Slitherine

Well having received and read the rules, I submitted my initial thoughts via Simon (who kindly posted them on here).

Myself and a fellow tester over here have now played two games. Both games were using Early German against Principate Romans, at 600 points. The first game played slow as we were searching for things as we went. The second went a lot quicker and played to a conclusion, we had obviously picked up the basics quite quickly. The Germans won by using deep formations and targeting the Roman support troops. At the end of the game the legions were intact but the auxiliary troops dispersed. The Germans had taken damage, but their larger size in terms of battle groups meant they could survive it better.

Some general observations first based on the two games played:

1) The rules are quick to pick up and get the basics right = good
2) The rules read easily and are understandable = good
3) Cross referencing to find the bit you need isn't easy = bad (but I understand that the final printed version will be better)
4) The need for counters adds clutter to what should be a visual experience = bad ( I like my armies and terrain, and therefore game to look nice, appreciate not everyone is the same)
5) So far it seems to be a "straight ahead, and ramming speed" experience = bad (but our playing is very limited!!)

Overall the game felt fun, and the results felt right. I'm unsure that it brings the same challenges as "old time hockey" DBM does in the competitive environment however I have really enjoyed both my games which is a huge positive. This means we will keep playing in a club type situation at the very least.

I would like to make one specific point with regard to rules in general. I remember in the bad old days when Nationals periods used some pretty obscure rules. If I drew the short straw of having to play a period with a new (to me) set of rules I always looked for the potential troops/army that the rules weren't designed to cover. For example Newbury Fast Play Pike and Shot included Moghul Indians but the lists "broke" the rules so much, that in the same competition, the year after I won using Moghuls, anyone using Moghul had to use 1250 points as opposed to everyone else's 1500.

The pont to this rambling is, have the rules been tested fully with the more obscure troop types and/or armies ?? e.g. elephant heavy armies like Tamils/Chola or the South American ones, or massed WarWagons per Hussites. I possess some of these types of army but I am not confident I could convert lists from DBM to FoG in order to test - in DBM pre list publication, I classified the Irish Bonnachts at Stoke field as Wb(F), in the subsequent lists they were Ax(O) - RBS may well remember this from the demo game at Reveille all those years ago.

Give me a copy of a proposed list and I would be more than happy to try out some of these interactions.

Regards

Richard

Most wierdoes have been tried out a few times. I have tired hussite twice...in fact they are quite fun to us in FOG. Richard has tested Schythed chariots. I have done elephants to death. This far we haven't found a dominant army at all. But only time will tell.

On the skill issue you should find with larger armies and more games that you discover a whole different big table skill level that matters. We were a bit concerned early on that luck might dominate too much, but in fact we are now finding that it doesn't. One needs however to learn a different skill - not rule-mongering or winning a micor-combat but more grand tactics over the whole battefeild and a lot on timing and risk management.

One intereting anecdote that mya re-assure you.......at Leeds I decided to play my games by rolling a dice beforehand 1-2 I would play a stand up novice sort of fight, 5-6 I would play full competition mode and use my full knowledge of the rules to try to win and 3-4 something in between.

I played 3 games - lost the one I rolled a 1-2 on against a good player, I won the one I rolled a 3-4 against a good player but with a bit of nervousness here and there, won the one I rolled a 5-6 on quite easily against a top ranked player. Ever since I have been convinced that there is much skill to be brought to bear once you adapt to the new challenges, and practice games ever since have given me further evidence. Also Terry and I have vivtory ratios in FOG that are rather similar to our victory ratios in DBM....

FWIW my early games on DBM seemed to be completely luck driven until one had figured out how to stack the odds.....then I got the hang of it a bit

Cheers

Si

shall wrote:FWIW my early games on DBM seemed to be completely luck driven until one had figured out how to stack the odds.....then I got the hang of it a bit

I think this is inevitable when using any new system. After many many games of FoG, I find that the level of luck is about right and the best tactics usually win the battle. I am a firm believer that one makes one's own luck, and this does seem to be the case in FoG as much as in DBM or other rules. The usual "unlucky" players, with their selective memories, bemoan their bad luck as usual. What is harder to do in FoG is stack the odds more in your favour than the situation realistically merits by exploiting geometrical features of the rules mechanisms that one's opponent is either unaware of or does not deign to make use of.

I would humbly submit that an Early Germans vs Early Roman matchup is not likely to demonstrate much tactical subtlety - nor should it if the rules are historically realistic.

Get your old Sassanids out Richard if you want a bit more subtlety.

I would humbly submit that an Early Germans vs Early Roman matchup is not likely to demonstrate much tactical subtlety - nor should it if the rules are historically realistic.

Get your old Sassanids out Richard if you want a bit more subtlety

I would fully agree with the comment re Germans vs Romans - we will be trying some different armies and at larger points...

My old Sassanids in the first ever 25mm DBM eh Richard - there was an army that wasn't supposed to do well