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

[Strategos69]

I guess that most complaints about the lack of scenarios come to the fact the FoG lacks three or four generic "official" scenarios that can be played giving a fairly interesting game. People like me do not get very often to play, so when we do it, we want to be sure that the game can be fun for both, competitive and with a chance for both to have a good time. We ran away from DBM because in our historical match ups between Romans and Carthaginians the Romans had no chance. They could barely get Pyrrhic victories if the Carthaginian player went on frontal assaults. In fact I guess that one of my friends did not play much Ancients because he was tired of being beaten so hardly (he played the Romans). At the end of the game he always said: I can't imagine how the Romans got to conquer the world according to this set of rules... Certainly FoG has improved this.

Warhammer has a set of three or four scenatios (general battles, ambush, flank attack, siege, surrounded) where the points are defined and you are confident that the game is going to be fun, competitive, with one player with more points but a disadvantaged position or so. I don't think the answer is a Flames of War type of scenario (take that hill), which would not be in the spirit of Ancient Warfare. But some generic "ambush like", improvised encounter or so would have been very welcomed. That way casual players (or tournament ones) could have a reference to vary their usual frontal battles.

Regarding the general discusion, FoG is a wargame about Ancient and Medieval battles, not about Ancient and Medieval warfare. This is important because we have to keep in mind that major battles were rather a rare phenomenon. Hannibal spent 16 years in campaign and there are only four major battles we can name (Trebia, Trasimenus, Cannae, Zama). I guess that the other 15 years and 361 days he was doing other things that just marching around. If we come to Medieval warfare, most of it consisted of sieges. It was again rare that both enemies were either so desperate or considered to be so equal that they came to fight in battle.

Therefore, we should assume that FoG is not a good instrument to depict Ancient and Medieval warfare, but just battles. Some of the petitions here claim more, in my opinion, for a wider set of rules to reconstruct Ancient and Medieval warfare, but that is a whole new game (which I would like to have too, by the way) into which FoG would be only an annex to solve the rather exceptional ocassions in which both sides clashed their armies in battle.

[Rekila]

I agree absolutely. We have in fact incorporated different scenarios to our card based system of selecting armies and terrain. If you have 5 or more clubs: initiative/terrain cards, you can’t select another scenario (ambush, surprise attack etc) instead of the pitched battle. But there is a simple way to get original games that both players will enjoy. One of them makes the scenario. Them the other selects which side to play

[david53]

I guess that most complaints about the lack of scenarios come to the fact the FoG lacks three or four generic "official" scenarios that can be played giving a fairly interesting game. People like me do not get very often to play, so when we do it, we want to be sure that the game can be fun for both, competitive and with a chance for both to have a good time.

I don't think theres a problum here at all not that i can see any way. There would be more of a problum if FOG followed Warhammer and to a certain respect FOW by bringing out 'official scenario book's' that you must use if you want to play scenarios and in FOW you need them as in tournements they are set up before play that way.

To a certain respect all scenario's will be played at either club level or among friends I can't see in the near future tournement play for FOG depending on laid out scenario's. IMO it would never work for many reasons so that for me just me mind you kills the requirement for a special scenario book from Osprey or any other publishers. In a earlier post I have listed books with battles and troops numbers and types and terrian that can be used. The internet is a great library for info with regard to battles numbers terrian, I just can't see the need for a book were a little thought and research can bring any number of scenarios. If your playing friends/club why a special book?

[Strategos69]

I just can't see the need for a book were a little thought and research can bring any number of scenarios. If your playing friends/club why a special book?

Maybe it is a little selfish on my regard, but I do not play very often. In fact, I rarely play. I usually invite friends to come over, explain them the rules and we play. In warhammer it was the same, but they already knew the rules and had their own armies and we could have a little variation from game to game. My point is that if in those ocassional games we try scenarios that are not well tested, the game can end up being very easy for one side and not funny at all for the other. We don't have time to test how the scenario performs trying the game in such a few times and therefore I would like someone else to have it done for me and with some garanties.

In fact, if you follow your argument completely, there is no need to play FoG. Why using a generic set of rules when you can make your own set of rules that will be more accurate for the battle you have selected? I totally agree with the idea of historical scenarios and if people play a lot, I can totally understand why scenarios are seen as not necessary, but that is not the case for some players, my case. I can think we are the most around, and precisely not really the ones who post in the forum.

