Slitherine

pcelella wrote:

robertthebruce wrote: I start to play wargames 14 years ago, when I was 15, and then I used rulesets as Ancient Empires and DBM later, now I see FOG like a fastplay, but you can´t understand that to young people who starts to play warhammer 5 years ago, and never read a book larger than white dwarf magazine.

Let's see - started gaming 14 years ago when 15? That would make you 29 years old. In my circle of gamers, that would make you a VERY young gamer indeed

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

Yes I´m 29, but my mother says that I´m not a baby yet:). I ever been one the youngest players in my wargaming circle, and I was the youngest for many years in the Spanish DBM and FOG tournaments tour. I could see when I was in Britcon that the UK-European player is ever more than 30.

But there is a new generation of players, who are coming to the historicals from the games workshop hands, I think, they are between 18 and 30 years. These generation are knowed in Spain as the "Playstation Generation".

These people wants lot of fun with no effort at all, they don´t have money to buy figures, in Spain the young people don´t work up to 30 years at least (not me:)), they wan´t to read complex rulesets, they wan´t to study history books, and whatever is most difficult that turn on a video game is imposible to do for them.

When I tried to introduce poeple into FOG, the people missed their interest quickly, because the game is very hard to them, in fact I think the have very soft brains for serious historical game.

Now I have no interest to learn young people to play, this is lose my time to get no results. I prefer to play with people oldest than me and get interesting games with a guy who knows how to use his brain

I found people who ask me DBA games, but I have 2500 bases at home and I can´t waste my time using only 12 of them and playing a game that don´t make me feel like a Commander.

Ass hoodlum says, a Small FOG could be fine, but it could make that FOG be forgotten.

PD: I hope that Phill Barker, don´t read this forum

robertthebruce wrote: I found people who ask me DBA games, but I have 2500 bases at home and I can´t waste my time using only 12 of them and playing a game that don´t make me feel like a Commander.

If you use 9 bases in a 3x3 block for one DBA element, and multiply the ground scale by three, you would use more of your bases.

lawrenceg wrote:If you use 9 bases in a 3x3 block for one DBA element, and multiply the ground scale by three, you would use more of your bases.

But it would make the game longer having to move the extra bases around.

I think here we have a "false" dispute. I don't think the development of a simplified introductory version of FoG has to be contrary to FoG 2. I have problems to introduce people to the game, because it takes too long to play and you have to find several players to explain. If you play with someone who is not familiar with the game mechanics I feel Iam taking advantage of rules they don't know. Actually there is no fun in that. And given the fact it is so hard to learn, why bothering?

I think a simplification would be good, but definetely that would NOT be the game I would like to play. To me it is just a way to present the game to new players. Warhammer as in other rulesets, even if at the end is as complex as FoG, they let you get in slowly, with basic rules and advanced rules you can skip until you have a better level. And I think that is a weakness of FoG (which it shares with DBMM, but not with FoW, for example) that would be nice to address.

Strategos69 wrote:I think a simplification would be good, but definetely that would NOT be the game I would like to play. To me it is just a way to present the game to new players. Warhammer as in other rulesets, even if at the end is as complex as FoG, they let you get in slowly, with basic rules and advanced rules you can skip until you have a better level. And I think that is a weakness of FoG (which it shares with DBMM, but not with FoW, for example) that would be nice to address.

So what parts of the FoG rules would you remove to simplify things?

The fundamental issue is that there is not a lot of fat that can be trimmed without significantly changing the game.

lawrenceg wrote:

robertthebruce wrote: I found people who ask me DBA games, but I have 2500 bases at home and I can´t waste my time using only 12 of them and playing a game that don´t make me feel like a Commander.

If you use 9 bases in a 3x3 block for one DBA element, and multiply the ground scale by three, you would use more of your bases.

This is like play DBM, I was playing DBM for many years but I was never happy with the rules.


To be honest, I don´t enjoy anything playing with boys who only wants roll dices and are looking for a fast and light game, and have no intereset at all in history. I'd rather be at home reading a book. I have played 2 games in the last year, and I had read a lot of books.

hammy wrote: So what parts of the FoG rules would you remove to simplify things?

The fundamental issue is that there is not a lot of fat that can be trimmed without significantly changing the game.

Well, there are 4 types of terrain! It can be simplified to 2. Troops can perform lots of manouvers: reduce it to move forward, turn 180 and wheel (get rid of CMT for the simpler version, no double moves nor front expansion). Interpenetration: always passing through the whole troop. Formation of troops could be fixed before hand (column, line, single line).

Create several booklets depending on the period: there are lots of exceptions or troops description that you have to memorize and they really only a apply to a few troops that youd would not likely field. I have thought myself to trim the tables of PoA to the ones I really use as new players seem disoriented about the myriad of possibilities. This slows down the game and gives them the impression they are not getting anything. The dice allocation can be painful at the beginning and it would be better (by the way, also suggested for FoG 2) to get the reduction of dice relative to the enemy in the same melee so that the minimum number of BG lose dice per base.

