First Impressions

[plato]

Played my first game and would like to leave a few impressions on how it went.

First of all I had been long awaiting the release of these rules and had been getting ready for release by getting things based as best I could from info from the forums. I only had to make a few changes to handle the attachments for my armies (French and 1813 Prussians).

My gaming group tends to like historical refights so we dove in on the Plancenoit list provided in the book. We had two players on each side and I served as the judge. Probably the biggest challenge/frustration I saw in our game was the transition from FOG:A to this game. We have been playing FOG:A for a couple years now and are very familiar with those rules. That familiarity provided for lots of confusion in the game as we tried to sort through the charts and resolve each turn. Examples of the confusing issues were:

changes in game sequence - players were constantly moving units before firing. also the non simultaneous fire change created some confusion too with the inactive player wanting to resolve fire first etc.

changes to dice rolling - the change to succeeding on CMT and Cohesion test on a successful role on only one die created lots of confusion. There was a constant struggle to sort out how many dice we should be rolling and what was the score needed to succeed. Some players struggled with wanting to constantly total their two dice when rolling for drilled troops etc.

The other big complaint from the players I noticed was that the play sheets from the back of the book were very confusing. Often there are multiple things crammed into one chart. For example the To-Hit chart has one side showing to hit numbers and the other POAs. Having been used to scrolling left to right on the charts from other FOG games this got a little confusing. Also the number of dice is stuck in at the bottom with exceptions listed there too. Just mostly made for a confusing process to the eye of sorting through the charts.

Overall I would say there were some things we like about the game. The automatic cohesion drops, the differences in troop quality were evident (i.e. the landwher sure didn't like making multiple assaults on a town where the veterans were more willing), we also liked the command and control issues (though you have to spend a lot of time paying attention to this which can slow the game a bit). It seems our group was interested in giving the game another shot. We all felt a further read of the rules and the charts would sure help.

My personal view is this is a game you are going to have to spend a few months playing to pick up. The complexity level of the game seems above average. We played for about 5 hours and didn't get anywhere near a conclusion. Admittedly I was the only person who had opened and read the rule book which surely contributed but the complexity contributed too. This is not a game you play once or twice and have figured out. We are going to have to dedicate some time to the rules and game play to get proficient. I have hopes that this may become my new choice of games for Napoleonics though. Congrats on a well thought out and put together game, and as always your products look beautiful. I hope I can convince my gaming group to make this game a regular part of our rotation. Thanks

Jeremy

[BrettPT]

Hi Jeremy

FoGN is definately not a simple morph of FoGA into the Napoleonic period. Slitherine have used the same terminology for some areas, but the rules are frequently quite different. FoGA veterans will definately need to learn the rules rather than winging it using knoweldge of previous sets.

The sequence of play (once learned) is excellent and means that a stationary player will always shoot before one moving. This makes closing to decisive range a nervous proposition as you have to survive taking it, before you get a chance to give it back.

The combat mechanics in general are simpler than in FoGA and greater attention has been paid to command control.

The rules are, in my view, generally very good and provide a more enjoyable game than the ancients set.

I think it was a brave marketing move by the writers to produce a period specific ruleset rather than simply updating existing FoG mechanisms to the early 19th century.

Cheers
Brett

[david53]

I played my first game yesterday and will write up something here later today.
Dave

[plato]

Brett,

I agree with you that it is bold to head in a new direction with these rules. I am sort of happy for the change. I really found the similarity of the renaissance rules to the ancients to be a negative to me. I have not wanted to try and sort out the nuances of those two yet, and have pretty much stayed away from FoGR for that reason. The Napoleonics game being different is encouraging to me as far as learning a new game. I like that they have created new concepts for this game. That is partly what I liked so much about the ancients game. It had new ideas. Most of the popular war-games out there today all seem to be revolving around a similar model. (i.e. Flames of War, Warhammer, Blackpowder). I like those games but its nice to mix things up with different styles of games too. They are all roll lots of dice and then roll saves type of games. To see something new hit the market that challenges the conventional model is refreshing.

Dave I look forward to hearing others impressions too. Hearing what parts of the rules others are struggling with sure helps me to sort through learning the game better. Having looked back over the charts today I have already noticed somethings we missed that were causing confusion.

Jeremy

[Andy1972]

Plato.. I enjoy FOGR much more than FOGA.. I would say have a go at it:)

[Scrumpy]

To me it is like Saab, they make Jet planes & cars, totally different products, but the same brand name.

[david53]

To me it is like Saab, they make Jet planes & cars, totally different products, but the same brand name.