A friend of mine was curious about my miniatures and told me she wanted to play. Then I showed her the rulebook and she said: "do you have to read all that to play?" Obviously I desisted in explaining how to play. That is why I think the easiest things are given, the best. Nevertheless I also find interesting other players developing their own scenarios and trying them and I encourage you to do so and share with other people yours in the Historical Scenarios section.

[dave_r]

Maybe it is a little selfish on my regard, but I do not play very often. In fact, I rarely play. I usually invite friends to come over, explain them the rules and we play. In warhammer it was the same, but they already knew the rules and had their own armies and we could have a little variation from game to game. My point is that if in those ocassional games we try scenarios that are not well tested, the game can end up being very easy for one side and not funny at all for the other. We don't have time to test how the scenario performs trying the game in such a few times and therefore I would like someone else to have it done for me and with some garanties.

Of course what you do in your own home is entirely your affair

However, what Dave is saying is that if an official scenario book is produced this would be used in tournaments, which is not what he wants. Personally, I wouldn't want to play a scenario in a tournament, for a variety of reasons already discussed.

However, there is a section on this forum called "Historical Scenarios", these are likely to have been tested (more than once) and if you pick one that has been well used you can usually guarantee it would be fair. Perhaps if all these were bundled into a PDF or something?

[hazelbark]

Most of what you are 'complaining' about is not specific to FoG. Almost every published set of Ancient rules is designed with ballanced battles between ahistorical opponents as a possibility from the start. It is what Ancients players expect to be honest.

I disagree. "most" only really applies to those who grew up in the WRG tournament driven scence.

I don't play WAB, but I gather there is a strong prefrence to stay within book.

Strategos, Tactica and a host others were historical match up driven.

Back when I played a 4th or 5th edition WRG, it was only in historical contexts. WOTR.

I think too many of us when we say "most" we refer to our circle, but the world is probably very different.

[Polkovnik]

I don't play WAB, but I gather there is a strong prefrence to stay within book.

Maybe there is a preference (partly because there is no set points system so armies from different books are not necessarily balanced), but in reality it is less likely to happen than with FOG players. Most WAB players play in 28mm and it is unusual for players to have many 28mm armies (for obvious reasons). OTOH FOG is generally played in 15mm and many players have lots of armies. I get the impression that most non-open tournament FOG games are historic match-ups (or at least within the same book so generally historically feasible). For example, in my group when we play we pick a book and each bring an army from that book. We can all put out armies from most books, so we only really play historic match-ups.
And as I've said previously, an equal points game between historic (or historically feasible) opponents using the set-up rules from the book would look just like a real historic battle.

[Strategos69]

Agreeing with what hazelbark said, it seems to me that we have two types of players: those who go/like/play tournament type games and those who do not. I have already said before that one of the biggest problems in FoG is that it is too focused on the tournament setting and I understand that because there is a big market for that (people that probably play much more than the other type of users). But there are demands from other players that I would say are the most numerous. In this case, I don't see much trouble in creating those scenarios and leaving up to organisers wheather to use them or not.

By the way, I do check those scenarios and I am really thankful that people share them but usually they are historical match ups where you have to be lucky to own both armies.

[david53]

I don't see much trouble in creating those scenarios and leaving up to organisers wheather to use them or not.

How would these be used in large events, since most scenarios would be unbalanced and since people go to events to fight armies of the same point size.

[Strategos69]

How would these be used in large events, since most scenarios would be unbalanced and since people go to events to fight armies of the same point size.

First of all, they don't have to be used. When people are learning how to play chess, sometimes they play with less figures (only bishops and king, only king and pawn, etc.). In tournaments, this is not the case.

Second, the scenarios I know are from Warhammer. In one of them you have an army of 1000 points and a sieging army of 2000. The sieged has to resist for 6 turns as it is argued that reinforcements come. In other scenario one army ambushes the other. The ambusher has less points (defined by the scenario) but a better position. Other scenario is a flank attack, with one third of the army flank attacking. In other scenario your troops get on the table in random order as it is an improvised battle. They come in every turn with dice rolls.

How would it be organised in a tournament? Well, you can predefine the type of games any player has to play. You might have to be the sieger, the sieged and fight a standard battle. People should prepare a standard list for the field battle and then be forced to cut it down for specific scenarios. Skrimishing armies might have problemes in some settings and be better in others so that there is not a set of armies that will win the tournament easily or will have a lead. There is always something that can be worked out.

