Comments on FOGR from a first-timer
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:30 am
We (Tim Porter and I) have just played our first game: 1644 ECW Royalist vs Parliamentarians (Eastern Assoc). So this first comment is quite a long one.
(1) Positives
It’s already a more playable game than DBR. You’ll end up with something that’s distinct from FOG-AM, and I’ve got some hope this is going to be better. Armies with LH-bow in FOG-AM are too good IMO. I don’t think we’re going to get that problem in this period, as so many troop types shoot back.
The division rule spreads armies across the table quite well (another reason why LH armies are going to be less effective), and has a chance of creating distinct unit blocks rather than big battle lines.
Two 12-unit armies make for quite a decent size and scale of game.
The core interactions are about right:
(a) Shot seem to have about the right degree of deadliness. (Not deducting two from death rolls on shooting is probably good).
(b) Pikes play the correct role. A formation with more pike will get shot up, but doesn't have a disadvantage in melee vs shot.
(c) Stuff happens fairly quickly in cavalry battles (because of having two dice per base).
(d) Horse have a chance of breaking pike and shot formations (although we didn’t try).
The key interactions to fine-tune are between different types of foot against each other and different types of mounted against each other.
The army lists are not straight translations of the DBR lists. That’s very good.
(2) Questions / observations
(a) We have a feeling that Royalist shock cavalry should “win big” or “lose big”. Against impact horse they’re equal in the impact phase, but then at a disadvantage in the melee phase (because of poorer armour). Maybe they should have some small advantage in impact (but still with the possibility of losing). A small disadvantage in melee phase would then be about right.
(b) Dragoons shoot too well. One die per base makes them equal to shot.
(c) Firelock muskets seem to be different only by being graded superior. What’s going to happen later in the period, when you get firelocks in all armies? It also means firelock troops will always have great morale too.
(d) The shooting POA table is a little confusing. Would it perhaps be better to put the weapon type in the left-hand column, and then its target types in the right? With the introduction of firearms shooting effectiveness becomes more dependent on the weapon than on the target class.
(3) Suggestions
Our discussion brought up a suggestion on generals …
Make a distinction between “fighting” generals (those keen to get stuck in, like Gustavus Adolphus) and “strategy/tactics” generals, who were good on organisation. Fighting generals would give the plus in melee, the other would give a plus for complex moves. As well as being justified historically, it would add a nice point of contrast with FOG-AM.
In order then to keep complexity manageable, you could reduce the current three grades of generals (great, field and troop) down to two (“good” and “average”).
This would give something like 3-4 general categories: “good fighting”, “good manoeuvring”, average (which might be subdivided into “average fighting” and “average manoeuvring”).
(4) Stuff we’re curious to look into
These are not conclusions, but rather experiments we’re keen to run in order to test our own thoughts …
We want to see how other types of horse interact.
In particular we’re curious to fully armoured cuirassiers in action: will the armour and superiority make up for the lack of impact status?
Is there a point to carbine armed horse at all?
How will Swedish shot be? One early doubt is that they can’t shoot well … this probably encourages them to get stuck in, but at the cost of making them too brittle, and being unable ever to defend.
Mid-game we found out about the possibility of withdrawing from combat. Keen to see how this works.
So our next game will be Swedes vs Imperialists. Then Poles vs a pike/shot army.
(1) Positives
It’s already a more playable game than DBR. You’ll end up with something that’s distinct from FOG-AM, and I’ve got some hope this is going to be better. Armies with LH-bow in FOG-AM are too good IMO. I don’t think we’re going to get that problem in this period, as so many troop types shoot back.
The division rule spreads armies across the table quite well (another reason why LH armies are going to be less effective), and has a chance of creating distinct unit blocks rather than big battle lines.
Two 12-unit armies make for quite a decent size and scale of game.
The core interactions are about right:
(a) Shot seem to have about the right degree of deadliness. (Not deducting two from death rolls on shooting is probably good).
(b) Pikes play the correct role. A formation with more pike will get shot up, but doesn't have a disadvantage in melee vs shot.
(c) Stuff happens fairly quickly in cavalry battles (because of having two dice per base).
(d) Horse have a chance of breaking pike and shot formations (although we didn’t try).
The key interactions to fine-tune are between different types of foot against each other and different types of mounted against each other.
The army lists are not straight translations of the DBR lists. That’s very good.
(2) Questions / observations
(a) We have a feeling that Royalist shock cavalry should “win big” or “lose big”. Against impact horse they’re equal in the impact phase, but then at a disadvantage in the melee phase (because of poorer armour). Maybe they should have some small advantage in impact (but still with the possibility of losing). A small disadvantage in melee phase would then be about right.
(b) Dragoons shoot too well. One die per base makes them equal to shot.
(c) Firelock muskets seem to be different only by being graded superior. What’s going to happen later in the period, when you get firelocks in all armies? It also means firelock troops will always have great morale too.
(d) The shooting POA table is a little confusing. Would it perhaps be better to put the weapon type in the left-hand column, and then its target types in the right? With the introduction of firearms shooting effectiveness becomes more dependent on the weapon than on the target class.
(3) Suggestions
Our discussion brought up a suggestion on generals …
Make a distinction between “fighting” generals (those keen to get stuck in, like Gustavus Adolphus) and “strategy/tactics” generals, who were good on organisation. Fighting generals would give the plus in melee, the other would give a plus for complex moves. As well as being justified historically, it would add a nice point of contrast with FOG-AM.
In order then to keep complexity manageable, you could reduce the current three grades of generals (great, field and troop) down to two (“good” and “average”).
This would give something like 3-4 general categories: “good fighting”, “good manoeuvring”, average (which might be subdivided into “average fighting” and “average manoeuvring”).
(4) Stuff we’re curious to look into
These are not conclusions, but rather experiments we’re keen to run in order to test our own thoughts …
We want to see how other types of horse interact.
In particular we’re curious to fully armoured cuirassiers in action: will the armour and superiority make up for the lack of impact status?
Is there a point to carbine armed horse at all?
How will Swedish shot be? One early doubt is that they can’t shoot well … this probably encourages them to get stuck in, but at the cost of making them too brittle, and being unable ever to defend.
Mid-game we found out about the possibility of withdrawing from combat. Keen to see how this works.
So our next game will be Swedes vs Imperialists. Then Poles vs a pike/shot army.
