Conclusions from game report
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:16 am
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
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