[dave_r]

Second, the scenarios I know are from Warhammer. In one of them you have an army of 1000 points and a sieging army of 2000. The sieged has to resist for 6 turns as it is argued that reinforcements come. In other scenario one army ambushes the other. The ambusher has less points (defined by the scenario) but a better position. Other scenario is a flank attack, with one third of the army flank attacking. In other scenario your troops get on the table in random order as it is an improvised battle. They come in every turn with dice rolls.

How would it be organised in a tournament? Well, you can predefine the type of games any player has to play. You might have to be the sieger, the sieged and fight a standard battle. People should prepare a standard list for the field battle and then be forced to cut it down for specific scenarios. Skrimishing armies might have problemes in some settings and be better in others so that there is not a set of armies that will win the tournament easily or will have a lead. There is always something that can be worked out.

The problem is that it doesn't work in Warhammer, so why take a failing system and implement it in FoG? Admittedly they largely don't work because the Points Values are utterly broken, but that doesn't detract that the scenarios are also fundamentally unbalanced for certain armies.


There are several "real world" questions that need to be answered, first of - why would an army of predominantly Light Horse sit in a siege?

All you are going to do is cut down the number of viable armies that can perform succesfully at tournaments, which the organisers won't want.

[ethan]

All you are going to do is cut down the number of viable armies that can perform succesfully at tournaments, which the organisers won't want.

This is an important point to me at least. The "variety" in ancients comes from seeing all the different armies interact. Anything that increases this is IMO good, anything that decreases it is bad.

[Strategos69]

The problem is that it doesn't work in Warhammer, so why take a failing system and implement it in FoG? Admittedly they largely don't work because the Points Values are utterly broken, but that doesn't detract that the scenarios are also fundamentally unbalanced for certain armies.

Well, in fact what does not work in Warhammer is the point system to determine victory. Some slow armies just can't win if there were no scenarios. And, as I can see, it seems that the system in FoG will change because it produces odd things too. Skirmisher armies can play to get marginal victories and can get very easily a draw game against certain opponents. In fact, what is very ahistorical is pretending that some armies fought on the same basis as regular armies. In Ancient and Medieval warfare formal battles were not common and sieges and small razzias were a common place.

In my experience, scenarios could be fun and provide different alternatives. Maybe they are not suitable for tournaments, although I think they can be fitted. Thinking only in tournaments leaves aside a big spectrum of the hobby.

There are several "real world" questions that need to be answered, first of - why would an army of predominantly Light Horse sit in a siege?

All you are going to do is cut down the number of viable armies that can perform succesfully at tournaments, which the organisers won't want.

Well, why would an army of skirmishers engage in battle instead of skirmishing and ambushing the enemy, fighting in guerrillas?

I am not sure that this kind of system would cut down the number of playable armies, but, instead, enlarge it. If you have different scenarios, being your rivals random, your army should be good enough for different situations and enemies, which could give some armies an opportunity to exploit some of their strong points, which now they can't. In fact, I am not an expert and I just check what is written in the forum, but it seems that FoG is not precisely performing well right now to provide a good variety of armies in tournaments.

[Ghaznavid]

The only way to do such scenarios and make it a tournament is to provide set scenarios that the players 'rotate' though.
I.e. you have say 8 different scenarios (so 16 players) and each player plays 4 of them. It is then not important how exactly he did, but how he did in comparison to the other 3 players that played the same side in this scenario.
For example you have a Gaugamela Scenario. All 4 rounds are won by the Macedonians.
The Macedonian player that had the highest win then gets 3 points, the Macedonian player with the 2nd highest win gets 2 points, the Macedonian player with the 3rd highest win gets 1 point, and the Macedonian player with the lowest win gets 0 points (he might have won, but was the worst 'Alexander').
OTOH the Persian player that had the lowest lost will get 3 points, the one with the 2nd lowest loss will get 2 points, etc.

So with such a system the scenarios do not need to be balanced as you are not judged how you did absolutely, but how you did in comparison to the others players that faced the same challenge.

The drawback is you need to provide the scenarios, requiring you to find people willing to let others play with their armies, etc.

Anyway we are probably going to try something like this over here in late autumn.