And that is only the first thoughts that have come to my mind. Remember that I am not advocating for FoG being that, but having a simplified version of the rules that gives a nice impression of the game. If I want to present FoW, I would go for two or three unit types per side maximum

I still think that using a grid or hex map would simplify a lot of things nicely. It also (if you use hexes) ties in with the PC game which is a plus.

You still have a lot of other rules to worry about though and I think that just moving to a grid will not make that much difference to the speed of a game.

For an intro set you also need to find a way to reduce the number of troops needed which tends to suggest that getting rid of base losses and making all BGs one base might be a plan.

The trouble is that every step along that route takes you further from the 'real' game.

apologies if repeating, but I do think that the two-tier system has merit. Lets not forget that there are computer games with complexity - from fifa to final fantasy and so on.

But you need a workable entry point. The numbers don't have to be great - realistically fog will never topple WoW or Doom. But if you can get 10% interest in the basic game then that can generate maybe 3% in the real deal.

philqw78 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:If you use 9 bases in a 3x3 block for one DBA element, and multiply the ground scale by three, you would use more of your bases.

But it would make the game longer having to move the extra bases around.

Until you work out that you can speed it up by putting all the bases on an element-sized movement tray.

azrael86 wrote:apologies if repeating, but I do think that the two-tier system has merit. Lets not forget that there are computer games with complexity - from fifa to final fantasy and so on.

Exactly! As a wargamer, the modified version of Rome Total War: total realism gives me a better flavour of what a battle looked like than FoG itself. I don't see the computer game as an entry to the tabletop

azrael86 wrote: But you need a workable entry point. The numbers don't have to be great - realistically fog will never topple WoW or Doom. But if you can get 10% interest in the basic game then that can generate maybe 3% in the real deal.

I agree too and that is why it is needed a simplified version rather to go to hexagons (a grid of hexagons is harder to get and addes more expenses that barely can be used for other wargames). Fewer troop types, simple movement mechanisms and a short and clear booklet are the key in my opinion. Probably it won't be the game we would like to play most of the players here, but it will help to involve new players.

One thing that would cut complexity is mixed close combat. Where a lot of people seem to struggle is with offset combats and combats where one file is at different POAs etc.

I think that limiting each BG to fighting one BG and perhaps reducing the impact of overlaps may be a way of pruning things.

We were talking about this last night.

1) eliminate evades.
2) All skirmisher auto break off.
3) Make them a little more CT survivalable.

This is an example of systems you can short circuit to speed the game.

The biggest change in FoG speed is troop to board ratio.

I think for beginning games troops are deployed too far apart. In all the teaching games I did I had the battle lines about 12 MU apart.

Basiscally foot skirmishers should be firing at end of first move.

hazelbark wrote:The biggest change in FoG speed is troop to board ratio.

I think for beginning games troops are deployed too far apart. In all the teaching games I did I had the battle lines about 12 MU apart.

Basiscally foot skirmishers should be firing at end of first move.

Play on a 3' deep table, you know it makes sense

Come to Stockport next month and get to play six games in two days. Lots of fun for all.

Things to speed up the game:
1. Make all battlegroups have the same frontage.
2. Mandate that all BGs line up with each other in combat
3. POAs apply per battlegroup instead of per file
4. No formation changes; BGs always stay in whatever formation they started the battle (this means you can put the BGs bases on wooden sabots, speeding up the game)

And you'll find you've re-invented Neil Thomas' "Ancient and Medieval wargame" rules.
Seriously - if you like FoG but want a quicker game, have a look at these rules. They are much more like FoG-lite than DBA is.

pyruse wrote:Things to speed up the game:
1. Make all battlegroups have the same frontage.
2. Mandate that all BGs line up with each other in combat
3. POAs apply per battlegroup instead of per file
4. No formation changes; BGs always stay in whatever formation they started the battle (this means you can put the BGs bases on wooden sabots, speeding up the game)

And you'll find you've re-invented Neil Thomas' "Ancient and Medieval wargame" rules.
Seriously - if you like FoG but want a quicker game, have a look at these rules. They are much more like FoG-lite than DBA is.

You could always try the digital version of FoG. It essentially does all of these. Of course, you do lose the fun of playing with actual toy soldiers that way.

Chris

batesmotel wrote: You could always try the digital version of FoG. It essentially does all of these. Of course, you do lose the fun of playing with actual toy soldiers that way.

Don't forget losing the live person interaction.

hazelbark wrote:

batesmotel wrote: You could always try the digital version of FoG. It essentially does all of these. Of course, you do lose the fun of playing with actual toy soldiers that way.

Don't forget losing the live person interaction.

and that the main point of doing this is introducing new players for larger scale games...

I have not read all the posts on here.. For me it is simple... I play DBA when i want a quick and simple game.. And FOG if i want a more in depth game. They two different ways of playing a game.. I love both.. As a matter of fact i am running a DBA tourney in the morning.. DBA is a good way to get folks into historical miniature wargaming.. Two armies and a book will run you about 100 American... That is just the bait.. Now check out FOG! And more figs are bought and we have a new historical gamer!