Slitherine

Are not all these changes people are proposing to FOG likely to reduce it to the state where its just a game where you push around bits of card and roll dice? What about the history behind the figures your using, the formations they deployed, the tactics they used? Its as if its becoming a hinderance to call the figures Romans, Greeks etc, you might as well call them mutants or Terminators for all the difference its going to make.

FOG is about modelling ancient warfare, and I think that is becoming lost in the mixing pot of discussions around FOG 2.0.

ValentinianVictor wrote:Are not all these changes people are proposing to FOG likely to reduce it to the state where its just a game where you push around bits of card and roll dice? What about the history behind the figures your using, the formations they deployed, the tactics they used? Its as if its becoming a hinderance to call the figures Romans, Greeks etc, you might as well call them mutants or Terminators for all the difference its going to make.

FOG is about modelling ancient warfare, and I think that is becoming lost in the mixing pot of discussions around FOG 2.0.

I am here for the same reasons as you are: a nice setting for modelling ancient warfare. In the debates in other threads I had the impression that there is an important amount of players that are interested in FoG for the tournament aspect of the game (and some of the discussions are because of that, if this or that list will get disadvantaged vs if that is historically accurate). But in some of the threads I have been taking part in, people have been looking at the sources and discussing about that. So I think that the FoG 2 is a good idea.

However, what we are discussing here is that we need players too and if it takes too long to explain a game, it is really hard to get people to play it. You need really committed people before hand, and that is not easy. All games have a learning curve and FoG forces you to learn the whole thing before you can start playing around and I think that can be a problem for newcomers.

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.

Fantastic post, couldn't agree more with this. Working out combats that don't line up file by file where some BGs are disordered, some lack back ranks etc, etc completely killed my interest in playing the game on a regular basis and I think I may not be alone in that. After trying to love the game I reluctantly came to the conclusion that often it was just too much like hard work and a bit dull. If those things were addressed in FoG 2.0 I might become a regular player again.

AlanYork wrote: If those things were addressed in FoG 2.0 I might become a regular player again.

Alan, I think FoG would have to turn into WRG 6th for you to be a regular player

ValentinianVictor wrote:Are not all these changes people are proposing to FOG likely to reduce it to the state where its just a game where you push around bits of card and roll dice? What about the history behind the figures your using, the formations they deployed, the tactics they used? Its as if its becoming a hinderance to call the figures Romans, Greeks etc, you might as well call them mutants or Terminators for all the difference its going to make.

FOG is about modelling ancient warfare, and I think that is becoming lost in the mixing pot of discussions around FOG 2.0.

Well, people are free to propose any unhistoric nonsense they like: "I think elephants should be able to fly over all other units". These are normally short posts, starting "I think" or "How about" and without any historical content. But the authors will hopefully just ignore the noise.

Some of the proposed changes at least are intended to fix elements of the game that do not accord with history, for example the undue manouverability of some armies, the Benny Hill phase, and so on.

Young Mr Porter and i had a game at the weekend that showed some of these deficiencies up quite badly. Two (in FoG) manouverable armies - Early Perssian and Dominate Roman. I didn't like the look of the legionaries in the centre, so manouvered my good troops to hit the Roman left. The legions redeployed to block. So we turned round and headed for his right. The legions redeployed to block. "Last Bound".

I can't see the Persians having that degree of manouverability generally. Marathon, Plataea being head on line of battle affairs (though perhaps that was terrain). The Romans might under a good general like Scipio Africanus, but not the TCs Tim had in charge.

nikgaukroger wrote:

AlanYork wrote: If those things were addressed in FoG 2.0 I might become a regular player again.

Alan, I think FoG would have to turn into WRG 6th for you to be a regular player

Ah, ye goode olde days......

AlanYork wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

AlanYork wrote: If those things were addressed in FoG 2.0 I might become a regular player again.

Alan, I think FoG would have to turn into WRG 6th for you to be a regular player

Ah, ye goode olde days......

There are still a decent number of people playing 6th....

That said IMO FoG is significantly simpler, cleaner and quicker than 6th. I remember scribbling lots of numbers down when calculating combats in 6th.

AlanYork wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

AlanYork wrote: If those things were addressed in FoG 2.0 I might become a regular player again.

Alan, I think FoG would have to turn into WRG 6th for you to be a regular player

Ah, ye goode olde days......

There is still a fairly vibrant 6th edition circuit - IIRC there are at least 3 fair sized comps each year (still with some vibrant arguments from what I have seen at Derby ) . Whilst I assume there are no players near York for you, one assumes you could take advantage of these comps.

Must admit that whilst 6th was indeed good in the day, I am quite glad those days are past for me - but that is not really for this forum

grahambriggs wrote:Some of the proposed changes at least are intended to fix elements of the game that do not accord with history, for example the undue manouverability of some armies, the Benny Hill phase, and so on.

Young Mr Porter and i had a game at the weekend that showed some of these deficiencies up quite badly. Two (in FoG) manouverable armies - Early Persian and Dominate Roman. I didn't like the look of the legionaries in the centre, so manouvered my good troops to hit the Roman left. The legions redeployed to block. So we turned round and headed for his right. The legions redeployed to block. "Last Bound".

I can't see the Persians having that degree of manouverability generally. Marathon, Plataea being head on line of battle affairs (though perhaps that was terrain). The Romans might under a good general like Scipio Africanus, but not the TCs Tim had in charge.

While I agree with your point, the Pompey vs Caesar battles did seem to follow this. As did others. what seems to imapct the game portion and its time component. The problem is how to fix the extra manuverability without leaving a bit too maunverable. (DBM 2.1 for example).

I do think the simplest answer is the table-to point size ratio.

Maybe all that is needed is an extra -1 on the CMT when within bowshot of enemy troops?
That would make this sort of stuff much harder.

pyruse wrote:Maybe all that is needed is an extra -1 on the CMT when within bowshot of enemy troops?
That would make this sort of stuff much harder.

It wouldn't have had much impact on the game with Tim. We were both able to put out a frontal screen and redeploy using double moves behind it.

Did you use the 'light troop conveyor belt' trick to help get across quickly?
Seems to me that all double moves not ending closer to the enemy should require a CMT. Or maybe just require it for all double moves.

Actually, another idea might be to allow any number of moves at an increasing CMT penalty, Warmaster style.

Actually, another idea might be to allow any number of moves at an increasing CMT penalty, Warmaster style.

That would favour swarms and LH armies.

I could go for that, superiors with an IC could probably make 4 moves regularly without too much trouble.
Undrilled foot would barely move in comparison, they would be like stationary obstacles to LH. A bit like that star trek episode with the aliens that moved around very quickly.

Peter

Actually I have never seen the rationale of double moves other than marching armies and that would be rather in column formation. It certainly speeds up the game but historically...

Strategos69 wrote:Actually I have never seen the rationale of double moves other than marching armies and that would be rather in column formation. It certainly speeds up the game but historically...

Its entirely about speeding up the game.

hazelbark wrote:

Strategos69 wrote:Actually I have never seen the rationale of double moves other than marching armies and that would be rather in column formation. It certainly speeds up the game but historically...

Its entirely about speeding up the game.

And to allow the possibility of Cannae like redeployment - but mainly to avoid stretches of the game with troops trudging about and not a lot happening.