[david53]

The only way to do such scenarios and make it a tournament is to provide set scenarios that the players 'rotate' though.
I.e. you have say 8 different scenarios (so 16 players) and each player plays 4 of them. It is then not important how exactly he did, but how he did in comparison to the other 3 players that played the same side in this scenario.
For example you have a Gaugamela Scenario. All 4 rounds are won by the Macedonians.
The Macedonian player that had the highest win then gets 3 points, the Macedonian player with the 2nd highest win gets 2 points, the Macedonian player with the 3rd highest win gets 1 point, and the Macedonian player with the lowest win gets 0 points (he might have won, but was the worst 'Alexander').
OTOH the Persian player that had the lowest lost will get 3 points, the one with the 2nd lowest loss will get 2 points, etc.

So with such a system the scenarios do not need to be balanced as you are not judged how you did absolutely, but how you did in comparison to the others players that faced the same challenge.

The drawback is you need to provide the scenarios, requiring you to find people willing to let others play with their armies, etc.

Anyway we are probably going to try something like this over here in late autumn.

You might be able to do this with 16 players but what happens if you have 50 players such as the challange or Britcon do you divide them by the scenarios but then it becames a small tournement inside a big one?

[Polkovnik]

By the way, I do check those scenarios and I am really thankful that people share them but usually they are historical match ups where you have to be lucky to own both armies.

You can always play one of these with different armies. Surely the point of wanting scenarios if to give an alternative to an equal points battle that is typical of a historic battle. So why not replay a battle that actually occured, but with different armies.
For example, you could replay Hastings but with Greeks defending the hill and Persians attacking.

[Polkovnik]

Second, the scenarios I know are from Warhammer. In one of them you have an army of 1000 points and a sieging army of 2000. The sieged has to resist for 6 turns as it is argued that reinforcements come. In other scenario one army ambushes the other. The ambusher has less points (defined by the scenario) but a better position. Other scenario is a flank attack, with one third of the army flank attacking. In other scenario your troops get on the table in random order as it is an improvised battle. They come in every turn with dice rolls.

Sieges - FOG is designed to represent pitched battles, not siege warfare.

Ambush - various possibilities for scenarios here - I've given one above.

Flank attacks are possible within the normal FOG rules, so nothing extra is required.

Improvised battle - not sure what this is supposed to represent that is different to an ambush. But if you want to play a scenario where your forces come on each turn by dice rolls, then I'm sure you could quickly write some rules for this.

[hammy]

You can always play one of these with different armies. Surely the point of wanting scenarios if to give an alternative to an equal points battle that is typical of a historic battle. So why not replay a battle that actually occured, but with different armies.
For example, you could replay Hastings but with Greeks defending the hill and Persians attacking.

The problem with refighting a historical battle that everyone knows is that people will (or at least may) know who did what and how they won or last as a result. Very few wargame rules will generate a free playe version of the battle of Cannae, OK you can refight the battle if you force major restrictions on the Roman player but if you allow the Romans free reign then it would be a poor player who let their army get into the historical mess.

Some of the best wargames scenarios I have heard of are disguised refights where a famous battle is refought in a different period entirely. One that springs to mind was a team based refight of lake Trasimene but set in the the 18th century in Canada. The British force was marching past a lake and then a huge ambush of Indians and French hit them. The game panned out quite closely to the real battle.

IMO there are two main types of wargame. There is a prearranged scenario where you can do what you want but you need to do a bit of work to get things organised beforehand and then there is what is essentially a pickup game where each player picks an army to a points value and has an equal expectation of a win assuming the same luck and player performance.

Tournaments are a form of pickup game, essentially a string of such games with an overall winner.

There is no requirement for any game with a points system to be played at even points. There is also no requirement for points based games to be played even in tournaments with equal points. The idea of variable army sizes has been mentioned earlier in this thread and that has been used at Rampage in the past and will be used at Rampage and the Oxford 25mm comp this year.

It would be possible to produce a scenario book with numerous historical battles with FoG armies and deployments but there are already a number of such books for other rules systems or just generic battle details that can easily be converted so the real question is would such a book be commercially viable?

[peterrjohnston]

The best scenario competition I know of was the Bunshop pairs. Teams of two, with the two players playing the opposite sides in separate rooms. IIRC the objective of the game was often a secret too.

[hammy]

The best scenario competition I know of was the Bunshop pairs. Teams of two, with the two players playing the opposite sides in separate rooms. IIRC the objective of the game was often a secret too.

Yes, it is a very good format, not dissimilar to duplicate Bridge. The problem is that the organisers need to be able to source lots of figures and people need to be happy for other players to use their toys.

As an aside it was really good to see a Bunshop team at Campaign at the weekend