the points to 2/3 of the ideal 15 mm game.

However, the army lists specify minimum bases per BG. As 800 pt 15 mm armies often use minimum size BG, you can't reduce this and have to use less BG instead.

This changes the number of manoeuvre elements you have, thus changes the feel of the game. (It's a bit like playing DBA with only 8 elements a side)

If bases per BG could be reduced below the normal minimum, so that frontage per BG was about the same, then 25 mm would feel fairly similar to 15 mm. (I have suggested this before)

Upping the points to give a more interesting number of BG of course makes the table more crowded. I've never played 25 mm, but I assume it makes outflanking marches more attractive. I assume further that you would deploy in multiple lines and the manoeuvre aspect would be in how you move your reserves, rather than how you try to get around the flanks.

By doing so one creates a different game rather than just a larger game with bigger figures on a bigger table. We seem to have now 3 games in 1:

650pts 25mm
800 pts 15mm
1000 pts doubles 15mm

All three have different nuances which addsto the fun in our view. We could of course simply upgrade the MUs by 50% to adapt tot he base sizes but then it is the same game completley, just with fewer heavier figures.

Si

I think we are going to have to bite the bullet on 25mm and admit it needs a larger table to play. 25mm DBM/Warrior/WRG6th etc players probably already play on larger tables for 25 so they are not a problem but WAB is a different story as most of them play on 6 x 4 tables.

If I was to play FoG 25mm on a 6 x 4 table I'd be looking at an infantry heavy army as IMHO they will dominate.

rbodleyscott wrote:
What you say is true but I think it is a different issue and not the one that is causing the perceived problem. The issue (if I understand it correctly) is not that 25mm troops can't manoeuvre as well as in 15mm, but that they have less room to manoeuvre.

Allowing them to move further exacerbates the latter problem by allowing the enemy to close the gap between the armies faster.

Yes it is a different issue. Sorry about mixing in but my point was that 25mm is a different game if using the same move/shoot distance as 15mm. Sounds like people know about the issue so my point is made.

M

Not a problem people playing on larger table.

The rules only set a guideline anyway

Competitin organiser can evolve the points systems and table sizes they prefer for their comps

Si

The last post seemed to have a 'fatalistic' tone - remember we do have at least two suggestions that mitigate the problem and are easy to implement with no undue disruption to existing rules. Competiitions will be on 6x4 tables and it would be a real coup for FOG to overcome the issues of the 25mm Scale that have yet to be dealt with by other rule sets.

In my limited experience of 25mm FoG at I think 700 points the game felt not unlike a DBM 450 or 500 points doubles game. For me this wasn't a major issue, the biggest initial issue was the relatively short range of missiles compared to the size of the figures but that was something I got used to very quickly.

Is the issue that there is less scope for maneuver in 25mm FoG at 650-700 points than there is an a WAB game? It certainly didn't look much more cramped to me than a lot of 25m DBM tables.

Hammy

The two current suggestions on the table (empty flank sectors at deployment and 3rd move at 12MU's) do go some way to helping resolve the issues (if not entirely). Interested to hear any other possible solutions.

We have considered the different proposals including the ones above.

As far as the empty flanks at deployment goes, all it really does is slow down the armies by one move. (half a move if still outside 6MUs). The decision to go for a -1 on the tests was to give players an incentive to use light troops on the extreme flanks rather than fill the table with heavies. If players want to use the full width of the table they can, but you run the risk of your opponent flank marching.
A flank march is much more flexible than in certain other rules, in that it can consist of a single general and one BG.

Allowing a 3rd move doesn't help at all - in fact it makes it worse. Considering that you start off with the main battle lines 28" apart, and that MF move 4", (in UK terms) with a double move for the first move it still takes 6 moves to get within shooting/charge range of the enemy, assuming he doesn't advance, and that he use skirmishers to slow you down after the first move. A unit of cavalry behind his lines could have moved 60" in that time.

The decision to keep to 15mm move/shoot distances is the single biggest factor in giving 25mm armies some maneouverability. We considered going to base widths, which would have meant 25mm games playing almost exactly the same as 15mm - but only if you played on a 9ft by 6ft table.
We have to acknowledge that 6x4 is the most common size of table, and plan accordingly.
The best way to make 25mm play more like 15mm (at least for maneouverability) is to use smaller BG's. (Use BG's of 4 bases instead of 6's for example)

We need to allow players to fill the table with a 'wall of crap' because some ancient armies were so large that flanks weren't an issue. The point here is that the front of the army is so weak.

There are better ways to deploy a large mainly average/poor army than in a single line, as I'm sure you'll find out.

Surely the 'empty flank' suggestion will slow an 'undrilled' army down at least one complete turn and more than likely two complete turns whilst they cover this area (2 lots of expansion) - bearing in mind any 'second move' has to be a simple advance (or have I misynderstood something).
The thrid move suggestion would only potentially be available to 'drilled' troops outside 12 MU's (or so) - therefore the 'drilled' troops can use the additional movement they benefit from to redeploy troops whilst the slower 'undrilled' Army marches forward (and if it were adopted spends time covering the empty flank).
I take on board the Flank March option and I appreciate your ongoing efforts to find a solution (hopefully!).

Surely the 'empty flank' suggestion will slow an 'undrilled' army down at least one complete turn and more than likely two complete turns whilst they cover this area (2 lots of expansion) - bearing in mind any 'second move' has to be a simple advance (or have I misynderstood something).

A single expansion of 2 bases for 25mm takes you to within 1/2 base of the edge of the table (starting 6" away) - so you only need 1 expansion. Believe me - the threat of a flank march is more important.

The third move suggestion would only potentially be available to 'drilled' troops outside 12 MU's

I hadn't really registered the 'drilled' part of the suggestion. We'll take a look at it. (not promising anything!!)

Terry, I understand now why we are talking at cross purposes on the 'open flank' idea...our suggestion was for it to be a '4 Element Width gap' i.e. 240mm (not 6"). This is the same as it was with 25mm DBM. It would therefore take 2 lots of expansion (2 complete moves) for undrilled to fill the gap (also, the BG would have to be a pretty hefty 10+ size if 2 deep) . Sorry if I did not make it clear our suggestion for a potential 3rd move was only available to 'drilled' troops'.

We probably would see one of those DBM artifacts that make my blood boil. A BG in single column facing the flank, ready to make two moves in column (if the BGs are small, as many as necessary to fill the gap forming a battleline). Once they are at the desired point, turn 90º (a single CMT, rather than several with expansions) to close the flank from the front. If a flank march is in the cards, leave some columns unturned for the time being...

José

Howdy,

It is taking a little time for the 25mm players to warm up to the one inch MU as opposed to the 40mm DBM "Big Inch" as a 25mm standard.

Using a true inch as a MU makes for nice maneuvering room, but does lack some aesthetics as far as shooting ranges, i.e. the figures are practically face-to-face before they are shooting.

Ken

Ok if your objective is to make it 1 game for the price of 1

Si