Conclusions from game report

[babyshark]

This post is with regard to the game report I sent in a previous post.

To recap: Dan Hazelwood and I played two playtest games during our off time at Historicon. We both enjoyed the games very much and--I think I can speak for Dan here--both look forward to playing more.

Several things of note to point out to people who may be interested in FoG. First, the rules are fairly well written. Gloriously well written, compared to DBM. When one finds the rule in question one finds that it has been drafted in a straighforward, comprehensible manner. The authors promise a good index will be included in the published version, which is a huge plus compared to most wargames rules.

The rules are largely cheese-free, too. I think I spotted one potential piece of cheese, but it is not a situation that will come up often (I think). No system will ever be entirely without cheese; that is in the nature of rules. These rules make sense to me in a fundamental way.

When I first became interested in FoG I was very concerned about the amount of maneuver that would be possible in the game. One of the things I like so much about DBM is that the game allows the players to move troops about the battlefield to exploit weaknesses and correct errors. After playing two test games I can say that I think that there will a reasonable amount of maneuver in FoG. It will not be the same type of maneuver as in DBM--probably not as many on-table flank marches--but will be more like the episode from the our second game in which my two BGs of LH were working to get the drop on Dan's one BG of Cav. I can certainly say that our second game had loads more maneuver--of all types--than our forst game did. I have heard from the more experienced players that a maneuver increases dramatically as one gets more games under one's belt. If so, I think that FoG should be fine. Flank attacks are every bit as devastating as they should be (a BG carged in the flank or rear automatically oes down one cohesion level) but they are not as easy to achieve as in DBM.

One thing that please me is that the players have interesting decisions to make throughout the game, at least as far as I have seen. Those decisions will often be different than the interesting decisions in DBM. More about where and how to commit one's generals than about the allocation of PIPs, for instance.

The interactions between the troop types seem to be just about right to me, although I have some concerns that elite troops in general are a bit too powerful.

All in all FoG struck me a very good game. Whether it can get enough traction to take the spot that DBM now holds as the international tournament standard remains to be seen. At first glance, though, it seems to be a worthy effort.

Marc

[dfmbrown]

Hi there,

Encouraging thoughts, I'm loking forward to putting some more effort into the rules as opportunity allows.

It's the nature of cheese that it's not obvious - often found by accident and remembered for later use.

regrads

david b

[shall]

Thanks for those comments

While cheese isn't easy to eliminate our aim throughout was to create a set of rules where Alexander or Hannibal would on average beat us all as strategy and tactics dominate rule mechanisms.

We will keep removing the cheddar as much as one can - there will always be a wiff left but by starting with the principle of eliminiating it I feel we have got most of the way.

Look forward to hearing more news as you all progress and get through the 5 game barrier - which seems to be on average when much comes to life.

regards

Si

[hazelbark]

Just to follow up on Marc's comments.

I too am worried about the manuver. And I think a big part of that concern is wanting DBM style manuver. This has a different kind of manuver. I do think there is interesting manuver here, but its different in way that I don't grok fully enough to explain yet.

The other element is that the rules will have a great appeal to heavy foot sloggers vis-a-vis DBM. 60 elemens of hoplites clashing in DBM was just not dynamic in my view. These rules will make that more interesting I think. That is not to say foot dominates, just that the mechanisms of the game make it more interesting.

[shall]

Indeed part of the obejctive was to reflect the ebb and flow of a clash of legionaires or hoplites and keep it interesting.

In fact one fo the most tense and exciting games I ever saw - full of difficult decisions - was a Late Roman Civial war with the best part of 4ft of table being a head on smash between legionaries with auxliary wings. For 2 hours the battle swung in lcoal areas until aprt started to crumble and one side fell down - largely due to exposing generals too early in the smash in fact. In fact IIRC correctly it was so tense that one fothe commanders had a nose bleed!

So much excitement still to be had from such a game.

Si