FoG vs. Great Battles PC Series

[Horvo]

I am interested in FoG so I was hoping someone could compare it to the old Great Battles PC Series (Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar). Has anyone played both and can tell me what the differences are? thanks

[deeter]

I've played both and currently prefer FoG. Both tend to emphasize unit cohesion, but only GBoH pays much attention to chain of command and unit activation. FoG is strictly I-go You-go and leaders influence double moves, moral tests and combat rolls. Otherwise, everyone on the map can move every turn.

In GBoH, initiative can pass back and forth between sides depending on a general's rating. When they moved the system to the PC, they reversed the order of activation which sort of nerfed the game.

Other differences include taking away the pilium/javelin attacks by non-light troops and making that part of their melee strength for FoG. GHoH was great in its day, but FoG has a very active multi-player community and the battles play out much more quickly than in GBoH.

Hope that helps,

Deeter

[petergarnett]

IMO GBoH is the better wargame but as deeter says where FoG wins is with the multi-player system of play. I'd also add that FoG has a far greater range of armies & scenarios plus the developers are extremely supportive & responsive to player ideas.

I still play GBoH on the PC but far far less than FoG PC.

[TheGrayMouser]

Overall i think FOG has a much more versatile and diverse combat system that GBOH, but then again that series was sold as seperate games , each game with rules for historical batlle between 2-3 very specific opponents for a specific time frame. It was never meant to be a ruleset for 3k years of warefare.

The only thing I miss in the GB series that FOG lacks is the double size pike and hoplite units......Maybe someday they will add them

[petergarnett]

I have to disagree with you TGM. The TT version of GBoH now covers the bronze age to the mongols. As each game in the series added period specific detail to the general rules you got, IMO, a better wargame. FoG suffers from being too generic because it covers the whole ancient / medieval period with the exact same rules.

Having said that the best set of rules I've come across for the period is the Warrior miniture ruleset where each army list (& like FoG there are hundreds of them) could have an army specific variance to the rules.

However if it's just the PC versions being compared FoG wins for me.

[TheGrayMouser]

I have to disagree with you TGM. The TT version of GBoH now covers the bronze age to the mongols. As each game in the series added period specific detail to the general rules you got, IMO, a better wargame. FoG suffers from being too generic because it covers the whole ancient / medieval period with the exact same rules.

Having said that the best set of rules I've come across for the period is the Warrior miniture ruleset where each army list (& like FoG there are hundreds of them) could have an army specific variance to the rules.

However if it's just the PC versions being compared FoG wins for me.

Right , but you couldnt take all these GB games and just pick armies and fight eachother, eacher rule system was unique. I am only familiar with the PC game and I own the counter board game covering Alexanders battles. The combat mechanic was a lot less diverse, at least in the overall # of attributes a unit can have
IN GBoh a pike unit was a pike unit, the only variable was what is its nominal QC level (actually unit size was another but that played a very minor role in both counter and PC games) Other than that , combat basicaly was crossreferencing the attacker type on a chart to the defender type and there were three outcomes attcker superior, defender superior or neither superior. Then you rolled dice!

BOth good solid systems though , and if you likes the one you will surely like the other.

[Lysimachos]

Something else that should be stressed is that the scenario editor in FoG is wonderfully simple, complete and modelling (in half an hour you can create a decent scenario) whereas the GB PC Series editor was a cumbersome and slow artefact.

[TheGrayMouser]

That is true, although part of the problem is none of the 3 original individually released games had an editor. When Interactive went belly up, they released all three together as a package and slipped an editor into one the games, it obviously had little beta testing etc but you could do quite a bit with it nevertheless.