R vs AM ..?

[madaxeman]

Here's a blog post I've just uploaded about my thoughts having played my first game of AM in over a year;

http://madaxemandotcom.blogspot.com/201 ... s-and.html

[flamingpig0]

I have given up on FoG Ancients

[deadtorius]

Blathergut and I have played only one ancients game since FOG R came out. I have to agree that I am enjoying FOG R much more.
Now if you really want to see troops dancing about try FOG PC and you will see troops spinning about the battlefield that will make your table top troops look like they are standing still, unless any major changes have happened to that game in updates. I haven't played that one since shortly after FOG R was released either.

[jefritrout]

While I have not completely given up on FoG AM, I must admit that I prefer FOGR and try to play that more often.

The way to solve the dancing troop problem is to play with untrained barbarians. They will stand completley still move after move without being able to turn to face the enemy bearing down upon them.

[bahdahbum]

same for me, I prefer FOGR for the same reasons . Another belgian player is of the same mind .But as other belgian players are still playing FOGAM, I wonder if FOGR will make a real breaktrough .

Many FOGAM players complain that units are not mobile enough in FOGR .

Now , we must wait and see what FOGAM V2 will be ...a mouse or an elephant ( meaning small useless modifications or big and usefull modifications )

[deadtorius]

I saw in the forums a while back that even some of the FOG PC players find the maneuver is ridiculous and they are trying to get the devs to institute a new rule that to move at all you have to pass a CMT.

I guess we shall see what the designers in FOG A/M v2 come up with. Originally I enjoyed V1, but it is true if you take an undrilled army they pretty much have to stand and wait as their more nimble drilled troops dance about and move into better position to destroy them. we shall see what the future holds one of these days.

[Agesilaus]

Same for us here in Adelaide. We still play fog ancients, but fog r is a better game, more fun, and getting played more. I wish they would revise fog a v2 to match.

[stecal]

FOGR for me. It is just a fun, quick game. Things die and it ends.

I have hopes for FOGAM v2, but I suspect that the burden of pleasing all the ex-WRG players will mean it is just the same old game with a new paint job. At the end of the v2 beta they began rolling back all the changes in an unsettling way. That, combined with the utter refusal to fix the points system or army books, leaves me cold.

[footslogger]

Skirmishers don't really work in FoG-AM. Otherwise it's a pretty nice game. We're playing a lot of FoG-R and it is excellent.

[flamingpig0]

I saw in the forums a while back that even some of the FOG PC players find the maneuver is ridiculous and they are trying to get the devs to institute a new rule that to move at all you have to pass a CMT.

I guess we shall see what the designers in FOG A/M v2 come up with. Originally I enjoyed V1, but it is true if you take an undrilled army they pretty much have to stand and wait as their more nimble drilled troops dance about and move into better position to destroy them. we shall see what the future holds one of these days.

I remember playing a Hun Army against a late Roman swarm of MF and finding that the Romans were both more manoeuvrable and, being armoured and supported by an IC, virtually invulnerable to LH shooting.

I don't take FoGAM at all seriously anymore - strange that FoGR works so well.

[rbodleyscott]

Now , we must wait and see what FOGAM V2 will be ...a mouse or an elephant

Perhaps an elephant shrew.

[bahdahbum]

Well you would know better than us

[timmy1]

Slightly off topic but footslogger the concensus (sp?) in the UK seems to be that skirmishers don't work as the did historically but by golly do they work...

Watching messers Fairhurst and to a lesser extent Briggs shows that they work rather too well...

[footslogger]

Slightly off topic but footslogger the concensus (sp?) in the UK seems to be that skirmishers don't work as the did historically but by golly do they work...

Watching messers Fairhurst and to a lesser extent Briggs shows that they work rather too well...

I think we're probably in violent agreement. When I say they don't work I mean two things:
1) they win battles - never really happened
2) they break the game - mostly invulnerable, but able to hurt the enemy

Skirmishers probably shouldn't be represented in ancients - just assumed to be abstracted away into the main battle troops. I realize this would eliminate a bunch of light horse kind of armies that shot and ran away, but that's not really going to be doable on a tabletop in a fixed time anyway.

[hazelbark]

I think there are some rather obvious differences. A unit in FOGR because of shooting exerts a much large area of influence every turn.

In FoGR essentially the battle begins at Deployment.
But in FOG AM there is more manuver to the point of battle as the whole board is not the battlfield. That is rather unhistorical until the napoleonic and maybe even later period.
Begin gamers with a modern sense players try to march and egnage and wrong foot their opponent. That was really nearly inconceivable on a frequent basis in the pre-gunpoweder era. Wrong footing an opponent was I show up with 3 times as many people as you do.

A LOT of the problems i think are driven by two pieces. Lack of attrition which FoG R has lots of. And low troop to space density combined with high manuverablity.

I think especially AM but also R are better served at 900 points. And AM maybe 1000 on the same size table. It gives you 2nd lines and a big wall of stuff. Then your weakness is is lack of attrition.

[timmy1]

Dan, I find myself in total agreement.

[zocco]

Having recently been introduced by a friend to FOGR - I'd have to say that after only a couple of games I too think that it is a better game than FOGAM.

Although I'm not really familiar with FOGR (my friend has the rules and lists not me) perhaps I can make a suggestion to the V2 developers - namely how about playing a game or two using AM armies but with the FOGR rules. It seems to me that many AM armies could be fairly easily converted to FOGR. It might be an interesting experiment. Certainly I like the movement rules better in FOGR (so if using AM armies you could use a CMT of 7 for drilled and 8 for undrilled for complex moves but otherwise use the FOGR movement tables) and for some reason the combats seemed a bit better as well.


cheers

zocco

[timmy1]

I have played Morat using FoGR - worked a treat other than that the MF got overtaken by the DF, wacky races style.

[Moro]

After being serious and aficionados players in FOG:AM, in our club many people thinks FOG:R has better rules, because is a more historic game and probably more playtested.
I completely agree with Dan about the lack of attrition in FOG:AM, but not about the fact that AM but also R are better served at 900 points. I think 650 points are better: more space to outmanouver the opponent and a shorter game.
Who knows: maybe the FOD:AM V.2 is going to change things...

[timmy1]

Moro, interesting - we find the opposite. At 650 points on a full sized table people take lighter more mobile armies and dance. At 900 points things tend to be a bit more agressive as there is no-where to hide, especially against Swiss or ETs.