Slitherine

Just to tease you all about foot troop types I'll mention that the v2 team is looking at some interesting alternatives. However, you'll have to be patient as they will not be in the first beta

nikgaukroger wrote:Just to tease you all about foot troop types I'll mention that the v2 team is looking at some interesting alternatives. However, you'll have to be patient as they will not be in the first beta

You are a rotter, Mr. Gaukroger.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Just to tease you all about foot troop types I'll mention that the v2 team is looking at some interesting alternatives. However, you'll have to be patient as they will not be in the first beta

You are a rotter, Mr. Gaukroger.

Marc

Early practice for ITC umpiring ...

nikgaukroger wrote:Just to tease you all .................

Well, you've got bleached hair and your feet smell.

There's a v2 team? Anyone we know? Hope they are not too sensitive. There might be some robust exchanges going on.

Hi all

I am new to FoGAM and played it only a few times. I love the ruleset and I think there are lots of great wargaming concepts there. As a new FoGAM player, I don't
t think I am qualified to suggest any specific rule changes or modifications, but I would want to comment on the organisation of the rules.

I have been gaming (boardgames, miniature wargames and rpgs) for a number of years (more than 20). FoGAM, despite what I am going to say, is one of my favourite rules in terms of gaming concepts. Currently I playing a few wargames like Warhammer, Flames of War, etc. I used to dabble with DBM, Fire and Fury, WRG 6th ed, etc.

I strongly think that the FoGAM rulebook is one of the most disorganised rulesets I have ever come across. Can major improvements be made to ensure all the rules are well-presented in v2? A good example of well-presented rules is the current Flames of War rulebook. Love it or hate FoW, I think most people agree that the FoW rulesets convey the FoW concepts well-with clear diagrams and examples and the actual rules in italics.

I also have read the FoGR rulebook-there are some improvements on the organisation here, but some rules are hard to find and some concepts (carried over from FoGAM) are still difficult to understand.

In addition to this, the FoGAM index leaves much to be desired. For example, the entry for "Knights" revealed a picture of "Training day for the Knights of Outremer" on page 22, "defending the pilgrims" picture of Knight Hospitallers and a picture of "Knights prepare for battle" on page 151. And can you please put the index right at the very end of the book please?

Apologies of these points have been discussed before. (Kindly point me to the relevant posts, please.) I really think FoGAM is a good game. It's that I think the rules could have been better organised...and I look forward to the much - improved 2nd Edition.

It was one of the main complaints when the rules came out.

http://www.fieldofglory.com/player_index.html

Is a better index written by a gamer.

If you go here and hover over the resources link there's a lot more

http://www.slithdata.net/files/fog/rankings.html

atatnet wrote:
Apologies of these points have been discussed before. (Kindly point me to the relevant posts, please.) I really think FoGAM is a good game. It's that I think the rules could have been better organised...and I look forward to the much - improved 2nd Edition.

I agree. Maybe it is early on the beta stage, but I have a big bunch of suggestions for simplifying things and moving sections around so that it is clearer for the new player.

atatnet wrote:I strongly think that the FoGAM rulebook is one of the most disorganised rulesets I have ever come across. Can major improvements be made to ensure all the rules are well-presented in v2? A good example of well-presented rules is the current Flames of War rulebook. Love it or hate FoW, I think most people agree that the FoW rulesets convey the FoW concepts well-with clear diagrams and examples and the actual rules in italics.

The amazing thing is it is such an improvement over many predecessors.

The part that is annoying and helpful is the glossary. Too many important rules only exist in the glossary.

Other things that would be a big improvement are:

1. Trying to get the rules for rout moves in one place. Currently it's in combat, JAP, then back referenced to evades. Very confusing.
2. The "index" down the side of the page is a nice idea. Unfortunately the font and colour contrast often make it unreadable without peering closely at it, which kind of defeats the whole point. A sans-serif font, with text all in bold white, and current page in a stronger colour, or even black, would be much easier to read.
3. Minor, but perhaps important for beginners, move the troop type and troop points appendices next to each other.
4. Put the order of play on the flyleaf or right at the back. Currently it's sandwiched between some advertising and the index, on the back of a page, so hard to find.

one of the main problems to fog am isnt actually the rules. Its that in 15mm the playing area is too big for the general amount of troops used. 800pts is prevalent and often leads to a dance- with games breaking down into unit chasing and the board not really looking like my idea of an ancient battlefield.

this leads to light horse prevalence and the problems attached to heavy foot movement etc. Increasing a standard game size to 900 pts and 1000 for doubles will cut down much dancing with units and bring about a swifter clash of troops . Its probably a quicker soltion than tinkering with most rule amends.....

navigator wrote:one of the main problems to fog am isnt actually the rules. Its that in 15mm the playing area is too big for the general amount of troops used. 800pts is prevalent and often leads to a dance- with games breaking down into unit chasing and the board not really looking like my idea of an ancient battlefield.

this leads to light horse prevalence and the problems attached to heavy foot movement etc. Increasing a standard game size to 900 pts and 1000 for doubles will cut down much dancing with units and bring about a swifter clash of troops . Its probably a quicker soltion than tinkering with most rule amends.....

Hooray.

navigator wrote:one of the main problems to fog am isnt actually the rules. Its that in 15mm the playing area is too big for the general amount of troops used. 800pts is prevalent and often leads to a dance- with games breaking down into unit chasing and the board not really looking like my idea of an ancient battlefield.

this leads to light horse prevalence and the problems attached to heavy foot movement etc. Increasing a standard game size to 900 pts and 1000 for doubles will cut down much dancing with units and bring about a swifter clash of troops . Its probably a quicker soltion than tinkering with most rule amends.....

Maybe a smaller table is even simpler a solution?
Rgds/GM

And smaller tables would mean cheaper competitions due to less space being used and smaller tables hired and transported. Altho this may be offset by the increasing size of wargamers.

Altho this may be offset by the increasing size of wargamers.

Perhaps smaller wargamers are the answer?

Didn't Genesis do a song on this subject?

Didn't Genesis do a song on this subject?

They had "Follow You, Follow Me" which could be retroactively interpreted as a critique on the Benny Hill phase. I'm not a fan but I don't recall anthing that referred to the relative size of wargamers and their playing surfaces.

Interesting interpretation of the social relevance of "Follow You Follow Me", I shall never view it in quite the same way again

Well, that's not it..what I'm thinking of is admittedly not about wargamers specifically, but it's the same principle:

This is an announcement from Genetic Control
It is my sad duty to inform you of a 4 ft restriction on humanoid height
...<snip>...
It's said now that people will be shorter in height
They can fit twice as many in the same building site
They say it's all ri-i-ight

Playing on a 5' x 3' table seems the easiest solution. The only reason we use 6' x 4' tables is because its a throw-back to the very earliest days of wargaming where it appears a standard dining room table size was 6' x 4'. There are very good reasons for reducing size, games playing a lot quicker just being one of them.

ValentinianVictor wrote:Playing on a 5' x 3' table seems the easiest solution. The only reason we use 6' x 4' tables is because its a throw-back to the very earliest days of wargaming where it appears a standard dining room table size was 6' x 4'. There are very good reasons for reducing size, games playing a lot quicker just being one of them.

There are some who argue that 5x3 is too frontal and they argue 6x3 is a betterr solution.

One of thesee days I want to just fight the same army at all 3 table sizes in a row to get a clearer feel.

We've had a variable point per round comp. maybe its time for random table sizes. That will drive people nuts.