True but if you'll flown a plane for four years and then get in a car it takes a bit of time unlearning many of the things you take for granted.

Dave

[pptheos]

I had my first game yesterday and it was better than I anticipated.

Reading the rulebook was a little bit tyring. I have been playing DBM and FoG in the past, so I tought that with my experience in wargaming it would be quite easy to start with FoG-N. However I found it more difficult than I expected to read the rulebook through. Maybe it is because I am not English. I don't know what would have happened if I were a beginner in tabletop wargaming and this was my first ruleset ever...

However, when we played the game on the table, it was a lot easier than I expected. It rolled relatively smoothly and was a lot of fun and very-very interesting and challenging. I think that it will not be very hard to get familiar with the game mechanics although it will necessitate some time to master all the details.

So, to all of you out there that got somewhat furstrated by the difficulty of the rules I suggest that you should play the game a couple of times and you will see that it is not that difficult.

[Chasseur]

Hi,

Glad to hear you enjoyed it.

Cheers,
John Shaw

[micheni1970]

i am his opponent and i have to admit that although we played the quick play free game we had a good time .
the tactical challenges that the rules offer to the players are very interesting and we feel that game after game we gonna discover more .
i ve played about a dozen napoleonic rule sets and i feel that this is one is going to be our main set for years to come.
next year we gonna be in a tournament in england for sure!!!

[micheni1970]

next game and impressions on saturday

[terrys]

However, when we played the game on the table, it was a lot easier than I expected. It rolled relatively smoothly and was a lot of fun and very-very interesting and challenging. I think that it will not be very hard to get familiar with the game mechanics although it will necessitate some time to master all the details.

There are different challenges inthese rules than in the other FOG sets. One of the main differences is that there isn't a 'paper/scissors/stone' effect. Where in the other rules you spend a lot of time manoeuvring to get your 'stone' against his 'scissors', it doesn't happen in FOGN. You spend more time planning and preparing your assault, so that when it goes in your opponent is sufficiently weakend or outnumbered that victory is assured.

[donm]

Terry,

when it goes in your opponent is sufficiently weakend or outnumbered that victory is assured.

At least it will be until you throw the dice

In last nights game Andy's unit of hussars with 5 dice needing 4's, beat my unit of dragoons on 7 dice needing 3's

Don

[paris]

Hi all
Being present during a game betwext my friends PPtheos and Micheni today I had my first opportunity to get familiar to the new ruleset (apart from being a beta tester that does not help much, for I feel we have a different setup from what we faced as testers)- here are my initial impressions
First things first - I see subtlety as the mechanisms of play, the strict command and control system with the use of the CPs, and most importantly the placing of the firing face before the movement face provide and help the development of a more "macroscopic" point of wiew
I like the way things get around - the basing system and the units composition feels just right - the concepts of firing and combat rules (allocation, abduction etc.) seem very realistic to me - the assault mechs and the recovery steps give flavour and the right amount of unpredictability upon things - overall a most promising first touch and definitely worth trying
What I do not like ? I regularly play FOGA and FOGR, and always enjoyed the fact that the rules were exceptionally well written, crystal clear and regularly organised into logically divided sections - I fear that it is not always the issue in FOGN - the steps are overflowingly detailed and not so easily defined, one must try hard enough to find what he is looking for (in the previous sets any questions could instantly and unlabouroriously be answered)and the charts are a bit tedious - I totally agree with pptheos on saying that if a pair of experienced wargamers like ourselves find it hard to define things, imagine how a non english - speaking newbie may feel_
Gentlemen; Today's Fox!

[Blathergut]

One thing I am coming to like about the charts is how they are all done sequentially, so you just follow through each action/phase.

[deadtorius]

The sequence of play does take a bit to get used to, Blathergut thought a few times his limbered artillery was going to be a real pain for me until he remembered you shoot first then move, so they were out of if for shooting.
The 1 die score for CMT and cohesion can be a real bugger if you are using irregulars or conscripts. My Grenzers got shot to wavering by a unit of Froggie lights and never managed to rally up from that for the rest of the game, probably spent half the game trying. I had a line unit trying to charge into same light unit and kept getting hit and failed the CMT to close, when they did it was goodbye lights.

[BrettPT]

The 1 die score for CMT and cohesion can be a real bugger if you are using irregulars or conscripts.

Both get 1 dice for CMTs, however irregular troops get 2 dice for cohesion tests, and conscripts can also get 2 dice if they have another unit in rear support (see pg70)

[deadtorius]

yes the things we forget, well it was our first trial game and we didn't even bother to keep score although I think we both lost about the same number of units when we called the game